[mich-b]

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?

[Hanoi5]

Maybe with 11-12 balanced and always when it won't accept an invitation in the Major.

[eternaluke]

I play a much broader variation of Forcing NT (0-18) to show
1. A weak hand with no fit (next round new suit or pass partner's new suit)
2. An invitational hand with 2 card fit (next round cheapest return to original suit)
3. An Invitational 3 card fit (next round jump support openers suit)
4. A game forcing 3 card fit 13-15 (next round bid 3nt over a 2 bid, make a slam try over a 3 level response)
5. A slam trying 3 card fit 16-18 not fit for an immediate slam try and lacking a good 2/1 suit to bid (jump into new suit next round or sign off in 4 spades, or make other slam try)

It is very important that my partner never pass the Forcing NT bid since one of its uses is to escape the misfit.

[jmcw]

 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?

In could work in some scenerios, but IMO its a overall losing strategy, I see a number of problems.

Using 1NT FORCING as a catchall response is the cornerstone of 2/1. Largely predicated on the fact that effective opponents will most often not allow you to play there. By passing 1NT you side may facilitate the opponents entering the auction at a safer level.
You may be missing a 5/3 Major fit.
You may miss a superior minor suit part score.

Count me out on the 11 point 5332 hands, I'm passing, 2/1 is not designed for this (without some modification). IMO playing all 11 point 5332 opposite 12 in game is losing strategy.

[ArtK78]

I play a semi-forcing NT in the context of a light opening system non vul which is otherwise 2/1 game forcing except when responder rebids his suit (and a couple of other well defined exceptions).

Opener must respond to the semi-forcing NT unless he has a balanced 10-11 HCP hand (10 HCP being the minimum one opener).

When vulnerable, one bids show a traditional opening bid. In that situation, the 1NT is forcing.

In a 2/1 system (whether game forcing or usually game forcing), it is extremely difficult to deal with many bidding situations if the 1NT response can be passed due to the requirements for a 2/1 response. I choose to give up some of the advantages of using 1NT as forcing in the weak opening structure so as to avoid getting too high when opener is very light.

[han]

Yes I do. The advantage is not playing 1NT (which is sometimes good and sometimes isn't), but comes when you rebid 2m.

[Phil]

 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.

Probably a small loss for SF if responder has an unbalanced 3 card raise. If responder is balanced, then its break even IMO.

Quote

2. 3 card support in M , "mini-raise" (4-5 points) - though this is rare, raise on some of those.

If we can steal it for 1N, this isn't so bad, especially if we have hearts. Questionable whether or not the F1NT camp can parse this hand with doubleton support unless some version of BART is employed (which gives up other things).

Quote

3. Invitational hands with a minor suit , but not with ♥. (1♠ - 3♥ is nat , inv).

Don't blame SF for this one. In one partnership I play it the same way because partner wants to Bergen and we accept the occasional awkward sequence when we hold this hand. In another SF partnership we play 2/1 as a soft GF so this hand type is solved.

Quote

4. 10-11 "balanced" , or with short M , but never a GF hand.

HUGE gain for SF.

Quote

5. All other "normal" 1NT response hands...

Gain.

Quote

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

Maybe not 11-13. Even in 'forcing NT' partnerships, I will tell CHO, do not make a 1N response with a balanced 13 or more because I reserve the right to pass you with drek.

[nigel_k]

Agree that passing with 11-12 and some 13s is fine. The only hands that worry me are where responder has three card support and some shape and maybe it's better for responder to bid those as if they had four trumps.

[JLOGIC]

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).

[JLOGIC]

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).

[Yu18772]

 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?

I play 1NT SF, in a very similar system - except 1NT cant have 3 card support invitational (2way bergen), and like it much better than the forcing 1NT, even in IMP.

[aguahombre]

People who use 1NT-F have some more weapons in their arsenal. People who don't have other toys so that they won't need 1NT-F.

We decide if we want to add a bunch of possibilities to 1M-2c or want to keep it real, for instance. Nobody is going to win or lose a debate on the choice of how to treat 1M-1NT. Too much other stuff is involved.

[Elianna]

 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).

Sorry, I may be being an idiot here, but aren't there cases where spades takes one more trick that it's a winner? (Like when 1NT=2, and 3S=3.) But I think that I see your point: One is on the three-level, when you could be on the one-level, especially if you can only take 8 tricks. And that when there's a three trick difference, it's better to be in spades. But what about a two trick difference? Wouldn't spades still be better?

I don't disagree with you, btw, about it being better to be SF. I just wasn't following that one piece.

The only 2/1 partnership I'm in plays it SF but we moved 3-card limit raises out of it. But I wonder if my partner would kill me when I strategically "forgot" with balanced hands? Probably so. Except when it works.

[Vampyr]

 jmcw, on 2011-September-22, 07:59, said:

Count me out on the 11 point 5332 hands, I'm passing, 2/1 is not designed for this (without some modification). IMO playing all 11 point 5332 opposite 12 in game is losing strategy.

Indeed, I don't even see how one can open balanced 12-counts in a 2/1 GF system. Perhaps it could work if 1M-2y-2NT was a potential escape, but I don't think that most people play that.

One could take the 3-card invitational raises out of the 1NT response by using 2♣ as a Drury-like mechanism. This would allow 5-3 fits to be played at the 2-level, which must be a gain compared with both 1NT and 3M.

[jmcw]

 Vampyr, on 2011-September-22, 22:40, said:

Indeed, I don't even see how one can open balanced 12-counts in a 2/1 GF system. Perhaps it could work if 1M-2y-2NT was a potential escape, but I don't think that most people play that.

One could take the 3-card invitational raises out of the 1NT response by using 2♣ as a Drury-like mechanism. This would allow 5-3 fits to be played at the 2-level, which must be a gain compared with both 1NT and 3M.

You can throw the 3-card invite in with the J2N. Not saying I'm a fan of that approach, but it seems to be getting some traction.

[Vampyr]

 jmcw, on 2011-September-22, 22:52, said:

You can throw the 3-card invite in with the J2N. Not saying I'm a fan of that approach, but it seems to be getting some traction.

You can include it with your Bergen or limit raises too. Both of these approaches will get you to the three-level, which is what some people in this thread wish to avoid.

[semeai]

 Elianna, on 2011-September-22, 22:26, said:

Sorry, I may be being an idiot here, but aren't there cases where spades takes one more trick that it's a winner? (Like when 1NT=2, and 3S=3.) But I think that I see your point: One is on the three-level, when you could be on the one-level, especially if you can only take 8 tricks. And that when there's a three trick difference, it's better to be in spades. But what about a two trick difference? Wouldn't spades still be better?

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.

[han]

Could somebody please tell Woolhurd that they are doing it all wrong. They are not supposed to open light when playing 2/1. It's bad, people on the forums say so.

[aguahombre]

 han, on 2011-September-23, 09:57, said:

Could somebody please tell Woolhurd that they are doing it all wrong. They are not supposed to open light when playing 2/1. It's bad, people on the forums say so.

For that post, you have earned my favorite sausage and peppers recipe.

[han]

I appreciate that but I don't cook with meat. Vegetarian recipes are very welcome.