Another forcing NT over major question

[thepossum]

Hi all

 

Still getting to grips with the forcing NT over a major. Another recent example. This time where the 1NT should have been passed. However I thought I had a reasonable hand with the singleton and went to the 2 level with a reverse, and I think North expected the auction to continue. I took the 2S as a preference. Sadly the two top spades brought 2S down 1 where 1 NT makes plus one (I think)

 

So what should I have considered. What did I miss and what did I get wrong by not passing the "forcing" NT. Or should I have bid 2NT. By nature I'm not happy with NT and a singleton (without evidence of stops from partner)

 

regards P

 

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=thepossum&s=SQJ962HAJ54D6CAT7&wn=Robot&w=SAT7H76DA532CQJ52&nn=Robot&n=S53HKQTDQJT97C863&en=Robot&e=SK84H9832DK84CK94&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=PP1S(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1N(2-%20%21S%3B%206-11%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P2H(New%20suit%20--%204+%20%21H%3B%205+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-18%20total%20points)P2S(3-%20%21H%3B%202%20%21S%3B%208-10%20HCP)PPP&p=CQC3C9CAH4H7HQH3S3S4SJSAH6HTH9H5S5SKS2S7H8HASTHKDAD7D4D6D5D9DKS6SQC2C6S8HJD3C8H2CTCJDTC4C5DJCKC7D8S9D2DQ]600|400[/hv]

[johnu]

After a club lead against 1NT, there are 3 club losers, 2 top spade losers, 2 top diamond losers for down 1.

[thepossum]

After a club lead against 1NT, there are 3 club losers, 2 top spade losers, 2 top diamond losers for down 1.

 

Thanks John but that wasnt the question I asked. It was a bidding question about the forcing 1 NT. I just played the hand so I know full well how it turns out without any unnecessary commentary

 

regards P

[smerriman]

Firstly, North is a passed hand, so 1NT is not forcing (that only applies to unpassed hands).

 

Secondly, both 2♥ and 2♠ seem normal. A 5-2 fit is always preferable to a 4-3 fit, and you don't want to pass 1NT with that shape (even when it's nonforcing).

[awm]

The auction is normal; even if 1NT is not forcing I would have the same auction. The result is normal. I'm not sure what the problem is here?

 

It's important to realize that bidding "correctly" will not always lead to a contract which makes (even on best play). Sometimes the layout of opponents cards is unfriendly and you cannot make. Sometimes going down is actually a good score (in case opponents can make something). Sometimes there are hands where no contract makes for either side.

 

Bidding is about maximizing your score on average, not on any particular hand. Any agreement / system / convention will help you on some hands and hurt you on other hands; you need to go with what makes you the most comfortable and what helps you on more hands than it hurts.

[rmnka447]

Sorry, smerriman, but just because North passed originally it doesn't automatically negate 1 NT forcing. North could well have 10-11 points and not have an opener. If you want to make that bidding agreement that's up to you. If you want to play 1 NT as semi-forcing by a passed hand that's also up to you.

 

OP's actual auction was normal and the result was normal. I fully agree with awm's comments.

 

2 of opener's major is sort of the default contract when responder doesn't hold much but holds a doubleton in opener's suit.

 

Since 1 NT is forcing, you can't play there. That seems like a great loss until you realize that a 1 NT response by responder is made on virtually all 6-9 point hands that aren't raises whether it is forcing or not. Over the years when 1 NT wasn't forcing, my partners and I have played 1 NT with some pretty strange looking hands fairly frequently with not so good results. So making 1 NT forcing does more frequently allow the partnership to escape to a better spot when holding such hands.

 

1 NT Forcing is vital to 2/1 to provide a way to bid hands that used to be 2 level responses but weren't game forcing hands. That expands the number of hands where you bid 1 NT It is a necessity if you want to take advantage of the better precision that 2/1 provides for game going and slam hands. But 1 NT forcing also provides a good way to bid invitational hands in opener's major with 3 card support by responder's jump rebid in opener's major. That facilitated the use of limit raises even before Jacoby 2 NT came along.

