[Zelandakh]

 nigel_k, on 2012-October-23, 13:00, said:

I hate the term 'semi-forcing' though. Apart from being aesthetically bad, it creates the impression that the person using it has no grasp on basic logic, let alone bridge. Maybe the forums can come up with something better.

Non-forcing relay perhaps? If you make the term popular enough you might be able to get the ACBL to ban it for being a relay method! lol

[Vampyr]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-23, 14:27, said:

Maybe they are all just stupid?

You think so? I am not so sure; I think that it is an issue worth exploring. I am particularly interested in discovering the implications in a weak-NT contest.

[Bende]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-08, 19:48, said:

For what its worth, I strongly disagree with Barry about correcting anytime you have a 2 card or less disparity between the major and the minor. My own rule is simple, and has proven effective for me: I correct almost always with a 1 card disparity, and if I have a 2 card disparity, then I only correct if I would be interested in game if partner continues on.

For example, in the auction 1♠-1N, 2♣,

I would pass with

---

But I would make a preference to 2♠ with

---

The purpose of that rule goes down to why you make a "false preference" in general. I don't make a preference out of fear that partner has a 2 or 3 card suit, or to get to a potentially higher scoring major - I make my preference based on the general desirability of keeping the auction open when partner has a fairly wide range for his rebid and I have a hand that will prove useful in game opposite some of the hands where partner will make an additional try.

Let's say you play, after 1♠-1N, 2♣, that 2♠ is a constructive two card preference (about 8-10) and with a weaker preference you could start with 2♥, intending to pass 2♠ (which opener bids unless he has a very strong hand). How would that affect when you would pass 2♣?

[fromageGB]

 Bende, on 2012-October-25, 08:02, said:

Let's say you play, after 1♠-1N, 2♣, that 2♠ is a constructive two card preference (about 8-10) and with a weaker preference you could start with 2♥, intending to pass 2♠ (which opener bids unless he has a very strong hand). How would that affect when you would pass 2♣?

Maybe you should ask partner how this method will affect her when she has a 6/7 or so count and a 6 card heart suit.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-25, 07:10, said:

You think so? I am not so sure; I think that it is an issue worth exploring. I am particularly interested in discovering the implications in a weak-NT contest.

semiforcing doesn't make any sense in a weak-nt context. ok I suppose you could say that opener only passes the 1NT response with a flannery hand. 1♠-1NT would be forcing, then.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2012-October-25, 09:22, said:

semiforcing doesn't make any sense in a weak-nt context.

No, but forcing might.

[jeffford76]

 helene_t, on 2012-October-25, 09:22, said:

semiforcing doesn't make any sense in a weak-nt context.

I think it does if you prefer to open 1M to 1NT with 12-14 5332 hands.

[jdeegan]

1NT forcing or semi-forcing is not a good convention in and of itself. It is a patch needed if you play 2/1 forcing to game. It's worst shortcoming (other than you often can't play 1NT) is when opener is 4-5-2-2 and has to bid 2♣ on a two card suit. The two ways around this are the Kaplan Inversion (KI) which flips the meaning of 1♠ (now shows a forcing NT) and 1NT (now shows ♠), and the Flannery convention (a 2♦ opener shows 4-5-2-2, 4-5-1-3, 4-5-3-1 or 4-5-0-4, 4-5-4-0. Some even play Flannery with 4-6-x-x. The idea is to get as much utility out of the 2♦ opener as possible.

Imo, Flannery is actually easier because with KI an auction that starts 1♥-P-1NT requires a lot of discussion, and it seldom comes up.

[fromageGB]

 jdeegan, on 2012-October-26, 11:48, said:

Imo, Flannery is actually easier because with KI an auction that starts 1♥-P-1NT requires a lot of discussion, and it seldom comes up.

I play KI; 1NT comes up as often as any 5 card suit in responder's hand, and yes it does require discussion, but I'm not sure that Flannery requires less (though I have never played it). But does Flannery help your problem much? Doesn't responder still have to bid 1NT with fewer than 5 spades, and put opener in the same position of rebidding 2♣ on a doubleton, eg 3532? Or do you transfer the problem to a fewer-than-4 diamond suit? At least with KI you have the advantage of being able to play the sequence 1♥ 1♠ 1NT as a balanced 12-14. Presumably that sequence in Flannery shows responder with 5 spades, so this is much rarer than the KI's which is fewer than 5 spades.

A big bonus for KI, I would have thought.

