TWO4BRIDGE Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 1m - 1M1NT - 2om2M ( 3 cards M ) - 3M = forcing or just invitational ? ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m = minorom = other minorM = Major- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I think 3M is forcing showing at least 5 cards M because an invitational sequence would go:1m - 1M1NT - 3M Also, I thought that ANY Responder rebid that goes BEYOND 2NT AFTER NMF is forcing. However, I can't find any examples on the above NMF sequence in the few references that I have. I also think that if 3M is non-forcing after NMF , the problem could be solved with 2-way check-backwhere 2C! ( always ) are NF or invite auctions and 2D! ( always ) are GF: 1m - 1M1NT - 2D!2M - 3M ( GF, asking for cuebids ) What say you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 xyz answers these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMoe Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I play that all 3+ level bids are game forcing after NMF. I also play that 1m-1M-1N-3M is invitational with a 6 card suit. The auction that goes through NMF with a 3M rebid shows GF and asks cuebids. I play that NMF guarantees 5+ major cards - I do not use NMF to find a 4-4 Spade fit after bidding 1♥ if I hold 4=4 in the majors.Over 2-way you have a useful choice to make. Some want 2D to be all game forces. I find 2D is better used as a slam invitation that does not promise a 5-card M. We put Inv and Game limit hands through 2C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 If you play 1-way nmf what sequences do you use for the following hands: invite with 5 heartsinvite with 6 heartsinvite with 5 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades)invite with 4 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades)game forcing with 5 heartsgame forcing with 6 heartsgame forcing with 5 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades)game forcing with 4 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades)slam invite with 5 heartsslam invite with 6 heartsslam invite with 5 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades)slam invite with 4 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) Maybe you don't care about some of these, but you can fit a lot more in with 2-way (at the cost of 2m not being natural). Also, how often does your rejected invites end up at the 3 level? Playing 2-way you can also fix that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 1m - 1M1NT - 2om2M ( 3 cards M ) - 3M = forcing or just invitational ? ? If 2M here, by opener, is also showing weakness within the 1NT rebid range ---and it should, when using 1-way NMF ---then, responder doesn't need to repeat the invite; he already has the information that opener is on the weak side. Responder's choices with the fit established are to Pass, or to bid game ---unless SLAMISH.3M is not only forcing, but demands cooperative cuebidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 If 2M only shows 3 cards in M then 3M is invitational, since this is how you shows an invite with 5 cards in M. The sequence 1m - 1M; 1NT - 3M shows a 6+ card invite. There are ways around this problem but that is the default. And yes, 2-way is one of the (better) potential solutions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 If 2M only shows 3 cards in M then 3M is invitational, since this is how you shows an invite with 5 cards in M. That would be true, if 2M is bid with all hands containing 3 cards in M. But, that is a very inefficient use of NMF. There are some quite good continuation structures available, all of which use 2M as dual information ---3 cards in the major AND in the lower range of the 1NT rebid. The Wittes method and the Hardy method are two of those, and they have been around for over 30 years...still quite effective, without need for 2-way NMF unless we tangle spades as the other major into the mix because we would bypass spades (or rebid 1NT with a singleton). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 That would be true, if 2M is bid with all hands containing 3 cards in M.As I wrote, there are ways around this problem. However, like it or not, when you agree NMF with a random partner they will almost certainly bid 2M whether they are min or max. It sounds like you are arguing that NMF is better than 2-way here(?) To me, in most 5 card major systems it seems likely you get more from 2-way than NMF. If your opening bids are 5542 then the case for using NMF over 2-way diminishes further. That is a little more problematic in some Acol-ish systems after a 1♣ opening since one of the main advantages is the ability to reach a good minor suit partial when it is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Depends on agreements ;) if 2M just shows 3 cards and nothing about the strength of the hand, then 3M should be invitational. If 2M shows 3 cards and a minimum, then 3M should be forcing, but I would never agree to this because it just seems to beg a disaster to happen. Well, maybe we win 6 when slam doesn't make.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Am i missing something ? There is only one auction that fits in your formula 1m--1♠1NT--2♥2♠... Whether you play xyz or std nmf, 2♥ is NF, how can any subsequent bid after a nf 2♥ be forcing now when opener is limited ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Other minor, Timo...not other major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 FWIW, I think there is a huge benefit to adding in a conventional treatment in these auctions, namely a 2NT fit agreement slam move. As an example: 1♣-1♥1NT-2♦2♥-2NTWhether xyz or new minor forcing or whatever the heck form 2♦ is, Responder bidding 2NT in this sequence type as "We have a heart fit. I am slammish. Start cuebidding." is a HUGE gainer, IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 As I wrote, there are ways around this problem. However, like it or not, when you agree NMF with a random partner they will almost certainly bid 2M whether they are min or max. Yes, this is the problem and one of the many reasons I like XYZ but very few randoms know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Other minor, Timo...not other major. Thanks, i knew i was missing something :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWO4BRIDGE Posted July 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 FWIW, I think there is a huge benefit to adding in a conventional treatment in these auctions, namely a 2NT fit agreement slam move. As an example: 1♣-1♥1NT-2♦2♥-2NTWhether xyz or new minor forcing or whatever the heck form 2♦ is, Responder bidding 2NT in this sequence type as "We have a heart fit. I am slammish. Start cuebidding." is a HUGE gainer, IMO.Perfect !( Now I know why you were voted best theorist by BBO ) . What better use for 2NT than for Responder to agree that there is an 8+ card fit ( Responder holding MORE than 4 cards M ).If Responder only had 4 cards M and invitational values s/he could have bid 2NT directly over 1NT:1m - 1M 1NT - 2NT Now my question is should 2NT ( after NMF and a fit ) show the GF or 3M be forcing ( slammish as per kenRex .. ) as in my original auction ?Because it has been put to me by an expert that an invitational bid is needed by Responder ( after NMF ) to show 5 cards M and an say an 11 count. So, maybe 2NT might be better used for the invitational hand with a fit and3H as GF , asking for cuebids. Summary:1m - 1M1NT - 3H = 6 card M, invite 1m - 1M1NT - 2om! ( NMF )2M - 2NT! = 5 card M, invite 1m - 1M1NT - 2NT = 4 card M, invite 1m - 1M1NT - 2om! ( NMF ) 2M - 3M! = 5+ card M, slammish, commence cuebidding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Perfect !( Now I know why you were voted best theorist by BBO ) . What better use for 2NT than for Responder to agree that there is an 8+ card fit ( Responder holding MORE than 4 cards M ).If Responder only had 4 cards M and invitational values s/he could have bid 2NT directly over 1NT:1m - 1M 1NT - 2NT Now my question is should 2NT ( after NMF and a fit ) show the GF or 3M be forcing ( slammish as per kenRex .. ) as in my original auction ?Because it has been put to me by an expert that an invitational bid is needed by Responder ( after NMF ) to show 5 cards M and an say an 11 count. So, maybe 2NT might be better used for the invitational hand with a fit and3H as GF , asking for cuebids. Summary:1m - 1M1NT - 3H = 6 card M, invite 1m - 1M1NT - 2om! ( NMF )2M - 2NT! = 5 card M, invite 1m - 1M1NT - 2NT = 4 card M, invite 1m - 1M1NT - 2om! ( NMF ) 2M - 3M! = 5+ card M, slammish, commence cuebidding If the NMF could be invitational only (not present as a concern in xyz and similar approaches), then you are correct that an invite is needed. If you are of the "game bash" school, use 3♥ for a general quantitative invite, 2NT as slammish, as that facilitates better and more complete cuebidding. If you prefer science for game tries, 2NT as the game try makes sense, as this allows three of a minor (and maybe 3♥ if spades are agreed) to fine-tune game tries. You lose a bit on the slam moves. A hybrid approach might be for 2NT to be a game try OR slam move, with Opener expected to make certain moves when accepting a game try to facilitate the "when its slam" situations. 3♥ then also serves some function, whatever you like. This approach would offer more detail to both slam and game sequences, at the cost of occasionally disclosing too much. Obviously, balancing interests is the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMoe Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 If you play 1-way nmf what sequences do you use for the following hands: invite with 5 hearts - already did - implicit in the NMF callinvite with 6 hearts - responder jumps to 3♥, not NMFinvite with 5 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) - Responder must rebid ♠ before showing heart fit. invite with 4 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) - raise to 2N - partner must bid 3S on way to game.game forcing with 5 hearts - Rebid 2N over whatever opener rebidsgame forcing with 6 hearts - NMF then rebid 3 ♥game forcing with 5 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) no NMF - Hearts then reverse into spadesgame forcing with 4 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) rebid 3N - This is why I prefer to rebid 1 Spade over 1 heart.slam invite with 5 hearts - rebid 2n or higher over opener's answerslam invite with 6 hearts - rebid 3H - cuebidding ensues.slam invite with 5 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) - start with reverse and make one more moveslam invite with 4 hearts and 4 spades (if you rebid 1nt even with 4 spades) - 4N? Maybe you don't care about some of these, but you can fit a lot more in with 2-way (at the cost of 2m not being natural). Also, how often does your rejected invites end up at the 3 level? Playing 2-way you can also fix that. The 2-way structure I prefer uses yrennalF 2♥/♠ responses for weak and invitational 5=4/5 hands and allows 1♦-1♠-1N-2♥ to be game forcing. I prefer the 2♦ call to be Slam Inv+ and not promise a 5 card+ holding in responder's major. Similarly I play the Major suit reverse as game forcing but not slammish (1♣-1♥-1N-♠). Since we Invite slam with ♦, the ♣ trigger followed by 2N is a game force (see Ken Rexford's post). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts