[Caitlynne]

It depends on agreements, of course, but the gist of the answer is whatever can be done to create a game forcing auction and show the club suit.

If 3C is forcing and natural in your partnership, that is the best bid since it accomplishes both objectives immediately and simultaneously. Unfortunately, most experts play that as natural, invitational, and non-forcing.

If 3C is not forcing, you will likely be playing some singular form of checkback, either 2C "2C Checkback" or 2D "New Minor Forcing." In either case, following with an economical bid is clubs is forcing - most say to game, but certainly for at least 1 round.

Another alternative is that you might play either 2-way Checkback or a more general form of the same thing called XYZ. In this case, you would choose between 2C and 2D. The 2C alternative is a puppet bid that forces 2D from partner after which you will either Pass if weak with long diamonds or take another natural bid that is natural, invitational, and non-forcing. The 2D alternative is used to create a game force and asks partner to bid naturally, after which you can continue to describe your hand by bidding clubs and continue on with almost unbridled enthusiasm.

[Winstonm]

sfi, on 2016-December-06, 18:21, said:

Surely that's more likely to be a slam try with long hearts and short clubs, isn't it?

Not in my world. Maybe yours. I admit the world has changed since my hayday.

[jogs]

Can we all agree that this is NOT a simple bidding sequence?

[Goreny]

Nowhere to run with this slammish hand, so 2C as new minor forcing first. If opener shows 3 hearts with 2H, I would start cuebidding with 40 (not 3, that is a weaker hand, and 3C only a long suit gametry). With 3 hearts of opener 6-7 H is the end with enough keycards.

If I get 2D (no 3 hearts, no 4 spades,I follow with 3H, which shows solid 6 cards heart suit and GF). Opener with doubleton must bid 4H, then I try 4 NT RKCB.

If I get 2S, 3H is my reply again: not interested in spades, but have at least 6 good hearts, and want game. If opener has not doubleton support, I follow with 4C.

[Goreny]

The problem with 2D as "NMF or "checkback": the 1D opening bid. If somebody uses 2D as checkback, never can stop with weak hand and diamond support, when there are 1-2 possible unprotected suits and 2D is the safest endstation.

[Goreny]

The problem with 2D as "NMF or "checkback": the 1D opening bid. If somebody uses 2D as checkback, never can stop with weak hand and diamond support, when there are 1-2 possible unprotected suits and 2D is the safest endstation.

[Tramticket]

jogs, on 2016-December-07, 18:32, said:

Can we all agree that this is NOT a simple bidding sequence?

For some of us it is a simple bidding sequence. In my methods 3♣ is 100% game forcing and shows at least 5-5.

We use 2♣ as a Crowhurst/Checkback type bid (including all invitational strength hands) and 2NT as a relay to 3♣, which includes (amongst other things) hands that want to sign off in clubs.

[kenberg]

Goreny, on 2016-December-08, 01:28, said:

The problem with 2D as "NMF or "checkback": the 1D opening bid. If somebody uses 2D as checkback, never can stop with weak hand and diamond support, when there are 1-2 possible unprotected suits and 2D is the safest endstation.

With 2 way NMF, you in fact can stop in 2D. It goes like this:

After 1m-1M-1NT, a call of 2C absolutely forces a 2D response. Responeder can then pass.
After the 2C and forced 2D, any call other than a pass is natural and invitational (the pass was also natural, just not invitational ).
This leaves 1m-1M-1NT-2D as artificial and game forcing.
So 1D-1M-2NT-2C-2D-pass is weak and takes care of itself, other then that the invit hands start with 2C,, the gf hands start with 2D.

But you are right that after 1C-1M-1NT you can not get out in 2C with a weal hand and a club fit. I have not played 2 way NMF so long that I can evaluate it with confidence, but so far I have not found this inability to get out in 2C to be a problem. You can see why. If partner has a 12-14 count and if you have a club fit and a weak hand and with weakness in the unbid suits, why are the opponents not in the auction? And if you have some shape, the sequence 1C-1M-1NT-3C is weak (because invit starts with 2C, forcing starts with 2D, so a direct 3C is weak) and often 3C is where you want to be.

i have no real axe to grind here, but from what I have seen this is a convention that delivers as promised.

