3rd suit forcing alert or not?

[Orla]

The other day, playing in our bridge club, there was a bid:

I opened 1♣, P bids 1♥, I bid 1NT, she bids 2♦, so I bid 2♥.

 

It turned out that my partner had only two ♦♦.

 

After the hand, I was asked whether my partner's 3rd- suit bid was always forcing. I said that in my book, as responder, any new suit by my partner was forcing.

 

I thought this was a rule.

 

However, I was now being accused of not alerting the bid. In Fact, so grave was this misdemeanour, the director was called :ph34r:

 

Today, however, in my bridge club I asked someone, who is in the know, and was informed categorically, that 3rd-suit forcing is alertable. B)

 

Is this worldwide or is it just Germany?

 

In all the books I learned bridge from, I was told "you may not pass a new suit by responder." If this is so, why would I alert it?

 

Is there a catalogue of “normal” bids that have to be alerted so that next time I avoid having the director being called to my table?

 

arrrggghhhhhhhhhh

 

 

:( rla

[ArtK78]

This particular bid is "New Minor Forcing." It is alertable, but it is nearly universal.

 

There was a time when any new suit bid by responder was forcing, but natural.

[Orla]

Ahhh NMF, teehee, forgot about that.

 

Thanks

[Stephen Tu]

It's alertable, also the rule was always "new suits by responder forcing *except non-jump/non-reverse new suits after opener's 1nt rebid*". At least in America it has, I'm not familiar with German language literature.

 

1c-1s-1nt-2h, for example, is still played non-forcing by virtually all standard system players who aren't playing a "transfer checkback" rebid system.

 

The new minor forcing convention is very common these days, though there are also lots of people using schemes involving both minors, and some who only use 2c "checkback stayman".

[helene_t]

In general, alert all artificial bids, i.e. bids that don't show length/strength/willingness to play in the suit named.

 

So if 2♦ does not promis diamonds, alert.

 

It is possible that your local rules make exeption for some commonly used conventions, such as stayman. But NMF is probably not one of those exceptions.

 

BTW as Stephen says, the standard meaning of 2♦ (if not playing NMF) is a weak hand with spades and diamonds.

[blackshoe]

On the assumption that German regulations make artificial bids like NMF alertable, then the 2♦ bid in this auction is alertable if your partnership has agreed to use that convention. If you have not, then you do not have an alertable agreement until your experience with this partner is sufficient that you will remember that he uses the convention in spite of not having an explicit agreement to do so.

 

If the bid is natural, then generally (again, you'd have to refer to you local regulations for specifics) it is not alertable unless the forcing or not forcing nature of the call in your methods would be unexpectedl. As Stephen points out, responder's natural rebids in the same or lower ranking suits or in opener's suit after opener's 1NT rebid are not forcing in most "standard" methods, so if you treat it as forcing it's alertable. Again, however, this is dependent on your agreement. If you have not discussed it, not agreed that it is forcing, and do not have sufficient experience with this partner that you expect it to be forcing, it's not alertable.

 

There seem to be a lot of players who think "turns out he didn't have what I thought he had, so there must have been a failure to alert". This is, of course, not necessarily the case.

[barmar]

But if you've agreed to play a system that includes NMF, then even if you haven't specifically discussed this bid, you've agreed to it implicitly. I don't know what's common in Germany, but in the US if you agree to play 2/1 GF, NMF is normally assumed.

 

If you didn't realize that it was part of the system you agreed to play, you need to learn the system better. If your partner mistakenly thought this was part of the system, he misbid.

[awm]

It's probably not whether 2♦ is forcing that makes it an alert (or not alert). While alert rules differ from place to place, if bidding 2♦ shows diamonds there is a good chance it's not alertable.

 

What makes 2♦ potentially an alert is if it's just a forcing bid that does not guarantee length in diamonds. For the most part, suit bids that do not suggest length or values in the suit named will be alertable (again alert rules differ from place to place and extremely common conventional calls like stayman may not require an alert).

[blackshoe]

But if you've agreed to play a system that includes NMF, then even if you haven't specifically discussed this bid, you've agreed to it implicitly. I don't know what's common in Germany, but in the US if you agree to play 2/1 GF, NMF is normally assumed.

 

If you didn't realize that it was part of the system you agreed to play, you need to learn the system better. If your partner mistakenly thought this was part of the system, he misbid.

