[Elianna]

 semeai, on 2011-September-23, 08:53, said:

Justin was assuming imps, so 120 vs 140 or 90 vs 140 are only 1 or 2 imps compared to 4 to 6 when one makes and the other is down, and 2 or 3 (or rarely 4) imps when they're both down but different amounts.

Aaah. Thank you. Now it makes total sense. I always assume matchpoints. In fact, I likely think matchpoints even if something said IMPs.

[Yu18772]

 Elianna, on 2011-September-23, 14:29, said:

Aaah. Thank you. Now it makes total sense. I always assume matchpoints. In fact, I likely think matchpoints even if something said IMPs.

In matchpoints, imo, 1NT semi forcing has a definite advantage of playing 1NT and not minor

[Elianna]

 Yu18772, on 2011-September-23, 23:00, said:

In matchpoints, imo, 1NT semi forcing has a definite advantage of playing 1NT and not minor

That wasn't the debate.

And as in my favorite partnership, we don't even play 1NT SF, I don't think that I'm the one needing convincing.

[the_dude]

 mich-b, on 2011-September-22, 01:33, said:

In a 2/1 GF context where 1NT response to 1M can include :
1. 3 card support in M , Invite.
2. 3 card support in M , "mini-raise" (4-5 points) - though this is rare, raise on some of those.
3. Invitational hands with a minor suit , but not with ♥. (1♠ - 3♥ is nat , inv).
4. 10-11 "balanced" , or with short M , but never a GF hand.
5. All other "normal" 1NT response hands...

Do you think it is a good agreement that opener can Pass 1NT with 5332 11-13 , or similar?

There are some pairs that include a 6th option .. a flat 12-14 points with 3 card support. Of course this requires that 1NT is 100% forcing. But if it is, it's nice to not have to bid 2♣ with AQx Kxxx Kx Jxxx. Instead you bid 1NT followed by 4M.

[aguahombre]

 the_dude, on 2011-September-26, 08:35, said:

There are some pairs that include a 6th option .. a flat 12-14 points with 3 card support. Of course this requires that 1NT is 100% forcing. But if it is, it's nice to not have to bid 2♣ with AQx Kxxx Kx Jxxx. Instead you bid 1NT followed by 4M.

There are more options than that if 1NT is forcing, but your general idea is one of them ---with variations in our style to allow 1NT-then 3NT to show the flat 13-15 with 3-card support (choice of games) and 1N-then 4M for a hand too strong for a direct 4S preempt but having 5 of them.

[Lurpoa]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-September-22, 16:33, said:

I think playing 1N opposite a balanced 3 card limit raise will be a massive winner over playing 3S. Spades is supposed to take THREE more tricks? Yeah right. I think it is opposite an unbalanced 3 card limit raise where 1N and 3M might break even. (All of that was assuming imps).

Good analysis ! It is the first time I find a very good justification of the "semi"forcing 1NT: responder did bid 1NT on 3=4=3=3, and opener passes on 5=(2-3-3).

This was valid after a 1♠ opener. Same goes for the the 1♥opener.

On 1♥ the 1NT could hide a flat ♥ support hand. : 2=3-4-4, or 3=3-3-4 and opener passes on 2=5-3-3 or 3=5-3-2 (12-13HPC).

On the other hand very often (I would say expert practise) a single Major raise is often played as moderatelyconstructive,and the 1NTbid can hide a weak 3card suport. In that case 1NT might not be such a good contract.....But then I guess the opps have something to play.....strange we have not yet heard from them...