BBO Discussion Forums: Would you go 2 over 1 F.G. with this? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Would you go 2 over 1 F.G. with this? Evaluation strikes again...

Poll: Would you bid 2 Clubs with this hand: (49 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you bid 2 Clubs with this hand:

  1. Yes (19 votes [38.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.78%

  2. No (26 votes [53.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.06%

  3. Depends on the vulnerability (2 votes [4.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.08%

  4. Something else (2 votes [4.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.08%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 User is offline   fred 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,601
  • Joined: 2003-February-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, USA

Posted 2009-November-19, 15:57

I am also a big fan of the semi-forcing 1NT.

In my experience, the ability to play in 1NT is one of the two very big advantages that semi-forcing 1NT has over forcing 1NT. The other comes if you can effectively play partner for a 4-card suit when he rebids 2 of a minor.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
0

#42 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2009-November-19, 16:39

fred, on Nov 19 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

In my experience, the ability to play in 1NT is one of the two very big advantages that semi-forcing 1NT has over forcing 1NT. The other comes if you can effectively play partner for a 4-card suit when he rebids 2 of a minor.

I know this is just a matter of terminology, but doesn't that mean that you're playing a "non-forcing" 1NT response? My understanding is that the different terms mean:

"forcing": opener bids with any 5332 11-14
"semi-forcing": opener bids with the lower end of a 5332 11-14
"non-forcing": opener bids only with 5-4 or strong

(This post isn't meant as an endorsement of the above terminology, which I can't say I like very much.)

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-November-19, 16:41

... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#43 User is offline   fred 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,601
  • Joined: 2003-February-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, USA

Posted 2009-November-19, 16:45

gnasher, on Nov 19 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

fred, on Nov 19 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

In my experience, the ability to play in 1NT is one of the two very big advantages that semi-forcing 1NT has over forcing 1NT. The other comes if you can effectively play partner for a 4-card suit when he rebids 2 of a minor.

I know this is just a matter of terminology, but doesn't that mean that you're playing a "non-forcing" 1NT response? My understanding is that the different terms mean:

"forcing": opener bids with any 5332 11-14
"semi-forcing": opener bids with the lower end of a 5332 11-14
"non-forcing": opener bids only with 5-4 or strong

(This post isn't meant as an endorsement of the above terminology, which I can't say I like very much.)

You could easily be right.

I always thought (for no good reason) that "non-forcing" meant the traditional Standard American style where 1NT is limited to a bad 10 HCP.

I also agree that the terminology is less than ideal (and evidently, from our different interpretations, it is not very effective at conveying clear meanings!).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
0

#44 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2009-November-19, 17:07

Weird. A debated topic, but Fred, Justin, and I all agree?
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#45 User is online   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,156
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2009-November-19, 18:37

This thread is an example of why I started posting again: I learn things I won't learn elsewhere. I don't travel to play bridge anymore, and rarely play on BBO...when I do I am practicing with friends who are about as backward as I am.

So.... while I still claim, truthfully, that I've never seen true 2/1 played with a non-forcing 1N response by a passed hand, and while I still think that a 'true non-forcing' 1N is unplayable, I certainly see and like the idea of a semi-forcing 1N (which I have long played by a passed hand) no matter what the 1N opening range is. Thanks to those who commented on it.

Now, if only I can get some of my fellow reactionaries to try it B)
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0
  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

10 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users