2/1 non forcing 1nt

[nullve]

B) traditionally one shows a balanced invitational hand by bidding 1N then bidding 2N

This is also the case in a typical 2/1 system where 1M-1N is described as 'non-forcing'. At least in Europe.

[helene_t]

I'm not sure that I understand the difference, it's either forcing or not isn't it?

Opener is going to bid again with a maximum or shapely hand.

I don't understand it either, the only concrete distinction I have come across is that

1M-1NT

2m-2NT

is natural if you play SF, but something conventional if you play NF because the 1NT respond denied a balanced non-fitting invite.

[helene_t]

I'm not sure why this is indefensible. This is the way everybody else uses the phrase, the way they expect you to alert it, and a concise way of disclosing your agreements. If you are bothered by the name of the convention take it up with the authorities.

True, and similarly, the terms "nonforcing Stayman" and "Grand slam force" are equally weird. I suppose we should just ditch the English language and speak Loglan :)

 

Semiforcing NT, however, seems to be a term that is useful only for disclosure purposes.

[mw64ahw]

N: 15 hcp, 4522

S: 7 hcp, 3154

 

Bidding:

 

1♥-1N

2♣-P

 

That didn't work!

 

Next time:

 

N: 15 hcp, 4513

S: 7 hcp, 3154

 

1♥-1N

2♣-2♦!?

P

 

That didn't work!

 

Next time:

 

N: 15 hcp, 4513

S: 7 hcp, 3154

 

1♥-1N

2♣-2♦!?

2♠!?-P

 

That worked!

 

Next time:

 

(...)

Still better to play Kaplan Inversion then you don,t have to guess whether to play in a dodgy fit at the 2-level, your own long suit or ask partner to choose between your 55 in the other 2 suits.

[nullve]

@nullve: congratulations, you've identified that 4=5=x=y hands with exactly 15HCP are a weakness of 2/1 bidding opposite a misfit. Are you suggesting some solution?

Hehe, thanks.

 

A solution I'm quite happy with is

 

 

 

1♥-1N; ?:

 

P = bad MIN, 5 H

2♣ = Gazzilli-like: a) good MIN, 5 H b) good MIN, 6+H5S c) bad MAX, any

...P: gamble with something like GF opposite c) but not b), 2-S1-H and either 7+ C or 6C4D*

...2♦ = relay, GF opposite c)

......2♥ = a)

.........P = < GF, 2 H OR bad traditional 1M-2M raise

.........2♠ < GF, 3S1-H

.........2N = GF relay

.........3♣ = < GF, 5+D5+C2-S1-H

.........3♦ = < GF, 2-S1-H and either 7+D or 6D4C

......2♠ = b)

......2N+ = c), my usual relay structure

...2♥ = < GF opposite c), 2 H OR bad traditional 1M-2M raise

...2♠ = < GF opposite c), 3S1-H

...2N = < GF opposite c), 5+D5+C2-S1-H

...3♣ = < GF opposite c), 2-S1-H and either 7+ C or 6C4D

...3♦ = < GF opposite c), 2-S1-H and either 7+ D or 6D4C

2♦ = good MIN, 6+H4-S

2♥ = bad MIN, 6+H4-S

2♠ = bad MIN, 6+H5S

2N+ = good MAX, my usual relay structure

 

* an otherwise unbiddable hand type once I use 1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2N as a GF relay and not as < GF, 5+D5+C2-S1-H

 

Note that if undisturbed, the bidding would go either

 

1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-P

 

or

 

1♥-1N; 2♣-2♥; P

 

and either

 

1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P

 

or

 

1♥-1N; 2♣-2♠; P

 

whenever Responder has 3-S2-H and a Flannery pair would bid

 

2♦-2♥; P

 

and

 

2♦-2♠; P,

 

respectively.

 

 

[helene_t]

@nullve: congratulations, you've identified that 4=5=x=y hands with exactly 15HCP are a weakness of 2/1 bidding opposite a misfit. Are you suggesting some solution?

Open 1NT with a 4522.

Sometimes you can also bid 2♠ at your 3rd turn to pattern out, but I wouldn't do that with a 4522 as partner might take us back to clubs, assuming 4504 or at least 4513.

But with 15 points I think passing the 2♥ preference bid is OK. And with 16 we can also bid 2NT at our 3rd turn.

So there are plenty of options and you just chose.

 

Actually, 1♥ is the most underloaded opening in a 5-card major system so if we were to use the 2♦ opening to reduce the load on the 1-level openings, arguably Flanery is the least needed option.

[nullve]

In a 2/1 context, both 'non-forcing' and 'semi-forcing' are used to describe a wide-ranging 1N response to 1M.

 

It's easy to find examples from top level bridge where 'semi-forcing' is used even if 1N doesn't include a 3c limit raise, but I'm not sure I've seen 'non-forcing' being used if it does.