2/1 Forcing 1nt overhaul

[jillybean]

Some of my recent posts and the problems we have with hands has encouraged me to take a look at our forcing 1nt auctions again.

We have diverged from the mainstream forcing 1nt (6-12) by allowing partner to respond to a 1M opening with a sub minimum hand with a long suit. This forces the opener to stretch to bid 2♣/1nt to allow partner to sign off in their suit, much the same approach when we respond 2♦/2♣ to stay out of the way of the strong hand.

With the possibility of partner having a sub minimum, our 1M 1nt 3x is invitational+ and as mentioned before, non standard and probably non playable.

 

I assume that there is an easy fix, stop responding with sub minimums and practice disciplined bidding. I continue slipping into bad habits.

[DavidKok]

These days hands with an ace respond to 1M. I doubt your substandard responses differ significantly from mainstream practices.

Could you give an example of an auction that causes problems for you? I think any of the 1M-1NT; 2X auctions are easy to survive - responder can bid their suit if appropriate, pass/correct to a playable suit with some length, or even bid 2NT with a maximum in context. Is it the 1M-1NT; 3X auctions?

[jillybean]

I don't have any recent hands but will post some as we encounter them.

I don't mind responding with an Ace, it's perhaps the xxx,xx,KJxxx,xxx hands that are causing problems.

[DavidKok]

That hand is balanced to boot, I'd pass 1♥ and consider raising 1♠ (though it's probably still a pass).

[jillybean]

xx,xx,KJxxxx,xxx ?

[DavidKok]

1NT into 3♦, fingers crossed. I wouldn't fault pass at all.

[mikeh]

As with much of bridge bidding theory, there are some good ideas out there, but they require work on the part of both partners.

 

I play BART over 1M 1N 2C.

 

It’s very common these days for 2C to show 2+, with 2D promising 4+. This makes it easier to pass 2D or raise them, and has the benefit of increasing the frequency of the 2C rebid

 

Increasing the frequency of the 2C rebid increases the availability of bart, which is usually played only over that 2C rebid

 

One problem is that there are multiple versions of bart…I play very different versions in my two partnerships

 

I don’t have a strong preference…I play what partner prefers. In my main partnership, and not going into detail about later auctions (but if you play this, you MUST discuss later developments in order to use it optimally)

 

1M 1N 2C

 

Slightly different for 1H than for 1S, so

 

1S 1N 2C:

 

2D shows 5+ hearts. If 5, then any strength. If 6, then invitational strength…weaker hands bid 3H instead

2H puppets to 2S…responder is often passing but may be about to make a constructive bid…

2S shows 8-10 hcp and 2 spades

2N is invitational but promises 4+ clubs (allowing opener to run to clubs with a weak unbalanced hand)

3C is very constructive but denies the ability to bid 2N

3R shows 6+ and is less than invitational

3S is a 3 card limit raise with weak trump….Qxx or stronger bids 2H to puppet to 2S then raises

 

 

After 2D, opener bids 2H with 2+ (usually) and otherwise makes a descriptive bid…often 2S (doesn’t promise more than 5) or 2N….extras, usually around 16-17 hcp, may have 2 hearts, 3C with 5=5 blacks, or 3H with extras and 3 hearts

 

After 2D 2H, responder can raise hearts with 6+ and invitational values or bid 2S with 2 spades, 5 hearts and 8-10 hcp, or bid 2N, invitational with 5 hearts, etc

 

There’s more to it than this: I have several pages of notes in both partnerships, in which the main difference is that in one we go through 2D with weak hands and bid directly with better, while in my main one, we do it in reverse.

 

I won’t set out the 1H sequence…I can pm if asked.

 

Most people hear about bart as a way to show hearts but it’s really much more about how responder can distinguish between weak and strong hands, within the context of the forcing 1N response.

[jillybean]

Thanks, BART may not be for my current partnerships but something I will keep in mind for later, hopefully.