[pbartle]

Thanks all for your insights!

[bluenikki]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-20, 11:25, said:

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

"with a minimum hand and stoppers in both unbid suits, bid 2NT"

Completely in contradiction to mike777.

I have never seen his recommendation in print. BBF or any other forum doesnt count. Neither does a column in a magazine.

Don't get me wrong; it might be the best way to play. But if it is not in print, you can't rely on a stranger knowing it.

[P_Marlowe]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-20, 20:23, said:

"with a minimum hand and stoppers in both unbid suits, bid 2NT"
<snip>

I may have missed this post, but the post I was refering to, has something along the
lines "nothing about stoppers" in it.

I also dont think, that you have the room to show the major suit length and the
stopper sitiuation, ..., I guess if you drop the min / max inquiry, you could get
it in, not sure.

[bluenikki]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-August-21, 00:32, said:

I may have missed this post, but the post I was refering to, has something along the
lines "nothing about stoppers" in it.

I also dont think, that you have the room to show the major suit length and the
stopper sitiuation, ..., I guess if you drop the min / max inquiry, you could get
it in, not sure.

The quotation was from Wikipedia. Again, saying the opposite of mike777.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-21, 04:46, said:

The quotation was from Wikipedia. Again, saying the opposite of mike777.

which one is older and wiser?

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2026-August-21, 08:35, said:

which one is older and wiser?

The issue isn't which version is best. It's which version a new partner is likely to assume.

[mycroft]

For the OP: "bid partner's suit, bid your 4 card major (hearts, unless you "bypass"), or a 5-card minor, or 2D (over 2C)/2NT (over 2D). In that order." will get you through life until you're in a regular partnership where you have time and system space to have the discussions. From a "should I bid it" perspective, 90% of the time you don't know both "where" and "how high" you want to play, you bid NMF (level simple exceptions are "2NT is NAT INV" (and announces no possible major fit), "GF two-suiters" (5=5 at least, unless interested in slam; remember you need a note from your mother to bid 5 of a minor at matchpoints) and "all I care about is how many aces I'm losing". Either you'll get the answer you need to know, or you'll be able to "ask the right question" without getting passed (because if passing below game was allowed, you would have made a NF call last round).

For the discussion, which even for here got way advanced way quickly:

The argument about "with both, which has priority" (and there are at least three answers - "responder's suit/4cOM/hearts" - which all have advantages) is simply so that a) partnership is on the same page, and b) responder knows what hand they "have to show after in case".

I have also heard the argument "2NT denies the invitation". I don't like it (although there isn't a good solution without 2-way) as it seriously compresses slam auctions that had to start with "only way to force" when opener jumps to 3NT.

If you're looking for something written down in bridge from the last 30 years, good luck. It's all in somebody's notes somewhere, or if you're really lucky, in a Seagram book. Otherwise, there are four of them and they contradict each other - if you're lucky; if not, they don't exist. Examples: XYZ itself (it's only in the last 5 years I've been able to find *anything* that wasn't "well, here's what we play" on a BW thread), my several discussions on "when does G/B 2NT apply?" Frankly, a lot of the "this is how it is played" Just Is people like mike777 (or bluenikki, or P_Marlowe, or me) saying it on these forums or the other ones. Which makes it hard to decide on which of the "four contradicting patterns" we should think of playing - because "it's obvious this is the only way that makes sense, I don't need to show (know) my reasons". We no longer have a Goren to "settle the Bridge Arguments" (heh, even then, I preferred Scheinwold, both at the "5 weeks" and the "How to play" levels. He just explains so much better than "Thou Shalt" Goren.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-21, 11:04, said:

The issue isn't which version is best. It's which version a new partner is likely to assume.

Without discussion? You make a bid and hope for the best.

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2026-August-21, 11:47, said:

If you're looking for something written down in bridge from the last 30 years, good luck. It's all in somebody's notes somewhere, or if you're really lucky, in a Seagram book. Otherwise, there are four of them and they contradict each other - if you're lucky; if not, they don't exist. Examples: XYZ itself (it's only in the last 5 years I've been able to find *anything* that wasn't "well, here's what we play" on a BW thread), my several discussions on "when does G/B 2NT apply?" Frankly, a lot of the "this is how it is played" Just Is people like mike777 (or bluenikki, or P_Marlowe, or me) saying it on these forums or the other ones. Which makes it hard to decide on which of the "four contradicting patterns" we should think of playing - because "it's obvious this is the only way that makes sense, I don't need to show (know) my reasons". We no longer have a Goren to "settle the Bridge Arguments" (heh, even then, I preferred Scheinwold, both at the "5 weeks" and the "How to play" levels. He just explains so much better than "Thou Shalt" Goren.

