New Minor Forcing Jump Part Deux

[biggerclub]

Another undiscussed NMF auction.

[helene_t]

Weak with 4♠ and 6♣ is a hand type that can't be dealt with in any other ways. The invitational hands with both black suit can bid 2♣ followed by 2♠ while the gf hands with both black suits can bid 2♣ followed by 3♣.

 

But I think partner would pass 3♠ if that was what he had. S it seems like he has a GF two-suiter.

[whereagles]

5♠-4♣ forcing. A direct 3♣ would show just about the same. Yes it's redudant. Which is why some play it as direct = 55, delayed = 54.

[aguahombre]

Responder is trying to correct your mistake, and maybe is 4-7 instead of 4-6 blacks. Stop bidding.

 

Try an easy to remember corollary ...if new minor is artificial and forcing, then bids which don't use NMF are natural and non-forcing. We have one exception:

 

1m-1S

1N-3H..forcing with 5 hearts.

[mikeh]

I upvoted aqua, but it was close with helene, who read a different inference into partner's 4♣.

 

In classic nmf, the jump into the unbid minor was, as both aqua and helene said, a weakness action with only 4 cards in the bid major and 5+ in the minor. It was always less than invitational.

 

The fact that partner 'should' have passed 3♠, once the wheels had come off, isn't a reason to conclude that both of us forgot (or didn't know) the meaning of 3♣. I suspect partner either can't imagine playing a moysian (a skill not encouraged by most bridge teachers, most of whom are not actually excellent declarers...I am obviously NOT talking about the kantar's of the world, lol) or has something like xxxx in spades.

 

I pass and hope that we were making an overtrick had I passed 3♣ as I ought to have done. Actually, 3♣ is the sort of bid where, in the old days, partner could have made the bid, folded his or her hand, and turned to LHO and said: it's your lead. There is no hand on which opener ought to be bidding over that call.

[relknes]

I voted for the strong 2-suited hand, followed by cue bidding an ace. I would simply pass 1N with a weak 6♣ 4♠ hand, running to 2♣ if doubled.

[biggerclub]

Perhaps, I should have added that partner is/was a high stakes money/rubber player. But I did not know that when the hand came up.

 

He has a monster two-suiter with a small doubleton in Hs as his only red cards.

 

He is playing in 4C down 1 while the field is 4S +2 and no one is in the slam he is driving toward.

 

We still won the overall by over a full board.

 

Another auction added to the list of questions I ask a new partner.

[kenberg]

An observation, then a question.

 

Observation [ Repaired from an ealrier careless statement ]:

After 1♦-1♠-1NT responder could be 5-5 in the black suits with game forcing values..

He could have six clubs and four spades and invitational values.

He could have six clubs and four spades and weak values.

How does he handle all of these?

 

 

Question(s): With normal nmf, as I understand it, 2♣ (nmf) followed by 3♣ is gf with clubs and spades, presumably 5-5. This leaves us with two more cases to cover, invitational 6/4 nd and drop dead 6/4. How do you do both? I am aware that some play that both 2♣ and 2♦ over 1NT are forcing (and artificial) bids. But that is not what os called nmf, right? So with nmf, unless augmented, we either play the direct jump to 3♣ as weak or invit, right?

 

Another way of asking the same question: If I agree that the direct 3♣ is weak 6/4, then I need to somehow augment nmf to handle the invit 6/4 hands, right? 2way nmf handles this? I have never played it.

[akwoo]

My meta-agreements imply the jump to 3♣ is invitational with 5-5 in the blacks. The weak hand with clubs passes 1N.

 

This means the 4♣ bid is almost impossible, but it could be a very distributional hand that has vastly improved once a fit has known, say ♠Axxxx; ♥x; ♦x; ♣KQxxxx (which has a reasonable slam opposite ♠KQx; ♥Axxx; ♦xxxx; ♣Ax but has no making game opposite ♠xx; ♥AQxx; ♦AQJxx; ♣xx)

 

I bid 4♠, because partner would've used NMF if they had enough black controls for slam to be reasonable.

[Siegmund]

I am the lone "other" in the second poll.

 

Whatever meaning you decided 3C was before you bid 3S, you should still maintain that belief.

 

If you thought 3C was a weak 4-6 you would never have corrected to 3S. So bidding 3S and then passing 4C can't possibly make any sense. (As I voted for weak 4-6, I can't just vote for what I think the "correct" meaning in this auction is.)

[aguahombre]

I just voted to stay out of all threads involving NMF, XYZ, or any other checkback system.