[FrancesHinden]

I bid 1NT semi-forcing. If partner passes it, it is very unlikely that we were making 3S. I've been playing this for 20 years now, and I don't think I've ever had a bad result for playing in 1NT instead of 3S. That's not to say that 1NT is the best contract, the best contract is usually 2S, but that isn't available if I evaluate my hand as a limit raise.

(I've had bad results for playing in 1NT, but they have been opposite a weak hand with a long minor.)

The method where 2C is nat FG or a 3-card limit raise is quite playable and solves this problem at the expense of making the FG hands harder to bid. We prefer not to use this because we like our relay methods over 2C, which need it to be game forcing. 3-card limit raise opposite a hand that will pass 1NT and the opponents won't bid is a very narrow target.

[mike777]

I was a bit surprised that so many very good players were eager to force to 3s given what many open 1s with.

[inquiry]

 mike777, on 2014-July-03, 18:04, said:

I was a bit surprised that so many very good players were eager to force to 3s given what many open 1s with.

I can't speak for the good players, but my view is that if we don't have a good play for 3♠, what can they make?

[the hog]

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. Some interesting ideas have been aired.

Nuno, maybe I am weird, but these thoughts come to me at night if I cannot sleep. I played a big C 4 card M in my last serious partnership before I left Oz. However I am playing a little on line now and so wanted to know how people deal with these issues.

[dboxley]

I have never played semi-forcing NT but my understanding is that opener can either treat it as forcing or pass if he/she "feels like it" (I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong). If that is the case then it seems to me that you have to have another bid for this type of hand, it would be ludicrous to play this in 1NT. Also, I would like for someone to show me statistics to the effect that most people play semi-forcing NT.

[the hog]

 dboxley, on 2014-July-04, 00:10, said:

I have never played semi-forcing NT but my understanding is that opener can either treat it as forcing or pass if he/she "feels like it" (I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong). If that is the case then it seems to me that you have to have another bid for this type of hand, it would be ludicrous to play this in 1NT. Also, I would like for someone to show me statistics to the effect that most people play semi-forcing NT.

Well it is not ïf you feel like it", but rather if you have a min balanced hand.
By "this", I assume you mean my posted hand? Well if you read this thread you will see that many would play this in 1NT if they held a 11-13 bal opener.
As far as those playing a semi forcing nt, I suggest you look at the system cards of 2/1 players in World Championships.

[helene_t]

If only a minimum balanced hand passes, why call it semi-forcing then? That's how a non-forcing 1NT works.

I would think that you pass when you have 12 points, or when you have a doubleton in clubs, or when your texture is suitable for being dummy in a notrump contract.

If you pass with QJxxx-KJx-xx-AQx then I think you are playing nonforcing, not semiforcing.

[MickyB]

 helene_t, on 2014-July-04, 02:00, said:

If only a minimum balanced hand passes, why call it semi-forcing then? That's how a non-forcing 1NT works.

We had this discussion a little while back. Your nomenclature makes more sense but most use "semi-forcing" to mean "wide-ranging, non-forcing" regardless of what opener is expected to do. Normally, 14-16 NT pairs pass all weak NTs, 15-17 NT pairs bid again with maxima.

[gwnn]

The way I like to think about this is:

NF: responder is less than invitational, opener bids like aunt Millie (passing with 5332, bidding with 54 or very strong hands)
F: responder can be invitational, opener always bids (with a 5332 too)

SF: responder can be invitational, opener bids like aunt Millie

So it's halfway between the two approaches.

[rhm]

 Trinidad, on 2014-July-03, 06:06, said:

Yeah, but which game? You have very little room to find that out after 1♠-Pass-3♠-Pass; ??

When responder has a 3 card LR, there are often various alternative games, e.g.:
With a balanced hand, 3NT could play better.
With 4 card hearts, 4♥ might play better in a 4-4 fit.