So the situation is: When you agree to play NMF, you have agreed nothing except do not pass. That's fine. Except your partner _thinks_ you have agreed to a whole system of continuations. You can't even say "Let's play it as ...."

Now that I think of it, all such replies on NB should _explicitly_ begin with "There is no consensus on this, but here is what I think best."

My wife and I played that new minor over 1NT initiated _all_ inv+ flexible hands. The raise to 2NT showed a balanced hand too strong to raise to 3NT. Taken literally, that would have been NMF.

[mike777]

Few comments:

1.EHAA, my first bridge system, everyone played it, so I thought it was the only bridge system. We were all younger, much..
Kimmel, Chip , Alan and Cheri played it
So must be ok...

2. Five weeks to winning bridge, my first bridge book.

3. Goren's red book cover on Precision, my second.

4. First learned XYZ about 25 years ago,from my old friends Kimmel, Chip and Hugh. Hugh has now passed. They did send it to me in writing using something called email..

So XYZ been around for a long time. Love it.

5. Coming back to bridge last year playing NMF at the local bridge club

Auction was with opponents silent: 1D=1H =2C=?

My partner told me later

New minor forcing convention.....

Another
1C=1H=2D= NMF

Another
1D=1H=1S=2C..NMF


Never too old to learn ..

[jillybean]

I thought XYZ was "new" — but I suppose 25+ years is new in bridge years.

Your last two examples of New Minor Forcing are controversial and confusing for anyone reading the thread.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2026-August-22, 11:09, said:

I thought XYZ was "new" — but I suppose 25+ years is new in bridge years.

Your last two examples of New Minor Forcing are controversial and confusing for anyone reading the thread.

Meant to be humourous, my partners were confused

[mycroft]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-22, 04:31, said:

So the situation is: When you agree to play NMF, you have agreed nothing except do not pass. That's fine. Except your partner _thinks_ you have agreed to a whole system of continuations. You can't even say "Let's play it as ...."

Wait, did you *read* my post? Or just the stuff you quoted?

If you're playing with a pickup, with 3 minutes (or -3 minutes, I'm a director) to agree system, my "OP, ignore all the rabbit holes we experienced players fight over. Do this, you won't be wrong. You might not be *right*, but you won't be wrong" notes (that you trimmed) apply. Yeah, there will be edge cases. You can play for 15 years with a partner and get edge cases. Deal with it, it's a pickup.

If you're *discussing* with partner, feel free to go down all the rabbit holes (does 2NT guarantee min? what suit do you bid with 4-3 majors? How often do you bypass 4 spades to rebid 1NT? Do you want to hear about 2=2=(54)? How good is your suit if you rebid your minor at the 3 level? 2♦?) when they reach the top of the priority-to-resolve list. Frankly, that could be 15 years, because "show support for partner. Show 4 cards in the other major. Show a good long minor. Bid the cheaper of 2♦/2NT. In that priority order.", possibly agreeing to reverse the first two, will last you that long.

Quote

Now that I think of it, all such replies on NB should _explicitly_ begin with "There is no consensus on this, but here is what I think best."

Either "yeah, and? You could say that about anything, and any level, for that matter. Have you *read* that Other Site lately?" (Okay, they don't say "here's what I think best", that's implied, along with "and I should be listened to because I'm an Eeeexpert". Some of them even are.) Frankly, there isn't even consensus on how many minors are "new" :-).

