[jdiana]

I don't want to hijack JB's thread (just below this one), so I'm spinning it off. Having a friendly difference of opinion with mike777 about our criteria for passing a semi-forcing 1NT vs opener rebidding a 3-card minor with a 5-3-3-2 hand. Upon further reflection, JB's hand is probably more accurately evaluated as a 14-point hand, so bidding 2♣ with that hand is fine.

But, in general, what do you do with a run-of-the-mill 12 or 13 HCP and 5-3-3-2 shape?

If you aggressively open 11-point hands, and the point of a semi-forcing 1NT is just to bail out when you've opened such a hand, then you might only pass in those cases (or perhaps also when 4=5=2=2 with a minimum hand). That's a reasonable approach.

If the point of a SF 1NT is so to avoid manufacturing a bid as you would need to do when playing a forcing 1NT, and your partner is going to assume that you will typically be showing a 4-card suit when you rebid a minor, then you might pass with those run-of-the-mill 12-13 HCP 5-3-3-2 hands.

EDIT: For me, this is in the context of a 5-card major, strong NT, 2/1 system.

What's your approach? (Hope the question makes sense.)

[mike777]

Ty so much for posting.
Your question is an excellent one.
It actually ties into the other thread, in a big way.

You didn't focus on it but
1H .1NT
2C...?
Is distinct from
1S.1Nt
2C...?

[bluenikki]

 jdiana, on 2024-December-06, 20:11, said:

I don't want to hijack JB's thread (just below this one), so I'm spinning it off. Having a friendly difference of opinion with mike777 about our criteria for passing a semi-forcing 1NT vs opener rebidding a 3-card minor with a 5-3-3-2 hand. Upon further reflection, JB's hand is probably more accurately evaluated as a 14-point hand, so bidding 2♣ with that hand is fine.

But, in general, what do you do with a run-of-the-mill 12 or 13 HCP and 5-3-3-2 shape?

If you aggressively open 11-point hands, and the point of a semi-forcing 1NT is just to bail out when you've opened such a hand, then you might only pass in those cases (or perhaps also when 4=5=2=2 with a minimum hand). That's a reasonable approach.

If the point of a SF 1NT is so to avoid manufacturing a bid as you would need to do when playing a forcing 1NT, and your partner is going to assume that you will typically be showing a 4-card suit when you rebid a minor, then you might pass with those run-of-the-mill 12-13 HCP 5-3-3-2 hands.

What's your approach? (Hope the question makes sense.)

My wife and I played that you passed 1NT precisely when you opened a 4-card suit and had < 15. (We opened all minimum 4441s with a major.)

[jillybean]

I look forward to the responses. I am so used to playing forcing nt, this will be a big shift.

[awm]

Likely people with more semi forcing notrump experience will chime in, but my understanding was always that opener bids if he would accept an invite (or with a biddable 4-card suit of course). Naturally this depends a bit on your ranges but I’d estimate “always bid with a queen more than your worst opening” is about right.

[DavidKok]

This will be a longer response.

I've played semi-forcing NT basically always, which technically means for 14 years so far. In the Netherlands there is an aversion to strong NT which I was taught growing up, though these days I'm more indifferent to it. I think it was because the previous generation of Dutch players grew up with a 6-9 1NT response, and semi-forcing is the closest analogue in a 2/1 GF world.

We will have to get into definitions somewhat, so let's do that first. When I am talking about a semi-forcing NT in a vanilla 2/1 system, I'm thinking of a response structure to partner's 1♠ opening (the 1♥ opening is similar) that looks a little something like this:

• 1NT: ???
  
• 2♣: GF, depending on partnership agreement may not require clubs (vanilla: [4(+)♣ or 3=4=4=2]).
  
• 2♦: GF, 5(+)♦ (some people play 4(+)).
  
• 2♥: GF, 5(+)♥.
  
• 2♠: Simple raise.
  
• 2NT: Jacoby 2NT(/some other raise gadget).
  
• 3♣: 9-11 6(+)♣ (or a Bergen raise or other raise gadget, optionally).
  
• 3♦: 9-11 6(+)♦ (or a Bergen raise or other raise gadget, optionally).
  
• 3♥: may as well also be 9-11, but not nearly as common.
  
• 3♠: Several options exist: mixed raise, preemptive raise, 4-card limit raise.

Of course the point ranges are all approximate, please use your own hand evaluation skills when deciding what to bid with any given hand. With this approach the 1NT needs to fill the system gap, containing multiple distinct hand types. In no particular order:

• 6-9 (semi)balanced no spade support.
  
• 6-8(9) unbalanced primary hearts.
  
• 6-8(9) unbalanced primary diamonds.
  
• 6-8(9) unbalanced primary clubs.
  
• 10-11 (semi)balanced no spade support.
  
• 10-11 two-suited without spades.
  
• 10-11 ('limit raise') with spade support (3+, or exactly 3, depending on partnership agreements).

