[Zelandakh]

pilowsky, on 2021-January-09, 00:24, said:

The term semi-forcing is used to describe a bid that is forcing if the responder is NOT a passed hand, but which can be passed if the responder is a passed hand.

No, you are wrong...again.

In the UK and US, semi-forcing is most commonly used for a 1NT response to a 1M opening in a 2/1 GF system that can be passed if Opener has a certain hand type, typically a minimum balanced hand, but will usually not be passed. You can find details in the post from hrothgar.

In Germany, the term semi-forcing typically refers to a Benji 2♣ opening, meaning a hand that is around a trick short of game in hand. This is completely standard and you are expected to know it if playing in German-speaking competition.

Your definition may be correct local usage in Australia (I could not say) but it is most assuredly not the normal usage in the wider bridge community.

In any case, as to the original questions, I can think of many examples of non-forcing calls where the denomination named either has little to no meaning (puppets, marionettes, relays, negatives, etc) or specifically suggests shortage in the suit but is non-forcing (ParadoX, Precision 2♦, Mini-Multi, etc). As for the 1NT response, it is as natural as a "natural" 1NT response is, which is to mind already a misnomer. A "natural" 1NT is a bucket; a semi-forcing 1NT is simply a larger bucket.

[helene_t]

The second question is easy. Plenty of non-forcing bids are fairly artificial, such as a 0+ 1♦ opening in Bulgarian Precision, or any response to a 3rd seat opening that might be a "psyche" (in quotation marks because a bid that can be a psyche by agreement is of course an oxymoron).

But "natural" is not binary, and I suppose one can say that any non-forcing bid is a little bit natural in the sense that it is a suggestion to play the named contract if partner has a suitable hand. For example, one could say that a Benji 2♣ opening is a suggestion to play if partner has a yarb with seven clubs, or a Drury 2♣ bid is a suggestion to play if partner has psyched a 1M opening with a weak hand with long clubs. But I don't think that's the normal meaning of "natural".

The first is more tricky. I refuse to use the term "semi-forcing 1NT" since I don't understand how it differs from a non-forcing 1NT which opener also only passes with a balanced minimum or Flanery hand. But anyway, a non-forcing 1NT response to a major is not particularly natural.

So maybe I would say that on a scale from 0 (artificial) to 10 (natural) a non-forcing 1NT response is about 4, and any non-forcing call is at least 1.

[sfi]

Zelandakh, on 2021-January-10, 20:09, said:

Your definition may be correct local usage in Australia (I could not say)

It's not.

[mycroft]

I know it's not relevant to you, Helene, and I totally understand your reasoning.

Unfortunately, in the ACBL, in 1990 when Announcements came out (or in 1991, when they revised them, can't remember now), they said:

Quote

After a 1NT forcing or semi-forcing response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening bid with no interference.

Example: 1♥-P-1NT
The opening bidder will say aloud, "Forcing" or "Semi-forcing," if there was no other meaning attached to the agreement (such as showing four or more spades).

Of course, they never defined "semi-forcing", and for 30 years, people who thought they played this (or equivalently, the people who played "1NT forcing by passed hand, assuming you didn't open third-seat-light" - wherein lies the problem) would Announce "semi-forcing", and their opponents who didn't play it wouldn't understand (and their opponents who did play it frequently didn't play it the same way, so didn't get it right).

This, for an agreement that is supposedly so common and unforgettable and immediately understandable that it should be turned into an Announcement, is - bad.

And the announcement was pulled in whole hog into the new rules (adding only the Flannery-change "could have four spades"). So I commented that nobody knows what Semi-forcing means, it should probably be defined. They said "yes, it should, oops" and defined it.


So, at least in the ACBL, we now know what each other are talking about.

And the difference between this and the good old NF 1NT is that Kxx QTxx xx AJxx is a 2♣ response in standard, and a semi-forcing 1NT response for those who play it. Obviously, both systems would pass 1NT with a hand that would prefer to play 1NT opposite a 3-card limit raise; but the NF NTers would pass with hands that would prefer to play 2♠ or 4♠ opposite a 3-card limit raise, too, because partner won't have that.

If you invite with Invitational hands, and don't bid 1NT with them, you're not playing "semi-forcing" 1NT response. If you put (some) invites into 1NT, then you are, and you so Announce. Like any jargon, using it outside its known space (like for instance Australia) where others may not have the same grounding in the jargon will lead to confusion, so (as I started), I agree with you for not using it.

