[DavidV52]

I am going through the ACBL book, Bidding in the 21st Century, and I am puzzled by a suggested response. Let's say I have 6-9 total points and partner opens a major suit, but I don't have support for the opening bid, and I don't have a new 4-card suit to bid at the 1-level. The book suggests bidding 1NT, and the examples show bidding it without stoppers in the other suits.

Given the same situation, but an opening bid in a minor suit by partner, the book recommends a 1NT response only with stoppers.

What puzzles me is the suggestion to bid 1NT without stoppers in response to a major suit. My understanding is that a 1NT bid is not forcing (as a new suit would be), so it seems to me that I could get left in a 1NT contract without stoppers.

So, my question boils down to: Am I reading correctly that I should bid 1NT in response to a major suit opening bid, even without stoppers, as described above? Thanks for your help.

[ahydra]

Making a 1NT response to a 1-of-a-suit opening bid is not like other NT responses where ideally you have stoppers. Basically it's a "dustbin" bid, saying nothing more than "Partner, I have 6-9 points - but I don't have support for your suit, and I don't have a suit I can bid of my own at the 1-level". (If playing 2/1 then 6-9 becomes 6-11 or so)

So yes, you should make the bid even without stoppers. The same applies for a minor suit as well (I'm confused that the book would say you need stoppers). Partner may well pass and you are very often left in a contract without a stop in one suit. But generally the opponents can't beat 1NT just using that suit straight off (would require a ghastly break) and the contract normally has plenty of chances.

Of course, opener will often hold 5-4 or better shape, and so is often more than happy to suggest a second suit to play in, which increases the odds of playing somewhere safer.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

I am not familiar with the book, but are you sure that a 1NT response to a one-of-a major opening is not forcing?

[DavidV52]

 ArtK78, on 2012-March-02, 12:43, said:

I am not familiar with the book, but are you sure that a 1NT response to a one-of-a major opening is not forcing?

Well, being a beginner, I'd have to say 'no'. Perhaps another poster can provide guidance.

[ahydra]

It would depend on what system the book is describing. In England we play ACOL where 1NT is 100% non-forcing. AFAIK it's the same in SAYC. Playing 2/1, I think there are a couple of different styles - one where 1NT is forcing, and one where 1NT is "semi-forcing" (i.e. opener can only pass if he can be sure there's no game possible).

See if you can find the name of the system the book is describing, or even better, see if there are any examples of 1Major-1NT being passed.

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

 DavidV52, on 2012-March-02, 11:21, said:

I am going through the ACBL book, Bidding in the 21st Century, and I am puzzled by a suggested response. Let's say I have 6-9 total points and partner opens a major suit, but I don't have support for the opening bid, and I don't have a new 4-card suit to bid at the 1-level. The book suggests bidding 1NT, and the examples show bidding it without stoppers in the other suits.

Given the same situation, but an opening bid in a minor suit by partner, the book recommends a 1NT response only with stoppers.

What puzzles me is the suggestion to bid 1NT without stoppers in response to a major suit. My understanding is that a 1NT bid is not forcing (as a new suit would be), so it seems to me that I could get left in a 1NT contract without stoppers.

So, my question boils down to: Am I reading correctly that I should bid 1NT in response to a major suit opening bid, even without stoppers, as described above? Thanks for your help.

1NT is the default bid, you have to choose, when you have to answer - i.e. if you have atleast 6HCP,
but have no fit for partner, have no 4 card suit to bid on the 1 level, and and are not strong enough
to go to the 2 level.

The remark to bid 1NT after a minor suit opening only with stoppers, implies, that there has to be an
alternative, say you have 4+ cards for partners minor suit, and the alternative to 1NT would be
showing the fit by raising partner.

In other words - a 1NT response to a suit opening does not show a stopper.

But it if you have alternatives, consider them, but only than.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: The above is system independ, system depend is only the number of HCPs, so that
you have to make a bid.

[Zelandakh]

A 1NT response to a 1♠, 1♥ or 1♦ opening is typically played as just a noise to keep open the bidding on any hand that has no better bid, a dustbin bid as ahydra puts it. It does not show stoppers as otherwise you would have no response available with, inter alia, a minimum 2236 hand.

Bidding over a 1♣ opening may be different depending on the system being discussed since here you either have 4 card support for partner's clubs or a 4 card suit that you can bid at the 1 level. That means that in certain systems, such as Acol, a 1NT response can get a much more specific (and positive) meaning over the 1♣ opening. This really depends mostly on whether Responder can happily raise the clubs with a 3334 hand.

