[pbartle]

My bridge knowledge is rather limited therefore many aspects of bidding are new and confusing.
Hypothetically a partnership agrees to employ the concept of new minor forcing. Consider the following auction:
1 diamond, 1 heart, 1 NT, 2 clubs, 2 NT
Opener implies he has even distribution and a stopper in spades, therefore he invites responder to bid 3 NT. Huh? What about the minors?

[P_Marlowe]

pbartle, on 2026-August-19, 12:11, said:

My bridge knowledge is rather limited therefore many aspects of bidding are new and confusing.
Hypothetically a partnership agrees to employ the concept of new minor forcing. Consider the following auction:
1 diamond, 1 heart, 1 NT, 2 clubs, 2 NT
Opener implies he has even distribution and a stopper in spades, therefore he invites responder to bid 3 NT. Huh? What about the minors?

No, 2NT is not an invite to bid 3NT, 2C asks opener to describe his hand, what responder does with the description is his
business:

#1 responder is most likely interested in 3 card support for his major, if opener has it, he bids hearts, 2NT denies 3 hearts
#2 opener may have bypassed a 4 card spade suit, if he has it, he bids it, 2NT denies 4 spades
#3 opener tells responder, if he is min or max, with min, opener stay on the 2 level, with max opener goes to the 3 level, 2NT showes min
with max. opener can bid 3C to show 4 clubs, 3D to show 5 diamonds

#4 If opener make a min bid, and responder bids again a suit below game level, it is forcing to game, usually this is a way to set openers
minor in a forcing manner.

As it is, if opener has at most 5 cards in the major, he will have 8 cards in the minors, 44 is the most common distribution, followed by 53
The minors are usually not relevant, opener has an opening bid, 2C (NMF) promises at least inv. values 10/11+, this means, if you reach game,
you reach it on power with a combined 25+ HCP count.

[apollo1201]

(voided)

[mike777]

 pbartle, on 2026-August-19, 12:11, said:

My bridge knowledge is rather limited therefore many aspects of bidding are new and confusing.
Hypothetically a partnership agrees to employ the concept of new minor forcing. Consider the following auction:
1 diamond, 1 heart, 1 NT, 2 clubs, 2 NT
Opener implies he has even distribution and a stopper in spades, therefore he invites responder to bid 3 NT. Huh? What about the minors?

Great question
NMF can be a bit confusing. Even the name is confusing.

2NT on this specific auction
Denies 3H
Denies 4S
Denies long Diamonds

That is about all ..nothing about stoppers

Remember opener's 1NT showed a minimum balanced hand. Nothing about stoppers.

------

As for the whole do we or don't we have stoppers?

A bit advanced but balanced hands don't worry about stoppers

Let the unbalanced hand worry about that.
Most of the time if the opponents are silent, you just don't worry about stoppers..

Why?

Just bid games, if you go down, you go down, be not afraid... 😟

[bluenikki]

mike777, on 2026-August-19, 17:46, said:

Great question
NMF can be a bit confusing. Even the name is confusing.

2NT on this specific auction
Denies 3H
Denies 4S
Denies long Diamonds

That is about all ..nothing about stoppers

Remember opener's 1NT showed a minimum balanced hand. Nothing about stoppers.

------

As for the whole do we or don't we have stoppers?

A bit advanced but balanced hands don't worry about stoppers

Let the unbalanced hand worry about that.
Most of the time if the opponents are silent, you just don't worry about stoppers..

Why?

Just bid games, if you go down, you go down, be not afraid... 😟

Where is that version published?

[jillybean]

---

2♣ invitational +
Partner has denied 3 hearts, 4 spades and 6 diamonds. (I do not rebid 5 card minors)
Partner has also offered to play in NT - no need for you to worry about stoppers in other suits.

Your decision is 3nt or pass

[P_Marlowe]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-20, 06:07, said:

Where is that version published?

https://en.wikipedia...w_minor_forcing

The main point to agree: do you show a unbid 4 card major before or after showing
3 card support for partners major. This difference in priority gets also mentioned in
the article.

The article is based on Seagram / Smith: 25 conventions you should know.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-August-20, 06:41, said:

---

2♣ invitational +
Partner has denied 3 hearts, 4 spades and 6 diamonds. (I do not rebid 5 card minors)
Partner has also offered to play in NT - no need for you to worry about stoppers in other suits.

Your decision is 3nt or pass

The important thing is, 2NT showes min, more precise: it denies game interest, if responder only has
invitational values.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-20, 07:06, said:

https://en.wikipedia...w_minor_forcing

The main point to agree: do you show a unbid 4 card major before or after showing
3 card support for partners major. This difference in priority gets also mentioned in
the article.

Is that complication really necessary, or should you just show 3-card support for partner's major?
By the time a detail like that actually matters, you are probably playing XYZ anyway.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-August-20, 07:13, said:

Is that complication really necessary, or should you just show 3-card support for partner's major?
By the time a detail like that actually matters, you are probably playing XYZ anyway.

