New Minor Forcing over 1m-1M-2NT

[Ashok]

Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.

N-S hands

A9754
A4
52
T765


KQ
KT
AQT86
A982


N-S bidding:

S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P

Table talk and corridor talk:

At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?

North: You guys need some serious bridge education.

South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.

North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.

Two questions here:

One is regarding the showboating by North and his friend:
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.


Ashok

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.

Hahahahah. I love that "Among the sophsticated bidders...." Meaning he
is sophsticated. Unlike, sa, Jeff Ruvens, who believes "keep it simple,
stupid."


If a call has a reasonable natural meaning and has not been
specifically discussed, it is natural. This lack of understanding over
undiscussed sequences is a bugaboo of players except among the very
best.... and usually they will asign the minimal meanings to sequences.
It's why I refuse to play two-suited overcalls with pickup partners.
What THEY consier a two-suited overcall and what I consider one are all
too often far different things.

However, snobbery and implied insult aside, your partner is correct.

Bob

[pgmer6809]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

With a new partner who was not an expert, if we are playing NmF over
1NT I would assume that they meant the same over 2NT.

Even with some of my expert partners they play it as NmF.

That aside, Hardy in his 2/1 book, when talking about rebids over 2NT,
recommends the use of 3C as a Wolffe sign-off, and the 3D as a G/F
check back.
If you play that, then you can find 6-2, 5-3 or 4-4 fits in either
major, at the cost of not being able to play 3C. (and depending on your
structure maybe not 3D either).
This assumes that with 4-x-y-z Opener with 18-20 and a balanced hand,
will rebid 2NT after 1m-1H, so the spade fit could be lost unless there
is a structure to uncover it.
Provided Responder has the values for it, you can also find your minor
suit fits, assuming that you are willing to go past 3NT to do so. The
only time this makes sense is if you have at least mild slam interest,
and in such cases, esp at matchpoints, it is important to be able to
bail in 4NT natural, if the minor suit contract does not look
attractive.
pgmer6809

[Kieran Dyke]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

Well, in a word, bollocks.

Post by Ashok
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.

If I wanted to play in a spade partial, I would (a) adopt weak jump shifts,
allowing us to stop in two, or (b) adopt Wolff signoff.

In any case, without discussion, NMF is worthless here. Which sounds pretty
much like North.

Tiggrr

Post by Ashok
Ashok

[David Stevenson]

Post by Kieran Dyke

Post by Ashok
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

Well, in a word, bollocks.

Good, meaningful, to the point.

Actually, I did not know that NMF ever applied over 2NT. I better
find out whether I am playing it with my American American partner!

Post by Kieran Dyke
In any case, without discussion, NMF is worthless here. Which sounds pretty
much like North.

Good, meaningful, to the point.

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

As far as I am concerned, NMF is off over a 2nt rebid without specific
agreements to the contrary. That's not to say it's a good agreement or
a bad agreement. It is to say that the standard US expert treatment,
undiscussed, would be 3C = Wolff signoff.

It is in my opinion far superior to play some kind of transfer scheme
than Wolff. So, for example, over the auction 1D-1H; 2NT-?, responder
might rebid:

3C = transfer to diamonds, either to play or a good hand with 4 hearts
and diamond support.

3D = transfer to hearts, either to play or a good hand with 5-4 majors
(rebid 3S) or a a good hand with 5 hearts offering a choice of games
(rebid 3NT), or a good hand with 5 hearts, diamond support, and slam
interest (4C+)

3H = transfer to spades, 4-4 majors, GF (because a hand like Qxxx;
Jxxx; xx; Qxx can't afford to search for spades when the alternative
could be 3NT with 18 opposite 5). Could be GF only, or the first step
in showing slam interest, perhaps with both majors and diamond support.

3S = transfer to clubs, normally 4-5, some slam interest but limited by
the failure to respond 2C immediately.

3NT = to play.

This type of scheme affords much more flexibility to responder in
addition to slowing down the auction when responder has slam interest
opposite a well-fitting hand.

It is up to each partnership to determine what rejecting the transfer
means, of course.

Henrysun909

[Barry Margolin]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
As far as I am concerned, NMF is off over a 2nt rebid without specific
agreements to the contrary. That's not to say it's a good agreement or
a bad agreement. It is to say that the standard US expert treatment,
undiscussed, would be 3C = Wolff signoff.

I think the exact opposite. While Wolff Signoff may be a better
treatment, and many experts use it, I would never assume it undiscussed.
Conversely, most of the partners I've played with assume that absent
other discussion, just about everything played after a 1NT rebid applies
after a 2NT jump rebid. It may not be best, but it's a nice, simple
assumption.