Or, "BS. 'Here's what's standard around here/your area, there's advantages to other methods, but your partners will understand this.' 'There really is no standard, here are the three common alternatives. I'd pick [x], because it's the simplest for me to remember, but I'm not you.' '[x] has been standard for 70 years, but the expert game is moving to [y]. You might want to just learn the new way, depending on how many of your hopeful partners/mentors know it.' or several other lines are much better than 'there's no authority any more, so it's the wild west. here's what I play, good luck'". Frankly, "what I think is best" is totally unhelpful - and as a K/S with Keri/MSP/... default, what's best for me is frequently *not* what I recommend to a newer player; it would be reliant on so many other decisions they don't play (or even know to decide), they're not playing solely with me, I like playing off-beat stuff, or any of the other reasons.

Or, maybe even, "90% of people will expect you to do...If you have time, discuss [x], [y], and [z] with your partner. Remember that in bridge, 'always' always means 'almost always', and 'never' means 'unless you *know* you're right, and are willing to take the blame if you're wrong anyway'; there will *always* be someone who plays it slightly different."

Consensus works with 15 people. It does not with 300 000. We should not be looking for consensus. We should be looking for practicality (or, at worst, "standard").

And - I do think world-wide - the priority I put up, and reiterated here, will be a practical (both in optimality, understandability, and memory) solution for NMF for new players. And there's a similar answer for Stayman (sure, everyone knows the first answer. But the second round?), Drury, and all the rest.

Quote

My wife and I played that new minor over 1NT initiated _all_ inv+ flexible hands. The raise to 2NT showed a balanced hand too strong to raise to 3NT. Taken literally, that would have been NMF.

Of course it is. And more power to you (provided you explained properly to the opponents how you played it). Would I teach that to OP? No. Why? Because newer players *do need* "the answer", and your answer, while definitely playable and having some serious advantages to "standard", would be a surprise to most of their partners who aren't you or your wife. My wife and I play (in a 2-way NMF style) that 2♣...2NT is "inv with 5M" and a direct raise to 2NT is "inv with 4M", rather than the (almost universal here) direct raise is a bad club hand, making 3♣ direct the same picture bid that the other 3 bids are, so that 2♣...2NT is how you invite. I like it, the picture bids never come up, it solves several problems for us, but we play it because we can remember it; we *know* we'd forget the other style at the table. Again, practicality. I don't try to convince "the room" to play that way, and hope I *do* remember if it comes up.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-August-22, 12:25, said:

Meant to be humourous, my partners were confused

Yes, I understood but other readers may not recognize your sense of humour.
Oh wait, have I been made a moderator?

[JeffMorrow]

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?

The previous answers came from experts and embody many subtleties that a beginner is unlikely to remember.

I am not an expert, but I am not a beginner. In standard American bidding or 2/1 gf

Opener bids 1D. Meaning is 3+ diamonds, wide range of possible strength

Responder bids 1H. Meaning is 4+ hearts, wide range of possible strength. Forcing for one round.

Opener bids 1NT. Meaning minimum hand, fairly even distribution, 3- in hearts. It does not promise stoppers in unbid suits. It denies 5+ spades. (The way I play, it denies 4+ spades.)

General principle is that if responder bids a second suit in a non-competitive auction, that is forcing and thus implies that responder has AT LEAST invitational strength and wants further information.

NMF is a specific partnership understanding CONSISTENT with that general principle.

When playing NMF, the auction 1D, (P), 1H, (P), 1NT, (P), 2C says nothing about clubs, but it asks opener to bid 2H if opener has three hearts.

What is the point? When responder first bids 1H, responder may have only four hearts. If opener has four or more, opener will raise responder because opener will know that the partnership has at least eight cards in hearts and so has found a good trump suit. BUT, if opener bids 1NT, opener denies having four or more hearts. If responder has six or more hearts, responder can bid hearts again safely. But what if responder has exactly five hearts. Hearts will still make a good trump suit if opener has three hearts, which is possible when opener rebids 1NT. NMF is an understanding that lets responder ask whether opener has three hearts. Now as the experts have explained, if opener does not have three hearts, opener must bid something other than responder’s major, and those forced bids have other meanings. But the fundamental rationale of NMF is to find a 5-3 fit in responder’s major.

At its simplest, NMF is a partnership agreement that uses a rebid by responder in an unbid minor suit to demand that opener bid 2 of responder’s major if opener’s first rebid of 1NT concealed 3-card support for responder’s major. It is artificial and says nothing about NT stoppers or the minor suit itself.

I am sure the experts will correct any errors I may have made.