#1 sometimes it does, it is related to the style bypassing a 4 card major in order to show a bal. hand
responder may be forced to show the 5 card heart suit at the 3 level
to a certain degree the priority order is similar to FSF ..., for whats it worth, I show the 3 card
support first, 2nd is the bypassed major
But one should be aware of it, and agree on something
#2 given that I dont play XYZ, ..., I still have no real clue, what it is, my take is, that XYZ is a
evolution of NMF

[telent]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-19, 12:48, said:

"...As it is, if opener has at most 5 cards in the major, he will have 8 cards in the minors..."

Are you implying that a preponderance of cards in the minors constitutes a stopper in one or both?

[WasWinM]

pbartle, on 2026-August-19, 12:11, said:

My bridge knowledge is rather limited therefore many aspects of bidding are new and confusing.
Hypothetically a partnership agrees to employ the concept of new minor forcing. Consider the following auction:
1 diamond, 1 heart, 1 NT, 2 clubs, 2 NT
Opener implies he has even distribution and a stopper in spades, therefore he invites responder to bid 3 NT. Huh? What about the minors?

I always played that new minor forcing was looking specifically for 3-card support of the major bid and announced a hand either good enough to invite game or game forcing itself.
If partner bid 2N, he or she is showing no 3-card support and a minimum hand. With a hand at the top end of the announced range (11-14), he or she would bid 3NT.

As far as the minors, not every suit can always be accounted for in bidding: Think about 1NT-3NT. One suit may be wide open. Same in NMF, though less likely.
To complete the NMF understanding, I was taught to bid 2 of the major with 3-card support and a minimum and jump to 3 with 3-card support and the top of my range, 13-14.

[P_Marlowe]

telent, on 2026-August-20, 08:05, said:

Are you implying that a preponderance of cards in the minors constitutes a stopper in one or both?

The propability at least increases, also 3NT is only 9 tricks, i.e. you can afford to loose 4 tricks,
if you have more cards in a suit, chances are, that the number of tricks you can loose in the suit is
lower.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-20, 07:09, said:

The important thing is, 2NT showes min, more precise: it denies game interest, if responder only has
invitational values.

1NT already announced a minimum

I'll have to remove the upvote

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2026-August-20, 09:53, said:

1NT already announced a minimum

I'll have to remove the upvote

Please remember

If 2C NMF promises inv+
Then, in context, you can have a minimum 1NT or a maximum 1NT rebid....
------

Now granted all of this is really making NMF more confusing for newer players..

-----


This novice bridge forum is a good reminder just how difficult bridge is...

A good reminder how as each bid advances, we ask:
Has our hand gotten better or worse?
If so why?

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-August-20, 09:53, said:

1NT already announced a minimum

No.

Yes 1NT showed a min opener, but with 11...13 opener bids 2NT, with
13...14, he bids 3NT.

The auction is basically identically to 2NT in the seq. 1NT ... 2NT

2NT asks opener, do you have min, than we play 2NT, or max, than we

play 3NT, and 1NT also already promised 15...17.

The ask about min / max is also part of the NMF inquiry.
This is rarely stated, nevertheless it is part of the inquiy.

[bluenikki]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-20, 07:06, said:

https://en.wikipedia...w_minor_forcing

The main point to agree: do you show a unbid 4 card major before or after showing
3 card support for partners major. This difference in priority gets also mentioned in
the article.

The article is based on Seagram / Smith: 25 conventions you should know.

What is in the Wiki is definitely not what mike777 wrote.

And the intro of the Wiki is quite inaccurate. It overlooks that NMF is responder's only force, lacking a second 5+ suit.

[P_Marlowe]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-20, 11:03, said:

What is in the Wiki is definitely not what mike777 wrote.

And the intro of the Wiki is quite inaccurate. It overlooks that NMF is responder's only force, lacking a second 5+ suit.

Mike777 summarized the meaning of 2NT, what he wrote followes from the options not taken.

[telent]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-20, 08:24, said:

The propability at least increases, also 3NT is only 9 tricks, i.e. you can afford to loose 4 tricks,
if you have more cards in a suit, chances are, that the number of tricks you can loose in the suit is
lower.

Thanks! Last question: since responder's 2nd bid is essentially artificial, but yet untested for stopper, can we render the same benign neglect to the unbid major?

[mike777]

 telent, on 2026-August-20, 11:33, said:

Thanks! Last question: since responder's 2nd bid is essentially artificial, but yet untested for stopper, can we render the same benign neglect to the unbid major?

Great question

I love your phrase benign neglect

1. Of course, our opponents will lead the unbid major
2. Of course, opener on this auction only has 2 or 3 cards in the unbid major
3. Some good news, the opponents never bid the suit, if in addition both our hands are relatively balanced, it sounds as if the opponents are balanced..
4. Responder is captain on the hand, they look at their unbid major and decide.
5. Important! As Mr. Compton and the top players will tell you, bid game. If you have 25, 26 HCP Don't look for excuses to not bid game. Bid Game. Maybe the suits will block, maybe the opponents will error, bid game. Your expert opponents will bid the game.
6. As Kit Woolsey and the top players will tell you, bidding and making the tight games, the tough games is how you win matches.