Nonsense. If you're assuming anything about secondary, or tertiary, or more, conventions based on what you think is included in 2/1, you're making a big mistake. NMF is not an integral part of any particular system, certainly not 2/1.

 

"You need to learn the system better" is rather insulting, I think. :(

[blackshoe]

It's probably not whether 2♦ is forcing that makes it an alert (or not alert). While alert rules differ from place to place, if bidding 2♦ shows diamonds there is a good chance it's not alertable.

 

What makes 2♦ potentially an alert is if it's just a forcing bid that does not guarantee length in diamonds. For the most part, suit bids that do not suggest length or values in the suit named will be alertable (again alert rules differ from place to place and extremely common conventional calls like stayman may not require an alert).

I suppose that depends on your local regulations. In the ACBL, for example, a natural bid that is unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing is alertable because the agreement is unexpected. I believe that's true in most jurisdictions.

[skjaeran]

It's probably not whether 2♦ is forcing that makes it an alert (or not alert). While alert rules differ from place to place, if bidding 2♦ shows diamonds there is a good chance it's not alertable.

 

What makes 2♦ potentially an alert is if it's just a forcing bid that does not guarantee length in diamonds. For the most part, suit bids that do not suggest length or values in the suit named will be alertable (again alert rules differ from place to place and extremely common conventional calls like stayman may not require an alert).

I suppose that depends on your local regulations. In the ACBL, for example, a natural bid that is unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing is alertable because the agreement is unexpected. I believe that's true in most jurisdictions.

That's true.

 

If you play negative free bids, those are alertable, because they're NF. Eventhough they're perfectly natural.

[barmar]

But if you've agreed to play a system that includes NMF, then even if you haven't specifically discussed this bid, you've agreed to it implicitly.  I don't know what's common in Germany, but in the US if you agree to play 2/1 GF, NMF is normally assumed.

 

If you didn't realize that it was part of the system you agreed to play, you need to learn the system better.  If your partner mistakenly thought this was part of the system, he misbid.

Nonsense. If you're assuming anything about secondary, or tertiary, or more, conventions based on what you think is included in 2/1, you're making a big mistake. NMF is not an integral part of any particular system, certainly not 2/1.

 

"You need to learn the system better" is rather insulting, I think. :)

A system, by definition, is a collection of conventions and agreements. Around here (ACBL territory), when people refer to 2/1, NMF is generally included in the collection.

 

You go to the partnership desk at an ACBL tournament at the last minute, and get a partner 1 minute before game time. The only discussion you have time for is "Let's play 2/1 and Roman Keycard Blackwood." Are you telling me that you wouldn't assume that New Minor Forcing is one of your conventions? I think there's a good chance your partner would.

[blackshoe]

I don't where in ACBL territory — which covers a very large geographical area — "around here" is, but around here (Rochester, NY) NMF is not, afaik, considered "part of 2/1".

 

Your definition contains a redundancy: "agreements" in this context includes "conventions". The Bridge World defines "system" as "the collection of partnership understandings about bidding." I like theirs better. Not that it matters.

 

If I'm playing with a pickup partner, I will not assume that we're playing any convention not explicitly agreed - and I would hope my partner wouldn't make any such assumption either.

[jdonn]

I don't where in ACBL territory — which covers a very large geographical area — "around here" is, but around here (Rochester, NY) NMF is not, afaik, considered "part of 2/1".

I lived in Rochester 4 years, playing in all the tournaments in that area, and I 100% refute that comment. I believe the only mentions of new minor forcing I ever made were to see if partner wanted to play 2-way or some other variation. There was never even the slightest thought that we weren't at least playing the basic kind. Indeed I can't remember a single pair that didn't play some version (please spare me your auntie Mable from Rochester who doesn't know any conventions).

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

However, I was now being accused of not alerting the bid. In Fact, so grave was this misdemeanour, the director was called :)

<snip>

The correct procedure.

 

The TD is your friend, repeat it / write it on

the wall.

 

The TD will have a look if the missing alert did

hurt or not, after that he will adjust or not.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

In all the books I learned bridge from, I was told "you may not pass a new suit by responder." If this is so, why would I alert it?

 

Is there a catalogue of “normal” bids that have to be alerted so that next time I avoid having the director being called to my table?