[Kent Feiler]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:48:01 -0400, Barry Margolin

Post by h***@yahoo.com
As far as I am concerned, NMF is off over a 2nt rebid without
specific agreements to the contrary. That's not to say it's a good
agreement or a bad agreement. It is to say that the standard US
expert treatment, undiscussed, would be 3C = Wolff signoff.

--------------------------------------
I think the exact opposite. While Wolff Signoff may be a better
treatment, and many experts use it, I would never assume it
undiscussed. Conversely, most of the partners I've played with assume
that absent other discussion, just about everything played after a 1NT
rebid applies after a 2NT jump rebid. It may not be best, but it's a
nice, simple assumption.
---------------------------------------

Here's an even nicer and simpler assumption, if you haven't discussed
it, it's natural. If you don't play things that way, then the two
partners are essentialy taking a poll of the people they know and the
bridge material they've read and hoping their partner's poll comes out
with the same result. If it doesn't the partnership may be headed for
the deep fertilizer. OTOH, having to play a bid as natural when you
would prefer it to be your convention du jour may not always give you
the best possible result but it's unlikely to be a disaster.





Regards,


Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

[raija d]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
As far as I am concerned, NMF is off over a 2nt rebid without specific
agreements to the contrary. That's not to say it's a good agreement or
a bad agreement. It is to say that the standard US expert treatment,
undiscussed, would be 3C = Wolff signoff.

I would disagree. Wolff signoff definitely requires agreement while NMF is
commonly played over 2NT as well as 1NT. But I would not assume it is on
over 2NT unless discussed or unless I happen to play with a pickup with
similar style preferences to mine in other situations, in which case I
assume is is NMF on.

[David Howorth]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

For what it is worth, I have never played NMF over a 2NT rebid, and
never had a partner suggest we play it there. (I usually play Wolff. One
of my partners insists on Stoplight.) So I would not assume NMF here.

As careful readers of r.g.b. may recall, I forced myself over the summer
to read Max Hardy's last 2/1 book (the "basic" volume 1, not volume 2).
He teaches NMF over the 2NT rebid -- the first time (I think) that I
encountered this. (Since this surprised me at the time, I peeked at
volume 2, and he departs from it there.)

One thing I have learned via a few pick-up partnerships with Hardy-ites:
They assume that all his treatments are standard, even treatments of his
that are in fact quite idiosyncratic. (That was a bit of a shock at
first, but now I'm prepared for it.) Was your partner a Hardy-ite?

David Howorth

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by David Howorth
As careful readers of r.g.b. may recall, I forced myself over the summer
to read Max Hardy's last 2/1 book (the "basic" volume 1, not volume 2).
He teaches NMF over the 2NT rebid -- the first time (I think) that I
encountered this. (Since this surprised me at the time, I peeked at
volume 2, and he departs from it there.)

I'll have to check, but the only Hardy book I have is the red version
of "Two Over One Game Force" (from 1980-something, I think), and I
don't think he uses NMF there. So it looks like he either changed his
mind or decided to make things simpler (the red book has a fair number
of rather esoteric conventions in it).

Post by David Howorth
They assume that all his treatments are standard, even treatments of his
that are in fact quite idiosyncratic. (That was a bit of a shock at
first, but now I'm prepared for it.) Was your partner a Hardy-ite?

Heh... I wonder what would happen when a player who had read Hardy's
last 2/1 book and a player who had read the red book play together and
both assume all his treatments are standard.

Anyway, your comment about Hardy-ites assuming all his treatments are
standard doesn't really surprise me, given Hardy's writing style. This
isn't to say that Hardy made any bogus claims about his ideas being
"the way things are"---just that his writing style could have used some
improvement IMVHO.

-- Adam

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.

Years ago, I would probably have asked him "at how much a point" but
years ago I would have known who he was and whether this was wise. Not
knowing my customer, I just ignore the bloviating imbecile.

Post by Ashok
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.

It can be half a dozen things. It is not useless as natural and forcing
and there are various signoff methods that start with 3C here. Playing
it as NMF, in my humble opinion, the bridge bidding equivalent of FPS
(Fancy Play Syndrome, a poker term)

Post by Ashok
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

If we got to that part of the card where you fill out NMF, I would
mention that I only play that over 1NT on the auction 1m-1M-1N. If I
were playing with someone who insisted on playing it over a 2NT rebid,
I would play it. But she or he would have to insist.

Post by Ashok
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.

Most people have other ways to play 3S. I don't but I have never minded
much. Old-fashioned "any bid over the 2NT rebid is forcing to game"
works for me. I passed once with a hand I wanted to play in 3S and my
knowledgable LHO doubled because "2NT never makes eight tricks on this
auction" and allowed me to go to 3S, which was down one undoubled for a
6+ out of twelve. Otherwise, in many, too many, years of bridge, I have
never played any partial but 2NT on that auction. I am not saying it
would never have been better to play one but the question involved the
convention being worth it and these situations haven't happened enough
to make me think that it is.

