[blackshoe]

Even if they've been playing them since 1940.

[blackshoe]

BTW, if you consider a "forcing NT" response to be the kind of response you would make playing the convention, then I would suggest that such a response is appropriate even if you're a passed hand, though you should agree with your partner that the bid is only "semi forcing" (i.e., opener can pass with a balanced minimum).

[aguahombre]

That is not what Art stated. Goren Standard used the non-forcing NT and was a 4-card major system. Old fashioned, yes. That was a long time ago. Acol's 4-card major style has been around for a while, also.

Is there some negative connotation of "old fashioned"? I would bet every pair in the world has some part of its system of bidding and/or signalling which dates quite a while back.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2012-January-26, 19:22, said:

Is there some negative connotation of "old fashioned"?

Not really, but it seemed a very strange description, suggesting that non-forcing 1NT has been supplanted by the startling innovation of forcing 1NT. This does not accurately characterise the relationship between the two methods.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2012-January-26, 07:51, said:

In other words, the 1NT response is not forcing to game.

It's not whether it's forcing to game by itself, but whether it could include game-forcing hands. E.g. a normal 1-over-1 response is not forcing to game, but partner isn't allowed to pass it because it's unlimited.

Some play their forcing NT as unlimited as well. For instance, I once played with a guy who said that a 2/1 response should show a 5-card suit, so we had to start with forcing NT if we had a GF hand, but no 5-card suit to bid. And with my regular partner, we've recently decided to use 1M-1N-2other-3N to show a 4333 13-15 count (many partnerships use 1M-3N for this, but we have a different meaning for that sequence).

If 1NT is limited to at most invitational hands, then it's possible to treat it as semi-forcing. But that doesn't mean you'll get good results from it -- if partner has a weak 2 hand, 1NT often won't play as well as playing in his suit.

[VMars]

 whereagles, on 2012-January-26, 05:12, said:

What I meant is that when people agree to play "forcing NT", they never bid 1NT with 13+ hcp hands, so what they're really playing is "semiforcing NT". The words "forcing NT" are easier/quicker to pronounce, hence they become a metonym for "semiforcing NT". Well, at least around here where I play

Like other people at other times, you're deciding that what happens around you is what happens everywhere else.

Where I am, as others have said, "semiforcing NT" is passable by certain hands, "forcing NT" is not passable (not counting psychs). At least, that is the standard differentiation here.

I would make the argument that "FNT" usually includes a (3 card) limit raise as an option, while "SFNT" doesn't.

[barmar]

 VMars, on 2012-January-26, 21:50, said:

I would make the argument that "FNT" usually includes a (3 card) limit raise as an option, while "SFNT" doesn't.

BWS uses semi-forcing NT that includes 3-card limit raises. Since opener only passes with a minimum, you'll never miss a game this way, but you may play 1NT instead of in your 5-3 fit.

[whereagles]

 VMars, on 2012-January-26, 21:50, said:

Like other people at other times, you're deciding that what happens around you is what happens everywhere else.

And that is something you'd never do, I presume?

[VMars]

 whereagles, on 2012-January-27, 11:02, said:

And that is something you'd never do, I presume?

I include myself in other people. I also tend not to respond sarcastically to other people.

[Lurpoa]

♥♥

 barmar, on 2012-January-26, 22:12, said:

BWS uses semi-forcing NT that includes 3-card limit raises. Since opener only passes with a minimum, you'll never miss a game this way, but you may play 1NT instead of in your 5-3 fit.

♥♥♥


no, NOT limit, only WEAK 3card support (5-7H)...

A direct raise = constructive.

see my friend Justin's remarks.



♥♥♥

[Vampyr]

 Lurpoa, on 2012-January-28, 10:39, said:

no, NOT limit, only WEAK 3card support (5-7H)...

A direct raise = constructive.

see my friend Justin's remarks.

Unless the meaning has changed radically since I played 2/1 GF, the Forcing 1NT bid may include weak single raises, but always includes 3-card limit raises.

[Lurpoa]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 04:27, said:

Unless the meaning has changed radically since I played 2/1 GF, the Forcing 1NT bid may include weak single raises, but always includes 3-card limit raises.

♥♥♥

Believe me please, I am an expert in BWS
...weren't you talking about BWS ? (I guess the latest 2001version)...

1NT is semi-forcing, and 1NT can hide a weak 3card support for S. With a constructive 3card support, one should bid 2S.

Same things go for 1H-opener....I wrote an article on that, but it was refused for publishing.

If you are interested I'll will try to publish again.


♥♥♥

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 04:27, said:

Unless the meaning has changed radically since I played 2/1 GF, the Forcing 1NT bid may include weak single raises, but always includes 3-card limit raises.

pretty much....not "always", though. Some pairs eliminate 3-cd Limit raises from it.

[barmar]

 Lurpoa, on 2012-January-29, 10:48, said:

1NT is semi-forcing, and 1NT can hide a weak 3card support for S. With a constructive 3card support, one should bid 2S.

Of course. But we're talking about invitational 3-card support. Or do you consider those to be constructive? In my understanding, there are four ranges of raises: weak (5-7), constructive (8-10), limit (11-12-), game forcing (12+ and higher).

[fromageGB]

 barmar, on 2012-January-29, 15:07, said:

Of course. But we're talking about invitational 3-card support. Or do you consider those to be constructive? In my understanding, there are four ranges of raises: weak (5-7), constructive (8-10), limit (11-12-), game forcing (12+ and higher).

A good point. I hate the commonly used term "limit raise", and think "invitational" should be adopted universally. Any normal raise is a limit raise, and an 8-10 limit raise is limited to the range 8-10. Values will of course differ : to some an invitational limit raise is 10-12 for example, but the descriptions "subnormal", "weak", "constructive", "invitational", and "GF" can be understood by all. (I think.)

[aguahombre]

True. We used to be able to save two syllables when "Limit Raise" was understood as a coined phrase describing an invite. It appears that is no longer the case, and we must spell out things.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, I've learnt English as my 2nd language and expression "limit raise" doesn't make sense to me at all. I just assumed that's the way invites are called in bridge lingo.

[Vampyr]

 bluecalm, on 2012-January-29, 16:38, said:

Yeah, I've learnt English as my 2nd language and expression "limit raise" doesn't make sense to me at all. I just assumed that's the way invites are called in bridge lingo.

I think that the phrase may have come into being in the US. Once upon a time, double raises were GF and unlimited. So when they began to be played as invitational, they were called "limit raises" to distinguish them from unlimited raises. That's what I think, anyway.

[Statto]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 17:06, said:

I think that the phrase may have come into being in the US. Once upon a time, double raises were GF and unlimited. So when they began to be played as invitational, they were called "limit raises" to distinguish them from unlimited raises. That's what I think, anyway.

Interesting, I thought limit raises came from Acol, which developed from the 1930s in the UK. In the US in the 1950s the Goren system was popular, where 1M-3M was forcing. Though you may be right about where the term "limit raise" came from...

[blackshoe]

It might be interesting to check some of the early Acol literature, to see if the term "limit raise" was used then.