A question or two

[blackshoe]

The current ACBL convention charts define "natural" as, among other possibilities, "After the opening bid any bid is Natural if it suggests the contract bid as the final contract". Nowhere in that document is the term "semi-forcing" used. The term is defined on the new Alert Procedures as "A response of 1NT to a Natural Opening Bid of 1H or 1S that can contain Invitational values but may be passed."

 

If your answer to either question is no, please provide at least one example.

[TylerE]

No the 2nd:

 

It is considered perfectly normal to pass a Precision 2♦ opening, showing typically 4=4=1=4 shape and 10-15, with something like xx xx Qxxxxxx x

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Tyler. Should have thought of that one myself. B-)

[TylerE]

I think in general it is hard for a truly limited bid to be 100% forcing.

 

Another example would be passing a 2♦ Stayman responce with a garbage-type hand.

[pilowsky]

The term semi-forcing is used to describe a bid that is forcing if the responder is NOT a passed hand, but which can be passed if the responder is a passed hand.

 

Capturing all of that information into one brief expression: "semi-forcing" is why it is confusing terminology.

 

In both cases, it is natural. In the first case, responder describes a limited hand where they are happy to play in NT but do not know the 'limit' of openers hand.

In this (first) case, I understand NT to mean:

Yes, I have points to tell you about but not enough to make a game-forcing 2/1 bid. Also, I do not have 3 Trumps (literally, no Trumps).

You can then rebid the Trumps if you have 6+ or bid a 3+ card minor instead.

 

The second case is different. Opener knows that the responder does not have an opening hand or better, so they can pass with a balanced hand.

 

This is how I've come to understand GIB 2/1 - I'd be grateful if someone could let me know if this is wrong.

 

The German word for semi- is halb meaning half, or perhaps "I am bidding 1NT because I have a hand that is rather flat and does not have an 8-card fit with 5 Trumps but maybe with 6 or more." 'Halb' can also mean assist or help so that the 1NT trump responder can help, but they aren't sure by how much.

 

The penchant/predilection/tendency of English speakers to use words with Latin or Greek roots often causes more trouble than it's worth. At least in my opinion, or should say, that's what I believe - so to speak.

[TylerE]

The term semi-forcing is used to describe a bid that is forcing if the responder is NOT a passed hand, but which can be passed if the responder is a passed hand.

 

Poppycock. That isn't what anyone else thinks it means.

 

Universally to expert players it means that it's nominally forcing, but dead (usually balanced) minimums are allowed to pass.

 

Everything else you said in that post is also invented out of whole cloth with not a slight resemblance to expert (or even intermediate) bidding.

[pilowsky]

Poppycock. That isn't what anyone else thinks it means.

 

Universally to expert players it means that it's nominally forcing, but dead (usually balanced) minimums are allowed to pass.

 

Everything else you said in that post is also invented out of whole cloth with not a slight resemblance to expert (or even intermediate) bidding.

 

Dear Mr Universal Expert,

,

I'm reasonably sure that quite a few Bridge players are not Universal experts (I'd like to see experts agree on anything), but since you have chosen to self-classify yourself in this way, perhaps you could explain in a little more detail - and a little less outrage - exactly what you mean.

 

It seems to me that your rather pithy explanation that expertly omits useful detail is pretty similar in substance to what I said - you can get Mr Kok to help you if you're having trouble - he seems to approve of your comment.

 

Trivialising is not quite the same as answering. No matter how much pleasure you derive from it. I know I got a good laugh though: poppycock indeed!

[Cyberyeti]

Dear Mr Universal Expert,

,

I'm reasonably sure that quite a few Bridge players are not Universal experts (I'd like to see experts agree on anything), but since you have chosen to self-classify yourself in this way, perhaps you could explain in a little more detail - and a little less outrage - exactly what you mean.

 

It seems to me that your rather pithy explanation that expertly omits useful detail is pretty similar in substance to what I said - you can get Mr Kok to help you if you're having trouble - he seems to approve of your comment.

 

Trivialising is not quite the same as answering. No matter how much pleasure you derive from it. I know I got a good laugh though: poppycock indeed!

