[goobers]

The only explanation I've ever received about this convention is 2C relays to 2D, and 2D is a GF. So I guess the question is, how is this played?

What is
1m - 1M
1N - 3M

1m - 1M
1N - 2C
2D - 3M

1m - 1S
1N - 2D
2H - 3S

1m - 1M
1N - 3m

I assume
1m - 1M
1N - 3(om/oM) is 55 GF.


Also, with 2C -> 2D, then 2N showing a balanced invite, a direct 2N relays to clubs, which allows us to get out in clubs, but otherwise is this relay used in some way?

I'm sure there are dozens of sequences I'm still missing. If anyone could shed some light on this, I would be very appreciative.

[karlson]

The way I play and which I think is pretty much standard around here. Some of this depends on whether you commonly rebid 1N with stiff M, which I'll assume you do.

1. Natural, forcing slam try, suit is playable opposite a stiff. With a lesser suit start with 2d.

2. Invitational with a decent 6-card suit (opener should focus less on his fit for M, like he should after a 2M invite, and more on his quick tricks outside).

3. Single suited in spades but not good enough for 3♠ immediately. 3N NF over this.

4. If m=♦, natural GF. I think it should be 5 diamonds and 4M but you'll find some disagreement about the exact lengths this should promise. If m=♣ then I think it's most commonly played as a signoff, but if you play 2N as a relay to 3c, then you can use this as some GF hand with clubs and M (again, I think 4-5, but you could play it as 5-4 or 5-5).

5. 1m-1♠-1n-3♥ is obviously 5-5 GF. 1m-1♥-1n-3♠ is a self splinter with hearts. 1♦-1M-1n-3♣ it depends again. Again, I think it's most common to play this as weak with clubs, but if you play the 2n relay, then this can be 5-5 GF.

The alternative to using 2n as a relay to 3c is to play that 2c-2d-2n is a balanced invite that suggests 3m as an alternative contract, whereas the immediate 2n does not (I suppose you could just as well play it the other way).

You might also discuss sequences like 1m-1h-1n-2s vs 1m-2h-1n-2c-2d-2s. I think it's pretty common that the first one is 4-4 invitational and the second one is 4-5 invitational.

[goobers]

Oh yes, I'm used to 1m - 1H - 1N - 2S being 44 invite.

Sorry, I probably should've been clearer in the original post, I didn't imagine jump reverses or reverses by responder when I used m/M.

[CSGibson]

I play a transfer based 2-way NMF/XYZ system.

In ours, 2♣ is all invitational hands, over which partner bids as though we've used regular NMF.

All of the subsequent transfers are either drop-dead or game forcing.

2♦ is a transfer to ♥. Partner can give a preference to 2♠ if that was our suit in the prior round

2♥ is a transfer to ♠

2♠ is a transfer to ♣ (partner can break the transfer to show a good ♣suit for the prior bidding)

2N is a transfer to ♦ (partner can break the transfer to show a good ♦ suit for the prior bidding)


3 level bids are natural, slammish, and showing 5-5 with good suits if we've shown 2 suits, 6 or longer with a good suit & slammish if a rebid of our original suit.

I've played 2-way NMF both ways, and I'm convinced that transfers are better, even though we are giving up the ability to play 2♦. Responder has more room to bid out his shape for game or slam, and there are also suit quality inferences when not making immediate leaps.

[aguahombre]

all this is surely good. My question would be: What hand cannot be handled with regular old NMF, a la Hardy adjunct responses, that is better with 2-way mf bids? Keeping in mind that "regualr old" maintains the ability to play 2D if appropriate.

this is a righteous question, not the start of an argument.

[awm]

The main problem with "regular" new minor force is that opener must jump in order to show maximum values. This interferes with the ability to look for slam or negotiate the best game. For example after 1♦-1♠-1NT:

♠Axxxx
♥x
♦AKxx
♣Kxx

Supposing that you bid 2♣ "new minor force" with this hand, partner leaps to 3NT to show 14 high card points. Do you bid on? You could easily have a slam in diamonds (say partner has Kx Axx Qxxx AJxx) or 3NT could be the best spot (Qx KQx Qxxx AJxx).

Of course, you could decide that a direct 3♦ is forcing rather than invitational, but then it's not clear when you're 5-4 vs 4-5, and you still have the same problem when you bid "new minor force" with an invitational hand and the same shape.

Two-way solves this problem because opener will never need to jump around on his rebid. You can bid 2♦ game force, hear 2NT, and then suggest diamond slam with 3♦. If partner has a control rich hand he cuebids, if he has slow cards in the round suits he can bid 3NT.

[aguahombre]

Jump to 3NT is not possible with decent responses to regular NMF, with bid of 4th suit showing weak weak nt rebid and not fit. 2NT is the 13-14 hand (with 3253 weak, 2d is available and all 3 level responses to NMF show 3 of responder's major and specified shape). But still listening for something to latch onto.