 

All bidding systems involve some tradeoffs in how the bidding system is set up. 2/1 gains a whole lot of improvements at the expense of making the auctions over the forcing 1 NT a bit more complicated. Some people hate that. But, on balance, the improvements are well worth it. I know back in the day when most people played Standard and looked at you funny when you announced the 1NT response was forcing, that advantage was pretty apparent to us and, IMO, remains so today.

[The_Badger]

It is just an unlucky board. Everything bidding wise looks right. The only reason you go down is that the opponents hold more controls than you, your trump suit is a little under strength, and that you have 3 card duplication in the ♣ suit.

[gordontd]

I just played the hand so I know full well how it turns out without any unnecessary commentary

 

You may know how it turned out in spades. It seems you don't know how it would have turned out in NT, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting that as a better spot.

[hrothgar]

However I thought I had a reasonable hand with the singleton and went to the 2 level with a reverse

 

2♥ is not a reverse

[JonnyQuest]

What did I miss and what did I get wrong by not passing the "forcing" NT. Or should I have bid 2NT. By nature I'm not happy with NT and a singleton (without evidence of stops from partner)

 

 

1NT is seldom played as "forcing" by a passed hand, though some do. With a nondescript 5332 hand, I would pass 1NT all day. Also, A 2NT rebid by you would have shown a very strong hand, in the range of 17-19.

 

That said, your auction (as others have noted) was entirely normal. It just doesn't make. Next hand.

[nullve]

2♠-1 is a good save against 1N=.

[masse24]

Still getting to grips with the forcing NT over a major.

1NT by a passed hand is generally not played as "forcing."

 

This time where the 1NT should have been passed.

Not really. The standard rebid with your hand is 2♥.

 

However I thought I had a reasonable hand with the singleton and went to the 2 level with a reverse . . .

As others have noted, it's not a reverse.

 

I took the 2S as a preference.

Yup, it is. Pretty much describes your partner's hand.

 

Sadly the two top spades brought 2S down 1 where 1 NT makes plus one (I think)

Down on almost any competent defense.

 

So what should I have considered. What did I miss and what did I get wrong by not passing the "forcing" NT.

You missed nothing. Your bidding was fine. Normal. Standard.

 

Or should I have bid 2NT.

That would show a massive hand . . . 17-19.

 

Your auction was pretty normal.

[smerriman]

Sorry, smerriman, but just because North passed originally it doesn't automatically negate 1 NT forcing. North could well have 10-11 points and not have an opener. If you want to make that bidding agreement that's up to you. If you want to play 1 NT as semi-forcing by a passed hand that's also up to you.

You may play it that way, and that indeed is up to you, but thepossum is playing with GIB, and I can promise you, 1NT is not forcing at all.

[TylerE]

For 1NT to still be forcing by a passed hand is highly unusual.

[johnu]

Thanks John but that wasnt the question I asked. It was a bidding question about the forcing 1 NT. I just played the hand so I know full well how it turns out without any unnecessary commentary

 

regards P

 

The reason I commented is that you didn't seem to know how it would turn out

 

Sadly the two top spades brought 2S down 1 where 1 NT makes plus one (I think)

 

and then suggested bidding 2NT which is a trick higher and goes down an additional trick.

 

Or should I have bid 2NT.

 

Since you were trying to decide whether to pass the 1NT response, apparently based on the actual result, knowing the actual result seems relevant.

 

As far as bidding over 1NT, I would bid 2♥ 100% of the time after a forcing 1NT, a semi-forcing 1NT, or a non-forcing 1NT. I consider it an automatic rebid and don't have a 2nd choice.

 

Obviously this may not work out well if partner is very short in both majors, e.g. singleton spade, doubleton heart, etc. but you can't bid seeing all the cards so you are going to end up in some bad contracts some of the time.