 

arrrggghhhhhhhhhh

 

 

:) rla

#1 Most beginners book will tell you, that 2D showes

a 4 carder, i.e. the bid is forcing but also showes

the suit

 

#2 there is, the relevant rules can be downloaded at

the homepage of the DBV, but simply spoken:

Alert more than you need, and you will be fine.

If you miss a alertable bid (there are gray areas

anyway) be grateful that you learned something new,

move on, make it better the next time.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[blackshoe]

I don't where in ACBL territory — which covers a very large geographical area — "around here" is, but around here (Rochester, NY) NMF is not, afaik, considered "part of 2/1".

I lived in Rochester 4 years, playing in all the tournaments in that area, and I 100% refute that comment. I believe the only mentions of new minor forcing I ever made were to see if partner wanted to play 2-way or some other variation. There was never even the slightest thought that we weren't at least playing the basic kind. Indeed I can't remember a single pair that didn't play some version (please spare me your auntie Mable from Rochester who doesn't know any conventions).

Refute away. I don't know when you were here, but I'm here now, and I don't have an Auntie Mabel.

 

Did you play in local clubs when you were here?

[jdonn]

I don't where in ACBL territory — which covers a very large geographical area — "around here" is, but around here (Rochester, NY) NMF is not, afaik, considered "part of 2/1".

I lived in Rochester 4 years, playing in all the tournaments in that area, and I 100% refute that comment. I believe the only mentions of new minor forcing I ever made were to see if partner wanted to play 2-way or some other variation. There was never even the slightest thought that we weren't at least playing the basic kind. Indeed I can't remember a single pair that didn't play some version (please spare me your auntie Mable from Rochester who doesn't know any conventions).

Refute away. I don't know when you were here, but I'm here now, and I don't have an Auntie Mabel.

 

Did you play in local clubs when you were here?

Yes, about once every month or two. 2000-2004.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I don't recall running into you. B)

 

No matter. Wikipedia seems to support your contention — it says "Use of the 2/1 system usually implies (at least) the following additional agreements:" and lists several conventions and treatments, of which NMF is one. I still think it's dangerous to assume that partner will assume that we are playing a convention we have not discussed.

 

As for what people will assume here, I suppose it depends on with whom you play. Some of the better players might assume NMF, if they thought partner was good enough that he's likely to know it. Others I know do not make assumptions like that. I'll ask around, if I think of it at the next couple of games. But at the lower levels of the game it would be folly to make any such assumptions at all. Some years ago I was introduced to a new player who proudly informed me "I play SAYC", to which I replied "good, then you play Jacoby 2NT." She said "What's Jacoby 2NT?" B) For 2 1/2 years I tried to get her to add that convention to our card. It never happened. And J2NT is by definition part of SAYC.

[mycroft]

SAYC means "what I play, but not 1NT forcing". What they really mean is "Standard American", having never seen a Yellow Card. They also think that 1H-(3C)-X is negative, 1NT-2S is MSS, NMF is on, ...

 

My favourite quote comes from RGB, about a defensive problem:

"You know they are playing SAYC, but that simply means they know how to find the letters 'S', 'A', 'Y', and 'C' on their keyboard."

 

A lot of people wanted to play 2/1 at the partnership desk, because at least you knew you'd be playing most of the conventions needed to keep Standard American afloat, because it was default in 2/1. Of course, without discussion, you couldn't find out which of the many variations of 2/1 you were playing, but hopefully that wouldn't come up in 50 hands. Now, of course, they're teaching 2/1 to one-step-above-novices, because "everybody plays 2/1, it's better than SA, you should learn it", without actually explaining what's better, why it's better, and how to get anything out of the better parts (or ensuring one has the judgement to acutally take advantage of 2/1. The number of 2/1 pairs I see that don't know what a control cue-bid is - where the auction goes 1M-2m, play to suit agreement, 4NT "how many aces do you have, we might have slam!" - I keep asking myself 'if you can't use 2/1, why burden yourself with its problems?' Ah well.)

[ArtK78]

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

 

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

 

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

 

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

 

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

[Finch]

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

 

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

 

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level.  As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

 

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

 

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

I love the way this forum works.

 

It starts off with a question about what's alertable in Germany.