 

He's right, you're wrong.

 

Semi forcing in the context I think this means is for us unopposed 1♣-1♥-1♠ which is forcing as long as you actually had a response rather than moving from a 4-1 fit to a 4-3 with a 3 count. It may include some passed hand auctions that are technically forcing, but is in no way limited to them.

 

The precision 2♦ example is not valid btw. "After the opening bid any bid is Natural if it suggests the contract bid as the final contract" this is not after the opening bid.

[AL78]

He's right, you're wrong.

 

That might be true but being right doesn't mean you have to reply in an antagonistic way. It is no good being right if you come across as an arsehole and end up alienating people instead of educating them, unless you get off on knocking people down, hence the somewhat hostile reply.

[pescetom]

The precision 2♦ example is not valid btw. "After the opening bid any bid is Natural if it suggests the contract bid as the final contract" this is not after the opening bid.

 

The poll question asked "In general, if a bid is not forcing, is it necessarily natural?". I don't take "In general" to refer to a specific sub-case of an ACBL definition of what natural means to them, so I voted NO (thinking about a 2♦ reply to Stayman).

[Cyberyeti]

The poll question asked "In general, if a bid is not forcing, is it necessarily natural?". I don't take "In general" to refer to a specific sub-case of an ACBL definition of what natural means to them, so I voted NO (thinking about a 2♦ reply to Stayman).

 

There are many examples of which the one you quote is one of the more normal.

 

(1N)-2♦(spades and another)-(P)-P (♦Qxxxxxx and out) being another.

 

Transfer panama over a strong club is precisely designed to be an unnatural passable bid.

[pescetom]

I also voted NO to the first question as it is quite possible playing 2/1 that a 1NT response to 1M contains what ACBL describes as "invitational values", namely a hand that would naturally respond 2m or 2NT.

[sfi]

The current ACBL convention charts define "natural" as, among other possibilities, "After the opening bid any bid is Natural if it suggests the contract bid as the final contract". Nowhere in that document is the term "semi-forcing" used. The term is defined on the new Alert Procedures as "A response of 1NT to a Natural Opening Bid of 1H or 1S that can contain Invitational values but may be passed."

Given those definitions, it seems like a semi-forcing 1NT bid has to be considered natural. It definitely suggests 1NT as a final contract, albeit only if partner has a balanced minimum hand.

 

Another counterexample for the second one is a blackwood response in the agreed suit (e.g. 1H-3H; 4NT-5H showing 2 without queen). You can't really call 5H natural - it's answering a question rather than suggesting a contract - but it is certainly passable. (I thought we needed to stop picking on 2D.)

[hrothgar]

The term semi-forcing is used to describe a bid that is forcing if the responder is NOT a passed hand, but which can be passed if the responder is a passed hand.

 

I think that you are confounding the definition of the bid with <one specific example> where some people choose to play that bid.

 

Here in the US, at least, the expression semi-forcing NT has a fairly specific meaning.

 

Let's assume that I am playing an old fashion NT response.

 

Opener's rebid's will normally show either

 

1. An unbalanced hand (opener will rebid in a suit) or

2 A balanced non minimum (opener will rebid in NT)

 

If opener holds a balanced minimum, they will pass

 

Let's jump forward to a forcing NT (where 1NT is absolutely forcing)

 

The big difference here what opener does with a balanced minimum

 

Rather than passing, opener will rebid 2m with a 5332 hands

(Typically opener will bid their longer minor. In others, like some variants of Polish Club, the 2♦ rebid promises 4+ cards and the 2♣ rebid could be made on a 5332 hand with two clubs)

 

Now, let's move on to the semi forcing NT.

 

Opposite a semi forcing NT, opener looks at their hand

 

Holding an unbalanced hand, life is easy: Make your normal bid

Holding a balanced max, life is easy: Make your normal bid

 

Here, once again, the big question is what happens with the balanced minimums

 

The way in which I have normally seen this described is (approximately)

 

If Opener has no interest in game opposite any of the following

 

1. A three card limit raise

2. Hands where responder would bid 2N after a two level response

3. Hands where responder would rebid 2M after a two level response

 

opener is allowed to pass the 1NT response. If opener does decide to make a rebid, they will make the same rebid that they would opposite a forcing NT response.