The context, of course, is that after 1D-1H....1NT denies 4 spades, so........

but i guess it was a bad question of mine, since It all depends on the above, plus opening 1C with balanced --44 and a weak NT, etc, otherwise Hardy adjunct to regular NMF has holes.

[awm]

A lot of people seem to assume that bidding nmf "guarantees" five cards in responder's original major.

Yet it's not clear this is the case. For example, there are invitational hands with 4♠-6♣ and various hands with 4♠-minor suit fit. These hands are usually awkward to show in "one way" nmf. Some of them can be direct jumps of course, but you need both forcing and invite sequences.

Exactly where the problems show up will depend on your allocation of rebids of course.

[aguahombre]

awm, on Mar 16 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

A lot of people seem to assume that bidding nmf "guarantees" five cards in responder's original major.

Yet it's not clear this is the case. For example, there are invitational hands with 4♠-6♣ and various hands with 4♠-minor suit fit. These hands are usually awkward to show in "one way" nmf. Some of them can be direct jumps of course, but you need both forcing and invite sequences.

Exactly where the problems show up will depend on your allocation of rebids of course.

yep......with old style nmf followed by rebid of old minor being slammish...and rebid of new minor being invite only, we sometimes have to settle on 3NT when 5M might technically be better.

But the slam hands never have been a problem. The main thing seems to be getting rid of the problem about finding a fit in the other major --which proper original agreements (openings and rebids with balanced hands) seem to make a non-issue.

What I found interesting was that when people use the game forcing version of the minor forcing thing, they don't seem to know if opener is minimum or max for his 1NT rebid until a very high level. But with the old fuddy-duddy style, opener's size and shape are known early on.

[CSGibson]

aguahombre, on Mar 16 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

all this is surely good. My question would be: What hand cannot be handled with regular old NMF, a la Hardy adjunct responses, that is better with 2-way mf bids? Keeping in mind that "regualr old" maintains the ability to play 2D if appropriate.

this is a righteous question, not the start of an argument.

the weak hand with 4 of a major and 6 of the unopened minor is a problem in "old" nmf. Any two-suited slam hands are less easy to describe in old NMF (notice the suit quality restrictions for the 3 level jumps, as an example...).

As for being able to show a min or a max, that might be useful, but anyone playing serious bridge has a way of inviting slam opposite a 1N opener with a semi-balanced hand, and opposite an unbalanced hand, whether the NT rebidder has a min or max has less meaning than degree of fit with responder's hand, which jumping around gives less space to determine.

[Fluffy]

Quote

Also, with 2C -> 2D, then 2N showing a balanced invite, a direct 2N relays to clubs, which allows us to get out in clubs, but otherwise is this relay used in some way?

I use 3♣ as sing off adn 2NT as natural, the difference betweeen 2♣-2♦-2NT and bidding 2NT directly is that direct 2NT shows 4 cards in partner's opening minor accepting a rectification to 3m

[Free]

I use 2NT as a puppet to 3♣. You can
- signoff in 3♣
- bid a GF 5-5 (3M shows 5-5 M-♣)

Bidding 3m immediately shows an invite with 5-5.
Bidding 2♣ followed by 3m shows 4M-5+m invite.

1m - 1M
1N - 3M = GF, 6+M

1m - 1M
1N - 2C
2D - 3M = DNE, but you could say "choice of games" (although 3NT already has that meaning)

1m - 1S
1N - 2D
2H - 3S = DNE*

1m - 1M
1N - 3m = 5M-5m, INV

* you could use this to show better suit quality (sets trumps) than 1m-1M-1N-3M

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on Mar 17 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

the weak hand with 4 of a major and 6 of the unopened minor is a problem in "old" nmf.  

opposite a semi-balanced hand, and opposite an unbalanced hand, whether the NT rebidder has a min or max has less meaning than degree of fit with responder's hand, which jumping around gives less space to determine.

Both points are valid of course.

The weak 4M-6(new minor) hand is a problem. But, a jump to the new minor shows that hand in the old Hardy style (If the new minor is diamonds, you might be one-level higher than you would like to be, but u do have an 8 to ten-card fit there; if the new minor is clubs, both styles force you to the 3-level, anyway.)

With the old Hardy Adjunct responses to NMF, all jumps to the 3-level show both size and shape at the same time (max, 3-cd support, and the exact pattern). So, the use of the extra space is not a problem. With a min. and 3M support, opener responds a simple 2 of the suit, allowing responder to pass --but making all other follow-ups forcing. Context: if NMF does not have 5M, he is slammish in NT or in Opener's original minor.

Still, there must be some combination of hands, somewhere, which are better to handle with the both minors forcing treatment --and are worth giving up the ability to sign off in two of the old minor. I just haven't read what those hands might be, yet.

[Mbodell]

you don't give up signing off in 2 of the old minor unless the old minor was clubs.

1x-1y-1z-2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ and you can pass that. So it is only 2♣ that you lose, as to sign off in clubs you need be at the three level. Really, that isn't a big deal IMO especially since club openings could be short and NT scores better anyways.

[awm]

Supposing the auction was 1♦-1♠-1NT, you have the following sequences available playing "regular" nmf:

2♦, 2♥, 2♠: presumably all signoffs (2♥ showing 5-4 in the majors can be corrected)
2NT: invite game in notrump
3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠: you can decide which are invite and which are slam tries or signoffs
2♣....pass: presumably this is a declined invite (1)
2♣....2M: presumably invite with five cards in major when possible
2♣....2N: how does this differ from direct 2N? perhaps it shows 5♠, but you could bid 2♠...
2♣....3♣, 3♦, 3M: you can decide which are invite and which are slam tries or signoffs
2♣....3NT: presumably choice of games

Obviously one can rearrange which three-level calls are game forces, invites, signoffs. But there is the issue that you have only two ways to reach (for example) 3♣. You can bid it directly, or you can bid 2♣...3♣. The latter sequence might even be "blocked" by partner jumping after the 2♣ nmf bid, depending on what your agreements about that are. So you can't have all three of: a club signoff, a club invite, and a club slam try. Two-way avoids this problem by having three (at least!) ways to reach 3♣ (2♣...3♣, 2♦...3♣, 3♣ direct, maybe 2NT puppet to 3♣). Another issue is that you have only two non-signoff sequences in diamonds (direct 3♦ and 2♣...3♦, and again the latter may be "blocked" by opener's jump rebid). Presumably one is invite and the other is game force, but you have trouble distinguishing between four spades and longer diamonds versus five spades and four-plus diamonds. Again two-way avoids the problem (2♣...3♦ for invite with longer diamonds, 2♦...3♦ for game force with longer spades, jump to 3♦ for slam try with longer diamonds, 2♣...2♠ and then correct 2NT to 3♦ for invite with longer spades).

Two-way also gives you a huge number of "extra" sequences that can be put to interesting use. For example, Sam and I play splinter direct jumps over the 1NT rebid to describe game forcing "three suited" hands which helps substantially in reaching the best game contract (plus the occasional light slam when opener has a perfecto). These hands are virtually impossible to describe in "regular" nmf sequences. Alternatively, you can distinguish suit quality (i.e. direct 3♠ sets spades as trump, 2♦...3♠ is a weaker six card suit) or you can distinguish very shapely invites from flatter ones (2♣...jump to 3♥ would be a 5-5 or maybe even 6-5 invite on light values, which really needs different cards from partner than a 5-4 invite).

[aguahombre]

oh, well. I guess I have to just give up looking for a good reason to switch. As already stated, all jumps --or bids above 2S --already create a game force because 2NT shows a max with 2S, and 3-level bids show a max with 3 Spades. Max, opposite invite equals game, and allows slow exploration of the right strain --or simply placing the contract in the right game.

2-level responses to NMF 2C, in the "1D-1S-1N" scenario all describe exactly what opener's minimum NT rebid has, in the way of shape: 2D shows 2-3-5-3, or rarely 2-2-5-4 and a minimum. 2H shows 11-12 HCP and 2-4-4-3 distribution (because 2-3-4-4 would open 1c). 2S shows 11-12 with 3 card spade support. In all these cases, NMF bidder can either place the contract by passing 2D/2S or bidding 2NT--passing 2H, bidding 2Nt, bidding 3C, or making a forcing 3-level bid above 3C.

Again: "regular NMF", in order to have no serious holes, must be predicated upon agreements about:
1) what to open with - - 4 4 balanced (1C).
2) what to rebid with 4-3-4-2 balanced (1S, not 1Nt--eliminating need for spade checkback.
3)what to rebid with minimum NT rebids (never 2NT).
4)not using NMF with 6+M unless slamming.
5)Never rebidding 1NT with a singleton.

Without the above, "Both Minors Forcing" seems to be very much needed.
If those agreements are in place, we can always have a decent auction to the right part score or game --and reasonable/slow exploration for slam using "old NMF".

There is only one case where regular NMF fails to get us to the best strain (maybe).
that is the situation 1C-1S-1NT-2D. Here, if NMF has 11-12 and 5-4-x-x, we cannot play in a heart partial when opener is 2-4-3-4 with 11-12 (because he might be 2-3-4-4). So we play in 2NT instead.

All that was probably clear as mud to anyone who has not absorbed the detailed responses to NMF established back in the 70's by Max or Jon Wittes, or Dick Walsh.