 

It becomes an argument about to what extent NMF is a 'standard' part of 2/1. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

 

Well, Art, I've got some news for you (I'm sure you know this really, but your post doesn't make it clear):

 

- of course NMF is a regional treatment. You are just arguing about the size of the sub-region of the ACBL in which it's considered standard.

- the use of New Minor Forcing is by no means universal

- SA or SAYC are not 'standard systems' for much of the world

- "2/1" is not a system at all for much of the world

 

Around here (the UK), a 2D bid in this auction would mean

i) I have a weak hand with the major and diamonds (vast majority of club players)

ii) Game forcing checkback, coupled with 2C as a puppet to 2D (reasonable percentage of tournament players)

iii) Transfer (small percentage of tournament players)

 

I don't think I've ever knowingly played against anyone playing NMF. Honestly. Ever.

 

Oh yes, and my other rant on "2/1". I learn from reading these forums that the phrase "2/1" is used to describe a whole system (or possibly more than one system depending on whose books you have read), which seems to include all sorts of agreements such as Jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, 1NT rebid structure....

 

Again, round here, 2/1 is just used to describe one particular agreement, that a 2-level response to a 1 major opening is game forcing. Everything else is by agreement (including whether you play Kaplan inversion or not, and whether 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing). I know people who play 4-card majors with 2/1. I know people who play 14-16 NT, canape major suit openings and 2/1.

[SoTired]

Cool - If I ever get to visit the UK, I want to play some bridge.

 

I think the reason 2/1 has all those attached conventions, is that most are taught Std American (4or 5-card majors) and then players advance after several years to the more modern 2/1 system, so they bring their advanced conventions with them. Very few novices are taught 2/1 out of the gate.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

 

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

 

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level.  As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

 

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

 

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

I love the way this forum works.

 

It starts off with a question about what's alertable in Germany.

 

It becomes an argument about to what extent NMF is a 'standard' part of 2/1. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

 

Well, Art, I've got some news for you (I'm sure you know this really, but your post doesn't make it clear):

 

- of course NMF is a regional treatment. You are just arguing about the size of the sub-region of the ACBL in which it's considered standard.

- the use of New Minor Forcing is by no means universal

- SA or SAYC are not 'standard systems' for much of the world

- "2/1" is not a system at all for much of the world

 

Around here (the UK), a 2D bid in this auction would mean

i) I have a weak hand with the major and diamonds (vast majority of club players)

ii) Game forcing checkback, coupled with 2C as a puppet to 2D (reasonable percentage of tournament players)

iii) Transfer (small percentage of tournament players)

 

I don't think I've ever knowingly played against anyone playing NMF. Honestly. Ever.

 

Oh yes, and my other rant on "2/1". I learn from reading these forums that the phrase "2/1" is used to describe a whole system (or possibly more than one system depending on whose books you have read), which seems to include all sorts of agreements such as Jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, 1NT rebid structure....

 

Again, round here, 2/1 is just used to describe one particular agreement, that a 2-level response to a 1 major opening is game forcing. Everything else is by agreement (including whether you play Kaplan inversion or not, and whether 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing). I know people who play 4-card majors with 2/1. I know people who play 14-16 NT, canape major suit openings and 2/1.

Frances:

 

I was responding specifically to blackshoe's posts. I was not referring to what is played in Europe.

 

Obviously, if one is not playing a system based on Standard American (and the 2/1 that I refer to is based on Standard American) then all bets are off. But blackshoe is stating that it is not uncommon for players in his area - Rochester, NY, USA - to play a Standard system and not play New Minor Forcing. Both jdonn and I disagree. While I have never played in Rochester, it is within my ACBL District (District 4) and I do play against a number of players from Rochester on a regular basis at major tournaments in this area. So, if "regional" means the Northeastern US, I can state with authority that the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal. I would be willing to venture the same for the entire "region" encompassing the ACBL.

 

As to what is played in Europe, you are on your own. :)

[blackshoe]

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

 

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

 

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

 

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

 

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

That's all very nice, but...

 

1. I did not argue that it is a regional treatment. I know that it is wide spread amongst good players. What I said was that I don't believe the majority of players around here play it. And frankly, the majority of players around here suck.

 

2. As to your opinion regarding the level at which players don't play NMF, so stipulated.

 

3. "100% untrue". Are you calling me a liar?

 

4. You guarantee it, do you? And what penalty will you pay me when I prove to you that you're wrong? And I can prove you wrong.