Some people also like to get an extra raise, and put a garbage 3-card raise (approximately 4-7 or so, sometimes slightly weaker still) through 1NT, so that the direct raise is a little stronger.
This 1NT is called 'semi-forcing', as I was taught it, because of the 10-11 point hands in there. The name is an internal contradiction - either a bid is forcing or it is not - but it's naive to focus on that. It's just a convention name, and it helps us in discussing the properties of the auction. If 1NT was limited to approximately 9 HCP it would be 'not forcing'. If it is limited to approximately 11 it would be 'semi-forcing' if it can be passed, or 'forcing' if it may not be passed.
The reason I want to stress this is that we actually take all the raises out of the 1NT response by playing Maas rather than Jacoby 2NT. I've been told that elsewhere in the world the 1NT is sometimes called 'semi-forcing' if it contains the limit raise, and 'not forcing' if it does not, regardless of range. We'll get back to that below. In my opinion it's inevitable that something as poorly defined as a SFNT gets interpreted differently by different people, but as long as we are clear about the context we can still have a productive discussion.

After all this introduction, here's my own rule: pass 1NT with 5M332 12-14, and also with 11-15 4=5=(31) and 4=5=2=2 on 1♥-1NT. Bid otherwise. Let's discuss the advantages and disadvantages, and one alternative that I think is popular.

By never (or 'never') rebidding a 3-card suit we're keeping the 2m rebids clean. This allows partner to better judge the degree of fit, and also allows opener to more safely rebid 2m with a 6M4m type hand rather than 2M, since the minor suit is always real. This is reminiscent of the 6-9 1NT response structure - if we might stumble into a better fit, go ahead and bid it. If not, and if it's not game, pass. It also has consequences for responder's false preference habits. Most of my gains, though, come from better hand evaluation on the 1M-1NT; 2m start. I now know of two real suits, have a better idea of which points are working and which are not, and can also sensibly decide between e.g. 2NT and 3m as raises.

The second option that I think is quite popular is more closely related to the other classification of a semi-forcing notrump. I think the rule is closer to "if you would accept a limit raise, bid again. If you would not, you can still bid again if you think 3M plays better than 1NT, but instead it's often right to pass". The main argument for it is that with a WNT opposite a likely doubleton(!), 2M plays about as well (in fact, on average slightly worse) than 1NT. But by keeping the auction open we might find a 5-3 fit in a side suit, or even land in a 5-2 misfit in responder's long suit (which often plays better than opener's long suit by virtue of having the weaker hand, even if it scores worse for being a minor suit). Keeping the bidding open has multiple ways to win - you can find your 14-opposite-11 games, you may land in responder's long suit, and the downside is quite cheap (play 2M when 1NT would be better). However, I personally do not agree with these arguments. In no particular order:

• If you have a 5M332 14-count 'that would accept an invite', I think it is almost tautologically right to upgrade into 15-17 NT. In fact, I prefer playing a 14-16 NT opening which preempts this entire problem. I believe 1M-1NT; ? problem auctions to be a big contributing factor to the tendency of many strong players to disclose 'good 14-bad 17' or a similar range.
  
• While missing a 25 HCP game is awkward, in practice you can't really diagnose whether partner has 10 or partner has 11 in time. What's more, if responder doesn't have the limit raise we've already discovered that it's a misfit in the major with 14 balanced opposite at-most-11. Plus, in my structure the maximum hands with 6(+) cards in the minor are (almost) all taken out of the 1NT response. All this to say: those 24-25 HCP games tend to not make. They're worse than your average 25 HCP game by a bunch, having diagnosed the major suit misfit. While sometimes they will make, on average I am happy missing these if responder has the right maximum in exchange for gaining more definition the rest of the time.
  
• Personally I like not having any raises in the semi-forcing NT, as this is a great aid for opener to evaluate the hand (especially on competitive auctions). This removes one of the primary decision criteria from the rebid considerations, 'can we make game opposite the limit raise?'. But see my first point here as well.

A few closing remarks on the forcing NT and different styles of semi-forcing NT. As mentioned previously, when I was first taught 2/1 people went out of their way to tell me how awful the F1NT was, and how of course you had to play semi-forcing. My experience is that, by frequency, you don't have a WNT on a 1M-1NT auction all that often (also because the opponents tend to bid if opener is weak and responder is limited. Especially if we have some not-yet-diagnosed fit). And when we do have this auction, 1NT is only slightly better than 2M statistically. So in practice it doesn't matter too much which one you adopt. I find it very nice to know that opener's rebid is a real suit, allowing me to exercise my hand evaluation and do the right thing. But I think by frequency it wouldn't be much worse if I used the same evaluation anyway, even if a 2m rebid could be a 3-card suit (or, on rare occasions, a doubleton), and just taking the hit when opener rebid their balanced hand again. I do feel strongly about keeping the raises out of 1NT, and I've struggled quite a bit on competitive auctions when 1NT included the limit raise in particular.

[awm]

People typically have a three point “weak notrump” range in their 1M opening. While in principle you could restrict it to 12-13 and open 1nt with 14-16, I find that in practice most people who play 14-16 notrump open most balanced 11s.

Assuming such a three point range, there will certainly be hands that make game opposite a maximum and not a minimum. You can argue over exactly how much you need for game (and it may depend on form of scoring) but this sort of “invitational” hand will exist. You can of course decide to just “guess” and accept that you miss some good games and/or bid some bad ones, but the typical SF notrump philosophy calls for opener bidding on with an accept.

I do think if opener never rebids a 3-card minor and 1nt contains no hands with fit, you are really playing “non-forcing notrump” regardless of your point ranges. There is nothing wrong with non-forcing notrump in principle (except the guessing with invitational hands if 2/1 is game forcing of course) but the thread was about semi-forcing.

[DavidKok]

Thank you, I couldn't disagree more. If you scroll up, there's a few words on that approach.

[awm]

Well you seem to be recommending a method where you are game forced on 12 opposite 12 but will play in a partial with 13 opposite 11 (or even 15 opposite 11 if opener has 45xx). And this is assuming you never open on 11 points (which most people do on 5-4 hands and many 14-16 notrumpers do on 5332).

Now it could be that you pick up enough elsewhere for this to work out, but your game vs partial choices here seem pretty random to me.

[mw64ahw]

I find it easier not to play 2/1 GF then Pass 1♠-1N with any weak balanced hand. I don't bid 1N with 3-card support and can take out some of the weaker long suiters. Some 14s can be upgraded.

It's not an issue over 1♥ playing KI5.

[mike777]

Not complicated when to pass.
You just pass with drek 11s, or whatever your drek opener is in your style, simple.

Otherwise no difference..you always rebid.

Why avoid manufacturing bids?
All bids are manufactured...
😊

[jdiana]

 mike777, on 2024-December-06, 20:22, said:

Ty so much for posting.
Your question is an excellent one.
It actually ties into the other thread, in a big way.

You didn't focus on it but
1H .1NT
2C...?
Is distinct from
1S.1Nt
2C...?

Can you elaborate? I don't treat them any differently.

[jdiana]

I played basically what David describes. (Past tense because I'm not currently playing.) See also https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/374

Our range for the 1NT bid was about 5-12 points - we required 13 dummy points for a 2/1 response.

We played 1M-2M as constructive, showing 8-10 dummy points.

We played 1M-1NT-2x-3M as a 3-card limit raise. 1M-1NT-2x-2M could be a weak hand (about 6-10 points) with 2-card support or a weaker hand (about 5-7 points) with 3-card support.

David Loeb also recommends a 14-16 or 17 HCP range for an opening 1NT to handle the problem hand of 14 HCP 5-3-3-2. https://www.loebbrid...WZvcmNpbmciXQ==

Our NT range was 14+ to 18-. (Some people said this was too wide a range, we should upgrade 14s but not downgrade 18s, etc. That's a separate topic.) So we would put some of those hands in our 1NT opening, depending on the overall hand.

[mike777]

 jdiana, on 2024-December-07, 06:58, said:

Can you elaborate? I don't treat them any differently.

Over
1S.. 1NT
2C..
Comes up often so I play BART convention.
Mainly for when responder has 5 hearts but handles so many possibly difficult hands folded into 1NT.
So 2D over 2C starts BART,
Bidding something other than 2D more specific now...I find it helpful.

[jdiana]

 mike777, on 2024-December-07, 07:11, said:

Over
1S.. 1NT
2C..
Comes up often so I play BART convention.
Mainly for when responder has 5 hearts but handles so many possibly difficult hands folded into 1NT.
So 2D over 2C starts BART,
Bidding something other than 2D more specific now...I find it helpful.

Oh, I see. Yes there are a bunch of gadgets (Gazzilli, Bart, Lisa) that I've never even tried to learn - too complicated for me.

[jdiana]

 mike777, on 2024-December-07, 06:05, said:

Not complicated when to pass.
You just pass with drek 11s, or whatever your drek opener is in your style, simple.

Otherwise no difference..you always rebid.

Why avoid manufacturing bids?
All bids are manufactured...
😊

To quote David Kok: "I find it very nice to know that opener's rebid is a real suit, allowing me to exercise my hand evaluation and do the right thing."

I think you're underestimating the usefulness of showing partner two real suits. When he knows you have 9 cards in two suits, it makes it easier for him to evaluate his hand for fitting vs wasted honors, etc.

[mike777]

You do show real suits, what makes you believe you wouldn't?
Also please remember the opponents bid often

It may be helpful to post the specific hand and auction you
are concerned with?

[jdiana]

Bidding a 3-card minor shows a real suit?

[DavidKok]

In the style we're discussing, a 2m rebid promises a four card suit and denies a balanced hand. That makes it 'real'. This is particularly important if responder has, say, a 1=3=5=4 8-count on 1♠-1NT; 2♣.
In the style you are suggesting, a 2m rebid is a three card suit with some frequency. What's more, it is probable that with 3- or even 4-card support, we still belong in a different strain.

[pescetom]

I play almost exactly the same rule that Davidkok plays and for the same reasons (both in terms of learning background and current system choices). I don't go so far as pushing the bar up to 15 with 4=5, I would rebid a short minor (even Hx) with a 14 that might have play.