[tgphelps]

I'm learning 2/1 GF, with a forcing NT.

Suppose I'm 4-5-2-2 with, say, 14 points. I bid 1H and get a forcing 1NT response. What the heck am I supposed to do here? Responder can't have 4 spades, and I can't rebid hearts with only 5 (according to what I read). I know about rebidding a 3-card minor, but I don't have one of those.

Must I lie about my hearts and bid 2H? I don't think I want to pass the forcing bid, because partner might have 3 hearts and an invitation hand, right?

Help!

[jdiana]

This is a problem hand but I think you just have to bid 2♣.

[DavidKok]

This is an example hand for not playing these methods. The 'standard' rebid in context is 2♣. Some people play Flannery to address this issue, and/or play a semiforcing 1NT, and/or take the invitational fit hands out of 1NT.
That being said this issue is rare, so you likely won't lose much to this particular problem in the long run (though you may find that this structure has other losing sequences as well). Personally I prefer the semiforcing 1NT in part for this reason.

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2024-March-24, 10:16, said:

This is an example hand for not playing these methods. The 'standard' rebid in context is 2♣. Some people play Flannery to address this issue, and/or play a semiforcing 1NT, and/or take the invitational fit hands out of 1NT.
That being said this issue is rare, so you likely won't lose much to this particular problem in the long run (though you may find that this structure has other losing sequences as well). Personally I prefer the semiforcing 1NT in part for this reason.

Playing a SF 1NT, would you pass this hand even with 14 HCP? I would pass that hand shape with 11-13 HCP for sure, but passing with 14 is a little harder for me. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

[DavidKok]

I would, for a number of reasons. In fact, I'd pass with almost all 15-count 4=5=x=y's. In no particular order:

• In my system 1♥-2NT contains the invitational 3(+)-card raise (and 1♥-2♥ is approximately 6-9). As a consequence 1♥-1NT 100% denies four spades or three hearts. The hand is a misfit, our length has become less valuable, it is time to stop bidding. 2♥ in the 5-2 fit may be better if partner has a doubleton but then again it may be worse.
  
• I don't have a systemic bid for this hand, so any bid I would (hypothetically) choose to make would be a misdescription. I play Gazzilli but this mostly confuses matters - in a standard approach the semiforcing NT in this style permits the 2m rebids to show four (always), 2♥ to show six, and higher bids to show reverse values or stronger. We don't have any of those, so there is a significant risk of getting to a wrong contract anyway if we don't pass now.
  
• 14-15 4♠5♥ facing 10-11 3(-)♠2(-)♥ is one of the systemic weaknesses of this approach (though, as this thread shows, it's no walk in the park for other 2/1 systems either, and even non-2/1 systems have a rough time on these hands somewhat regularly). We claim to gain more through shape-showing and mostly natural bidding all the times we don't have this exact combination of shapes and ranges than we lose on this combo, and changing the system to cater to this weakness likely hurts more than it helps in the long run.

That being said, I think the considerations for systems that don't have my specific approach are still surprisingly similar. If you are systemically allowed to pass 1NT but choose not to with this 4=5=2=2 you are betting on partner having a hand type where some number of hearts plays better - this is probably the only strain where you're happier than NT. So you gain when partner has a hand suitable for hearts (in context) and you can find that without getting too high, while you lose when partner has any other hand in addition to losing every time you have a different hand and a natural auction but systemically partner can't trust your 2m rebid. My personal system is somewhat protected from the losses of passing, but even without that protection I think pass is a winner on balance.

All this to say, I really don't get why the American F1NT is somewhat popular. Over here in the Netherlands people won't touch it with a ten foot pole, and when I explained our 1NT as 'semiforcing' that already invited some comments on the weakness of not passing 1NT.

[jillybean]

How I play it, an uncomfortable (could be short) 2♣

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2024-March-24, 10:50, said:

I would, for a number of reasons. . . .

Thanks David! Thorough and well reasoned, as always.

[mw64ahw]

You can play Kaplan Inversion which solves this issue so:
1♥ - 1♠ forcing weak 0-4♠ or 5+♠ GI/GF
1N BD or 4+♦, 2♣ asks?
2♣ 4+♣
2♦ 4+♠ or some strong hands
2♥ 6+♥

1♥-1N is now weak 5+♠

[DavidKok]

KI helps with this issue but introduces new ones. In addition to that it is not legal at the Basic+ level under ACBL rules if I'm not mistaken, which might be relevant.

I've been interested in more artificial structures over a natural 1♥ opening for a while, in no small part because the standard 1♥-1♠ start is frequently messy. Of all the options I am not convinced that KI is the way to go. But 'standard' semiforcing 1NT really has very few weaknesses, so percentage wise it is a very nice natural system.

[helene_t]

If you play forcing 1NT and strong NT, bidding 2♣ with this hand is not really a problem. Partner will cater to a minimum balanced hand with 3-card clubs anyway, and will rarely pass or raise with 4-card support. They would rather bid a 5-card red or doubleton spades, so it is primarily 1-4-4-4 that causes problems. And even then, with a good raise of clubs they will bid 2♠ (the impossible spade convention) and then you can accept the invite with 3nt. Or bid 2nt if your hand were a bid weaker.

If you play weak NT it is more difficult as partner will raise with 4-card support more often, so you may be tempted to either
- open 1NT with this hand (but it doesn't solve the 45(31) hands)
- pass the 1NT response (preferably not without discussion! it may also annoy opps if you alert 1NT, explain it as forcing, and then pass)
- play Flanery

But maybe each of those three solutions are cures that are worse than the disease

[DavidKok]

The problem with that approach isn't so much responder's rebids this time, but the fact that partner can't support you even with four-card support every time you do have four (which will be the large majority of the time).
Also keep in mind the auction is 1♥-1NT, so a number of hands for responder have been eliminated and opener's long suit is hearts, not spades.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-March-24, 10:50, said:

I would, for a number of reasons. In fact, I'd pass with almost all 15-count 4=5=x=y's. In no particular order:

• In my system 1♥-2NT contains the invitational 3(+)-card raise (and 1♥-2♥ is approximately 6-9). As a consequence 1♥-1NT 100% denies four spades or three hearts. The hand is a misfit, our length has become less valuable, it is time to stop bidding. 2♥ in the 5-2 fit may be better if partner has a doubleton but then again it may be worse.
  
• I don't have a systemic bid for this hand, so any bid I would (hypothetically) choose to make would be a misdescription. I play Gazzilli but this mostly confuses matters - in a standard approach the semiforcing NT in this style permits the 2m rebids to show four (always), 2♥ to show six, and higher bids to show reverse values or stronger. We don't have any of those, so there is a significant risk of getting to a wrong contract anyway if we don't pass now.
  
• 14-15 4♠5♥ facing 10-11 3(-)♠2(-)♥ is one of the systemic weaknesses of this approach (though, as this thread shows, it's no walk in the park for other 2/1 systems either, and even non-2/1 systems have a rough time on these hands somewhat regularly). We claim to gain more through shape-showing and mostly natural bidding all the times we don't have this exact combination of shapes and ranges than we lose on this combo, and changing the system to cater to this weakness likely hurts more than it helps in the long run.

That being said, I think the considerations for systems that don't have my specific approach are still surprisingly similar. If you are systemically allowed to pass 1NT but choose not to with this 4=5=2=2 you are betting on partner having a hand type where some number of hearts plays better - this is probably the only strain where you're happier than NT. So you gain when partner has a hand suitable for hearts (in context) and you can find that without getting too high, while you lose when partner has any other hand in addition to losing every time you have a different hand and a natural auction but systemically partner can't trust your 2m rebid. My personal system is somewhat protected from the losses of passing, but even without that protection I think pass is a winner on balance.

All this to say, I really don't get why the American F1NT is somewhat popular. Over here in the Netherlands people won't touch it with a ten foot pole, and when I explained our 1NT as 'semiforcing' that already invited some comments on the weakness of not passing 1NT.

I understand, and find valid, much of your post but I think you underestimate…indeed ignore…some of the very real benefits from the forcing 1N response to 1M.

While I’ve never seen this, there are arguments for a different method over 1H than 1S. Let me deal with 1S 1N firstly.

Playing 2/1 gf, responder can have a long suit and a hand that ranges from very weak to almost gf. He can have any suit other than spades, but of course could be some 4432 or 4441 with short spades.

When he has the 4432/4441 hands, you rate to want to play 1N when opener is 5332 moderate values, but otherwise you rate to be much better off in responder’s long suit.

Say one has x KQxxxx Jxxx xx. Opener, with AQJxx Jxx Axx xx opens 1S and happily passes partner’s nf or semi forcing 1N. ‘I have a modest 5332, partner doesn’t fit spades and has less than a gf…surely 1N is the ideal spot’

Not quite.

Over to 1H…now, when responder bids 1N, at least we’re not missing a major suit contract. So…here’s a hand from recent play

Responder holds xx x KQJxxx xxxx.

Opener Jxx AKxxx xx Axx

1H 1N

Playing semi forcing, pass looks clearly right, at least according to your presentation. Good luck in 1N. On a good day, down 3.