If I was putting fenceposts, I would actually drive this one between the two. A SA-style "NF" 1NT response to 1♠, putting the 3-card-LRs into some other call, "suggests 1NT as the final contract". A Semi-Forcing 1NT response does not (it "accepts that it may be the final contract", but it's not a suggestion). But I just enforce the rules, I don't interpret them, so take my opinion as just that.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-January-09, 14:34, said:

To respond to the OP, I don't believe that "I'm willing to play here if you have one specific awful hand, but I really want you to bid" is strong enough to meet "suggests the contract bid".

That makes two of us, at least.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-January-10, 11:13, said:

In case it wasn't obvious from 10+ years of history, I'm not putting OP in any of the categories of people we need to defend against. I'm reasonably certain his question is intended to hammer in one of those fenceposts.

It is. Interestingly, the new Alert regulation has clarified that while you announce semi-forcing 1NT responses to 1M opened in first or second seat, you neither announce nor alert semi-forcing 1NT responses to 1M opened in third or fourth seat. Is the semi-forcing 1NT bid artificial in the first case but natural in the second? I don't think so. FWIW, I think it's artificial in both cases. What I'm trying to find out is what the majority of others think.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2021-January-10, 20:36, said:

The second question is easy. Plenty of non-forcing bids are fairly artificial, such as a 0+ 1♦ opening in Bulgarian Precision, or any response to a 3rd seat opening that might be a "psyche" (in quotation marks because a bid that can be a psyche by agreement is of course an oxymoron).

Yeah, I'll get to that one later.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2021-January-10, 20:36, said:

The first is more tricky. I refuse to use the term "semi-forcing 1NT" since I don't understand how it differs from a non-forcing 1NT which opener also only passes with a balanced minimum or Flanery hand. But anyway, a non-forcing 1NT response to a major is not particularly natural.

Well, to me, the difference is in the hand types the bid shows. A typical "natural" non-forcing 1NT response is balanced with about 6 to 10 points, or possibly unbalanced with no fit and the same strength range. A typical 'semi-forcing' 1NT response includes those hands plus hands (which may be unbalanced) containing no fit and invitational values with a six card suit or less than invitational values and a six card suit, or containing a fit but too weak for a simple constructive raise or (with a three card fit) limit raise values (some people would eliminate the three card limit raise from the possible holdings (if responder is a passed hand, she uses Drury instead); some would eliminate any hand with a fit). It has always seemed to me that the purpose of the "semi-forcing" announcement is to advise opponents that the hand may contain distributions (or point counts) not included in the traditional 1NT response.

So, further question: should I routinely ask for an explanation of every auction that starts 1M-1NT or P-1M-1NT, without regard to any alerts or announcements included? I ask because if people don't tell me it's semi-forcing, how am I going to know?

Maybe I should look at their system card ("we don't have a system card, we'll just alert") and then (probably) just ask before the round starts for a description of their forcing or semi-forcing or unannounced passed hand 1NT responses. Shouldn't take more than half an hour to get a complete answer out of 'em.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-11, 11:34, said:

It is. Interestingly, the new Alert regulation has clarified that while you announce semi-forcing 1NT responses to 1M opened in first or second seat, you neither announce nor alert semi-forcing 1NT responses to 1M opened in third or fourth seat.

The old procedure also made this clear (well, at least it was specifically stated):

Quote

1♥-P-1NT:
Not Alertable if natural and non-forcing. Announceable if it is forcing or semi-forcing.
Alert if it:

• Promises spades or
  
• Has some other conventional meaning

Note: Semi-forcing in this case means that opener may pass with a minimum and
5-3-3-2 distribution, but otherwise will treat it as a forcing notrump. Passed hand 1NT
responses, unless they cannot be passed, do not require an Announcement.

(My emphasis. Putting critical information in a "Note" offends my inner SB, but there it was).

Quote

Is the semi-forcing 1NT bid artificial in the first case but natural in the second? I don't think so. FWIW, I think it's artificial in both cases. What I'm trying to find out is what the majority of others think.

This is a cute question, as I think it finds a hole. I agree, I think an agreement that 1NT is forcing even by a passed hand (which I know several players play) is Artificial, and not Announceable, and not on the list of things that you don't Alert, so I think it is Alertable (and it's not intended to be, and it won't be in practise). I also think that Semi-Forcing, per definition, is not Natural, so if a pair plays SF-by-passed-hand (not sure who would, but there are those who play "semi-forcing" by my other definition ("forcing on a real opener" - those would still put their LRs into Drury, though)) same thing if it's not Natural.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-11, 11:51, said:

So, further question: should I routinely ask for an explanation of every auction that starts 1M-1NT or P-1M-1NT, without regard to any alerts or announcements included? I ask because if people don't tell me it's semi-forcing, how am I going to know?

