Unloaded Forcing 1NT...

In another thread: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...t=0&#entry14070 there was a discussion of the "downsteam" effects of changing your major suit raise structure. The thread above discusses, among others, a novel and maybe wacky use for 1M-2C.

This long post will deal with the theory of what using that 2C stucture (along with both 1M-2M and 1M-3M as very weak raises) have on the forcing 1NT response typical to 2/1 systems.

First, remember the "direct raises"

1M-2NT: Limit raise or better, with the 3♣ response being no game interest or slam interest, and 3♦ being game but not slam interest.
1M-2♣: (after first or second seat 1M). This 2♣ is sort of an either or. It is either reverse drury type of bid, or balanced really good 10 or more, or a true 2/1 GF with clubs.
1M-2M: All hands with 3 card support not strong enough for 2♣ response that you feel like bidding on (can be zero hcp, especially if not vul).
1M-3M: weak raises with four card support

So how does this combination has alter 1NT forcing responses? Right off the bat, there are no "good" balanced hand, second no 3 card support, third, no three card support at all. So the good hands will be one suited or two suited without fit. We can hold 12 points and a one suiter for instance if we feel it not suitable to make a GF 2/1. And if partner opens 1♥, the suit has to be a minor (if a good hand). This allows us to use all the artificial auctions (bart, reverse good/bad 2NT, impossible 2♠ auctions to separate between “good” one suiters, from “average one suiters” and weak one suiters. So first thing first, what to do with bad hands? If partner bids over 1NT (now only semi-forcing), we can pass his response if not jumpshift. The pass of 2m response is rare, needs at least four card fit, and singleton or void in bid suit, and really weak hand. BESIDES pass, the other weak hands, rebid 3♣ or 3♦ directly after the 1NT response. So all these last bids are weak.

1M-1NT-2M-3m
1M-1NT-2♣-3m (♣ or ♦)
1M-2m-2M,
1M-2m-pass

Those are easy. Now, for the non-weak auctions.

1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦= BART, showing intermediate 1NT hand with ♥’s, ♦’s or a ♣ fit
1♠-1NT-2♣-2NT = reverse good bad 2NT, showing a GREAT hand for 1NT and one other suits (can be ♣s).
1♥-1NT-2♣/2♦-2♠ = impossible 2♠ shows intermediate hand with ♣’s or good red suit
1♥-1NT-2♣/2♦-2NT = reverse good bad, showing GREAT hand for 1NT and one suited

Note a couple of issues. First, 2NT is always a “I almost bid 2/1” on these auctions, and this is never BALANCED hand. In fact, has to be unbalanced. Why? With a good hand that was balanced or semibalanced and near 2/1 values you would start 2♣. With a balanced hand not strong enough for 2♣, you would rebid 2 of your partner’s major (or pass with a singleton). This allows Ron to bid his normal jump to 3 of a minor this way... so he can use 1M-3m for something else. Responses by opener over this 2NT should be paradox type: 3♣ if willing to stop, if not willing to stop in a ♣ suit, bid 3♦ or more. Second, over impossible 2♠ (see below, good hand, but not as good as 2NT), opener can bid 2NT to suggest game try and generally balance, responder may pass with fair hand, misfit. Opener can rebid 3♣ to suggest less than encouraging value, and or rebid 3♦/3♥/3♠ as forcing.

So the trend is very obvious. There are two other oddities. If the bidding goes 1♥-1NT-2♣, now 2♦ is no longer bart (or anti-bart.. :-) ). With good and intermediate hands go though 2NT or impossible 2♠, but rather very weak and 2♦ shows weak ♦’s. Obviously weaker than the jump to 3♦s.

1M-2♣-2NT-3♣-3S/3NT - one suiter great ♣ fit

Second, on some auctions you can not separate between “good” and “intermediate” for the 1NT. You have to show just between weak and not-weak. These auctions are: 1♠-1NT-2♥, and 1♠-1NT-2♦. Now there is no BART and no impossible 2♠. Here we play red suit raises as intermediate, pass as weak, and going through 2NT as “good”. So, 1♠-1NT-2♥-2NT-3♣-3♥ is stronger than 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♥. The immediate 3♣ is weak in both auctions, but 2NT can include the “intermediate” and the “good” club hands. 2♥ over 2♦ is weak, 3♥ over 2♦ is the AKQxxx of ♥’s and out, and 2NT followed by 3♥ is good ♥ hand (think 11 to 12).

I am not sure if theoretically if 2NT should be the better of the hands or if 2♦/impossible 2♠ should be the better. But since 2NT rebid will be available after 1M-1NT-2M, and should obviously show the good hand then as otherwise you simply pass. Also after 1♠-1NT-2♥, 2NT is still available, and useful to separate the heart raises. (one suiters through 2NT).

Anyone want to help hammer this out... let me know. Feel free to post problems iwth this structure or question/problem hands. And RON, note the flexibility of 1NT response. You can try to paint a picture of your level suit and values.. there are some additional stuff like 1M-1NT-2m-3M and 3NT... but we can talk those later if people are interested in this approach.

Ben

This is an excellent thread and raises many ideas which should lead to constructive systemic development.

Pd and I are currently incorporating a lot of M suit raises into the forcing 1N response - the Polish style - and to my mind it is overloading it.

I take it that most of your ideas come from ETM. I haven't looked at it in a while.

Qun - how do you handle 10-11 hands with a 6 card decent minor in response to 1M using this structure - without 3 card support? With 3 card supp, you use a fsj, I suppose.

Currently we play
1M 3m = 9-11, good 6 card suit, NOT 3 card support for pd.
Because of this 1M 2m is categorically gf with the exception below.

1H 2C
2D 2H = the equivalent of your fsj. Our ONLY 2/1 sequence that is not gf

Hope this thread takes off as even if people don't adopt these ideas, they are well worth while tossing around.

Ron

BBO Discussion Forums: Unloaded Forcing 1NT... - BBO Discussion Forums

Unloaded Forcing 1NT... Downstream effects of funny 2CL response

#1 inquiry

#2 the hog

#3 inquiry

#4 slothy

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats