mtvesuvius Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 1♦ - 1♥1NT - 2♣*2♦ - 2♠3♠ - 5♦** *New Minor Forcing**What is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergreat Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 To play? One of the themes of forcing auctions is that game bids are weak and intermediate bids are forcing. I think responder may have something like AKQx xxxx AJx xx and obviously no slam interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicklont Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Spades are the agreed trump suit, not diamonds.Responder could have bid 3♦ instead of 2♠ if he wanted a forcing raise of diamonds. First new minor forcing and then a new suit must be very strong and/or wild distribution, because responder could reverse to show a gameforcing hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts. I think responder is 5602 and is looking for a grand slam. When the partnership plays Exclusion Blackwood it is that, otherwise show your next Ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Exclusion if that's in your methods, else just voidshowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Exclusion. You don't introduce a new suit over 2♦, get it raised, then try to play game in diamonds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I basically never play exclusion in partner's suit. I don't know what standard NMF is, but I would assume that partner denied 4 spades with 2♦. In that case, it's hardly necessary for 3♠ to be any 3-card support, opener can just temporize with 2n and responder will clarify if he really has 5-6. So I think 3♠ should really be some concentration of values. Perhaps he has AQJx xxxx AQx xx. Having found out that opener has extra diamond length and some spade values, 5♦ might be a better contract than 3N, so he decided to try it. I'm not saying I endorse partner's bidding (why not just 3♦ over 2♦, for instance), but it seems more plausible than exclusion in my known 5+ suit when we don't really know we have a fit anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 After ♠ was set, this should be exclusion, even in opener's suit (you can open from xxxx). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 ummm probably obvious question, but How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryallen Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 ummm probably obvious question, but How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades? The 1NT over 1♥ would surely deny 4♠? has to be 6-5 or more in the majors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 This auction makes less sense than Tyler's. 5♦ should be exclusion, but 2♣ should deny a 5-6 and 2♦ should deny 4♠. So I confess I don't know what is going on either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 ummm probably obvious question, but How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades? The 1NT over 1♥ would surely deny 4♠? has to be 6-5 or more in the majors. 1NT might not deny 4 spades, but 2♦ should definitely deny them. With a 5-6 you can bid and rebid your spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 There are some really strange analyses here. I cannot see how spades is remotely agreed here. In fact, I would imagine that the opponents could have an eight-card fit in spades after this auction. I mean, after Opener's 2♦ call, Responder's 2♠ bid, IMO, just implied weak clubs, and Opener's 3♠ agreed with that sentiment. So, I'd think 5♦ was just to play, as 4♦ would be the slam move. I could imagine Opener with something like 3253 with no club honor and Responder with something like 2+ spades (the shorter the spades, the more spade honors), 5 hearts, diamond support, no club stopper (maybe short), and a relative minimum for GF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Exclusion my a.... Ken Rexford is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I'm with Ken. It sounds like Axx xx AKJxx xxx opposite KQx AKxxx Qxx xx. Well bid partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Exclusion if that's in your methods, else just voidshowing. best answer ever :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Exclusion, I'm surprised people think this can be to play. That said if my partner is not an experienced player then this is to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't... Sure. Whether responder has diamonds or spades, it's a weird auction. Maybe it would be even weirder with diamonds than with spades, I just don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I still don't understand why I can't bid 2♠ over 1NT with 5♠6♥ and why opener refrained from bidding spades twice even though he has 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 [hv=d=s&v=n&n=skq862haqj7654dct&s=st54h93dakq42ck86]133|200|Scoring: MPI passed. I didn't think 3♠ set trump... OOPS.[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't... Yes, but: 1. This focuses diamonds too much perhaps, making new suit calls cues rather than probes. 2. 3♦ preempts opener's ability to bid clubs to show club control, which seems to be the problem. The problem with some answers, IMO, is a focus on 2-way checkback of some variety, where 2♣ either is a relay (usually) to 2♦, and hence does not deny four spades, or where 2♣ asks about heart length only (2♦ denying three hearts) and hence does not deny four spades. The given parameters, "new minor forcing," do not involve two-way structural analysis. Hence, as others have said, because a 2♠ reverse is the means of handling 6♥/5♠, spades are neither agreed nor even shown (other than stops) by either side in this auction. The actual 7-5 hand is a joke. If that hand is handled through 2♣, does 2♠ show 7-6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't... Yes, but: 1. This focuses diamonds too much perhaps, making new suit calls cues rather than probes. 2. 3♦ preempts opener's ability to bid clubs to show club control, which seems to be the problem. 1. a - It just says we have a diamond fit, what focus is there beyond that?1. b - Cues for you maybe. Not for me. Definitely not for most (American?) experts.2. Why does that seem to be the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I still don't understand why I can't bid 2♠ over 1NT with 5♠6♥ and why opener refrained from bidding spades twice even though he has 4. I more often play 2-way nmf instead of just nmf so there are more auctions to show some hands but couldn't 1m-1♥-1nt-2♠ be nf with minimum (or even sub-minimum) points and 6♥ and 4 or 5♠ (especially if your partnership style is for opener to not show 4 spades when balanced)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I still don't understand why I can't bid 2♠ over 1NT with 5♠6♥ and why opener refrained from bidding spades twice even though he has 4. I more often play 2-way nmf instead of just nmf so there are more auctions to show some hands but couldn't 1m-1♥-1nt-2♠ be nf with minimum (or even sub-minimum) points and 6♥ and 4 or 5♠ (especially if your partnership style is for opener to not show 4 spades when balanced)? No. With weak hands, you just bid two hearts, expecting to play it there. It might not be the best spot, but it allows you to reserve 2 spades for 4-6, 5-6, 5-7, and other distributions, with invitational+ values, which in my opinion is better than methods to show weak 5-6 majors that force to the 3 level if you want to play in the 6 card suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't... People are aware that 2♠ instead of 2♣ would have been forcing, right? I think it's impossible that responder has 5 spades, that opener has 4 spades, and the thought of playing exclusion because we have agreed a 4-3 fit is quite entertaining :)I agree with gnasher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.