BBO Discussion Forums: NEW MINOR FARCE versus CHECKBACK STAYMAN - BBO Discussion Forums

Marvin French has made this contribution challenging those who use any convention mechanistically without properly thinking through the ups and downs.

Does Marvin have a point here? Or are there other benefits not covered in the article?

Who is Marvin French ?

I don't think this guy knows what he is talking about. New minor force does not promise five in responder's major, it's common to bid it with a fit for opener's minor in order to create a force. Further, there is no particular need/desire to bid some kind of checkback with a weak hand (you just pass 1NT or rebid your good five card suit).

The main advantage of new minor force over checkback stayman is that you can play in two of opener's minor when you have a weak hand with a fit. This is often a better partial than 1NT on what might be a minority of the high-card strength!

With that said, I think "2-way new minor force" is a rare example of a treatment that is both simpler and better than regular new minor force (or checkback, for that matter). This works as follows after opener's 1NT rebid:

(1) 2♣ forces opener to bid 2♦. This shows either a hand that wants to sign off in diamonds, or any type of invitational hand. If responder bids on over the forced 2♦ rebid, it's natural and shows an invite. For example, to invite with a five-card major bid 2♣ followed by 2M. To invite with 5-4 majors after responding 1♠, bid 2♣ and then 2♥. To invite with four spades and a long club suit after 1♦-1♠-1NT, bid 2♣ followed by 3♣.

(2) 2♦ is an artificial game forcing bid. Opener bids naturally to the degree possible.

(3) In the simplest treatment, a jump to 3♣ after 1m-1M-1NT is to play. This is because you can't bid 2♣ to play (that would be forcing). There are more complex variants that use 2NT as a transfer (since you can bid 2♣...2NT with a balanced invite).

(4) Rebidding responder's major or bidding 2♥ after an original 1♠ response is weak and not forcing.

fwiw I always thought nmf and checkback stayman were the same. which i played

Then I learned two way checkback which was NOT xyz. which i played


Then I learned xyz.......which I now play


--


granted this is old news..no doubt you play something else and better.

--


If I remember Marvin French is an old SD player......very famous. Never met him. but he wrote often in BW.

MrAce, on 2012-March-17, 23:40, said:

Marvin French has his own website.

This guy is currently 85 years old. There is a tab on his web page "About Me." This is an extract from his website:

Duplicate Bridge
Life Master ranking (LM number 1023) in 1956, author of many articles on the game in Popular Bridge and Bridge World magazines and in the American Contract Bridge League's Bridge Bulletin. An ACBL casebook "expert panelist," critiquing the performance of tournament directors and appeals committees in regard to disputed table rulings at North American Bridge Championships

How is NMF a sacred cow? Most people around here don't even play it.

32519, on 2012-March-18, 01:27, said:

Ok thank you.

Back to topic. I played checkback before i moved to USA, here i play nmf because thats what most people play and i dont really care much, with reg pds i play 2 way checkback/nmf.

Here is the 3 things that contrasts checkback and nmf. First 2 of them are way overrated imo. ( CB and NMF differs only after 1♣ opening btw )

1- NMF allows you to play in opener's ♣ suit, with check back u can not do that because regardless of openers minor you have to start with 2♣ over 1 NT rebid.

2- If you are bypassing ♦ suit over 1♣ and/or if opener is rebidding 1 NT with balanced hands including a 4 card major, CB allows you to play responder's ♦ suit at 2 level. NMF can not do that.

3- CB allows you to have 1 more space available in response to the question that 2♣ asks which automatically affects the subsequent bids. NMF doesnt.

Imo playing opener's ♣ suit is overrated by a lot (and when i say by a lot i mean by A LOT ) Same goes for the ability to play canape ♦ suit at 2 level. But having an extra space can be vital imo.

If someone needs to decide which one is better, just skip what Marvin French or Awm or Timo says. Ask yourself, how many times in last 10 years did u get to bid 2♣ to play and were you allowed to play there or was it a wake up call for opponents ? Which one is easier for you to remember ? Which one does your pd prefer ? Is the extra space gained very important ?

Leaving aside the contents of Marvin's article... a lot of good things can happen with Checkback. The one downside is losing the ability to sign off at 2C; the upsides of saving an extra step of bidding after 1c-1M-1N can be several. Being able to rebid 2M over opener's 2D instead of 3M over his 2N is probably the biggest of them. I would wholeheartedly agree that 'always 2C' is better than New Minor. All the Polish Club folk have agreed with that idea for years.

Playing either convention, it is difficult to handle ALL the forcing bids with one convention. Far superior to the "usual" way, IMO, is to keep responder's second round jumps forcing, and put all of the invitations (as well as a few of his game forces when he is unsure of strain) through 2C. Playing that way I feel no need for two-way checkback, and rather dislike XYZ, although part of that is because of it having a "responder shows" feel instead of a "responder inquires, opener shows, responder sets" feel to it.

Siegmund, on 2012-March-18, 02:37, said:

again you say the one downside is not being able to ply in 2c
Your words not mine!



the rest seems gibberish.

Marvin French may be 85, but that doesn't mean he's gone senile.

There are basically four ways to explore for a 5-3 fit in responder's major, or find a 4-4 fit in an unbid major, after opener rebids 1NT:

1. NMF, which as others have said uses the unbid minor to ask. But what do you do if there is no unbid minor, or there are two?
2. "Two way" NMF, which uses both minors to ask. Apparently, Kit Woolsey called this "two way check back", and some people still do so. But it's not what I would call two way check back. See below.
3. Checkback Stayman, so called because it works just like Stayman over an opening 1NT. This is pretty much the same as Crowhurst, which is not surprising since Eric Crowhurst invented it.
4. Two way Checkback Stayman, which works just like two way Stayman over an opening 1NT. IOW, 2♣ is invitational, and 2♦ is GF.

#4 is IMO the best of these, but it's also probably the most complex. Also, it works best in a Walsh-style environment. As others have said, you can't play in opener's minor at the two level, but I wouldn't call this a drawback of the method, since your opponents aren't likely to let you play there anyway.

A subtle difference in wording I would like to point out:

The ability to play in opener's minor at the 2-level is, yes, a fairly minor concern.

The ability to make a natural nonforcing bid] in 2 of a minor has considerable value - most significantly when opener has 3-card support and corrects back to 2 of responder's major, finding a bunch of 5-3s and playable 4-3s even when responder is too weak to use any of the inv+ asking methods under discussion.

The more unwilling to raise immediately on 3-card support you are, the more valuable the weak 2m bid becomes.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 07:24, said:

There is always an unbid minor after a 1NT rebid by opener. When there are two (1H-1S-1NT), we use 2C.

Won't get into which gadget is better because it involves too many other factors which make one style better than another for certain pairs; and also because at the outset, using the term "farce" instead of force, was geared to contentious dialogue.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 07:24, said:

Those two things aren't quite the same, though in both 2♣ is the only ask. They differ in that Crowhurst -- which was designed to work with a wide-ranging 1NT rebid -- has opener describe strength as well as shape in his reply.

Checkback over 1nt was originally called Kantar 2♣ and Eddie being Eddie wrote up 40 pages or so on it.

In the version I play 2♣ promises invitational values + and opener can super accept with any good 13 or 14 (but not 4 triples) and show their exact shape.

3-level bids are natural, 4-4-3-2's and 5-3-3-2's with shortness in responders suit. If you rebid 1nt with a stiff honour you have to treat it as a doubleton and if you rebid 1nt with a stiff petunia, stop it.

2nt shows 3 pieces in responders suit with a doubleton somewhere and we have more club bids and responses to ask for exact shape after that.

3nt shows 2-2 and 5-4 in the minors etc.

We can avoid 3nt with matching doubletons after this when a 4-3 or 5-2 major fit is better and responder has a shot at some light shapely slams as we respond a 4-card major even with 6 in a minor.

Rare but a lot more fun than proudly being able to stop in 2♣ instead of 3.

aguahombre, on 2012-March-18, 10:13, said:

So the auction 1♣-1♦-1NT doesn't exist?

blackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 17:07, said:

aguahombre, on 2012-March-18, 10:13, said:

I hasten to point out that it was Marvin French's words rather than 32519's

-

blackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 17:07, said:

Of course it exists, and of course it has nothing to do with this thread.

aguahombre, on 2012-March-18, 20:20, said:

Ok you deleted the first one so quick that i didnt have the time to quote it

FYI, it exists in this auction too playing checkback. 2♣ is NOT to play.

It asks

a- 4 card major if the 1NT can still have 4 card M. (usually balanced hands, with 6♦+4M responder can bid his major and forcing)

b- It is used as a gate to make a forcing bids later