[Antrax]

I'm sure this has been discussed to death. My partner and I currently play 1NT 100% forcing by an unpassed hand, and I'm starting to think semiforcing is better, because we play matchpoints and sometimes you want to play 1NT.
It seems semi is strictly better except when responder has a three-card limit raise - currently those go through 1NT, and it seems playing SF this could lead to silly results.
a) Are there any other reasons to prefer one or the other?
b) Playing 1NT SF, what do you do with the three card limit raise?

[straube]

Can you afford 2N, 3C, or 3D for your 3-cd limit raise? You could also respond 1N with a very balanced 3-cd limit raise...one that prefers a 1N contract to a 3S contract.

[Antrax]

Currently Jacoby and Bergen respectively, but we're open to suggestions.

[straube]

Well, a simple fix is to use 3C for a 4-cd limit raise or for a distributional 3-cd limit raise (has shortness for example) and retain your 3D for a mixed (constructive) 4-cd limit raise. With a balanced 3-cd limit raise, just respond 1N and be willing to play there. After all, partner will only pass when he's minimum and balanced, too.

Obviously this approach isn't perfect; it's nice to know partner has four trump for example. OTOH, it's very nice to know immediately that partner has a limit raise/fit for you before the opponents get in the mix. Say you have x Axx Axxx Qxxxx. It might be better to bid 3C here (limit raise) before next hand bids 3S. I hate responding 1N with these sorts of hands.

You could get more complicated and respond 2N with your limit raise hands and 3C with your Jacoby hands. Lots of options.

[CSGibson]

Its simply not true that the only time that SF no trump is worse is when you have a 3 card lr. Take the following responding hands to 1S:

Ax
---
Jxxxx
AJxxxx

x
KJxxxx
Kxxx
xx

xx
x
JTxxxxx
xxx

In all of these hands, passing 1N with some 5-3-3-2 gets you into worse contracts than some 100% forcing methods. You also lose the ability to give descriptive auctions with GF hands through 1N forcing - for example, in one partnership I play in, we use 1N forcing with all 16-17 4-3-3-3 or 18-19 4-3-3-3 hands, using a jump to 4m over the response to sort those out.

[wyman]

I think Kit Woolsey wrote a nice article for BW(orld -- BW is overloaded I guess) within the last 3 years (last 2 years I'm pretty sure, even) arguing that one should play SF NT. If you have those at your disposal, the article should be easy enough to find.

[nigel_k]

I much prefer semi-forcing, but at matchpoints it is good to have a different way to show a three card limit raise or even just include them in Bergen. Usually the suit contract will produce an extra trick. This is not a problem at IMPs as you are two levels lower in 1NT but at matchpoints it could mean a bottom.

[mgoetze]

I prefer the nonforcing 1NT response. This requires a bit more adjustment to your system than the semiforcing.

Anyway 3 card limit raises obviously belong in 2♣.

[JLOGIC]

I love 1M p 1N p 2m showing 4. It is really a huge gain, that is why I like playing systems where that is possible. Like others said, sometimes you will gain by being able to play 1N (when you are relatively balanced), sometimes you will lose (when you are unbalanced and could have bid 1N then your suit). It is not really about that, playing 1N can be take it or leave it imo. But bidding 2m with minimm balanced hands, or even with 13-14 counts and balanced hands is just rrelly disruptive to your bidding. Yes there are fixes and patchwork, and playing 1M 1N 2m as showing 4 requires opening 1N with 14 counts systemically (which personally I also really like), but it is so worth it to me.

[jallerton]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-18, 16:20, said:

I love 1M p 1N p 2m showing 4. It is really a huge gain, that is why I like playing systems where that is possible. Like others said, sometimes you will gain by being able to play 1N (when you are relatively balanced), sometimes you will lose (when you are unbalanced and could have bid 1N then your suit). It is not really about that, playing 1N can be take it or leave it imo. But bidding 2m with minimm balanced hands, or even with 13-14 counts and balanced hands is just rrelly disruptive to your bidding. Yes there are fixes and patchwork, and playing 1M 1N 2m as showing 4 requires opening 1N with 14 counts systemically (which personally I also really like), but it is so worth it to me.

If playing your suggested style, do you keep your 1M openings up to strength? If playing 2/1 responses as game forcing, it doesn't seem right that 1M-1NT-Pass could be a 3+ point range. I think this style works better with a (13+)14-16 1NT opening in 1st/2nd seats.

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-18, 15:24, said:

Anyway 3 card limit raises obviously belong in 2♣.

I agree. Unless you play weaker-style 2/1s, in which case you can start with any 2/1.

[JLOGIC]

jallerton, on 2012-June-18, 16:43, said:

If playing your suggested style, do you keep your 1M openings up to strength? If playing 2/1 responses as game forcing, it doesn't seem right that 1M-1NT-Pass could be a 3+ point range. I think this style works better with a (13+)14-16 1NT opening in 1st/2nd seats.