[mycroft]

I play this (well, we extend it to full XYZ, so any three calls at the 1 level, not just 1NT), and it works very well. The ability to get out in 2 of a minor is about as useful as it is after 1m-2m, which is why "everybody" plays inverted minors (well, that and having a forcing minor raise). Either it's wrong, or the opponents will force you to 3 anyway.

Over full XYZ, of course, 2♣ doesn't absolutely *force* 2♦, same as when playing lebensohl over reverses, 2NT does not absolutely *force* 3♣ the way it does over NT and interference.

You do have to define the repetitive sequences: 1m-1M; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2NT and the like. We play it as "going through the relay shows 5M" if that is at all possible.

The biggest problem with this convention is the time you play the 4-1 diamond fit making 5 with 6M on. And you will do it - once.

[msjennifer]

kenberg, on 2016-December-07, 08:55, said:

Usually it is safe to assume a pick-up partner plays New Minor Forcing. This assumption is not being made to create unnecessary confusion, it is simply an observation of what I have come to expect when playing on BBO. But while I would assume, usually correctly, that 2C would be NMF I have less confidence in what comes next on hands such as this. Bidding 2C over 1NT and then 3C should clearly be different from directly bidding 3C over 1NT. I think the most common agreement is that 2C followed by 3C is strong, a direct bid of 3C is either invitational with some or weak with others.

SAYC does not include NMF, although many people who say they play SAYC include NMF as an "everybody knows that" sort of thing. If not playing NMF then it seems reasonable to play that a direct 2C is weak, asking for a choice between clubs and hearts (a la Goren) and 3C is strong.

Without discussion, I would be hesitant to assume partner and I are on the same wavelength in any sequnce.
Mike mentions an artificial 2D. I also mentioned this, more or less as an aside sine I would not assume it to be artificial unless we had discussed it. But playing 2 way nmf, then 2D followed by 3C is strong, 2C relays to 2D and then a bid of 3C is invitational, and a direct bid of 3C over 1NT is weak. I expect you already know this and we can agree that this is not a practical route here unless we have agreed to play 2-way NMF. But I disagree that 3C over 1NT is obviously strong. W/o discussion, I don't think it is obvious at all.

But I think the problem is at a more basic one of agreement. Take your sequence: 1D-1H-1NT-3C, and assume it is strong. Now suppose opener fits clubs. What happens next? In my view, 3NT would be to play, 3H would accept hearts. I am not sure how I would treat 3D. I would treat 3S over 3C as accepting clubs and showing a spade control. I would treat a raise of 3C to 4C as accepting clubs without a spade control. So let's assume that after the 3C partner bids either 4C or 3S. Now what? I need to know about the spade and diamond aces, and I need to know about the club Q. I find out how?

I don't doubt that there are many partnerships who have an answer to this, but with any partnership I have I don't. Perhaps 4D is kickback. Or maybe 4S. Even having 4NT as rkc might be ok providing that if the answer is 0 keys then I can sign off in 5H. But I doubt that I can.

So if we are going for simple, I think 1D-1H-1NT-4C(Gerber) is simple. More often than not we will take the same number of tricks in hearts as in clubs. Usually we will lose no hearts. Maybe they split 3-2, maybe partner has three, maybe partner has Jx, and even if partner has xx and they split 4-1 maybe the J is stiff. . We will lose to whichever ace or aces the opponents have. The club suit might be fine,but if there is a gap it might be better it clubs are not trump so that I can, if maybe pard has both aces and the Jxx in clubs, play on clubs last. For that matter, if partner has Qxx in clubs it might be very useful to play on clubs last it they are 4-1.

So: :Lacking sophisticated gadgetry, and I take the OP to assume no sophisticated gadgetry , I will be playing this in hearts. The question is how high? I don't regard gerber as sophisticated gadgetry, but w/o discussion that could also be a trap.

So the whole thread could be seen as an advertisement for getting our agreements straight.

INew Minor Forcing is certainly not applicable after opener rebids 1NT, as has been described in all books, since opener has shown a very limited hand.If responder holds say x-KQxxx-xx- Jxxxx,what is he supposed to bid.?If the EXPERTS say bid 3C ,I feel not a single non-expert will accept that.A simple rebid of 2C specifically shows the desire not to play in 1NT at the same time showing 4/5 or 5/4 hand.And if anyone suggests that new minor is forcing(over 1NT openers rebid) well! good luck to that one.!