There is a continuum of hands that could respond 1NT in some but not all styles. Some deny a 3-card fit, some may contain a 3-card fit under certain conditions. Some may make the 1NT bid tactically with extremely weak hands. A few might still play Vienna or something similar in which it in principle shows a balanced hand.

It's somewhat arbitrary where we set the thresholds for alerting/announcing. By all means, define "semi-forcing" the way you describe and make it alertable, if that makes sense in the local culture. Personally I wouldn't know what "semi-forcing" means - I get that the upper limit is 11 rather than 9 or 10, but does it also imply that it could be a weak hand with 3-card support? But if that's the case in North America than of course it makes sense to use a well-understood term when announcing.

[barmar]

Bridge World Standard defines "semi-forcing" as:

Quote

limited to at most game-invitational strength; opener may pass with 5-3-3-2 or 4=5=2=2 and a hand deemed no stronger than 12 high-card points

The main effect of this agreement is that you can't include some game-forcing hands into your 1NT response. For instance, in some partnerships I play that responder can show 4333 13-15 with the sequence 1M-1NT-2x-3NT.

If the opening is in 3rd seat, responder's points are obviously limited. But some partnerships still play that the 1NT response is nominally forcing. If this is the case, you announce "forcing", otherwise you announce "semi-forcing". But even when your agreement is "forcing", nothing stops opener from exercising judgement and passing if they opened extremely light because of the position.

[mycroft]

The issue is, barmar, that that wasn't completely true before, and isn't true with the new Alert Procedures.

The announcement is specifically and only for "After a 1-level major suit Opening in first or second seat".

If you play 1NT still 100% forcing by passed hand, it looks like it should be Alerted (but my belief is the intent is that it should not be or that it should be Announced). If you play it "semi-forcing" by passed hand, I believe it's still not Natural, and not "Not Alertable Artificial", so it should be Alerted (but my belief is that the intent is that it should not be). If it is considered Natural as a "suggestion as final contract", is it really, if it's "never" passed? If it's "rarely" passed? If it's "occasonally" passed? If it's "passed with exactly these hands"?

Therefore, the initial question.

[Douglas43]

I think you could have the same discussion about a non-forcing 1NT response. In Acol it denies a 4-card major that can be bid at the one level or values to bid at the two level. It's OK to bid 1NT over 1S on say: x, J10xx, KQxxxx, Qx. Is that "natural"? Only in that I have too much to pass and I don't want to play in1S.

[pilowsky]

If I tell a Doctor that I just saw a "60-year old man with central crushing chest pain radiating down his left arm",
Do you think that I am trying to start a conversation about possible causes of chest pain?
No, I am specifically saying that I just met a man having a heart attack and that if they listen closely to the rest of what I have to say they should put it into that context.

If I was talking about a situation where the man had chest pain and I was unsure about its cause. I would say something like "I just saw a 60-year old man with chest pain of unknown origin".

To tell the difference between the two statements and what I am going to say next takes years of training.

Bidding in Bridge also uses 'code-snippets' but the meaning of these codes can vary according to context. People starting out have a hard time understanding why a particular use of commonly understood words may mean something much more complicated.

[Douglas43]

If you were telling me off there Pilowsky, you did it with such grace and style that I couldn't possibly take offence. And yes, I probably was wandering off-topic

[pilowsky]

"Le style c'est l'homme même"

[Zelandakh]

Douglas43, on 2021-January-15, 08:15, said:

I think you could have the same discussion about a non-forcing 1NT response. In Acol it denies a 4-card major that can be bid at the one level or values to bid at the two level. It's OK to bid 1NT over 1S on say: x, J10xx, KQxxxx, Qx. Is that "natural"? Only in that I have too much to pass and I don't want to play in1S.

You can get much more extreme than that. On a recent hand I had planned a 1NT response to my partner's 1♥ opening with ♠9 ♥K ♦853 ♣AQT86432. As it happened, RHO overcalled 1♠ and I could Pass instead. But this was the point I was making earlier in the thread that 1NT is not really natural but rather a bucket response. To that extent a semi-forcing 1NT is not more artificial, just a larger bucket.