[rbforster]

I've been (ab)using the term "semi-forcing pass" to refer to a system where you open 3rd and 4th seats quite light, most hands as low as 8+ points. The main idea is that if you can be sure partner will open with moderate values, it becomes less necessary to open all "good" hands in 1st/2nd position and you can pass with some of these. Certain limited hands (for example in a 16+ strong club system) could be passed without too much fear of partner passing out the hand when we had values for a part score. I mentioned an earlier example of this when I suggested passing with precision 2♣/2♦ shapes. I've been playing those methods and been fairly happy with them so far.

Another idea I was toying with in a similar vein was that one might similarly imagine passing with a certain balanced hand range. In an aggressive strong club, you've got the balanced hand ladder that looks something like this:

0-9 pass
10-12 1NT (NV)
13-15 1♦...1NT
16+ 1♣ strong

Instead, what about trying something unusual like this:

0-7 pass
8-9 1NT (NV)
10-12 also pass
13-15 1♦...1NT
16+ 1♣ strong

For reference, in 3rd seat NV the openings opposite a semiforcing pass are

1♣ 16+ strong
1♦ 2+ 8-15, including 13-15 bal
1♥ 4+ 8-15, 5+ unless very weak or 3-suited short ♦
1♠ 4+ 8-15, 5+ unless very weak
1NT 10-12
2♣ 5+ 8-15, usually 5♣/4M or 6+♣ (unless very weak with no 4M)
2♦♥♠ weak two's

Leaving aside competitive situations for now, let's look at some 3rd seat PH auctions.

P-1♦-1M 4+M, not quite forcing since responder can't have 13+ but effectively F1
P-1♦-1NT shows the 10-12 balanced PH with no 4M (~5-7 with no 4M pass instead)
P-1♦-2♦ constructive raise, no 4M, ~5-8
P-1M-Drury covers the 10-12 balanced PH that includes a 3+ fit for M
P-1M-1NT semiforcing NT, opener will can bid again with shape or game interest opposite possible 10-12 NT.
P-1NT stayman, etc, as usual
P-2♣-2♦ (inv ask) - can stop in 3♣ if opener shows a weak hand

There are a few small losses here like passing 1♦ with 5-7 and no 4M, or pushing to 3♣ sometimes without good enough values/fit. These seem like somewhat minor issues, and of course only come up when your opponents don't bid (and the weaker your hands are, the more likely your opponents will intervene and let you off the hook). As for competitive situations, it seems that a 10-12 balanced passed hand will probably be happy to defend in most cases, or make an occasional takeout X with the right shape in a low level auction.

What does all this get you besides some confused opponents? Well you get to open a NV micro-NT and still handle all your balanced hands in a reasonable fashion. I know Meckwell play a 9-11 or 9-12 NV NT in places that don't legislate against it, so perhaps there are preemptive advantages in jamming your opponents auctions at favorable.

While my example, you pass initially with 10-12 bal and bid 1♦...1NT with 13-15. You could similarly swap these and pass with 13-15(!) and bid 1♦...1NT with 10-12. This could make for some interesting auctions if your initial pass was (usually) 0-7 but sometimes 13-15 balanced.

I'd be interested to hear what other people thought about the merits of

1) a 1st/2nd NV micro NT opening
2) this particular scheme for trying to incorporate it into the balanced bidding ladder
3) whether you prefer 10-12 or 13-15 as the strong option in 1st/2nd pass

Thanks!

[skjaeran]

Rob F, on Aug 19 2007, 04:43 AM, said:

Instead, what about trying something unusual like this:

0-7 pass
8-9 1NT (NV)
10-12 also pass
13-15 1♦...1NT
16+ 1♣ strong

This doesn't particularly interest me, but it's nice that people experiment with bidding ideas.

However, this system would be classified as HUM (Highly Unusual Methods) by the WBF (and many other Sponsoring Organisations), making it illegal to use in most tournaments in these jurisdictions due to the combination of opening 1NT with 8-9 and passing with 10-12.

WBF Systems Ploicy:

Quote

By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.

[rbforster]

ACBL has different strange rules than the WBF. Since I usually play ACBL events, my systems (including this one) are designed to be GCC legal. Under ACBL they only care that your pass isn't forcing (hence my methods where the strong passed hands are limited and willing to pass out if partner is broke).

I wonder how strongly enforced the WBF rule really is. I mean if you pass some bad balanced 11 counts at Vul (say QJx QJx QJx Qxxx), but you open some nice distributional 10 counts (say AQTxxx KJTxx x x) are you really playing a HUM? I think you're just playing bridge, but I don't know the ways of the WBF particularly.

