[jillybean]

Now that I'm completely comfortable playing a forcing 1nt response to 1M, is it time to try a non forcing 1nt response?

I've been considering it for a while, you probably wouldn't pass 1nt with this hand but it got me thinking about it again.

---

[smerriman]

I don't see why you'd want to pass. If partner is invitational, you miss a game. If partner is weak with a minor, I'd rather be in the minor, or in our 5-2 heart fit which they may give preference to.

[DavidKok]

4=5=x=x hands are the problem child of 2/1. Some people use Flannery, Kaplan Inversion or artificial rebids over 1M-1X to cover some of these (e.g. Gazzilli and Zirconia). The no-gadgets advice with a semiforcing 1NT is:

• With 14 or fewer points, pass 1NT.
  
• With 16 or more points, reverse into spades.
  
• With exactly 15 points, lie through your teeth and bid a minor suit.

Of course you may choose to up-/downgrade, but keep in mind that partner has denied support for both majors, so this is a misfit deal. On the example hand I would bid 2♣ in standard. If you play Gazzilli this hand is an even bigger headache. When you start to play 2/1 it is important to discuss what to do with exactly this hand (and the 'lie through your teeth' part was of course a joke, once you discuss this it will be systemic and alertable). There is no good solution, the methods are simply poor for this hand. A 4=5=2=2 15-count is even worse.

P.S.: did you mean semiforcing NT, or non forcing NT?

[mikeh]

Three problems, if 1N is non-forcing:

A) traditionally one shows a 3card limit raise via 1N then 3M. It’s easy to construct hands either opener reasonably passes 1N and 4M is missed or where 3M does better than 1N

B) traditionally one shows a balanced invitational hand by bidding 1N then bidding 2N

C) if one holds a poor hand with a decent long suit, the way to get to the (usually best) 3m contract opposite a normal opening bid, one bids 1N then the minor

A and B can be solved by using 2C as multi-purpose. A normal 2C gf response or a 3 card LR or a balanced notrump invitation.

This significantly affects your auctions that begin 1M 2C. A lot of good players use this. Personally, I haven’t tried it but my assessment, just thinking about it, is that, for me, the costs exceed the benefits.

But, if you don’t adopt some work around, simply playing 1N as non forcing doesn’t appear, to me, sound.

[DavidKok]

I would suggest taking option A out at your earliest convenience, which solves most issues right there and then.
I've played 2/1 GF with a weak NT for a while, and we agreed that on 1M-1NT we just bid a 3-card minor with a strong notrump hand. This was even more ambiguous than 'standard' 2/1 with a semiforcing 1NT (where the 2m rebid may be a 3-card suit only on 1♥-1NT; 2m with 4=5=x=y with a 15-count, and may be a 2-card suit in clubs on the dreaded 4=5=2=2) response but it was simple and effective. I think it is extremely sound. Artificiality can help in other ways (e.g. stay low on a misfitting 14-opposite-10), but the system works fine as long as you take those ^%$&-awful limit raises out. Those wreak havoc with opener's hand evaluation.

[helene_t]

Maybe 1NT should be forcing after a 1♠ opening (responder can have long hearts) but NF/SF after a 1♥ opening (you have the Flanery hands).

Playing 1NT as NF/SF you might want to lower you NT range a bid so that all balanced hands that would accept an invite open 1NT (or are strong enough to rebid 2NT).

[DavidKok]

The cure seems worse than the disease. I don't think there are particularly big issues with a SF 1NT either way. In my partnership we've adopted a different solution, but it's far from standard and somewhat more complicated.
I've never been a fan of a forcing 1NT, to the point that I sneakily suspect it's a way for system designers to get more hands in (and little else). I've picked up some great wins on auctions similar to (1♠)-P-(1NT*)-3♦; ? where responder had no good way to clarify their hand type. I'm sure there are good ways around this (for example by being careful which hands get to bid 1NT and which ones do not), but I'd be hesitant to include both very weak and GF hands in a single forcing bid. Including both fitting hands and misfitting ones makes it much more difficult to have a cooperative auction if the opponents interfere, and sometimes even when the opponents do not interfere. All of that just to find 2♥ rather than 1NT on a balanced minimum opposite 10 HCP with a 5-card suit.
As always you can take some of the pressure off by playing 1♠-3♥ as NF invitational, 6(+) hearts, no spade support. For a while I also played 1♥-2♠ in a similar way, for no other reason than that 1♥-1♠ auctions are a mess.

I'm curious which hand types give you an issue, how swapping the system around would improve this, and what the cost of those changes are. It's not particularly difficult to improve on basic 2/1 with a SF 1NT, but at the same time it's not necessary to reinvent the wheel.

[mw64ahw]

If you use Kaplan Inversion then 1♠ becomes the forcing bid and a 1NT rebid by opener can be played. A version I have used:
1♥ - 1NT 5+♠ 6-10
1♥ - 1♠ F1 6-10 or 5+♠ GI/GF
--1NT balanced or ♦
----Pass, or
----2♣ asks which?
----2♠ 5+♠ strong
--2♣ natural
--2♦ 4♠ or certain strong hands
--2♥ 6+♥
--2♠ strong ♣
2NT strong ♦

Over 1♠ I've recently looked at transfer responses in a GI context where opener with any weak balanced hand passes 1NT.
This seems to work well for my style and if you want to make the approach more complex you can include some non-GI 6-carders in the 2/1 responses.

[nullve]

Convention cards for the pairs playing 2/1-like systems in the 2022 Bermuda Bowl Final:

Brink-Drijver (for Switzerland)
Gawrys-Klukowski (for Switzerland)
Piedra-Zimmermann (for Switzerland)
vandenBos-vanLankveld (for the Netherlands)

As you can see

* B-D, G-K and vdB-vL played 1M-1N as NF, P-Z as "NAT";
* B-D and vdB-vL played 1M-2♣ as "GF relay", G-K as "F1, semi nat", P-Z as "GF NAT or BAL or FIT";
* B-D and vdB-vL played Gazzilli over 1M-1N.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2023-January-23, 01:54, said:

Now that I'm completely comfortable playing a forcing 1nt response to 1M, is it time to try a non forcing 1nt response?

I've been considering it for a while, you probably wouldn't pass 1nt with this hand but it got me thinking about it again.

---

According to the late Bernie Chazen, if you're play 5-card majors, you should pass the 1NT response _only_ if 5332. Regardless of how much strength a 2/1 would have shown.

[helene_t]

Change the king of clubs to a small diamond (or a small club) and I think that passing would be reasonable, and that is what I would do with GIB or with a human partner who is ok with that kind of deviations. Or if we agreed to play 1NT as semi-forcing of course.

This hand us much too strong to pass, though, even if 1NT is semiforcing.

Make the hearts a bit weaker and I might consider opening 1NT (and would certainly do it with GIB. In fact I would probably open 1NT with this hand if partner is GIB).

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2023-January-23, 08:43, said:

Make the hearts a bit weaker and I might consider opening 1NT (and would certainly do it with GIB. In fact I would probably open 1NT with this hand if partner is GIB).

There are indeed more ways than one to skin a cat. In one partnership we systematically open all 4=5= and most 5=4= as 1NT, having tweaked systems and agreements accordingly. This is another way to take pressure off the semi-forcing 1NT (among other benefits, plus some downsides of course).

[jillybean]

Heavens, there's always so much more to this than I realize, my questions only just scratch the surface.
We do play 1M 1nt 2♣ could be 3 and I think I'd do best to leave it alone.



Here's the complete hand, we need to fix our 1nt auctions rather than change them. The only thing that saved the day (MP) was the ops allowing me to take 8 tricks.

---

Nullve what does "relay" in B-D and vdB-vL played 1M-2♣ as "GF relay actually mean? 2♣ is GF, artificial and asking partner to describe their hand further? I'm not saying this is this case here but I do find bridge players use 'relay' rather flippantly when a more complete explanation seems appropriate, and of course less experienced players are too embarrassed to ask what "relay" means.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-January-23, 11:05, said:

Here's the complete hand, we need to fix our 1nt auctions rather than change them. The only thing that saved the day (MP) was the ops allowing me to take 8 tricks.

I think N should have left 2♦ alone as explained

Although if it's any consolation, this board is not a good spot for my extreme NT partnership either as we might well go for 500 here (2♥Nx-2 after an unlucky failure to elicit 2♦N).

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-23, 03:02, said:

P.S.: did you mean semiforcing NT, or non forcing NT?

I'm not sure that I understand the difference, it's either forcing or not isn't it?
Opener is going to bid again with a maximum or shapely hand.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2023-January-23, 11:05, said:

Heavens, there's always so much more to this than I realize, my questions only just scratches the surface.
We do play 1M 1nt 2♣ could be 3 and I think I'd do best to leave it alone.



Here's the complete hand, we need to fix our 1nt auctions rather than change them. The only thing that saved the day (MP) was the ops allowing me to take 8 tricks.

---

Nullve what does "relay" in B-D and vdB-vL played 1M-2♣ as "GF relay actually mean? 2♣ is GF, artificial and asking partner to describe their hand further? I'm not saying this is this case here but I do find bridge players use 'relay' rather flippantly when a more complete explanation seems appropriate, and of course less experienced players are too embarrassed to ask what "relay" means.

Doea anyone have a rationale for bidding over 2♦ ?

That it might be only 5 long is no reason at all.

[nullve]

jillybean, on 2023-January-23, 11:05, said:

Nullve what does "relay" in B-D and vdB-vL played 1M-2♣ as "GF relay actually mean? 2♣ is GF, artificial and asking partner to describe their hand further?

Yes, although I believe both pairs, as well as most top Italian pairs, play systems based on Garozzo's 2/1-like Ambra system where 2♣ can alternatively be described as "GF NAT or BAL or FIT", to borrow from P-Z.

[akwoo]

I don't think the 2S bid is wrong, though it is on the optimistic side. However, there is no question 3D should have been passed. (And so should 3H.)

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2023-January-23, 11:05, said:

Nullve what does "relay" in B-D and vdB-vL played 1M-2♣ as "GF relay actually mean? 2♣ is GF, artificial and asking partner to describe their hand further? I'm not saying this is this case here but I do find bridge players use 'relay' rather flippantly when a more complete explanation seems appropriate, and of course less experienced players are too embarrassed to ask what "relay" means.

nullve, on 2023-January-23, 12:21, said:

Yes, although I believe both pairs, as well as most top Italian pairs, play systems based on Garozzo's 2/1-like Ambra system where 2♣ can alternatively be described as "GF NAT or BAL or FIT", to borrow from P-Z.

I think you've highlighted a great point. I play 2♣ = NAT or BAL or FIT or TWO MORE TYPES but wouldn't call it relay. I think calling the bid relay or not is just a matter of style. I'd love to have more information on their style of NAT or BAL or FIT. One key difference is that usually in a relay sequence you'd have opener (well, the partner of the relay initiator) describe their hand, usually without the other hand giving up any information. Most NAT or BAL or FIT style 2♣ bids are based on both hands describing (balanced rebids NT, fit rebids the major suit, all other hands imply long clubs, for example).

jillybean, on 2023-January-23, 11:40, said:

I'm not sure that I understand the difference, it's either forcing or not isn't it?
Opener is going to bid again with a maximum or shapely hand.

https://www.larryco....nter/detail/627. A bid is either forcing or not, but "Semiforcing NT" is used as a tag to inform the opponents that you may have up to a somewhat shapely 11-count, while "not forcing" describes approximately the 6-9 range. Never mind what the phrases should logically mean, this is their accepted use.

I think North should have passed 2♦.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-23, 13:25, said:

I play 2♣ = NAT or BAL or FIT or TWO MORE TYPES but wouldn't call it relay. I think calling the bid relay or not is just a matter of style. I'd love to have more information on their style of NAT or BAL or FIT. One key difference is that usually in a relay sequence you'd have opener (well, the partner of the relay initiator) describe their hand, usually without the other hand giving up any information. Most NAT or BAL or FIT style 2♣ bids are based on both hands describing (balanced rebids NT, fit rebids the major suit, all other hands imply long clubs, for example).

I play 2♣ = NAT or BAL or FIT and would call it that. I think calling the bid relay is not just a matter of style. I'd love to have more information in general on their cards (and more attention to readability by B-D too).
Although in their defence, the WBF card second page format is decidedly sub-optimal in that it "uses" the entire width of the page to describe the developments of each opening ("uses" in quotes, because 4 of the 8 columns are marginally useful at best): one has much more room to describe agreements and to vertically list responses when two consecutive half-pages are used, as in the FIGB card.