Friday, May 20, 2005 4:05 PM

Forcing NT - Minors

PITBULLS:

The forcing NT response to a major is a bidding kludge invented to allow 2/1 to be a game force. We have to live with the bid but there is no reason we can not improve it. One of the shortcomings of the bid is describing the wide range of minor suit fits after partner has rebid 2 of a minor. Here is some standard expert treatments designed to provide a solution.

When partner opens 1♥ with a forcing 1NT response and partner rebids 2 of a minor there is an elegant solution. 2♠ is an idle bid by the 1NT bidder so use that bid to show a strong raise in partners minor. Some partnerships use the bid as either/or showing a strong raise in partner minor or a strong bid in the other minor. Tom & I do not need the second treatment as we play a minor suit 2/1 after a major as non forcing if rebid. Since you have this 2♠ understanding , a raise of partners minor by the 1NT response is pre-emptive to keep the balancers out or very mildly invitational.

The spade opener and a minor rebid after a 1NT is tougher to solve. Showing a strong minor raise needs a convention or strict partnership understandings. The BART convention invented by Bart Bramley of the US is an excellent way of solving the problem of strong club raises by the 1NT responder. It is also an excellent way of finding the elusive 5-3 heart fits after a major opener. It is an intricate convention and needs practice to use it effectively. When a hand fits this convention , we can almost guarantee winning IMPS. This leaves the raise to 3♣ as pre-emptive.

The last scenerio is a spade opener and a diamond rebid. Here is where partnership understanding comes in. I like to have the understanding with this one auction only that you can not have a simple raise as pre-emptive anymore. In this one auction , you must pass 2♦ with average or pre-emptive hands. This reserves the 3♦ raise as strong ! When Vish & I played we did not want to give up the pre-emptive nature of the 3♦ raise. We substituted an idle bid of a 3♥ jump to show a 4♦ jump and not wanting to go by 3NT. This is kind of artificial though so I just prefer that a 3♦ raise be understood as strong in this one auction only for most players.

Partner opens 1♠ and you bid 1NT with Ax xxx AQ10xx xx . Partner surprises you by rebidding 2♦. You bid 3♦ to show a strong diamond raise . Partner has Kxxxx AKx KJxxx void and 7♦ is cold if you can get there. The problem is that you can not raise to 3♦ as a pre-emptive re-raise with A xxx Q10xxx xxxx and you get the great score of +170 of 2♦ making 6 ! . There is one other attempt by experts to circumvent this problem . With this one auction only, play 2NT by the 1NT responder as an either or bid. It shows an invitational NT hand or a strong diamond raise. This frees the 3♦ raise as pre-emptive. This is the solution I prefer as Tom and I play relays after 2NT to show whether we have strong or weak hands. This treatment blends in with our system quite nicely. Anyway , there is no convention invented to solve the spade/diamond problem. Fred Gittleman writes in an article that we are supposed to write him if somebody does solve this problem in an elegant way !!