Will in New Haven

--

All chnange for round ten; slow pairs please go home.

Post by Ashok
Ashok

[Pubkeybreaker]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

Yes. NMF applies after both 1NT and 2NT rebids by opener.

Post by Ashok
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it?

Yes.

Post by Ashok
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.

False. Explain why using this prevents responder from
showing a 2-suiter.

[Stephen Fischer]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

I wouldn't expect it to be. The only thing it gains is the ability to
stop in 3S, while hampering slam sequences.

Post by Ashok
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.

I've rarely found the simplistic rule of "the only non-game forcing bid
is pass" to be a loser. There are better treatments over this sequence,
but NMF doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?

I don't think so. However (assuming no discussion of this situation),
I'd definitely consider 3C to be forcing and suspicious (even if I
opened 1C). That is, if I opened and it went 1D-1M-2NT-3C, I'd alert
and explain that we agreed to play NMF over a 1NT rebid but hadn't
discussed what to do over a 2NT rebid, so I'm not clear on what partner
is doing. But the fact that you play NMF over a 1NT rebid is relevant
to the opponents and should, I believe, be alerted even though you
aren't really sure what 3C means here. If it went 1C-1M-2NT-3C, I'm
not sure I'd alert, but I'd definitely not pass and I wouldn't assume
partner really has clubs.

NMF over a 2NT rebid certainly isn't standard in the
expert/high-intermediate community; I believe it's more common to use
some other checkback structure where 3C is artificial and 3D is more
likely to be natural, regardless of which minor has been opened. Wolff
Signoff is one of those. BWS2001 uses 3C as the checkback, and by
default uses 3D to show a fit in opener's minor (but a leaf uses 3D as
natural and forcing). The Pavlicek System does appear to use NMF, with
a rebid in opener's minor natural and forcing.

Post by Ashok
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.

I think having some sort of checkback helps sort things out when
responder has bid a 5-card major or holds both majors (4-4 or 5-4). In
no case, however, should a 3-level rebid be "to play". IMHO all
three-level suit bids over a 2NT rebid should be forcing. Having a way
to play in 3 of a suit after this rebid is not terribly important
(although Wolff gives you a way to do so).

-- Adam

[Gary Seckinger]

(Ashok wrote:

Two questions here:

One is regarding the showboating by North and his friend:
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?)

No. Without discussion I would assume it's natural.

( Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.)

I think Wolff signoffs are far superior to NMF or natural in this
situation and are played by many of the better players.


As far as North's comments go, I was playing online the other night and
my partner vul vs vul in 1st seat opened 1 heart. We played in 3NT
making a decent score. When the hand was over East started berating
her partner for not bidding 2H with K9xxxx in front of the 5 card
major.
I pointed out to her that 2H* went for 1100; whereby East quipped, "You
can't go by results".
It just goes to show you that there's all sorts of comments out there.

Gary

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

Taken from the bridgeworld.com summary of Bridge World Standard 2001:

After a one-level new-suit response and opener's two-notrump rebid:

(a) responder's three-club rebid is artificial, and opener bids three
diamonds unless he has three-card support for responder's major
(responder's next bid up to and including three of his original suit
is nonforcing; otherwise, responder's next bid is a signoff if that
is possible; otherwise, it is a choice of games if that is possible;
otherwise, it is a checkback for an eight-card major-suit fit if
possible; otherwise, it converts the three-club rebid into a natural
bid in the minor three diamonds over two notrump would not have shown);

(b) [default]

responder's three-diamond rebid shows a fit for opener's minor

[leaf]

shows diamonds.

Whether Wolff signoff is the best treatment or not, to the extent that
BWS represents the consensus opinion of the top US players, I think my
previous statement that it represents the default interpretation of the
3C rebid is a fair one. Whether players below this level would agree
is of course quite a different question. I don't have the poll results
from 1984 or 2001 on this topic, but I'd be surprised if in 1984 less
than 65% voted to play Wolff. I'd expect it to be a little less in
2001 if only because other more exotic ways of developing the auction
(e.g., transfers) are getting more play.

Henrysun909

[Barry Margolin]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
Whether Wolff signoff is the best treatment or not, to the extent that
BWS represents the consensus opinion of the top US players, I think my
previous statement that it represents the default interpretation of the
3C rebid is a fair one.

I disagree. BWS may represent what the consensus considers a good idea,
I'm not aware that anyone considers it a common default. For instance,
BWS contains semi-forcing 1NT, but almost everyone who plays 2/1 uses
forcing 1NT.

