[kfay]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

1NT!!! I saw it started off nearly unanimous for a game force and nearly puked in my mouth.

Yes. I don't understand why people like this hand so much.

Mikeh, I totally play 1NT semi-forcing.

[hanp]

Phil, on Nov 19 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

When is a balanced, aceless 12 ever a game force?

Quite often?

[pooltuna]

hanp, on Nov 19 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Phil, on Nov 19 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

When is a balanced, aceless 12 ever a game force?

Quite often?

works for me especially when partner opens a 15-17 NT

[hanp]

Or when you have 3-card support, or when you have good spots, or when you have a good 5-card suit, or when...

But not with this hand, no.

[ArtK78]

1NT forcing followed by 2NT over 2 of a minor. Bid 4♥ over 2♥. Over 2♠ it is sort of a 3 1/2♠ bid. I haven't quite decided whether I want to bid a spade game over a 2♠ rebid.

[mikeh]

hanp, on Nov 19 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

I think it is very common to play 2/1 gameforcing and 1NT not forcing.

I have never seen this done, and I believe it to be theoretically unsound. Even playing 1N as semi-forcing is problematic in a true 2/1 gf method...now, if you are playing that 2/1 is NOT always gf, I would back away from these comments.... BWS (at least the last time I checked, which was several years ago) is an example of a method in which 2/1 is not pure gf. I would still argue that the non-forcing 1N is technically inferior, but I doubt that I'd say it was unplayable in principle.

My comments are based largely on exposure to NA methods, but theory is non-geograhical. I would be (truly) interested in having someone explain to me how a true 2/1 5 card major method can function adequately without a forcing notrump...it seems to me that it would gain on the family of hands where 1N was the best spot, and the opps let us play there, and lose on a far wider range of hands where responder has important values and can't show them because he can't gf, and opener passes 1N. Not to mention the loss of the ability to distinguish between various major suit raises, or to temporize with this hand type (or the really soft gf raise).

[hanp]

I think you are overbidding your hand.

[cherdanno]

Mike, 1NT non-forcing in a 2/1 GF context seems to be becoming quite common when playing 14-16 NT. When opener has a balanced hand that would accept an invitation, he has an easy solution, upgrade to a 1NT opening Seriously, once you play 14-16 1NT the difference between semi-forcing (some weak bal hands pass) and non-forcing (all weak balanced hands pass) becomes very marginal. Of course, this is combined with 1M-3x = natural invite, and 1M-2♣ = natural or balanced, so the 1NT bid isn't all that different to BWS style.

[aguahombre]

I liked the choices; yes, no, and something else. Heck no is something else, I guess.

[whereagles]

sure, wtp?

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Nov 19 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

hanp, on Nov 19 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

I think it is very common to play 2/1 gameforcing and 1NT not forcing.

I have never seen this done, and I believe it to be theoretically unsound.

Agree. One can get away with intermediate jump shifts on 6 cards, but one's kind of out of bid with 10-11 5332-ish hands, unless one's ok with bidding 2NT whenever that happens.

It's ok to play it the other way around, i.e. 1NT forcing and 2/1 NF.

[hanp]

With 10-11 5332 hands you bid 1NT? If partner passes with a minimal balanced hand you are happy right?

[jdonn]

hanp, on Nov 19 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

With 10-11 5332 hands you bid 1NT? If partner passes with a minimal balanced hand you are happy right?

No, certainly not if he has a balanced 14.

[hanp]

I wouldn't pass with a balanced 14 and I don't think that's a minimum.

[jdonn]

But then 1NT isn't "non forcing". Sorry maybe it's just the terminology since I know "semi forcing" is a meaningless term if taken literally. But still I consider semi forcing to mean opener passes only if he would reject an invitation such as a limit raise, whereas non forcing to mean opener passes on any balanced hand less than (or even up into the range of) a 1NT opener.

At least the way I'm using the terms, of course 2/1 can be played with a semi-forcing notrump, but it would be a lot worse with a non-forcing notrump.

[hanp]

I never distinguished between non-forcing or semi forcing or whatever. Mikeh said that 1NT is ALWAYS (his caps) played as forcing, and that anything else was theoretically unsound.

I don't bid 1NT with limit raises btw.

[kenrexford]

You can play 1NT as "semi-forcing" with a 2/1 GF system very easily. All that "semi-forcing" means is that Opener passes when he has that typical BS garbage. If I have a hand where playing KS and an 11+ to 14 range, and called it 11+ because of the 5332 shape, meaning 19 count by "Rule of Twenty," then I pass.

One thing that this "costs" is the inability for Responder to bid 1NT with a GF hand as a tactical move. However, for those of us who often bid 2♣ as a GF with balanced hands, that loss in minimal.

Another possible cost is playing 1NT when Responder has a limit hand with a long suit, but invitational jumps in the other major eliminates that, and on the minor hands the opps probably have the other major fit anyway.

Another cost is the weak long suiters, but weak opposite garbage 1NT means that the opponents surely have a fit anyway.

[billw55]

Did somebody spam the "no" votes in the poll? They sure went up in a hurry.

[Jlall]

I would never game force with this hand. Maybe if I never opened with unbalanced 11s or something, even then surely I open with unbalanced 12s and I don't have a GF opposite that... and does anyone really not open unbalanced 11s with 5 spades? Seems absolutely maniacal to GF with THIS 12, and I'd say I GF with more 12s than most good players.

Re- Semi forcing NT and 2/1 GF, this has become very common/popular recently. Personally I love the treatment. If you never bid 1N with GF hands (most people), and you wouldn't accept a 3 card LR or a 2N invite (aka most 11-12 5332s, and some 13s), why not have the ability to pass 1N? It's probably your best spot. This is even more true if you play invitational jumps over a 1M opener (which many are playing now).

[Phil]

mikeh, on Nov 19 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

hanp, on Nov 19 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

I think it is very common to play 2/1 gameforcing and 1NT not forcing.

I have never seen this done, and I believe it to be theoretically unsound. Even playing 1N as semi-forcing is problematic in a true 2/1 gf method...now, if you are playing that 2/1 is NOT always gf, I would back away from these comments.

My experience is the opposite. I play this in at least three partnerships and it is quite effective especially at MPs. With a weak NT type hand facing many typical hands that bid 1N it is often the best place to play. We lose when responder has a weak hand with a single suiter that was going to bid it over opener's forced rebid.

1N is the best matchpoint contract. Why structure a system around avoiding it?

In all of these partnerships we have a way to show a GF that is balanced - either through 2♣ or 2N.

In my partnership with Gnome, 1N opener is 14-16, so we don't run afoul of the 14 opposite 11/12 hand.

In other partnerships, we have a way to show a 3 card limit raise that is unsuitable for 1N and can't stand to pass 1N.

With Sathya, 1N is "almost forcing"/