[szgyula]

Hi,

I think this is an age old issue and I am curious as to what the current thinking is. The actual situation where this came up: 1H-p-1N(!) sequence. Next player "looked" at the player who explained "forcing". No further question asked. After the party it turned out that the 1NT was forcing BUT, by agreement it may contain a 4 card spade suit. With certain kind of hands, a 4-4 spade fit is found with the following sequence: 1H-p-1N-p-2S. This is question of taste and the "bridge sense" is not the question. It is also clear that if asked explicitly, you must provide this information. On the other hand, I do not know how much details you have to automatically provide.

This is not a rare situation. 2C Stayman sometimes does not PROMISE a 4 card major, only asks. Not even alerted in ACBL territory. There are ten million falvours of the forcing 1NT.

What is the current thinking on this issue? How much information is to be provided?

Gyula

[blackshoe]

Depends on your RA, I think. I don't know Hungarian regulations. In the ACBL, players are enjoined to provide all relevant information when asked about a call. Seems to me that would include the possibility of a four card spade suit in responder's hand. However, in the ACBL, forcing NTs are announced with the single word "forcing". If an opponent wants more information, he has to ask. In the instant case, 1NT was alerted, an explanation was requested, and the explanation was, in fact, the name of a convention. In most RAs this practice is at least deprecated, and sometimes explicitly illegal. I would not, in most cases, accept an explanation consisting solely of the name of a convention. Or "standard" for that matter, which is often given as an explanation when asked about carding agreements or leads, or both.

[szgyula]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-11, 00:32, said:

Depends on your RA, I think. I don't know Hungarian regulations. In the ACBL, players are enjoined to provide all relevant information when asked about a call. Seems to me that would include the possibility of a four card spade suit in responder's hand. However, in the ACBL, forcing NTs are announced with the single word "forcing". If an opponent wants more information, he has to ask. In the instant case, 1NT was alerted, an explanation was requested, and the explanation was, in fact, the name of a convention. In most RAs this practice is at least deprecated, and sometimes explicitly illegal. I would not, in most cases, accept an explanation consisting solely of the name of a convention. Or "standard" for that matter, which is often given as an explanation when asked about carding agreements or leads, or both.

OK. So what about this explanation:

"Asks opener to rebid H if length is 6+, bid D/S if H is exactly 5 but S or D is 4+. Jump if at least 16-17 pts. Bid 2C with max 15-16 points and exactly 5H, maximum 3/3 D and S, bid 2N with extra strength and exactly 5H, maximum 3/3 D and S. 2C only promises 2 clubs."

We are not really closer to the "can have 4 spades" but we already spent a lot of valuable time. One can argue that this is very simmilar to the Stayman bid over 1NT: There are many uses for the bid, not only to find a 4-4 fit in majors. The pair uses the "forcing" 1NT (which is not exactly THE "forcing 1NT") in many situations where they want to learn more about the shape of the opener's hand. Are they supposed to tell all this? Do they have to enumerate all possible uses for this forcing bid? Where do you draw the line between "answering the quastion asked" and "answering the question (s)he should have asked"?

Having played in ACBL, DBV teritories and Hungary, I personally do not like single world explanations as certain conventions are known by everyone -- differently. Once I even got into trouble for having only 3 diamonds and opening 1D (with a real yellow Yelloc Card on the table, clearly marking that 1D is 3+) and not alerting it. So I tend to side with you but I do not find it practical in many real life situations.

[blackshoe]

Does this forcing 1NT actually ask opener to do something, or does it tell opener what kinds of hands responder might have?

If the former, then I would just say "asks me to further describe my hand". No need to go into all opener's possible rebids, and if you do you're giving responder a huge UI problem. If the latter, I think "Forcing one round (we play that a 2/1 suit response is FG), does not deny 4+ spades" ought to do. If you don't play 2/1 FG, then leave that out.

In explaining, I can't think of any situation in which it is appropriate or required to describe all or even some of partner's (or your own, if you're alerting and explaining your own calls) possible future bids and what they would show. You explain the auction as it has proceeded so far. Also, it is not always necessary to explain each bid individually. You can say, for example, "partner has shown A, B, and C" and partner can say "partner has shown X, Y, and Z". If there's an "and denied Q" element in either side of the auction, include that. This principle is especially good late in a complex auction, especially when opps are passing. What they need to know is what they're defending against, not the details of your individual bidding agreements.

[helene_t]

szgyula, on 2015-October-11, 05:53, said:

OK. So what about this explanation:

"Asks opener to rebid

This is no good.

You are supposed to explain what kind of hands the player who made the alerted call can have. You are not supposed to explain any future calls unless opps ask for it.

So just say 5-12 points, less than five spades, less than four hearts. Or whatever the agreement is.

