2o1. Moving to semi-forcing 1NT.

[kiwinacol]

I'm not keen on opener having to occasionally bid non existent minor suits nor the opportunity to play in 1NT after a 1M opening.

My main issue is the good 10-12 balanced hands.

 

My solutions to date:

 

1) (combined) Bergen raises remove trump raises from f1NT.

 

==

 

2) Limited one suiters that currently might go say, 1H - 1NT; 2C - 3D. Here I propose to use the sequence 1H - 2S to show the problem minor hands. Currently 1H - 1NT; 2C - 3D. I lose the 5-7 weak 2s response opposite 1H.

 

This, 1H - 2S; 2N* can't be any worse than the above and it takes out more hands: 1H - 2S; 2N* .... relay = reveal minor, say 1H - 2S; 2N* - 3D; Not forcing. Unfortunately there isn't a similar option over 1S so problem only 1/2 resolved.

 

==

 

3) Those 10-12 balanced are a real problem. I'm thinking Jacoby 2NT doesn't come up very often AND the 2o1 sequences are also much rarer then you would hope for. I think sequences that start say 1S - 2n are under utilised and I would be happy to move j2NT type hands into the 2o1 bids. Is that viable? Why? So I can use 1M - 2NT like the old fashioned Acol bid and also standard after forcing bids but before j2NT.

 

That's most of the problem hands removed from f1NT.

 

==

 

Instead I could use Gazilli 2C, 16+, 1M - 1NT; 2C but in my experience it doesn't help with good 13 - 15 point hands unsuitable for 1NT opening. Or open 1NT 14-17, that helps a bit but I don't like the overloading here much.

 

I'm not so keen on modifying 1M - 2C; to show a wider range of hands. I'd rather keep the 2o1 responses as similar as is possible.

 

I know with semi-forcing, opener bids if he had a hand where he would bid again, if responder could made a limited bid. I haven't found this to be satisfactory.

 

==

 

Now all 2o1 bidders must have mussed over these issues. Do you accept disadvantages of f1NT or have better work arounds?

 

 

thank you, Ash.

 

 

 

[fromageGB]

I prefer the forcing NT (but use spade/NT inversion over a heart open, as that regains opener's 1NT rebid. 50% of your objection is removed. Whether you say 1♥ 1NT shows 4 spades or 5 is up to you.)

 

I like the forcing next step because it gives you more precision over major support bids. Certainly use the 3-level replies as different limited 4 card supports, but the humble 2M support is pretty wide ranging, and if you allow next step then 2M as another option it gives you a split range.

 

The other main advantage is that you get a tighter range of strength definition in strong responder hands, but this is combined with using the 2♣ reply as a multi-purpose bid. If you do, when responder next rebids, maybe showing a balanced hand, or a specific 4 card suit, the strength range is split by his choice of starting next step or 2♣.

 

I do not agree with keeping 2♣ pure, because a useful variety of hands can be put into it, and all you lose is that the genuine club suit 13+ 2/1 has to rebid 3♣ to show it. A price worth paying.

 

Gazzilli is very useful in my view, but you could try 15 hcp as the requirement, as I do, and this means the lack of that bid means opener has a more restricted hand. However, my choices mean I lose out on 4-4 minor fit part scores.

 

Your 10-12 responder problem can be solved - as you suggest - by abandoning the prime tenet of 2/1 and playing acol, but maybe the problem is lessened if you have a 15+ Gazzilli. Now responder can simply bid next step then 2NT, or 3m if that suits.

 

I am completely against the idea of using a 2/1 for 4 card support game forces, because I like the idea that a 2/1 guarantees 5 cards. I think you would miss other suit contracts if you did not have that guarantee.

[awm]

The considerations for semi-forcing and non-forcing are a bit different here.

 

For semi-forcing: One of the biggest advantages is that you can play 1NT when responder has a non-fitting balanced invite (or three-suiter short in opener's major) and opener is declining. It's always better to play 1NT than 2NT! So I wouldn't want to remove these hands from the 1NT response. Even when responder has a balanced hand with 3-card support, you will often do better in 1NT than 3M (two levels lower). There's some tradeoff when responder has a long suit of his own, because you might end up in 1NT instead of 3-suit. You can take some of these hands out by using jump shifts. What I normally do is to play jump shifts as invitational and natural, and just accept that with a weak unbalanced hand we might play 1NT (but for this to happen, opponents usually have a big fit somewhere and half the values so we might make out okay).

 

For non-forcing: Here you need to do a bit more; my solution would be to put some raises in 2NT (2NT = 3-card INV or 4+ card GF raise, with 3M retained as 4-card INV), continue to play natural INV jump shifts, and include non-fitting balanced invites in 2♣. This means 2♣ is not necessarily GF; opener bids 2♦ with most minimums after which 2M and 2NT are NF (with 2-other-major acting as artificial GF).

 

I do normally play Gazzilli, but we start the strong option at 17 and I don't think it really has much to do with this particular issue.

[nullve]

I'm not keen on opener having to occasionally bid non existent minor suits nor the opportunity to play in 1NT after a 1M opening.

Are you mainly thinking about the fact that Opener in standard 2/1 (with 1M-1N F1) has to bid

 

* 2♣ over 1M-1N with a) 12-14, 5M3C(32)

* 2♦ over 1M-1N with b) 12-14, 5M2C33

* 2♣ over 1♥-1N with c) 11-15, 4522/4513,

 

or do you also dislike all forms of Gazzilli over 1M-1N, whether 1N is F1, SF or even NF? (I think the former, based on some of your earlier posts.)

 

My main issue is the good 10-12 balanced hands.

Are the good 10-12 balanced hands an issue mainly because you want

 

* 2m over 1M-1N to promise 4+ m

* 2♥ over 1♥-1N to promise 6+ H

 

and you're afraid of missing good games if Opener has to pass 1M-1N SF (or NF) with any of a), b) and c)?

[Flem72]

Your ranges work out mo' bettuh when your opening 1N is 14-16/17

[kiwinacol]

Thanks. Yes to bidding short minors after f1nt.

Are you mainly thinking about the fact that Opener in standard 2/1 (with 1M-1N F1) has to bid

 

* 2♣ over 1M-1N with a) 12-14, 5M3C(32)

* 2♦ over 1M-1N with b) 12-14, 5M2C33

* 2♣ over 1♥-1N with c) 11-15, 4522/4513,

 

or do you also dislike all forms of Gazzilli over 1M-1N, whether 1N is F1, SF or even NF? (I think the former, based on some of your earlier posts.)

 

REPLY

I like Gazzilli. Yes the natural 2C lost but I appreciate the ability to show 15+ without the need to jump on hands that put us in dangerous territory when responder is at lower range for the f1NT bid. Also a ability to learn more about the range of the 1NT response. My earlier posts would reflect my lack of experience

 

 

Are the good 10-12 balanced hands an issue mainly because you want

 

* 2m over 1M-1N to promise 4+ m

* 2♥ over 1♥-1N to promise 6+ H

 

REPLY

Firstly I miss being able to play in responders 1NT. It's not so much an issue if the rest of the room plays the same way but Acol is common here. Acolites seem to enough better boards playing responders 1NT when I'm playing in a minor or my major on a 5-2 to make it annoying. I want a piece of that cake too if I can.

Secondly I don't like bidding non-existent minors for example on 4522 HANDS with less than reversing values.

I would rather 2H over 1NT to show 6+. And not rebid a 5 carder when the opening has already shown that.

I accept that the f1NT allows responder to easily show many of the hands I would otherwise have problems with like those 10-12 balanced you mention below and the single suiters with below GF values.

 

and you're afraid of missing good games if Opener has to pass 1M-1N SF (or NF) with any of a), b) and c)?

 

REPLY.

With SF I'm afraid of passing s1nt with say 13-14+ or even very good 12 and find partner with his nice upper range [but less than GF]. I've tried bidding heaps of hands with my JACK programme and did find I was missing too many good games. And even if I used Gazilli with a good 15+, responder opposite a good 14 produced game that say Acol easily got into and I missed. I've adapted some of the ideas in recent posts to cope better with those hands but its the balanced 10-12's that are still causing problems in s1NT.

