"Two-way new minor forcing"

[cherdano]

In his BBO advanced writeup, Fred stated "2-way new minor forcing". Hehe, that's easy, as he leaves the followups and implications on other auctions to the phantasy of the users.

 

However, the BBO advanced file will have to be more precise...

 

Maybe some context: this is for auctions 1m-1M-1N. Presumably no Walsh imposed, but I am sure responder will often bypass a 4-card diamond suit with below GF values.

 

I don't think there is a universal treatment of 2-way checkback or 2-way new minor forcing. Some play 2C as a puppet to 2D, responder then clarifies his intent. Others play 2C just as an artificial force, opener rebids naturally immediately.

 

I am actually very much in favor of 1 (hehe, and now that Fred is away in Taiwan, it would be a good time to overrule him :P ). For one thing, it is very much the scheme assumed undiscussed (and also the BWS treatment). Also, the lack of a standard 2-way checkback scheme makes it rather unattractive, since I would have to pick one (and users would have to check which one). But I am open for opinions.

 

Arend

[inquiry]

The clear implication of the write up is for both 2♣ and 2♦ to be forcing (even if not new suit), else nmf would have been the explaination. I can see no reason to deviate from this plan on the BBO Advanced FD card.

 

Having said that, there is indeed no follow up. I prefer 2♣ forces 2♦ and responder can pass or invite game somewhere. This means an initial 2♦ rebid by responder is 100% game force.

 

Where the fuzzy area comes in is what does 2NT rebid by responder show?

 

A -->  1m-1M-1NT-2NT

B -->  1m-1M-1NT-2C-2D-2NT

 

I think auction "B" is how to invite to 3NT, auction A is used to signoff in 3♣ or for other specialized purposes (if responder doesn't pass openers 3♣ rebid).

[cherdano]

The clear implication of the write up is for both 2♣ and 2♦ to be forcing (even if not new suit), else nmf would have been the explaination. I can see no reason to deviate from this plan on the BBO Advanced FD card.

That's certainly what Fred's writeup means. The reason to deviate would be that it is not standard, and that it would require many players to learn the followup scheme.

 

I think we should keep in mind that XYZ is A LOT less well-known than it appears to be the case in the BBF world. I have had to explain it to various players a lot better than me.

 

Arend

[Echognome]

I voted for full XYZ scheme. Although I understand if we keep more bids natural. I think the full scheme is better.

 

As per Ben's discussion about the direct vs indirect 2NT, to me the second sequence shows a diamond suit as well. Thus with a 3424, 3433, 2434 type hand, I would bid 1♥ over 1♣ and then 2NT over 1NT. But with a 2452, 3442, 2443 type hand, I would bid 1♥ over 1♣, 2♣ over 1NT, and then 2NT over the puppet to 2♦. It should help partner to judge the hand.

[whereagles]

I say keep it simple. Bread and butter NMF seems fine.

[cherdano]

I voted for full XYZ scheme. Although I understand if we keep more bids natural. I think the full scheme is better.

 

As per Ben's discussion about the direct vs indirect 2NT, to me the second sequence shows a diamond suit as well. Thus with a 3424, 3433, 2434 type hand, I would bid 1♥ over 1♣ and then 2NT over 1NT. But with a 2452, 3442, 2443 type hand, I would bid 1♥ over 1♣, 2♣ over 1NT, and then 2NT over the puppet to 2♦. It should help partner to judge the hand.

Matt, you want to keep direct 2N as natural? In that case, you should have voted for 3. :)

 

I guess that's what I will do, actually.

[Gerben42]

2♣ forces 2♦ and 2♦ GF. Many players will be familiar with this, at least if they are French.

[Echognome]

I voted for full XYZ scheme.  Although I understand if we keep more bids natural.  I think the full scheme is better.

 

As per Ben's discussion about the direct vs indirect 2NT, to me the second sequence shows a diamond suit as well.  Thus with a 3424, 3433, 2434 type hand, I would bid 1♥ over 1♣ and then 2NT over 1NT.  But with a 2452, 3442, 2443 type hand, I would bid 1♥ over 1♣, 2♣ over 1NT, and then 2NT over the puppet to 2♦.  It should help partner to judge the hand.

Matt, you want to keep direct 2N as natural? In that case, you should have voted for 3. :)

 

I guess that's what I will do, actually.

Sorry if this wasn't clear. I voted for the last option and am convinced by mikeh that it is the best. The rest of my rambling is just offering up some treatments playing otherwise.

[42]

Where the fuzzy area comes in is what does 2NT rebid by responder show?

 

A -->  1m-1M-1NT-2NT

B -->  1m-1M-1NT-2C-2D-2NT

 

I think auction "B" is how to invite to 3NT, auction A is used to signoff in 3♣ or for other specialized purposes (if responder doesn't pass openers 3♣ rebid).

Funny! We, or better my partner does!, are completing (is that possible???? A lot of work...) a CC for our system and had right that sequence for discussion this morning.

We play Polish Club, MAFIA (major always first in answer). The 1NT rebid shows 12-14.

2♣ is invitational or weak with ♦ --> forces 2♦

2♦ is GF

-----------------------

A: I was thinking that this shows a real balanced hand like 4333, 4432, simple invitation to 3NT.

----------------------

B: 4M5m-hands which need more judgement by opener despite asking for min./max. Perhaps this sequence very often leads to a 3m-contract?

If I remember correctly it is described this way in "Bridge Conventions in Depth" by the Granovetters: a choice of contracts via the long way with semi-unbalanced hands + the appropriate point count. Opener is asked to judge, not only accept or deny the invitation.

Does it make sense to use the short OR the long way to distinguish responders point range more accurate? That was a suggestion that I heard. I think, no.

----------------------------------------------------

C: 1m 1♥ // 1NT 3♥

D: 1m 1♥ // 1NT 2♣ // 2♦ 3♥

 

What is going on in these sequences?

----------------------------------------------------

All in all I feel very well playing XY-NT and XYZ, it relatively often comes up.

[joker_gib]

2♣ forces 2♦ and 2♦ GF. Many players will be familiar with this, at least if they are French.

A lot of French play 2♣ Roudi (from Roudinesco) which is very simple :

 

1m 1M

1NT 2♣

 

2♦ : minimum, M/2

2♥ : minimum, M/3

2♠ : Maximum, M/3

2NT : Maximum, M/2

 

with the inferences :

 

1♣ 1M

1NT 2♦ = ♥/4, ♦/5+ : weak canape (to play)

 

1m 1M

1NT 2NT = transfert to sign off in 3♣

 

 

Alain

 

 

PS : Magister in Poland is similar to this, I think

[mikeh]

I know I have posted this scheme before, but here goes:

 

2♣ forces 2♦. Responder either passes or makes an invitational bid.

 

This is used for ALL invitational hands except in the sequence 1m 1♥ 1N 2♠, which shows precisely 4=4 in the majors with invitational values. With 4♠, longer ♥, and invitational values, bid 2♣ then, over the forced 2♦, bid 2♠.

 

 

2♦ is an artificial gf, with opener to make the cheapest descriptive bid.

 

2N forces 3♣: it is to play or a slam try with primary (5+) support for opener's suit.

 

Over the forced 3♣, the meaning of responder's bid varies according to whether he opened 1♣ or 1♦ (I would not worry about 1♥ openings, with 4♠, 5+♥ and slam interest, responder ought not to respond 1♠ :) )

 

If he opened 1♣, then 3♦ is shortness, 3 of responder's major is 5422 max and 3 other major is shortness and 3N is 5422 min (still slammish).

 

If he opened 1♦, then 3♦ is ♣ shortness, and the other bids are as above.

 

After 1m 1M 1N 3 level jumps by responder are forcing. A jump into a suit other then responder's suit (ie an unbid suit or opener's suit) shows 5-5 or better, slam interest, good suits and no side A or K: a picture bid, intended to have opener upgrade side controls and fitting long suit honours and downgrade side queens and jacks.

 

A jump rebid of responder's suit is forcing in this scheme but, optionally, it can be made invitational. In either case, responder has two ways to bid 3 of his suit: via either 2♣(if 3suit is invitational) or directly or 2♦(if 3suit is forcing) or 3suit.

 

It is important to differentiate the sequences: to me the slow road suggests side values and a not-so-good suit, while the immediate jump promises a good, in context, suit.

 

While some of these wrinkles seem complex, the 2N tweak is actually quite intuitive if you remember that any bid over the forced 3♣ shows primary slam fit for opener: the meanings of new suits, and 3N for example are, I think, virtually self-explanatory.

 

BTW, and this is definitely not standard, an intelligently designed (rather than naturally evolved) system should have a use for 1m 1M 1N 2♣ 2♦ 3N: an impossible bid!

 

My suggestion, for a simple meaning: this auction shows a 4N invite: I am sure that a little effort could develop all kinds of uses for the 4-level or, I suspect, for this 3N.

[Sigi_BC84]

Maybe some context: this is for auctions 1m-1M-1N. Presumably no Walsh imposed, but I am sure responder will often bypass a 4-card diamond suit with below GF values.

I think you should assume Walsh and treat the sequences in the FD file correspondingly.

 

I am actually very much in favor of 1 (hehe, and now that Fred is away in Taiwan, it would be a good time to overrule him :) ). For one thing, it is very much the scheme assumed undiscussed (and also the BWS treatment). Also, the lack of a standard 2-way checkback scheme makes it rather unattractive, since I would have to pick one (and users would have to check which one). But I am open for opinions.

I very much agree. Stick with something simple where it can be assumed that many people know it instead of imposing something artificial that has been chosen arbitrarily onto the users. Actually I'm playing an XYZ scheme that is quite nice but I would not expect others to follow it because it appears in somebody elses system description.

 

If the treatment you have chosen is used by BWS, that's even better.

 

BTW Arend I admire you for being willing to put up with the SICK full disclosure editor to enter such a complex system in a detailed manner.

 

--Sigi

[Wackojack]

Where the fuzzy area comes in is what does 2NT rebid by responder show?

 

A -->  1m-1M-1NT-2NT

B -->  1m-1M-1NT-2C-2D-2NT

 

I think auction "B" is how to invite to 3NT, auction A is used to signoff in 3♣ or for other specialized purposes (if responder doesn't pass openers 3♣ rebid).

I have recently stated playing 2/1 and decided to get as close as possble to BBO advanced. So I play 2-way check-back 2c puppet to 2d. Also play 1c-1M-1nt-2nt as relay to 3c showing weak clubs or 3 suited. Thus 1c-1M-1nt-2nt-3c-? :

pass = weak clubs

3d = 4-4-1-4

3h = single heart if M= spades, = 4540 if M = hearts

3s = single spade if M= hearts, = 5440 if M= spades

3nt = 4441

 

I am not sure it it worth the memory overhead though.

 

btw I am not convinced about Drury, reverse or otherwise, or the Wolff sign-off after 2nt rebid

[reisig]

I like 2♣=relay to 2♦..weak or any invite.

2♦ = GF

2N = relay to 3♣..intending to Pass or show any 5-5 GF hand.

Resp bids 2nd suit - or rebid 1st suit to show ♣s.

That allows resp to show 5-5 invit hands with immed jump into 2nd suit.

[cherdano]

I am actually surprised that full XYZ got so many votes. It makes me wonder whether these people were answering "What do I like best?" instead of "What do I think is best for BBO advanced?" Among the partnerships I have seen on BBO who were using the BBO advanced file, I would suspect that many of them have never heard of XYZ. And I have explained XYZ to some pretty advanced players...

 

So even though it may seem arrogant to pose a question and then not listen to some of the answers, I stand by the assessment that XYZ just isn't an option for BBO advanced.

 

So in short, 1x-1y-1N-2N will be a natural invite, anything else is just too unexpected (even though possible superior).

 

I am still torn between 2way checkback (option 3 above) and simple new minor forcing.

 

As a side note, I find it very interesting that BWS has very little discussions about sequences like this, while it has a lot of competitive agreements that probably would never arise in a typical one-hour system discussion when two adv+ players build a pickup partnership for a tournament.

 

Arend

[fifee]

I like 2♣=relay to 2♦..weak or any invite.

2♦ = GF

2N = relay to 3♣..intending to Pass or show any 5-5 GF hand.

  Resp bids 2nd suit - or rebid 1st suit to show ♣s.

  That allows resp to show 5-5 invit hands with immed jump into 2nd suit.

 

That's all well and good, Richie ( the one and only boss :D ), but what about those invitational hands where you might have game if you could find a fit or know more about partner's hand such as: does he have 3 cd support? does he have support for my long minor? does he have 4 cards in another major previously undisclosed? After finding a fit, you may need to invite at that point, as well.

 

I prefer no relay after 2♣. Prefer 2C to show invitational values and ask for more information about opener's hand. This fosters the more natural responses and handles the hands where we need to invite even after we find a fit, etc

[han]

Fifee, here is how I think about it:

 

After the 2C-2D relay, you can bid 2M with a 5-card major. Surely partner knows that 3-card support is a big plus. You can also bid 3m with a long minor. Again, partner will know what kind of hands fit well and which won't. By showing what kind of hand you have you allow partner to evaluate not only her shape and HCP, but also her honor location.

[reisig]

after the 2♣ bid and 2♦ forced response - you bid another 4 card Major or rebid your Major showing 5 ..never 6. With 5-5 invitational hands - jump into 2nd suit...see 2NT relay to 3♣ for 5-5 GF hands.

[Winstonm]

Does BBO standard include Walsh-style responses? If so, xyz I believe fits in better with this treatment, as 2C relays to 2D which may then be passed with a weak 4-6 hand. Also, x,y, z as the name implies is on over any 1/1/1 auction, easing minor suit slam bidding difficulties by using 2D as an artificial 100% game force even if it "sounds" like a rebid of the suit as in 1C-1D-1Z-2D.