[cherdano]

Rob F, on Aug 18 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

I know Meckwell play a 9-11 or 9-12 NV NT in places that don't legislate against it, so perhaps there are preemptive advantages in jamming your opponents auctions at favorable.

They dropped mini-NT quite a while ago.

[hotShot]

Rob F, on Aug 19 2007, 04:43 AM, said:

I've been (ab)using the term "semi-forcing pass" to refer to a system where you open 3rd and 4th seats quite light, most hands as low as 8+ points. The main idea is that if you can be sure partner will open with moderate values, it becomes less necessary to open all "good" hands in 1st/2nd position and you can pass with some of these. Certain limited hands (for example in a 16+ strong club system) could be passed without too much fear of partner passing out the hand when we had values for a part score.

I don't think that it is beneficial to allow opps to enter the auction easily in 20-20 HCP situations.
Lets say you don't open a bad 11-12 HCP hand, than your LHO has any bid available to describe his (weak) opening, this way they will find their best spot more often than they would against other pairs.
If the 1st hand pass was weaker than 9 HCP, and you enter the auction in 3rd hand holding 8+ HCP, you might go for a number, if opps strength is placed in 4th hand.

Without a sampling i don't know exact numbers but i think that these 2 unfavorable cases cover more than half of the situations.

[skjaeran]

Rob F, on Aug 19 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

ACBL has different strange rules than the WBF. Since I usually play ACBL events, my systems (including this one) are designed to be GCC legal. Under ACBL they only care that your pass isn't forcing (hence my methods where the strong passed hands are limited and willing to pass out if partner is broke).

I wonder how strongly enforced the WBF rule really is. I mean if you pass some bad balanced 11 counts at Vul (say QJx QJx QJx Qxxx), but you open some nice distributional 10 counts (say AQTxxx KJTxx x x) are you really playing a HUM? I think you're just playing bridge, but I don't know the ways of the WBF particularly.

This is the first time I've come across a situaton where the ACBL system policy is less stringent than the WBF system policy - that's nice. And I prefer the ACBL attitude (on this point - NOT ELSE).

The WBF rule isn't enforced as strongly as what your question imply. You're allowed to up- and downgrade hands. But you can't open some strength interval of hands (like the 8-9 NT) and pass with some other, stronger interval (like 10-12 or 13-15 NT).

The WBF rule is there to disallow forcing pass (or weak opening, if you prefer) systems and similar things. But it's worded in such a way as to disallow a few other possibilities (like yours) - intended or not.

[glen]

I was wondering what hands are best excluded from opening, if one is not going to open some hands that are opened in most approaches. My theory was perhaps these would be hands short in the majors, but not too distributional. For example take this opening framework:

1♣: 16+ Unbal, 17+ Bal
1♦: 3 or 4♠s, 11-15, if balanced 11-13
1♥: 4+♥s, 11-15
1♠: 5+♠s, 11-15
1NT: 13/14-16
2♣/♦: 6 or longer minor, 11-15, not 4♠s
2NT: 12-15, 5-5+ in minors, not 3♠s, 13-15

So these hands have to pass:
11-13 balanced with 2♠s and 3♥s (13 with a good 5 card minor, 2-3-5-3/2-3-3-5, could upgrade to 1NT)
1-3-4-5/1-3-5-4 11-15
2-2-4-5/2-2-5-4 11-13 (though 13 could upgrade to 1NT)
2-2-4-5/2-2-5-4 14-15 with poor majors (so hand does not want to open 1NT)

Now not opening these hands can hurt, since one might lose a nice minor fit. However not opening might make it harder for the opponents to get a major in, since some hands that would overcall would not be worth opening.

In 3rd and 4th seat downgraded Pearson Points tell us when to open or not. If our points+number of spades is not equal to 13, we do not open. This means we would be passing with up to 28 points, in the very worse case, but the opponents would have an 11 or 12 card ♠ fit.

[awm]

I'm fairly convinced that opening bad balanced hands is not good bridge. A little evidence:

(1) I remember being burned two hands in a row in the LM pairs by a pair that simply didn't open balanced 12-counts. On the first hand, partner and I reached the field contract of 3NT, but most declarers were playing it double-dummy because of an opening bid by the opposition. There were a combination of plays needed to get a good result: I needed to play AJx opposite Kxx for the queen dropping doubleton, and then lead from xxxx towards Kx later in the hand (risking going down in 3NT for an overtrick). Both of these seem risky plays, but when I know that RHO is marked with essentially ALL the outstanding values (we had 27 hcp between us) it's not hard to get this right. On the second hand, partner opened 1S and opponents didn't takeout double with a balanced 12. We reached only 2S when the field was in 4S; we only have about 20 hcp and looking at our combined hands 4S is about 25% to make, but given the takeout double the odds go way up (certain cards are marked) and all guesses will be made correctly once again.

(2) There was a time when opening kamikaze notrumps (10-12 or 9-12 or whatever) was fairly popular among world class players. This style has undergone a marked decline; Meckwell gave it up and so have most of its other proponents. While there are definitely good boards, there are also some pretty expensive system losses.

So if I had to pick some "normal opening bids" on which to pass, I think the balanced 12-counts would be first to go. I'm certainly not eager to open balanced 8-9 counts with 1NT.

[rbforster]

With some encouragement from people more optimistic about very weak NTs than Adam, I was thinking that the 13-15 pass might work a little better than the 10-12 one due to better PH constructive auctions.

On one hand, P-1M-1N semiforcing is "more forcing" when the PH is possibly 13-15 vs 10-12 balanced. That said, distributional openers will want to bid again over 1N anyway, so it's better to have some extra values (13-15) to continue to 2N when there's no fit (ie P-1M-1N-2Y-2N). Similarly, extra values would help in the auction P-2♣(precision)-(2♦/2N asking bid) where you will play 3♣ on a possible misfit. The auction P-1♦-1N seems fine showing either balanced range.

The only downside of 13-15 vs 10-12 (aside from opening the 10-12 hands at all) is that you might pass out your 1N partial opposite a 7 count with a little more than half the deck. This certainly isn't a much of a risk with a 10-12 PH - then the opponents missed their partial in 1NT.

I was also thinking of moving the NT ranges around a little, ie 8-10 NT, 11-13 1♦...1NT, and pass 14-16. This helps with the balanced ranges in my 16+ strong club - upgrading it to 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced, and making for a tighter 1NT rebid of 17-19 instead of 16-19 (ie 1♣-1♦(neg)-1NT). Then again, passing 14-16 makes it more likely to miss our part score in 1NT when partner can't open in 3rd. If I would be playing 8-10 NT under GCC without conventions, a tighter range (of 8-9 only) might make the lack of an invitational sequence more tolerable (ie play 1N-2X to play, 1N-2N bal GF inquiry, 1N-3X GF natural). Not sure about the relative merits of this.

[jmc]

Rob,

I know this all began as a way to free up 2c and 2d for something other than the precision bids. What is the incentive for the new scheme? Is it just to make available a super light 1NT?

I think this method is interesting and fun to think about. I also think you'd have a nice table feel advantage vs. most opponents who have never played against it. It'd probably matter little to great ops but really consternate those who prefer not to think too hard at the table. In Chicago at the NABC I had a guy call the director because I opened a 10-13 NT. He asked me if I had to prealert that and when I told him no, he asked if it hadn't been made illegal. ;-) I said no and he said, "I'm calling the director anyway." I can't imagine what kind of heart palpatation he would have had if I alerted a pass as maybe 0-7 or 13-15 or a precision 2c or 2d opener. Should I have asked for a 0 tolerance violation?

I would like to hear what people say when you start passing 13-15 balanced hands! LOL. GL with everything and play this in a regional asap.

Jonathan

[rbforster]

jmc, on Aug 21 2007, 11:59 AM, said:

I know this all began as a way to free up 2c and 2d for something other than the precision bids.  What is the incentive for the new scheme?  Is it just to make available a super light 1NT?

I guess the original idea started with the observation that lots of PH bidding didn't make sense in the context of light 1st/2nd seat openers. The original idea about passing precision 2♣♦ shapes had (and continues to have I think) a lot more merit than this variation. That modification puts some PH bids to better use, avoids some unpleasant constructive 2 level openings, and replaces them with more common preemptive ones. It seems like it has a lot of benefits. This idea was just a further observation on my part that an additional balanced hand could be included effectively in pass and still handled well in the subsequent PH followups given you were playing the semi-forcing pass framework anyway, especially if the 8-9 balanced range was getting opened somehow (either 1NT or 1♦...1NT).

jmc, on Aug 21 2007, 11:59 AM, said:

I would like to hear what people say when you start passing 13-15 balanced hands! LOL.  GL with everything and play this in a regional asap.

At Nashville we didn't have any complaints, prealerting our aggressive 5 card preempts, our light openers, and our "system failing" of not having an opening bid for clubs , necessitating a pass with 15 or fewer points and a "standard" 1♣ opener. The worse opponents didn't seem to notice (or care), while the better ones didn't seem phased much but did pay more attention to our alerts. Some were amused that we didn't have a bid for clubs. Of course we did - it just happened to be pass!

[mycroft]

Please note, Rob, that if you are ACBL-centric, then I hope you can live without Stayman, Blackwood, *sohl or a two-suited rescue if your 8-10 NT gets doubled - because that's the regs. No conventional bids after a 1NT that can systemically be less than 10 HCP, including conventional defences to conventional defences.

Just a warning.

I also would be *very scared* of 1D-1M-1NT being 10-12. It's bad enough in standard where it's 12-14. If partner passes, you're often in the kamikaze NT "death zone" - you have 10, partner has 6-8, they can't make game, you are going for 300+. At least if you open it 1NT, they have much less information on which to decide to double.

Michael.

[rbforster]

mycroft, on Aug 22 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

No conventional bids after a 1NT that can systemically be less than 10 HCP, including conventional defences to conventional defences.

I'm aware of this - as you'll see in my above comments. In particular, one of the benefits I mention of an 8-9 range (instead of 8-10) would be the lack of need for invitational sequences and just either sign off or force to game. Just because you can't use conventions there are still plenty of useful agreements to determine if one were actually going to play this. 2N can be GF balanced and partially take the place of "stayman," albeit without the invitational distinction. Natural bids can be forcing or NF, natural minor bids can be made on 3 card suits, etc.

Quote

I also would be *very scared* of 1D-1M-1NT being 10-12.  It's bad enough in standard where it's 12-14.  At least if you open it 1NT, they have much less information on which to decide to double.

Actually it seems to me that this is a worse situation to open 1NT than it is to have the auction 1♦-1M-1NT. Here are my thoughts and feel free to correct them if something seems wrong...

- let's say you open 1♦. Over your 1♦ (~9-15, could be 2+ 10-12 bal), LHO will often double, overcall a suit, or bid 1NT with a decent hand. When he passes, he's typically limited to 14 points balanced (with more, he'd probably bid 1NT or act otherwise).

- now that LHO has passed, partner responds 1M (~5+ points, 4+ suit, F1). Over 1♦-1M, the 4th hand will sometimes find a double, 1NT (sandwich? or natural strong), or a suit overcall with a good hand. When RHO passes, he's limited to again maybe 14 points (with length your suits), or maybe ~11 points with some shape (depending on overcalling standards).

- now that you rebid 1NT showing 10-12 balanced (1♦-1M-1N), LHO's double is takeout of M and tends to deny a good suit (which would have been overcalled earlier). IF LHO can find a takeout double with a decent hand and the right shape, and IF partner is on a minimum, and IF RHO has balanced hand with sufficient values to sit for the X (instead of bidding a suit), and IF you have nowhere to run, then you might get a bad result when you get doubled and go down a few tricks.

- lastly, supposing LHO passes your 1NT rebid, partner passes (showing no game interest or long suit, but could be up to 11 points or so), RHO will pretty much always pass (rather than double). He has no guarantee of any values in his partner's hand, and responder could well have most of the remaining strength. It seems very likely to pass out once the auction progresses to RHO in balancing seat, who might rarely balance with a suit bid but not a double.

Thus it seems very unlikely to me (at least playing against normal defensive methods) that the opps could get a X of 1NT to stick. Of course it's quite possible it's their hand, but in many of those cases they would have already bid and the auction doesn't progress to the point of the 1NT (10-12) rebid by opener.

In contrast, when you open a 10-12 NT, LHO will be making a penalty double starting at ~13+ balanced. Importantly this includes maybe 13-15 balanced hands that might not have had a bid over 1♦. And of course once they double, their partner will know to sit or double our runouts when he's got a 10 count as well. So it seems you are in fact more likely to be doubled starting with a weak 1NT than with a weak balanced 1♦.

Quote

If partner passes, you're often in the kamikaze NT "death zone" - you have 10, partner has 6-8, they can't make game, you are going for 300+. 

Remember I'm only proposing doing this NV. If we're going for more than 300 NV in 1NTX, it sounds like they were making 3NT. For the reasons above, I think getting doubled is quite unlikely at least against normal defensive methods.

Don't get me wrong. The auction 1♦-1M-1NT-AP playing a weak 1NT rebid is one where you will go down with some frequency. I know because I played a system where we did this at Vul (1NT direct was 13-15), and we eventually gave up opening the balanced 10-12 hands altogether and changed that part of our system. We didn't do this because we got bad results when doubled - that was very rare actually. The problem was going down 2 Vul for -200 is pretty much a MP bottom against the opponent's partial. At NV, things are very different and a weak NT rebid should be a much better (if not good) idea than it is at Vul even if it's a sacrifice some of the time.

[dake50]

This is nearing the point forcing pass systems would long ago have reached in bidding theory. The FP just showing HCP is silly. What other partitions of open/pass work better. This would have evolved in the 3 decades since inception, barring barring!
So what UNFORCING but good hand passes work? What benefits to rest of system bounds (upper/lower)? What bids are freed for other shape/hcp cases?
Develop that idea, it seems intriguing.