Now,I don’t get to play 2D because I use bart after 1H 1N 2C, but I’d far rather be in 3D than in 1N….on the hand, I got a club lead so was able to make 3D.

I’m not claiming that semi forcing 1N is horrible. I’m merely pointing out that it’s not exactly a panacea.

As for Gazilli…I’m intrigued by it but I really like the versions of bart that I play and they arise only after 1M 1N 2C, so the more 2C rebids we get, the better.

Gazilli is great for letting opener economically show strength, but bart is great for allowing responder to differentiate his hand and shape. N some hands, I’ve wished I were playing Gazilli but on a host of others I’m really glad I’m not.

Just going back to the earlier part of my post, those benighted souls who play weak jumpshift responses can avoid playing 1N with zero tricks, but of course to do that they have to give up other uses to which most good players put the jumpshift.

[smerriman]

To the OP: for the N/B forum, you can stop reading after the first two responses (and Helene's) The rest is interesting but not at all related to the system you're learning.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-March-24, 15:42, said:

To the OP: for the N/B forum, you can stop reading after the first two responses (and Helene's) The rest is interesting but not at all related to the system you're learning.

I politely disagree, while recognising that we should keep the discussion as simple as possible.

But if some reasonably authoritative people are arguing that the system a novice is learning is poor to start with, they should at least take note and keep an open mind as they proceed with the system.

I for one was grateful to this forum for suggesting that some of what I was being taught was not very good.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2024-March-24, 12:15, said:

KI helps with this issue but introduces new ones. In addition to that it is not legal at the Basic+ level under ACBL rules if I'm not mistaken, which might be relevant.

I've been interested in more artificial structures over a natural 1♥ opening for a while, in no small part because the standard 1♥-1♠ start is frequently messy. Of all the options I am not convinced that KI is the way to go. But 'standard' semiforcing 1NT really has very few weaknesses, so percentage wise it is a very nice natural system.

What are the new issues you refer to - I can't think of any major ones specific to KI?

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2024-March-24, 17:10, said:

I politely disagree, while recognising that we should keep the discussion as simple as possible.

But if some reasonably authoritative people are arguing that the system a novice is learning is poor to start with, they should at least take note and keep an open mind as they proceed with the system.

I for one was grateful to this forum for suggesting that some of what I was being taught was not very good.

I guess it depends on the player in question. There are no doubt some learners who would benefit from this knowledge. There are also no doubt a greater number of learners who, when told the very standard system that all of their peers play is bad, and they should instead start responding 1♠ with a weak hand with 0 spades, or pass 1nt which is OK because you also play 2nt as a completely different artificial bid to the one you learnt.. would give up on learning altogether.

None of this is a problem if there is a very clear separation between the basic answer to the question and far more complex alternatives, which the thread was starting to not do.

[blackshoe]

jdiana, on 2024-March-24, 10:28, said:

Playing a SF 1NT, would you pass this hand even with 14 HCP? I would pass that hand shape with 11-13 HCP for sure, but passing with 14 is a little harder for me. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

This is why people play a 1NT opening as 14-16.

Note that you'd only pass 1NT SF with a balanced or semi-balanced hand. With an unbalanced hand you'll either have six cards in your major or a three card minor (the minor will often be four).

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-April-10, 22:05, said:

Note that you'd only pass 1NT SF with a balanced or semi-balanced hand. With an unbalanced hand you'll either have six cards in your major or a three card minor (the minor will often be four).

I would only pass 1NT SF with a minimum 5M332 (which is today called balanced, although technically it is semi-balanced) or a poor 4=5=2=2. I can't imagine passing with other semi-balanced hands.

[blackshoe]

Um. As I learned them, the definitions are:

Balanced: No void, no singleton, no more than one doubleton. (So 5332 is balanced, as are 4432 and 4333).
Semi-balanced: No void, no singleton, at least two doubletons. (So 5422 is semi-balanced, as are 6322 and 7222).
Unbalanced: At least one void or singleton. (So 5431 is unbalanced).

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-April-13, 19:09, said:

Um. As I learned them, the definitions are:

Balanced: No void, no singleton, no more than one doubleton. (So 5332 is balanced, as are 4432 and 4333).
Semi-balanced: No void, no singleton, at least two doubletons. (So 5422 is semi-balanced, as are 6322 and 7222).
Unbalanced: At least one void or singleton. (So 5431 is unbalanced).

That's the way they teach them these days. But I was taught that only 4333 and 4432 are Balanced and that 5332 is Semi-balanced (as it can be treated as either single suited or balanced, just like 6322 or 7222).
From a technical and logical point of view I think that made more sense.
But the modern version is coherent with opening all 5332 in range as NT, which is rapidly becoming normal.