[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2024-December-07, 10:24, said:

I don't go so far as pushing the bar up to 15 with 4=5=2=2, I would rebid a short minor with a 14 that might have play.

The argument for this is that we've diagnosed a misfit in both majors already, as partner has failed to support hearts and also bypassed spades. This is often worth a downgrade.

[blackshoe]

What is the minimum biddable four card suit?

[thepossum]

I think maybe I underthink bridge. Semi-forcinng means I can decide what I do based on individual circsmstances
Note - 1NT is always semi-forcing to me. In fact I maybe unusual but I think any bid can be passed occasionally - sometimes emergency measures need to be taken in hands

[helene_t]

Sorry for flogging a dead horse but I really don't like the expression "semi-forcing". If the nomenclature was, in the context of a strong-NT system,
Forcing NT: opener always rebids 2m with a weak 5332
SemiForcing NT: opener sometimes rebids 2m with a weak 5332
NonForcing NT: opener never rebids 2m with a weak 5332

then it would make sense.

[Tramticket]

helene_t, on 2024-December-12, 05:58, said:

Sorry for flogging a dead horse but I really don't like the expression "semi-forcing".

Maybe the horse is only semi-dead?

The term "semi-forcing" is horrible!

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2024-December-12, 05:58, said:

Sorry for flogging a dead horse but I really don't like the expression "semi-forcing". If the nomenclature was, in the context of a strong-NT system,
Forcing NT: opener always rebids 2m with a weak 5332
SemiForcing NT: opener sometimes rebids 2m with a weak 5332
NonForcing NT: opener never rebids 2m with a weak 5332

then it would make sense.

I agree that "semi-forcing" is an oxymoron if "forcing" is an absolute obligation to partner and confusing if it is not. This is also not the only situation in which "forcing" is conditional, so maybe "conditionally forcing" would be appropriate for such situations. Especially as many explain (and some of us really mean it) that a 2/1 is "unconditionally game forcing".
I do not agree that it makes any sense for "semi-forcing" to have anything to do with micro-agreements about when one rebids 2M.
Please find another nomenclature for that distinction, "semi-forcing" is at least clearly about whether partner must rebid or not, not about how she will do it.

[thepossum]

semi-focing suggests 50%

does it matter what it is called?

How about just 1NT - I am in 2/1 land these days
If partner says it is forcing it is forcing, except in occasional cases when it isnt

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2024-December-12, 16:53, said:

I agree that "semi-forcing" is an oxymoron if "forcing" is an absolute obligation to partner and confusing if it is not. This is also not the only situation in which "forcing" is conditional, so maybe "conditionally forcing" would be appropriate for such situations. Especially as many explain (and some of us really mean it) that a 2/1 is "unconditionally game forcing".
I do not agree that it makes any sense for "semi-forcing" to have anything to do with micro-agreements about when one rebids 2M.
Please find another nomenclature for that distinction, "semi-forcing" is at least clearly about whether partner must rebid or not, not about how she will do it.

There really is such a thing as "intended as forcing." Example: New suit by a passed hand. A well-defined subclass of "nonforcing."

[mycroft]

Absolutely agree. Luckily, at least in the ACBL, it has been defined (20 years after it was required to be Announced):

Semi-Forcing - A response of 1NT to a Natural Opening Bid of 1H or 1S that can contain Invitational values but may be passed.

But yeah, the question in the title still applies (to my opponents; I've only once played this, and the answer was "minimum, if partner has a 3-card limit raise I want to play 1NT".)

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2024-December-12, 16:53, said:

Please find another nomenclature for that distinction, "semi-forcing" is at least clearly about whether partner must rebid or not, not about how she will do it.

Sorry, it would be cleaerer if I had phrased it as
semi-forcing: opener sometimes passes with a weak 5332.

[DavidKok]

We have a lot of confusing convention names in bridge. A couple of my personal favourites include:

• Grand slam force (does not force to a grand slam).
  
• Kamikaze 1NT (is infrequently punished).
  
• Semiforcing 1NT (is not forcing).
  
• Garbage Stayman (can be quite strong, especially facing a weak NT).
  
• Cuebid (depending on context either means 'a bid in the suit already shown by the opponents' or 'any control bid').

There's more, but these come to mind readily. I don't get why people are so fascinated with attempting to interpret the names of these conventions. To me the convention name is a shorthand for communicating, in this case explaining that the 1NT response contains certain hands of invitational strength. The context of the rest of your response system, for example the one I detailed upthread, defines which one(s) these are. You could equally well call the convention the Flubbledygook 1NT response if you feel that would improve communication (though I doubt it).

As for the rebid scheme by opener: in general I feel strongly that you should collect the information you have obtained from the auction and then make your percentage decision. I've shared what I think is best over the semiforcing 1NT style I recommend. If you change your opening or response structure you may well wish to change the rebids as well. Conversely, in anticipation of a rebid structure you may wish to change your response or even opening structure. But why on earth would you hang this on the name of the convention, of all things? You can't even use that for disclosure, it's just for discussing your system away from the table.

[pescetom]

You're quite right of course. There are also plenty of confusing terms in bridge on general, come to that. Some of my favourites being:
- Dealer (the machine - or - (obsolete) the player who deals - or - the first player to call, although in any other card game the Dealer would be the fourth)
- to declare (to defend your contract)
- to defend (to attack the opponents' contract)
- Puppet (a bid that tells partner to shut up and listen)
- dummy reversal (ruffing in the hand with longer trumps, not necessarily dummy)
...
I could go on

[jillybean]

Just now coming back to this, interesting reading thanks all.
If we are playing a SFNT and opener will only pass with 12-14 balanced or 11-15 semi balanced type hands, after 1M 1nt 2x does responder bid game with a 3 card limit raise, and what can we use 1M 1nt 2x 3M for?

[DavidKok]

1) I would still use 3M as the limit raise. Opener may well have an unbalanced minimum. In fact, I think passing 1NT is a poor idea with most semibalanced minima. Opener's rebid shows their hand type, not their playing strength.
2) A bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid. Even if you did have 3M available, what non-fit hand is comfortable bypassing all lower bids? Maybe some kind of unshowable raise of opener's second suit?