 

In practice, the major differnce between a semi forcing NT and a non forcing NT is whether a 2m rebid necessarily promises an unbalanced hand.

 

If is certainly true that many pairs prefer to play a forcing NT opposite a 1st / 2nd seat opening and a semi forcing response opposite a 3rd / 4th seat opening. However, there's no reason that one couldn't play a semi forcing NT opposite a 1st / 2nd seat opening and some pairs do.

[pilowsky]

Sounds to me like the poppycocker has created quite a kerfuffle.

A few weeks after I started playing, someone made a bid of 2♣ and their partner proudly alerted the call as "Game Force".

Concrete thinker that I was I immediately bid over it, comfortable in the knowledge that they would be forced to bid over me and all would be right in the world.

You can imagine how that story ended after I was doubled.

 

There is a legal term called the MacNaughton rule (Policeman at your elbow rule).

To paraphrase: Would you do the same thing if there was a policeman at your elbow?

 

What happened to me was that when someone said Forcing, I thought that it was a protocol, not a guideline.

What universal beginners quickly learn is that nothing is Universal and that in Bridge it is rare (but not unheard of) to be punished for doing anything - no matter how extreme.

I have complained about racism antisemitism and misogyny in Bridge clubs, nobody cares. Fail to alert an artificial bid on the other hand and the seas part and the Heavens open.

 

Things that happen at the Bridge table if translated into real-life Nash equilibrium situations that could get you sent to prison or some other kind of secure facility are generally considered very mild infractions. That includes rudeness and pompous displays of antagonistic behaviour.

 

The only thing by the way that IS universally acknowledge is that "A man in possession of a large fortune must surely be in need of a better player than he is for a partner".

 

So, in a game like Bridge what possible heuristic value can the term 'semi-forcing' have? It isn't forcing, but even in Bridge Forcing isn't always forcing, so what is the point of having a term like semi-forcing?

Neither expression conveys any useful meaning at all.

Finally, I don't think is necessary to sound like Squire Western in order to be informative. I always think that people that do are either after money or ignorant. But I guess in that situation Sophia had no choice.

Although to be honest, I think that many of the Bridge players that I meet at Clubs sound like they've just popped into life from the pages of a PG Wodehouse story.

 

Thanks for the response Richard.

[hrothgar]

 

So, in a game like Bridge what possible heuristic value can the term 'semi-forcing' have? It isn't forcing, but even in Bridge Forcing isn't always forcing, so what is the point of having a term like semi-forcing?

 

When people use an expression like "Blackwood" or "Stayman" or "Stenberg" there is no real linkage between the label and the definition of the bid. (Rather, the label is simply some individual who is credited with popularizing this treatment)

 

There are other labels that sound as if the the label itself might have some meaning

Semi forcing falls into this category.

 

I think that it is really dangerous to presume that the meaning of the words in the real world bear any relation to how they are used in bridge. You're far better off just treating this as a pure label and not applying any pre-conceptions that you might have.

 

FWIW, this is why I very much prefer it when bridge regulations include definitions for any expressions that they might be using. (The meaning of what one would hope is standard vocabulary such as "natural" or "relay" shifts from document to document to document)

[mycroft]

A reminder. This is not a semi-forcing call, this is "1NT response Semi-Forcing". It used to "basically mean something" when for 20 years people who thought they played semi-forcing 1NT response would have to Announce it, and those who heard the announcement thought they understood what the opponents meant. No longer - capitalized means it's defined:

 

Semi-Forcing - A response of 1NT to a Natural Opening Bid of 1H or 1S that can contain Invitational values but may be passed.

 

(yes, given already, but to make clear that this is what the document says, rather than just someone else's opinion).

 

To respond to the OP, I don't believe that "I'm willing to play here if you have one specific awful hand, but I really want you to bid" is strong enough to meet "suggests the contract bid". If these were equivalent, then they would have phrased it as "if it is not Forcing".