[PriorKnowledge]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

3C is not NMF. NMF is only applicable to a 1N rebid. The reason is that
in standard bidding a non-reverse new suit by responder is not forcing
after a 1N rebid, so NMF is a departure from standard. That is one of
the reasons it is alertable.

However, after a jump 2N rebid, standard is that any bid over 2N is a
game-force. So new minor is not needed. The fact that 3C in this
situation may not show an actual club suit is a convenience for
responder. A new minor suit that may not actually be real is used in
many auctions to create a force when soliciting more information from
opener, so this is nothing special.

As mentioned by other posters, Wolff signoff (and its variations) are
used after a 2N rebid. But that is always 3C regardless of the opening
bid.

[raija d]

Post by PriorKnowledge

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

3C is not NMF. NMF is only applicable to a 1N rebid. The reason is that
in standard bidding a non-reverse new suit by responder is not forcing
after a 1N rebid, so NMF is a departure from standard. That is one of
the reasons it is alertable.
However, after a jump 2N rebid, standard is that any bid over 2N is a
game-force. So new minor is not needed. The fact that 3C in this
situation may not show an actual club suit is a convenience for
responder. A new minor suit that may not actually be real is used in
many auctions to create a force when soliciting more information from
opener, so this is nothing special.
As mentioned by other posters, Wolff signoff (and its variations) are
used after a 2N rebid. But that is always 3C regardless of the opening
bid.

You speak with uncalled voice of authority of what is standard. It may be
your standard.

[PriorKnowledge]

Post by raija d

Post by PriorKnowledge

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
N-S hands
A9754
A4
52
T765
KQ
KT
AQT86
A982
S N
1D 1S
2NT 3C
4C 4S
P
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?
North: You guys need some serious bridge education.
South: But we never discussed and agreed that it applied
over 2NT.
North and a soul-mate of his: That doesn't matter.
In a sophisticated field, the presumption would be that
the 3C bid can only be New Minor Forcing.
Is it true that 3C would be taken to be NMF (say, with
a pickup partner at an ACBL event, with whom you agreed
to play NMF)?
Second--forgetting education, sophistication and all that
jazz--is the treatment worth it? As far as I can tell, all
it does is allow the responder to bid 3S to play. What
one loses is the ability to bid two-suited hands with
responder constructively.
Ashok

3C is not NMF. NMF is only applicable to a 1N rebid. The reason is that
in standard bidding a non-reverse new suit by responder is not forcing
after a 1N rebid, so NMF is a departure from standard. That is one of
the reasons it is alertable.
However, after a jump 2N rebid, standard is that any bid over 2N is a
game-force. So new minor is not needed. The fact that 3C in this
situation may not show an actual club suit is a convenience for
responder. A new minor suit that may not actually be real is used in
many auctions to create a force when soliciting more information from
opener, so this is nothing special.
As mentioned by other posters, Wolff signoff (and its variations) are
used after a 2N rebid. But that is always 3C regardless of the opening
bid.

You speak with uncalled voice of authority of what is standard. It may be
your standard.

Yeh, I talk like that. Most of the time I know what I am talking about.
Like this time I do.

Bridge bidding has developed a standard bidding that started in the
30's and moved through the 40's, 50's, 60's and into the 70's.
Culbertson and Goren were the recognized "standard" bearers. Other
experts who published books with new bidding usually recognized what
was standard and offered non-standard better solutions. Although there
were always many variations and different systems, most experts knew
which bids were standard and which were non-standard. The 70's and 80's
were an explosion of new bids and new systems (which has continued).
What was "standard" was not so clear anymore. Then the ACBL published
the Standard American Yellow Card in the late 1980's. This became the
standard. SAYC was basically Goren modified for 5-card majors and a few
new bids. 20 years later, I am not sure there still is a "standard"
system that we can make exceptions to. BWS is not considered "standard"
although that is the closest we have, I guess. There is also, Steve
Robinson's "Washington Standard."

I have also heard the phrase "Standard Expert" implying that certain
bids are standard among experts. For example: opps open 4S and your
partner doubles. Is that penalty or takeout? Most people play those
high level doubles as penalty because it is difficult to bid starting
at the 5-level. But most top experts play those high level doubles as
takeout. So which is standard?

[Robin Barker]

Post by Ashok
Pairs. Both Vul. East deals.
At the end of the bidding, before the opening lead,
North, looking rather pleased with himself, announced
that there was a failure to alert, that South did not
alert the 3C bid as New Minor Forcing. Both South and
the opponents seemed surprised: What? After 2NT?

In October's "Bridge Magazine" (UK), Partnership Profile Hand 5 (page
37), Marc Smith discusses the auction 1C-1S-2NT. "A bid of the unbid
minor is best played as Staymanic ...", sounds like New Minor Forcing
to me. I'm not saying he's right. :-)

Robin