Indeed, I would upgrade if it was a nice 13. Sometimes I play 1N with a poor 12 opp a medium 13, but in those cases I might have played 2N anyways in a FNT auction like 1H 1N 2C 2N p

[Cthulhu D]

Antrax, on 2012-June-18, 09:36, said:

I'm sure this has been discussed to death. My partner and I currently play 1NT 100% forcing by an unpassed hand, and I'm starting to think semiforcing is better, because we play matchpoints and sometimes you want to play 1NT.
It seems semi is strictly better except when responder has a three-card limit raise - currently those go through 1NT, and it seems playing SF this could lead to silly results.
a) Are there any other reasons to prefer one or the other?
b) Playing 1NT SF, what do you do with the three card limit raise?

A) Being able to play 1NT is a long term winner? I guess?
B) Put it in 2C.

The other difficult hand types are:

• Responders with a 6 bagger and 9/10-12 points.(assuming you open all 11s).
  
• Opener having a 14 count
  
• Responder's balanced 12 counts or whatever

I think this means:

A) playing Bergen raises is difficult, I switched to invitational jump shifts.
B) switch to a 14-16 NT range. It means opener and responder can be much more comfortable about 1M-1NT-Pass. I also like Kaplan Inversion because I think after a 1H start responder is much better positioned to work out if he needs to pull 1NT, which means you need opener to bid it with the 11-13 balanced range.
C) Put it in 2C with the 3 card limit raise.

I play this with the following major suit raise structure:

1M-2M - 3 card 6-9 or 4 card 5-7 ish.
1M-2C - 10-12 3 card limit
1M-3M - 8-10 4 card support
1M-2NT - 11+ 4 card support, unlimited, F1.

This is really tied up to the rest of your system.

[perko90]

I definitely prefer SF 1NT. I agree that getting the 3-card LR out of the 1NT response is definitely recommended.
Conveniently, I like Bergen raises except for the mixed raise. So, it's a simple substitution of plugging in the 3-card LR wherever your 4-card mixed raise usually is.
Other considerations:
-- You may want to get invitational Heart hands out of 1NT, too. 1♠-3♥ for a 6-card invite or allow 1♠-2♥ to be made on a bit less than GF values. Or even use 1M-2♣ as an generic GF.
-- If you can get your system to where a 2m rebid over SF 1NT shows 4, as JLOGIC suggests, that would be really powerful (I never quite got there in my treatments). That could really help win the partial wars and take some guesswork out. I once had the misfortune of playing in a 6-card fit after forcing 1NT auctions 3 times in a single session!
-- Some die-hard forcing 1NT advocates swear that the average 5-2 major fit plays better in 2M than 1NT. I have serious doubts, but I don't know of any simulations to back either side. Finding the answer might add some science to the arguments.
-- Sometimes you can manage a nice top (at MPs) when the opponents decide to balance after opener passes 1NT. The 1NT bidder is in an excellent seat (knowing ptr is a balanced hand in a tight HCP range) to wield the axe on a known misfit.

[rhm]

straube, on 2012-June-18, 10:53, said:

Well, a simple fix is to use 3C for a 4-cd limit raise or for a distributional 3-cd limit raise (has shortness for example) and retain your 3D for a mixed (constructive) 4-cd limit raise. With a balanced 3-cd limit raise, just respond 1N and be willing to play there. After all, partner will only pass when he's minimum and balanced, too.

Obviously this approach isn't perfect; it's nice to know partner has four trump for example. OTOH, it's very nice to know immediately that partner has a limit raise/fit for you before the opponents get in the mix. Say you have x Axx Axxx Qxxxx. It might be better to bid 3C here (limit raise) before next hand bids 3S. I hate responding 1N with these sorts of hands.

You could get more complicated and respond 2N with your limit raise hands and 3C with your Jacoby hands. Lots of options.

I admit I never understood the obsession about the fourth trump for limit raises.
Of course I understand well how important the ninth trump can be for the success of a game or slam contract.
But what that all means is that a limit raise based on three cards needs on average to be roughly 2 HCP stronger than a limit raise based on four trumps.
Some hands with 3 trumps are not worth a limit raise, which would qualify with 4 trumps or you would make a limit raise with 3 trumps but force to game if a very similar hand had four trumps.
Why declarer needs to know the trump length in advance before dummy comes down escapes me.
He does not know the number of aces, trump honors or singletons either before dummy comes down.
Don't tell me that declarer is in a better position to judge when to accept a limit raise based on his knowledge of dummy trump length.
As long as 3 card limit raises have compensating values in distribution and HCP this is plain nonsense.
In fact I can make a much better case for the defense.
A trump lead is rarely effective against a game contract, when dummy will come down with four (or more) trumps.
More considerations should be given to a trump lead when dummy has announced shorter length.
So the answer is simple.
With distributional hands and three trumps make your limit raise whatever that bid is and keep the defense in the dark what to lead. Sometimes they will guess wrong.
With a balanced three card limit raise an initial semi-forcing 1NT is fine.