[Vampyr]

 jdeegan, on 2012-October-26, 11:48, said:

It is a patch needed if you play 2/1 forcing to game.

This is what I always thought, but a lot of people here seem to disagree with:

Quote

1NT forcing or semi-forcing is not a good convention in and of itself.

[jdeegan]

 fromageGB, on 2012-October-26, 16:17, said:

I play KI; 1NT comes up as often as any 5 card suit in responder's hand, and yes it does require discussion, but I'm not sure that Flannery requires less (though I have never played it). But does Flannery help your problem much? Doesn't responder still have to bid 1NT with fewer than 5 spades, and put opener in the same position of rebidding 2♣ on a doubleton, eg 3532? Or do you transfer the problem to a fewer-than-4 diamond suit? At least with KI you have the advantage of being able to play the sequence 1♥ 1♠ 1NT as a balanced 12-14. Presumably that sequence in Flannery shows responder with 5 spades, so this is much rarer than the KI's which is fewer than 5 spades.

A big bonus for KI, I would have thought.

As far as I know you are probably right. I haven't played KI very much. Help me out, tell us what do you need to bid 1NT over 1♥, and how do these auctions play out?

[Bende]

 fromageGB, on 2012-October-25, 09:09, said:

Maybe you should ask partner how this method will affect her when she has a 6/7 or so count and a 6 card heart suit.

With hearts she bids 2♦ as it is a transfer bid. If she wants to play diamonds she has to sign-off in 3♦ however.

[fromageGB]

 jdeegan, on 2012-October-26, 19:22, said:

As far as I know you are probably right. I haven't played KI very much. Help me out, tell us what do you need to bid 1NT over 1♥, and how do these auctions play out?

In response to 1♥ we play 1♠ <= 4 spades, 1NT >= 5 spades. Both would be 6+hcp, except a subminimum 3 card heart support starts with 1♠, so a say 4 count 5332 shape does not show his spades. Most auctions start 1♥ 1♠. This 1♠ response acts like a forcing NT, makes a 1NT rebid from opener easy and natural, but leaves a partnership problem of finding a 4-4 spade fit. I don't know what is standard here, but as we have already sacrificed a natural 2♣ for the sake of a Gazzilli/Riton sort of strong bid, we choose to sacrifice a natural 2♦ in this sequence to show opener has 4 spades. Don't forget a weakish opener with diamonds can rebid 1NT. However, you could move the 4 spades into the (forcing) 2♣ bid if you preferred.

So 1♥ 1NT is 5+ spades, which makes it easy for opener with 3+. Otherwise it acts just like a forcing NT, with the same normal continuations, including a strong 2♣. Nothing special. The only confusion you may get into is if you as opener have 3 spades and a strong hand, and you play kickback. Then you have to apply whatever your agreements are to play in 4♠ rather than this being ace asking in hearts. We had this last night, 1♥ 1NT! 2♣!(strong) 2♥ (weak) and you need your kickback agreements.

Just one thing you need to agree is how to handle a GF spade responder. We play 1♥ 2♠ as a sort of Jacoby 2NT, so we start 1NT and rebid 2♠ with 6 spades GF, or just make a forcing bid otherwise with 5. The less than GF 6 card spade suit starts 1♠ then rebids 2♠. This makes it obvious : the initial bid said no "more than 4 cards", so rebidding spades unexpectedly shows the weak 2 type of hand. You could do it the other way round.

[Zelandakh]

We are moving away from the OP now somewhat but another option here is to play a 1♠ response to 1NT as the Forcing NT with a 1NT response being a GF with spades, together with 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT Gazilli-style, diamonds or balanced and 1♥ - 1♠; 2♦ showing spades (Flannery hand). A further option is to play the 1♠ response to cover all invitational or better hands without 4 hearts and for the 1NT response to be weak with spades and the 2m response weak and natural. And then there is the option of opening 5♥(332) hands that do not qualify for a 1NT opening with 1♣. This removes the balanced hand type from the 1♥ rebids. Some of these possibilities can be combined.

Incidentally fromage, if an opponent alerted and described 1♥ - 1♠ as 4 or fewer spades, it would be at all obvious to me that a subsequent 2♠ bid shows 6+ spades!

[fromageGB]

I must admit I do alert 1♠ as "usually 0-4 spades", but maybe I should be more precise and say "anything but 5 spades"!

[Zelandakh]

How about "6-12 with 0-4 spades or 6+ spades and 5-9" or whichever criteria you actually use. Basically, the opponents are allowed to know everything that you know.