I do not know the book you are describing but if it really reads as reported here then I would suggest getting a new one is in order. For 1♦ - 1NT to promise stoppers in the other 3 suits is unplayable in a natural system imho.

[nigel_k]

Even a non-forcing 1NT response is semi-conventional. If you have a minimum response and cannot raise or respond in a new suit at the one level, you have to bid 1NT regardless of shape. For example, if partner opens 1♥ you can respond 1NT on any of the following:

Qxx xx Axxx Jxxx. This is a 'classic' example but is hardly typical. Since you are limited to 6-9 HCP the odds are quite high that one of the side suits won't have any high cards.

xxx xx Axxx QJxx. This is an absolutely normal 1NT and there is no other possible action.

xx x Axxxx QJxxx. Again, absolutely normal and correct 1NT. No possible alternative.

xx x Axx QJxxxxx. Ditto. You aren't strong enough for 2♣ but cannot pass with 7 HCP so have to bid 1NT.

[Vampyr]

 ArtK78, on 2012-March-02, 12:43, said:

I am not familiar with the book, but are you sure that a 1NT response to a one-of-a major opening is not forcing?

Not everyone plays 2/1 GF. I know that many Americans don't think that this is really true.

[Antrax]

Does this mean you've read the book and know that it doesn't describe a system that has forcing 1NT response to a 1M opener?

[blackshoe]

I haven't read it (I have read previous editions), but I'm pretty sure it describes Standard American, not 2/1.

[Antrax]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I was under the impression that 2/1 implies forcing 1NT but not the other way around. Is this wrong?

[aguahombre]

 Antrax, on 2012-March-06, 10:51, said:

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I was under the impression that 2/1 implies forcing 1NT but not the other way around. Is this wrong?

Used to be true. Now, neither implies the other.

[SimonFa]

If partner is a minimum and you have 6-9 points then ops have the balance of power and it is likely LHO is itching to bid. In this case 1NT has some preemptive value as well as keeping the bidding open if partner is stronger.

Furthermore, I have learned the hard way playing against weak NT that 1NT is notoriously difficult to defend against so now I don't worry too much about being left in it.

[gwnn]

 Antrax, on 2012-March-06, 10:51, said:

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I was under the impression that 2/1 implies forcing 1NT but not the other way around. Is this wrong?

I think more people play 2/1 without forcing 1NT than forcing 1NT without 2/1. There was a thread on this a few months ago but I've lost my ability to look for them.

[mycroft]

I would agree with you gwnn, but only because more people play 2/1 than any of the systems that are "not 2/1, but F1NT". Given that I play two of them (light-opener Precision and 60's K/S)...

But I bet fewer people play NF 1NT with 2/1GF (as opposed to "semi-forcing") than play F1NT without 2/1 GF.

[Vampyr]

 gwnn, on 2012-March-07, 07:45, said:

I think more people play 2/1 without forcing 1NT than forcing 1NT without 2/1.

I always think of Forcing (including semi-forcing) 1NT as the bastard stepchild of 2/1 GF. Generally speaking, I think that it would be foolish to take on the disadvantages of the former without the advantages of the latter.

[P_Marlowe]

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-07, 12:11, said:

I always think of Forcing (including semi-forcing) 1NT as the bastard stepchild of 2/1 GF. Generally speaking, I think that it would be foolish to take on the disadvantages of the former without the advantages of the latter.

Well ... playing forcing NT has its advantages, and it may well be,
that one wants to have the advantages of playing 2/1, without the
trouble to get a full blown 2/1 system up and running, espesially,
if you prefer to open light.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

 mycroft, on 2012-March-07, 12:04, said:

I would agree with you gwnn, but only because more people play 2/1 than any of the systems that are "not 2/1, but F1NT". Given that I play two of them (light-opener Precision and 60's K/S)...

But I bet fewer people play NF 1NT with 2/1GF (as opposed to "semi-forcing") than play F1NT without 2/1 GF.

Nf 1NT as in 6-9? that system DNE. I was talking about forcing (may not be passed) vs nf (may be passed). I also meant to exclude GF1NT.

[DaveRolyat]

I also often wonder about the power of responding 1NT, as opposed to bidding a 4 card suit.
The main advantage of 1NT for me is that it's a fairly tightly defined limit bid. An opener, plus a 1NT response, often gets you the balance of power in balanced positions.
Partner then immediately knows whether a game is on, or we're in part-score territory, of which 1NT is good, or we at least know which pair have the slight balance of point.
If I respond with a suit at the one level, it's unlimited and forcing.
Strictly speaking, I think 1NT denies a 4 card intermediate suit, but I've got into the habit of only bidding 5 card suits with 6-9 pts.