Rainer Herrmann

[blackshoe]

perko90, on 2012-June-18, 22:55, said:

-- Some die-hard forcing 1NT advocates swear that the average 5-2 major fit plays better in 2M than 1NT. I have serious doubts, but I don't know of any simulations to back either side. Finding the answer might add some science to the arguments.

According to Mike Cappelleti, Sr. (in his booklet on "Cappelleti over 1NT Doubled") this is a tenet of "Kaplan-Sheinwold theory". Whether it would be backed up by simulations, I have no idea.

[fromageGB]

I'm very happy with a forcing NT and Bergen type bids that show 4 card support. I get to play in 1NT when opening 1♥ playing KI, when it's the right contract, so that's 50% of the time.

Contrary to expressed opinion, I think it important and a benefit to distinguish between a 3 card raise and a 4 card raise, even if you do adjust the necessary hcp by 2 or 3 points. In the uncontested auction it can help opener know that he is likely to be able to get a ruff, whereas with 3 card support he may have to use them in drawing trumps. More importantly, in the contested auction when the opponents come in with a bid higher than your 3M it is usually vital to know which is which. 3 card support and extra strength points to a double, whereas 4 card support and lesser strength points to bidding on.

Another under-rated benefit of the distinction is that if your Bergen raises are split 7-10 (allowing game invitation if upper end) and 11/12, then it guarantees your Jacoby 2NT or equivalent is a solid 13+. Many 11/12s will go on to game after a minimum 3M rebid, of course. But the benefit of this over a weaker top Bergen means your slam bidding after 2NT is more assured. If your top Bergen had to include game invitational 3 card support, then this would not be true.

As for the game invitational 3 card support, I agree with the others who suggest putting it into the 2♣ response. Do this regardless of whether you switch to non-forcing NT. After recent forum discussion on this topic, I now play that 2♣ is any one of 3 card support 11+, natural 5 card 13+, or any 16+ that has no 5 card suit. Unless opener is 55xx or a 15+ 5 card minor, he bids 2♦, and the 11/12 3 card support bids 2M. Now a weaker opener can pass the game invitation and play in 2M rather than the usual 3M. A stronger responder with 3 cards agrees the suit with 3M and then you are in your normal GF zone, with serious/non-serious or whatever.

If you did switch to non-forcing, as Cthulhu said, you than have to decide what to do with 11/12 balanced hands and invitational long minors, and in my case GF 13-15 balanced hands that go in the forcing bid. If you have to put ALL these in the 2C response, it would become to unwieldy and you won't have any simple method of resolving them. A good reason to keep a forcing next step.

[Antrax]

Thanks for all that GCC stuff, but I don't live in the US.

As to the on-topic replies, thanks everyone, there's a lot to digest. The key takeaway seems to be that I can't just tell partner "okay, from now on 1NT is SF and here's the little tweak we'll have to do in order to still have everything". Also that apparently it's a lot of system to have opener's second rebid after 1NT always show 4+ cards - I was hoping SF is all it took
I think for the time being we'll switch to SF with some crutch - say, still use 1NT for balanced 3 card limit raises and fudge as appropriate for imbalanced ones (upgrade to GF, downgrade to simple raise, treat as four cards, whatever). When we start getting some bad results, I'll try and see where they come from - for instance, I'm not overly worried about imbalanced hands with shortness in the opened major, because the field is mostly NF 1NT, so they'll have the same problem we SF people will have. We may lose an edge, but we won't create a problem.

Anyway, thanks again.

[barmar]

The tangent on GCC and Bracketed KOs has been split off into this thread: http://www.bridgebas...-bracketed-kos/

[jallerton]

Antrax, on 2012-June-20, 01:04, said:

As to the on-topic replies, thanks everyone, there's a lot to digest. The key takeaway seems to be that I can't just tell partner "okay, from now on 1NT is SF and here's the little tweak we'll have to do in order to still have everything". Also that apparently it's a lot of system to have opener's second rebid after 1NT always show 4+ cards - I was hoping SF is all it took

It's perfectly playable to play all of Opener's rebids and continuations exactly as you do currently over a forcing NT response. The only differences are:

1. Opener passes 1NT with a (sub)minimum balanced or semi-balanced hand; and
2. Responder can obviously no longer start with 1NT on any FG hands (e.g. 13-15 balanced might start with a forcing NT, if available).

I wouldn't worry too much about playing in 1NT when Responder has a limit raise. Sometimes you would have been better in the major, but other times you find that your 1NT= beats 3M-1 at other tables.