 

I would like to have this defined more clearly, however. For instance, is "pass or correct" Natural after (1NT)-2D (♥ or ♠)? Especially 2♠ "I hope you don't pass, but I bet you will"?

 

 

I was the person who lobbied for "Semi-Forcing 1NT response" to be defined, for exactly the reasons I gave in the first paragraph. So I have a stake in the discussion.

 

[pescetom]

A reminder. This is not a semi-forcing call, this is "1NT response Semi-Forcing". It used to "basically mean something" when for 20 years people who thought they played semi-forcing 1NT response would have to Announce it, and those who heard the announcement thought they understood what the opponents meant.

....

 

I was the person who lobbied for "Semi-Forcing 1NT response" to be defined, for exactly the reasons I gave in the first paragraph. So I have a stake in the discussion.

 

Well done, and you were already lucky.

Here traditionally a 1NT response that was not natural had to be alerted and when announcements arrived, they catered to 1NT forcing but ignored the existence of semi-forcing. I lobbied for a specific announcement or a ruling of some kind but without success, so I continue to alert.

 

To respond to the OP, I don't believe that "I'm willing to play here if you have one specific awful hand, but I really want you to bid" is strong enough to meet "suggests the contract bid". If these were equivalent, then they would have phrased it as "if it is not Forcing".

Or to put it another way, a bid that incorporates a natural non-forcing meaning but also a different natural and forcing meaning can hardly be considered natural.

 

For instance, is "pass or correct" Natural after (1NT)-2D (♥ or ♠)? Especially 2♠ "I hope you don't pass, but I bet you will"?

Of course not.

[pilowsky]

When people use an expression like "Blackwood" or "Stayman" or "Stenberg" there is no real linkage between the label and the definition of the bid. (Rather, the label is simply some individual who is credited with popularizing this treatment)

 

There are other labels that sound as if the the label itself might have some meaning

Semi forcing falls into this category.

 

I think that it is really dangerous to presume that the meaning of the words in the real world bear any relation to how they are used in bridge. You're far better off just treating this as a pure label and not applying any pre-conceptions that you might have.

 

FWIW, this is why I very much prefer it when bridge regulations include definitions for any expressions that they might be using. (The meaning of what one would hope is standard vocabulary such as "natural" or "relay" shifts from document to document to document)

 

And in real life apparently. A man recently pitched a tent outside the city walls and roused his followers to attack the gates.

Clearly, they missed the nuances of his words.

This happens all the time to people with an inadequate understanding of how things are supposed to work. But there are limits.

[mycroft]

The thing is that there is a continuum with "well, any call is passable, even if Forcing" on one end and "partner, we're playing here unless you have totally lied/found two honours behind your spades/found out your diamonds are also hearts" on the other. Somewhere in there is "suggests as the final contract". Because there are Bridge Lawyers and people who want to minimize their disclosure and people who want to play their system even if it's obviously illegal to most and... who take advantage of the fact that this wording is what it is, I would like the relevant people to narrow that continuum somewhat. Not nail it down - I don't think you can - but put up fenceposts we can use.

 

In case it wasn't obvious from 10+ years of history, I'm not putting OP in any of the categories of people we need to defend against. I'm reasonably certain his question is intended to hammer in one of those fenceposts.

[Zelandakh]

The term semi-forcing is used to describe a bid that is forcing if the responder is NOT a passed hand, but which can be passed if the responder is a passed hand.

No, you are wrong...again.

 

In the UK and US, semi-forcing is most commonly used for a 1NT response to a 1M opening in a 2/1 GF system that can be passed if Opener has a certain hand type, typically a minimum balanced hand, but will usually not be passed. You can find details in the post from hrothgar.

 

In Germany, the term semi-forcing typically refers to a Benji 2♣ opening, meaning a hand that is around a trick short of game in hand. This is completely standard and you are expected to know it if playing in German-speaking competition.

 

Your definition may be correct local usage in Australia (I could not say) but it is most assuredly not the normal usage in the wider bridge community.

 

In any case, as to the original questions, I can think of many examples of non-forcing calls where the denomination named either has little to no meaning (puppets, marionettes, relays, negatives, etc) or specifically suggests shortage in the suit but is non-forcing (ParadoX, Precision 2♦, Mini-Multi, etc). As for the 1NT response, it is as natural as a "natural" 1NT response is, which is to mind already a misnomer. A "natural" 1NT is a bucket; a semi-forcing 1NT is simply a larger bucket.

[helene_t]

The second question is easy. Plenty of non-forcing bids are fairly artificial, such as a 0+ 1♦ opening in Bulgarian Precision, or any response to a 3rd seat opening that might be a "psyche" (in quotation marks because a bid that can be a psyche by agreement is of course an oxymoron).

 

But "natural" is not binary, and I suppose one can say that any non-forcing bid is a little bit natural in the sense that it is a suggestion to play the named contract if partner has a suitable hand. For example, one could say that a Benji 2♣ opening is a suggestion to play if partner has a yarb with seven clubs, or a Drury 2♣ bid is a suggestion to play if partner has psyched a 1M opening with a weak hand with long clubs. But I don't think that's the normal meaning of "natural".

 

The first is more tricky. I refuse to use the term "semi-forcing 1NT" since I don't understand how it differs from a non-forcing 1NT which opener also only passes with a balanced minimum or Flanery hand. But anyway, a non-forcing 1NT response to a major is not particularly natural.

 

So maybe I would say that on a scale from 0 (artificial) to 10 (natural) a non-forcing 1NT response is about 4, and any non-forcing call is at least 1.

[sfi]

Your definition may be correct local usage in Australia (I could not say)

It's not.

[mycroft]

I know it's not relevant to you, Helene, and I totally understand your reasoning.

 

Unfortunately, in the ACBL, in 1990 when Announcements came out (or in 1991, when they revised them, can't remember now), they said:

After a 1NT forcing or semi-forcing response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening bid with no interference.

 

Example: 1♥-P-1NT

The opening bidder will say aloud, "Forcing" or "Semi-forcing," if there was no other meaning attached to the agreement (such as showing four or more spades).

 

Of course, they never defined "semi-forcing", and for 30 years, people who thought they played this (or equivalently, the people who played "1NT forcing by passed hand, assuming you didn't open third-seat-light" - wherein lies the problem) would Announce "semi-forcing", and their opponents who didn't play it wouldn't understand (and their opponents who did play it frequently didn't play it the same way, so didn't get it right).

 

This, for an agreement that is supposedly so common and unforgettable and immediately understandable that it should be turned into an Announcement, is - bad.

 

And the announcement was pulled in whole hog into the new rules (adding only the Flannery-change "could have four spades"). So I commented that nobody knows what Semi-forcing means, it should probably be defined. They said "yes, it should, oops" and defined it.

 

 

So, at least in the ACBL, we now know what each other are talking about.

 

And the difference between this and the good old NF 1NT is that Kxx QTxx xx AJxx is a 2♣ response in standard, and a semi-forcing 1NT response for those who play it. Obviously, both systems would pass 1NT with a hand that would prefer to play 1NT opposite a 3-card limit raise; but the NF NTers would pass with hands that would prefer to play 2♠ or 4♠ opposite a 3-card limit raise, too, because partner won't have that.

 

If you invite with Invitational hands, and don't bid 1NT with them, you're not playing "semi-forcing" 1NT response. If you put (some) invites into 1NT, then you are, and you so Announce. Like any jargon, using it outside its known space (like for instance Australia) where others may not have the same grounding in the jargon will lead to confusion, so (as I started), I agree with you for not using it.

 

If I was putting fenceposts, I would actually drive this one between the two. A SA-style "NF" 1NT response to 1♠, putting the 3-card-LRs into some other call, "suggests 1NT as the final contract". A Semi-Forcing 1NT response does not (it "accepts that it may be the final contract", but it's not a suggestion). But I just enforce the rules, I don't interpret them, so take my opinion as just that.

[blackshoe]

To respond to the OP, I don't believe that "I'm willing to play here if you have one specific awful hand, but I really want you to bid" is strong enough to meet "suggests the contract bid".

That makes two of us, at least. B-)