[barmar]

Typically, forcing NT (and non-forcing 1NT, for that matter), is a catch-all bid -- it doesn't show anything specific, it just denies the types of hands that can make some other, more specific call. So explaining the meaning of the bid essentially entails describing your entire response structure.

[szgyula]

I am starting to understand the issue: This particular 1NT bid is more "asking" than "promising" something. The responder pretty much takes over the auction for a while. It is similar to the 1NT opening followed by all different responses (Stayman, transfer, etc.).

So far I like the "asks opener to further describe the hand, can not be passed" explanation. Sure one can speculate about the hand the 1NT bid can have but it is such a broad range of hands that it would lead to a 5 minute presentation that no opponent would be able to follow. This explanation is "correct" and does not try to hide agreements. It invites more questions but does not risk UI. It is certainly not "The Forcing 1NT" bid.

In the actual case the explanation was "forcing", which was interpreted by the opponent as "The Forcing One and Only One No Trump" convention, which lead to the misunderstanding. I do not know how I would have ruled in that case...

[helene_t]

I disagree with this.

The forcing 1nt response is limited. It can be very weak. It is essential that the opponents know this.

With Stayman it is a bit different since it is usually a constructive hand. Still, I think that one should disclose which kind of weak hands are included in Stayman. Maybe there are so many that it is impractical.

But for the forcing 1nt it is easy to exlain. Just saying "5-12, forcing" would do since opps know (roughly) what kind of hands respond 1nt in normal natural systems (no 4-card support, no 4-card spades), so the only thing they need to know is that it is forcing, and maybe the exact range.

If it can systematically contain a 4-card spades then I believe that needs to be disclosed. It could easily influence the opening lead if responder ends up declaring a notrump contract.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-11, 00:32, said:

However, in the ACBL, forcing NTs are announced with the single word "forcing". If an opponent wants more information, he has to ask.

This is fine, because of course if responder's potentially holding four spades is an unusual agreement (and I rather imagine it is) then this particular 1NT response would be alerted in the ACBL.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-12, 11:05, said:

This is fine, because of course if responder's potentially holding four spades is an unusual agreement (and I rather imagine it is) then this particular 1NT response would be alerted in the ACBL.

I don't think the ACBL Alert Procedures goes into much detail about precisely which forcing NT agreements are alertable versus announceable. So the question is whether this falls into the "highly unusual and unexpected" general catch-all.

It also seems to me like it may be more a matter of individual judgement than partnership agreement. If I have a 3-card limit raise with 4 small spades, I might choose to ignore them, but if the 4 spades include some values I'll bid it (it may help partner decide whether to accept the invitation).

A few days ago, some opponents had an auction that started 1♦ 2♣ 2♠ 3♥. Responder eventually became dummy in 6NT, and surprisingly he had 5 hearts and 4 clubs. I didn't ask why he bid like this (and didn't complain, either, because they gave us a top when they went down 2), but I've run into a number of players who think they have to start with a 2/1 bid to establish a game force. I doubt it's a real agreement in most cases, they just don't know what they're doing. The hand is here:

{comments}

---

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-October-13, 11:14, said:

It also seems to me like it may be more a matter of individual judgement than partnership agreement. If I have a 3-card limit raise with 4 small spades, I might choose to ignore them, but if the 4 spades include some values I'll bid it (it may help partner decide whether to accept the invitation).

But what matters is your agreement. Is it to normally deny 4 spades?

[szgyula]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-03, 17:41, said:

But what matters is your agreement. Is it to normally deny 4 spades?

No. It is clear that if asked, you disclose this. The original question was: where do you draw the line? How much do you disclose voluntarily? "Everything" is clearly nonsense. I have never seen a case where after a 1D-1H bid there is an alert with "a jump shift would have been weak and non forcing, thus, the H is not too long".

What is the standard to use?

There is also a different issue here: certain conventions have "dialects". Like here. It was a "forcing 1NT" but but not "the forcing 1NT". How is this handled in different countries? How is the official version of a convention is defined? Is there an official book of conventions? Lacking that you should never use a convention name as it is misleading....

[blackshoe]

There is nowhere, as far as I'm aware, that has an official book of conventions. There are places where regulations specifically state that "explaining" by naming a convention is inadequate disclosure. There are places where the regulation says that if your 1NT is forcing, you announce "forcing", so that's what you do. If there's a regulation that further describes the 1NT bid, e.g., it's 6-12 points, may have a side suit or a three card limit raise, or it's "a typical forcing NT response to 1M", then if your agreement differs significantly you should alert rather than announce.

You disclose everything pertinent that your opponents might not know. How much that is requires judgment of, among other things, your opponents and the general level of knowledge of the people in the event.