 

REPLY #2

A question for you:

If you lost the Jacoby 2NT, would these compensating features make up for the loss

1) You gain a NF 1NT response,

2) Natural opener minor rebids (or use of Gazilli and yes that goes against my liking for natural minors)

3) and a natural 2NT 10-12 response. This one seems very much out of favour with modern bidders but IMO that range if its in the s1NT makes the semi-forcing likely to miss games. Like 14 HCP opposite a 11 or 12.

 

Thanks for your responses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kiwinacol]

Thanks.

Now a follow up question to your posting, 1H - 1NT* ... * spades, unlimited, forcing

 

1) How does opener show a minimum NT rebid, one that would currently go 1H - 1S; 1NT? I would worry that an auction like 1H - 1NT*; 2NT if that's what you play, would get us too high facing a low range responding hand.

2) I use and find XYZ (form of ckeckback Stayman) handy and this approach would make use it's use less efficient?

I prefer the forcing NT (but use spade/NT inversion over a heart open, as that regains opener's 1NT rebid. 50% of your objection is removed. Whether you say 1♥ 1NT shows 4 spades or 5 is up to you.)

 

I like the forcing next step because it gives you more precision over major support bids. Certainly use the 3-level replies as different limited 4 card supports, but the humble 2M support is pretty wide ranging, and if you allow next step then 2M as another option it gives you a split range.

 

The other main advantage is that you get a tighter range of strength definition in strong responder hands, but this is combined with using the 2♣ reply as a multi-purpose bid. If you do, when responder next rebids, maybe showing a balanced hand, or a specific 4 card suit, the strength range is split by his choice of starting next step or 2♣.

 

I do not agree with keeping 2♣ pure, because a useful variety of hands can be put into it, and all you lose is that the genuine club suit 13+ 2/1 has to rebid 3♣ to show it. A price worth paying.

 

Gazzilli is very useful in my view, but you could try 15 hcp as the requirement, as I do, and this means the lack of that bid means opener has a more restricted hand. However, my choices mean I lose out on 4-4 minor fit part scores.

 

Your 10-12 responder problem can be solved - as you suggest - by abandoning the prime tenet of 2/1 and playing acol, but maybe the problem is lessened if you have a 15+ Gazzilli. Now responder can simply bid next step then 2NT, or 3m if that suits.

 

I am completely against the idea of using a 2/1 for 4 card support game forces, because I like the idea that a 2/1 guarantees 5 cards. I think you would miss other suit contracts if you did not have that guarantee.

 

Yes. This last point is an important one that I haven't given enough weight. It moves me back to favouring Jacoby and finding a different way of accommodating 10 - 12 balanced. Perhaps this is not efficiently possible?

[fromageGB]

> 1) How does opener show a minimum NT rebid, one that would currently go 1H - 1S; 1NT? I would worry that an auction like 1H - 1NT*; 2NT if that's what you play, would get us too high facing a low range responding hand.

 

When you play 1NT as spades, this is forcing and you have lost the 1NT reply. However, played as 5+ spades, with natural opener rebids you can end up in a playable minor or 5-2 major, so not all is lost. I still play Gazzilli, so while I have lost natural clubs, 2NT will never happen unwantedly because 15+ bids 2♣ and a weak responder bids his suit to play, or bids 2♥ (opener's major).

I don't get too high because I bid 2♦ as 12-14 without 3 spades without 6 hearts, so I lose a natural diamond as well. Happy to do so. Play in 2M if you haven't the strength for 2NT.

If responder has 4 spades only, it goes 1♥ 1♠! 1NT as you do now, so 1NT is only lost with exactly 5 spades.

 

The other benefit of using a reply of 1NT = 5 spades is when opener has 3 spades. This hand is completely lost with 1♠ = 4+spades, or 1NT = 4 spades. Also when you have stronger hands, it helps to know responder's shape as this can have beneficial inferences.

 

Incidentally as a 1♠ reply is 0-4 spades, or 6 spades in a weak 2 type hand (rebids 2♠*), to get the 4-4 spade fit I give up natural diamonds (I have already given up clubs) and play 2♦ as 12-14 with 4 spades, while 1NT is 12-14 and denies 4 spades.

 

* The sequence 1♥ 2♠ being the 13+ 4 card support hand, so the continuations are symmetrically identical for both majors.

 

 

> 2) I use and find XYZ (form of ckeckback Stayman) handy and this approach would make use it's use less efficient?

 

( So you have already given up both minors :-)

You would not want it. You have already shown 5 spades with 1NT, and if you have that 11+ or whatever you need to use xyz you simply rebid 2NT over 2♦ fit denial. If you have the "xyz to play in 2♦" hand, you pass 2♦ now.

 

> Yes. This last point is an important one that I haven't given enough weight. It moves me back to favouring Jacoby and finding a different way of accommodating 10 - 12 balanced. Perhaps this is not efficiently possible?

 

I have no problem. With 10 I am happy to play in 2M (or 1NT if 1♥ 1♠! 1NT) when opener fails to rebid 2♣ Gazzilli, and over 2♣=15+ of course I bid 2♦ and then 3NT if opener makes a 15/16 rebid. With 11/12 after my forcing next step I rebid 2NT. I cannot see how this could go wrong.

[nullve]

REPLY.

With SF I'm afraid of passing s1nt with say 13-14+ or even very good 12 and find partner with his nice upper range [but less than GF]. I've tried bidding heaps of hands with my JACK programme and did find I was missing too many good games. And even if I used Gazilli with a good 15+, responder opposite a good 14 produced game that say Acol easily got into and I missed. I've adapted some of the ideas in recent posts to cope better with those hands but its the balanced 10-12's that are still causing problems in s1NT.

 

REPLY #2

A question for you:

If you lost the Jacoby 2NT, would these compensating features make up for the loss

1) You gain a NF 1NT response,

2) Natural opener minor rebids (or use of Gazilli and yes that goes against my liking for natural minors)

3) and a natural 2NT 10-12 response. This one seems very much out of favour with modern bidders but IMO that range if its in the s1NT makes the semi-forcing likely to miss games. Like 14 HCP opposite a 11 or 12.

 

Thanks for your responses.

I don't know your opening style, but assuming you play 2/1 with book-sound openings, i.e. a (14)15-17 NT and rule of 20-ish one-of-a-suit openings, I think Responder needs to force to game with 12 (non-downgradable) hcp, which might be what Max Hardy recommended, too. (It's probably normal to require around 13 hcp for a GF 2/1 response in a system with rule of 19-ish one-of-a-suit openings (and likely a 14-16 NT), though.)

 

So if Opener is balanced, then in the worst case scenario you miss game with 11 opposite 14 (non-upgradable) hcp. This is probably not a lot worse than missing game with 8 opposite 17 after 1N-P, which is just normal (modern) bridge. (People used to invite more often with 8.) And unless your hand evaluation is very sloppy, these the missed games will usually be quite marginal anyway. (Switching to a 14-16 NT (or, if you prefer, (13)14-16 NT) would help here, of course. So would making the NT range independent of the 1M openings, as in some T-Walsh systems (e.g. the one played by Welland-Auken) where 5M(332) hands outside the 1N range are opened with a "NAT or BAL" 1♣ rather than 1M.)

 

If Opener is 4522 or 45(31), I think he can pass with 11-13* and --- if you want to keep the bidding as natural as possible --- rebid 2m with 14-15 and 3 m. With 14-15 and 4522 I believe opening (a 15-17!) 1N works quite well in practice, and not just against GiB. It may also be less of a lie than rebidding 2♣ on a doubleton over 1♥-1N.

 

I wouldn't particularly mind opening 1N (15-17) with 14-15 and 45(31), either, but then I have probably played too much against GiB. :)

 

Short answer (for now!) to your question:

 

I actually don't think it's that important to play a form of Jacoby/Stenberg 2N! But:

 

1) I already think 1M-1N SF is very playable, especially if 1N doesn't include the 3c limit raise.

2) I believe 1M-1N SF is consistent with 1♠-1N; 2m = 4+ m and 1♥-1N; 2m = 4+ m or 14-15, 4S5H3m, although I know many (Meckwell included?) prefer that Opener rebid 2m even with 5M3m(32) if he would accept an invite after that. Anyway, I think it's a mistake to keep the 2♣ rebid as natural (and not Gazzilli) in order to solve problems that (IMO) barely exist.

3) Again, I think Responder should force to game with 12 opposite a rule of 20 1M opening.

 

* which of course is a lot more attractive if the semi-forcing 1N response doesn't include INV hands with 3c support