[mgoetze]

nigel_k, on 2012-March-23, 00:49, said:

Standards have slipped so badly that I have even heard some people now saying 'ice cream' instead of 'iced cream'.

No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque".

Anyway, I have gone from calling my 1NT semi-forcing to calling it non-forcing (without any corresponding change in bidding). Seems I get less complaints that way.

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-23, 06:16, said:

No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque".

Anyway, I have gone from calling my 1NT semi-forcing to calling it non-forcing (without any corresponding change in bidding). Seems I get less complaints that way.

I think what the opponents need to know is if the 1NT bid could have 10-11 points.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 07:28, said:

I think what the opponents need to know is if the 1NT bid could have 10-11 points.

A good way to do that would be to say that it's "non-forcing, but could be up to an 11-count".

[the hog]

'No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque". '

This is a poor analogy. check is acceptable, (even if you might not agree with it), as it is a revision instituted by Webster in the 1890's. Tautologies are the sign of a lazy or uneducated mind.

[nigel_k]

the hog, on 2012-March-23, 23:34, said:

'No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque". '

This is a poor analogy. check is acceptable, (even if you might not agree with it), as it is a revision instituted by Webster in the 1890's. Tautologies are the sign of a lazy or uneducated mind.

This is a poor analogy. Bridge doesn't have a dictionary, but it does have an Encyclopedia and I wouldn't be at all surprised if 'semi-forcing' is in there. However I wouldn't regard that decisive either way.

If you have a term that is possibly imperfect but most people understand what it means, and there is no alternative that is anywhere near as concise, then it's fine to use that term until a better one comes along.

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on 2012-March-25, 13:56, said:

If you have a term that is possibly imperfect but most people understand what it means, and there is no alternative that is anywhere near as concise, then it's fine to use that term can be used until a better one comes along.

But only if "most people" understand the same meaning. I can't see any merit in using a term which is both ugly and ambiguous.

Edit: The ACBL Encylopedia agrees with MickyB, Bluecalm and Poky, FWIW.