[thepossum]

Hi all

 

Thanks everyone for the comments. In relation to how the hand turned out versus others I was comparing how I scored against those who passed 1NT, most of whom made and many with overtricks (lets ignore the competence of the defence)

 

As for the sloppy terminology, I should have said I felt I had a strong enough hand to show my hearts and not revert back to 2 Spades.

 

Given norths hand I would have hoped to be left in 2H not taken to 2S, not that it makes any difference. 2H and 2S both go down 1

 

And yes, thanks all, the 1NT should go down 1 too but didnt :(

 

I need to check more about whether 1NT by passed hand is forcing or not. I hadnt understood that distinction. And I was under the impression the system I was playing had a forcing NT. But obviously there may be (extreme) times when passing a forcing bid is acceptable in bridge but I havent come across many. I didnt know that 1NT by passed hand was not forcing

 

Thanks everyone

 

best P

[smerriman]

Given norths hand I would have hoped to be left in 2H not taken to 2S, not that it makes any difference.

2♥ would be better if South has 5 hearts, which is a possibility. But it's far more likely South has 4 hearts, and when choosing between playing in a 5-2 fit (which could even be a 6-2 fit), and a 4-3 fit, 5-2 is virtually always better. With a 4-3 fit, one opponent is highly likely to also have 4 trumps, and you are going to be in serious trump trouble from the word go.

 

2♥ is only down 1 here - though I suspect a lot of BBO players would go down 2. (For example, if you win a club lead and play anything but a diamond, you're down 2 immediately).

 

I need to check more about whether 1NT by passed hand is forcing or not. I hadnt understood that distinction. And I was under the impression the system I was playing had a forcing NT. But obviously there may be (extreme) times when passing a forcing bid is acceptable in bridge but I havent come across many. I didnt know that 1NT by passed hand was not forcing

1NT forcing is not something you "want" to play - it's the major weakness in 2/1. The point is that you're forced to play it as a consequence of your other 2 level bids being game forcing. As a passed hand, your 2 over 1 bids aren't / can't be game forcing, because you can't be strong enough; so there's no longer a need for 1NT to be forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

1nt is not forcing, but it is wider ranging than an Acol or SAYC 1nt, in that it is supposed to include flat 11 counts without support and any bad 12s you decided not to open if any of those exist for your partnership. This is also known as a "semi-forcing" nt which is admittedly a bit of a nonsensical term.

 

But forcing or not is not supposed to have any effect on how you rebid with unbalanced hands. It only affects what you do on balanced 12-14 counts, whether there is chance for game or not. When you have second suit as here, good players nearly always bid it, certainly always having a singleton. If partner comes up with four or five hearts, hearts will almost always play better. And if not, a fair amount of the time 2M will play better than 1nt, giving a chance for cross ruffing or preventing opponents from running a minor on you.

 

Another chunk of the time, like here, you reach a theoretically breakeven spot, since both contracts down one. But you got unlucky in that too many bots screwed up the defense, so it turned into a losing position.

 

All one can do is make percentage bids as you did here, and hope to gain in the long run. Don't be so result oriented, thinking only about optimal result on a single board depending on bad defense by bots. Think more about the result over all possible hands partner could have held, repeating the auction thousands of times, what works best in the long run. Don't worry that some passed 1nt and beat you; in the long run they do worse. Result on single board doesn't mean much in grand scheme of things.

 

I would dispute smerriman's characterizing forcing nt by unpassed hand as a clear weakness, it's very unclear whether it gains or loses vs nf approaches on the hands in question, overall. Absolutely there are hands where you wish you ended in 1nt, but there are also a ton of hands where you are happy to send in a suit.

[thepossum]

All one can do is make percentage bids as you did here, and hope to gain in the long run. Don't be so result oriented, thinking only about optimal result on a single board depending on bad defense by bots. Think more about the result over all possible hands partner could have held, repeating the auction thousands of times, what works best in the long run. Don't worry that some passed 1nt and beat you; in the long run they do worse. Result on single board doesn't mean much in grand scheme of things.

 

Hi Stephen

 

I'm just analysing all my hands as I go (both IMPs and MPs) to find out whether I bid to roughly the right contract and secondly whether I played it reasonably well. I understand there is a large element of luck out of my control. All I'm trying to do is understand the percentage of variance that is in my control to improve my game (mean score) and percentage of times when I do better than average of even win points. So I am results oriented to the extent of wanting to bid optimally (or at lest well), play optimally (or at least well) and not worry about losing when I have no control as in this case. I have been reassured by everyone that my bidding was good here and I know the contract goes down 1 so am happy with this result. Also the 1NT in 2/1 is still something of a maystery to me being such a catch all. Note regarding optimality, I'm not aiming for optimal bid on every hand since I need to throw in my own X-factor of variance every now and then to break free of the crowd, even if it means the occasional bottom or big negative IMPs

 

best Possum

[hrothgar]

 

As for the sloppy terminology, I should have said I felt I had a strong enough hand to show my hearts and not revert back to 2 Spades.

 

 

I am confused about your implication that there is a relationship between the strength of opener's hand and your willingness to show a heart suit...

 

You seem to have some strange beliefs about simple rebids.

[nullve]

1 NT Forcing is vital to 2/1 to provide a way to bid hands that used to be 2 level responses but weren't game forcing hands. .

1NT forcing is not something you "want" to play - it's the major weakness in 2/1. The point is that you're forced to play it as a consequence of your other 2 level bids being game forcing.

2/1 GF and semi-forcing 1N are incompatible?

[dsLawsd]

This result was entirely normal, even if playing semi-forcing by a passed hand. The robot had a hand that needed to bid (but a human would well consider passing 2H at matchpoints).

 

For a look into the theory of 2/1 and 5 card majors, I would highly recommend the classic book "Morehead on Bidding" as republished by Richard L. Frey. That shows that systems have trade-offs and is the reason that The Polish Club has become so popular where 1Nt responses show about 8 to 12- high card points.

 

In a high level event I might expect 2S down 1 to score above 50%.

If not, unlucky...

[rmnka447]

2/1 GF and semi-forcing 1N are incompatible?

 

1 NT semi-forcing is really a variant of 1 NT forcing -- wide ranging 5-11/12, virtually any distribution. The difference is opener can pass with a hand that would not go to game opposite the 1 NT response 10-12 invitational hand.

 

But consider that opener has zero information as to what responder's hand is, so is, at best, guessing what to do. If responder has a fairly balanced 6-9, 1NT may be a decent spot.

 

1 NT forcing does have some sequences where it's hard to get to a good spot. But it also provides the chance over opener's rebid to settle in a better spot than passing 1 NT. On some hands where 1 NT makes, 2 ♠ on a 5-2 fit also makes and is a better result. If you as responder hold something like ♠ x ♥ Kx ♦ Qxxxx ♣ Qxxxx, 1 NT passed out can be a terrible place to play after a 1 ♠ opener. But after a forcing 1 NT, a 2 of a minor rebid by opener even on a 3 card suit gets you to a better place. Or, with ♠ x ♥ KJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ xxx, 2 ♥ may well be the premier spot and you'll have a chance to get there if opener rebids anything under 2 ♠.

[pescetom]

1NT forcing is not something you "want" to play - it's the major weakness in 2/1. The point is that you're forced to play it as a consequence of your other 2 level bids being game forcing. As a passed hand, your 2 over 1 bids aren't / can't be game forcing, because you can't be strong enough; so there's no longer a need for 1NT to be forcing.

1NT forcing is arguably a strength, not a weakness. Especially if you play that it can exceptionally be passed with a minimal 5332, as the majority today do.

[thepossum]

I am confused about your implication that there is a relationship between the strength of opener's hand and your willingness to show a heart suit...

 

You seem to have some strange beliefs about simple rebids.

 

Maybe I just play bridge differently to you. I dont have strange beliefs. The way I learned and play bridge is that I take account of the strength of my hand when deciding on how to rebid. Maybe you dont takeaccount of the strength of your hand. That seems strange to me

 

I also dont understand this constant and unnecessary hostility fro people