This means that with a 3 card LR, you should keep your options open. These alternatives are easy to find when you bid your 3 card LRs through a (semi-)forcing 1NT, instead of jumping to 3♠, e.g. 1♠-1NT; 2♣-3♠; 3NT-Pass or 1♠-1NT; 2♥-4♥.

You misunderstood.
I will bid 1NT semi-forcing with 3 card support if I consider the hand suitable for playing notrumps.
One reason to lean towards a 1NT response might be the possibility of a better heart fit. Judgement not system restrictions rules!
I also do not play 3NT artificial after a limit raise.
In fact I play 3NT almost always as a suggestion to play.
For me giving up 3NT as a possible contract even after a major suit fit is just misguided, particularly at matchpoints.

Quote

Another reason to distinguish 3 card LRs from 4 card LRs is what opener should do with a minimum, distributional hand. Opposite a 4 card LR, any minimum with a singleton should accept. That is not the case opposite a 3 card LR.

So, it pays to separate 3 card LRs from 4 card LRs and it pays to keep the bidding low on 3 card LRs to search for alternative contracts.

Rik

I consider this a a myth. The fourth trump is worth about 2 HCP. This means the combined hands must be about 2 HCP stronger to deliver the same chances for game than if dummy held 4 card support.
I have run many simulations on this and could not confirm that the fourth trumps is more valuable when opener held a singleton, 5-5 or any other distributional but not freak hand.

So if your limit raises are about 2 HCP stronger when holding 3 card support you are just doing fine and I can not confirm opener has a headache.
You can of course subscribe to the philosophy always to bid game with distributional minimum hands in the hope that you do not have duplication in your short side suit and partner will have his values in your long side suit.
You will have good chances making game if that is true and if not game tends to be hopeless.
The trick taking capability of distributional hands have a higher variation than balanced ones.
However, it has little to do with the fourth trump. This is simply superstition.

The success of always bidding game with distributional hands depends in part how much lighter you are prepared to open when distributional.
I am a conservative opener when balanced and aggressive when unbalanced. So I do not completely subscribe to the above philosophy. But you might not have opened the hands in the first place I might pass a limit raise on.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-03, 13:25, said:

I bid 1NT semi-forcing. If partner passes it, it is very unlikely that we were making 3S. I've been playing this for 20 years now, and I don't think I've ever had a bad result for playing in 1NT instead of 3S. That's not to say that 1NT is the best contract, the best contract is usually 2S, but that isn't available if I evaluate my hand as a limit raise.

(I've had bad results for playing in 1NT, but they have been opposite a weak hand with a long minor.)

The method where 2C is nat FG or a 3-card limit raise is quite playable and solves this problem at the expense of making the FG hands harder to bid. We prefer not to use this because we like our relay methods over 2C, which need it to be game forcing. 3-card limit raise opposite a hand that will pass 1NT and the opponents won't bid is a very narrow target.

So you claim you never had a bad result in 20 years bidding 1NT semi-forcing with a distributional 3 card raise?
Either you suffer from amnesia or you pass 1NT that rarely that you would be better off playing 1NT forcing!
If a bid is almost never passed it is better played as forcing.

I can attest to numerous results where chances of going down in 1NT are higher than going down in game in the major, not to speak of the hands where both 1NT and game in a major have good chances and opener would pass 1NT.
Granted on many of these hands opener might also pass a limit raise, but a 1NT contract is usually horrible when responder has a distributional 3 card limit raise.
The claim that your chances are better in 1NT than 3M if opener passes simply does not hold water if responder is unbalanced.
This assumes opener will pass a 1NT response with 12-13 and 5332.
These hands are not so rare!
Examples on request!

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

There is another solution, aside from F1NT/SF1NT and throwing the 3 card LR in 2♣, namely in using 1NT as invite or better. Now your sequence of 1NT followed by 2♠ becomes the 3 card limit raise and GF hands without 4 card support relay. Obviously this is far removed from 2/1 and not for everyone though.

