More Bridge: or How to Answer Your Partner When He Bids 1M

So, I opened a huge can of problems trying to tackle this issue. Responding to 1 of a Major is one of the most talked about parts of bidding I've ever come across. Everyone has their own opinion it seems like, but I think I've boiled it down to 2 major philosophies: 1NT NF (SAYC), 1NT Forcing or Semi-forcing (2/1, most Precision).

What I mean is that there are a number of conventions and whatnot that you and your partner can play like Jacoby 2NT, Bergen Raises, MGQ (convention created by me and my regular partner, the wifey), etc., BUT whether or not 1NT response is forcing defines a system of responses.

In a non-forcing 1NT response system, any bid at the 2-level lower than the opening major is forcing BUT not necessarily to game. They include invitational value hands, game-forcing hands or bigger. The big plus to this is that you can play 1NT more often (which in MP play is the most likely part-score to be top at a small club), and you get to bid very naturally given you have the points to bid at the 2-level to begin with. Meg and I play this system as it is what we started with and we haven't been convinced that the other philosophy is superior. Here's a summary of what we play today:
1H - 1S = 4+ spades, F1
---- 1NT = 6-9 HCP, no 4+ spades or 3+ hearts, NON-FORCING
---- 2C/2D = 10+ HCP, 5+ cards in bid suit (may have 3 card support)
---- 2H = 6-9 pts, 3+ hearts
---- 2NT = 10-12 HCP, balanced
---- 2S/3C/3D = MGQ (Game-forcing, good heart support, and 1st round control of bid suit)
---- 3H = 10-12 pts, 4+ hearts
---- 3NT = Choice of game (balanced with 3 hearts)
---- 3S/4C/4D = Splinters
---- 4H = To play

In this system, you bid fairly naturally with 10+ HCP hands without support, and the raises are standard. The only way to game-force is by use of the MGQ with good support for opener or bid 2 of a minor, then keep forcing (we use 4th-suit-forcing to game).

On the other hand, 1NT Forcing (or Semi-forcing, which means opener can pass with a balanced bare-minimum) allows for more scientific bidding. What happens is that since 1NT is forcing for 1 round, you can allow all kinds of hand types to be shoved into one bid to be described more clearly on the 2nd bid. This in turn, frees up some of the higher bids to mean other things. Take this response system for example:
1H - 1S = 4+ spades, F1
---- 1NT = Forcing (could be 5-7 pt. heart raise OR invitational balanced hand OR invitational 3-card raise OR any other hand that is 7-11 HCP with no heart support)
---- 2C = Game-forcing, balanced OR 5+ clubs, unbalanced
---- 2D = Game-forcing and natural (5+ diamonds)
---- 2H = 8-10 pts, 3+ cards (a constructive raise, much harder for opponents to get into it)
---- 2S = 5-9 HCP, 6+ spades
---- 2NT = 10+ pts, 4+ hearts (or 3 hearts if unbalanced)
---- 3C/3D = 10-12 HCP, 6+ card suit (no heart support)
---- 3H = 7-9 pts, 4+ hearts (a kind of mixed raise for those of you who are fans of Bergen)
---- 3NT = Choice of game (balanced with 3 hearts)
---- 3S/4C/4D = Splinters
---- 4H = To play

This system is I think what Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell used to play in their Precision system (they might still. I'm not sure as they won't publish their very desirable bidding system). Of course, their system, like almost all experts' systems, are a lot more involved with bids being defined 3 or 4 bids in. But they get to Game-force early at the 2-level, and use all those higher bids for more specific, invitational hands. I especially like the use of 2NT to include invitational hands with support, leaving the weaker hands to raise and jump-raise depending on the number of trump support.

Well, chew on that for a little while, then decide what is best for you and your partner. There are pluses and minuses in both, so don't feel like one camp has it all over the other. If you want to hear about more bizarre response systems, drop me a line. I'm shouting to the wilderness, for pete's sake.