[sfi]

msjennifer, on 2016-December-09, 00:00, said:

New Minor Forcing is certainly not applicable after opener rebids 1NT, as has been described in all books, since opener has shown a very limited hand.If responder holds say x-KQxxx-xx- Jxxxx,what is he supposed to bid?

New Minor Forcing, in this context, is the name of a specific convention and doesn't have a direct link to the general idea that a new suit is forcing in certain situations.

It applies in specifically these type of auctions. After partner rebids 1NT you may want to force, invite, or sign off. The problem is that you only have two natural bids and three desired meanings. Playing NMF, you give up the ability to sign off in 2 of the unbid minor. Instead you use this as an artificial bid to start a range of invitational and strong sequences.

On the hand you provide, you would have to choose between playing 2H or signing off (in some way that depends on your agreements) in 3C. Not ideal, perhaps, but the gains on other hands are huge.

[mycroft]

Players who think a hand like x KQxxx xx Jxxxx will be allowed to play 1♦-1♥; 1NT-2♣; all pass, unless it's wrong, are living in the '50s. Which is fine - there are a lot of them - but in the real world, opponents exist and have a tendency to not pass with a fit and half the deck. When they do pass it out, a trump is hitting the deck "even if the opening leader needs to pull one from another hand", and you're going to fairly quickly be playing 2NoTrumpsLeft.

So you have to either pass this hand or bid 2♥ and potentially play the 5-2 with a club fit, or bid 3♣ which seems - aggressive. I'll take that for the hands where I have x AKJxx xx QJTxx or x AKJxx KQxx Txx or KJxx AKxx QTxx x (what, partner will always bid 1♠ instead of 1NT with 4 and a MIN BAL hand? My partners won't) or any of the myriad hands where, since I'm captain, I want to make a "hey, partner, bid again; I need more information before I place the contract", or a "hey, partner, bid again; I want to make the strong version of my next call" or any of the other things captains would like to do.

This, and many other reasons, is why most tournament players, for 50-odd years now, have played bidding the "new minor" after 1m-1M; 1NT as "forcing, tell me more" (and have expanded the meaning of "new minor" over time, be it "2♣ is NMF after 1♣-1♦; 1NT" or "two-way 'NMF'" or "we'll even play NMF if opener didn't rebid 1NT (XYZ)". I would absolutely never give it up.

[kenberg]

msjennifer, on 2016-December-09, 00:00, said:

INew Minor Forcing is certainly not applicable after opener rebids 1NT, as has been described in all books, since opener has shown a very limited hand.If responder holds say x-KQxxx-xx- Jxxxx,what is he supposed to bid.?If the EXPERTS say bid 3C ,I feel not a single non-expert will accept that.A simple rebid of 2C specifically shows the desire not to play in 1NT at the same time showing 4/5 or 5/4 hand.And if anyone suggests that new minor is forcing(over 1NT openers rebid) well! good luck to that one.!

First the sample hand:
I would rebid 2H with that hand. The opponents appear to have a nine card spade fit. If they only have eight then partner has skipped over a four card spades suit to rebid 1NT. If he is that anxious to get to NT I trust he is four triple three and I am in a 5-3 fit. But usually he would (at least this is true of my partners) bid 1S if he had four. So it appears that the opponents have a nine card spade fit and at least 22 high card points, assuming partner is limited to 14. If I can buy this for 2H I will be delighted, even if I am in a 5-2 fit. Having made this weak call, I will then consider whether I do or do not want to compete to 3C if they now belatedly come in with their spades.


Now about "certainly not applicable". Nmf is certainly common.
See for example , the instructions on Commonly Used Conventions
http://web2.acbl.org...inorforcing.pdf

There are very few conventions that I use playing pick-up on BBO where I am totally confident that partner will understand what I am doing. Nmf, after 1m-1M-1NT comes pretty close to being one of them. I learned bridge in 1961 (ok, correction, I started trying to learn bridge in 1961) by reading Goren, and then 1C-1H-1NT-2D was non-forcing with a weak hand, and with length in hearts and diamonds. So yes, a partner might pass 2D if s/he learned from Goren. I cannot recall this ever actually happening, and I play a fair amount of pick up on BBO.