[gwnn]

edited out sorry

[jdeegan]

Like the other posters said: bid 1NT. You might want to state the conditions of contest (MP's or IMP's, et.al.), the vulnerability, and who was the dealer. Also, it sort of depends on what kind of hand partner would hold to pass 1NT (ie. how light do you open). Your only real concern is missing a makeable vul game in spades at IMP's with a two suit fit in the pointed suits and the right 24++ HCP combined. Personally, I would feel better gambling by taking the low road with 1NT unless I were clearly behind in a match and needed to shoot. In that case, 3♠.

Let's face it. No bidding system is good enough such that the occasional slight overbid or underbid is not called for. In this case the underbid seems clear unless times are desperate.

[Giangibar]

My personal opinion is that the whole evaluation depends on many conditions: vulnerability, type of game (teams or pairs?), partnership style etc.

If I were to apply my system to the hand in analysis, I would bid 2NT.
My raises to Majors are as follows:
- 2S standard weak 3-card support, about 5-8/9;
- 2NT limit raise with 3+ card support, where opener can bid: 3C to establish a game force and relay to partner's shape (3D = 3-card raise, 4 Diamonds; 3H = 3-card raise, 4 Clubs; 3S = 4-card raise), bid 3D and invite to game (based on sharp values and top honors, mostly), bid 3H naturally to find the best fit.
- 3C with 6+ Hearts and 0-1 Spades, game invitational;
- 3D with 4-card support and 6-9 points;
- 3H with 4-card support, 10+ points and one singleton (this one is GF and opener relays for learning the location of the singleton);
- 3S as a preempt with 4-card support.
These are the raised employed by Lauria-Versace, btw.

Of course, in a casual partnership I can't afford to use these methods and have to stick with what I've got. If that were the case, I would stretch a horrible 2D game forcing at teams and bid 1NT (semi)forcing at pairs... It also depends on the presence of intermediates (with many 10's and 9's I would sure upgrade). I strongly miss the presence of an immediate supporting bid, though, because as a general rule I believe in supporting with support.

[Hanoi5]

1NT is forcing for me, over a minimum response I jump in spades to show the limit support with just three cards. If I played that semi-forcing, there should be another way to show such hand.

[aguahombre]

 Hanoi5, on 2014-July-04, 09:01, said:

1NT is forcing for me, over a minimum response I jump in spades to show the limit support with just three cards. If I played that semi-forcing, there should be another way to show such hand.

Yes. The much maligned FNT opens up a lot of hand patterns and strengths; we are willing to sacrifice the occasional hand where exactly 1NT plays better than the frequent 5-2 M or whatever to avail ourselves of balanced l.r's, balanced choice of games, mixed 5-card raises, 2 ranges for a long minor, etc., etc., while keeping all 2/1 truly g.f.

[gnasher]

 gwnn, on 2014-July-04, 02:56, said:

The way I like to think about this is:

NF: responder is less than invitational, opener bids like aunt Millie (passing with 5332, bidding with 54 or very strong hands)
F: responder can be invitational, opener always bids (with a 5332 too)

SF: responder can be invitational, opener bids like aunt Millie

So it's halfway between the two approaches.

What do you call the method where responder can be invitational, opener bids with a maximum weak notrump, and opener passes with a minimum weak notrump? That is, opener is half-way between the two approaches. It seems to me that if "semi-forcing" is to mean anything, it should mean that.

[gwnn]

 gnasher, on 2014-July-04, 12:01, said:

What do you call the method where responder can be invitational, opener bids with a maximum weak notrump, and opener passes with a minimum weak notrump? That is, opener is half-way between the two approaches. It seems to me that if "semi-forcing" is to mean anything, it should mean that.

I think that should be quarter-forcing. Alternatively, I don't mind both being named the same. After all, we are discussing about what responder's 1NT bid should be named.

[johnu]

 mike777, on 2014-July-03, 18:04, said:

I was a bit surprised that so many very good players were eager to force to 3s given what many open 1s with.

How are you planning to show this good a hand without getting to 3♠ at some point in the auction? Maybe if you played a Roth-Stone super strong single raise, but who plays that these days?