[foo]

I agree its close.

Change the hand to ♠AJx♥KQJxxx♦AKx♣9, and I'd be willing to make a SJS even opposite a 1♣ opening.

Change the Opening to 1♦ or 1♠, and I'd be willing to make a SJS with the original hand of ♠AJx♥KQT9xx♦AKx♣9

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt". The reason the convention is called "new minor forcing", is obvious, it's because its different from the standard meaning, which is non-forcing. It's just that NMF is such a common convention now that some people think it's part of standard.

Note also that people who play checkback stayman only, often play 2d as NF. Sometimes it's good to be able to play a 2d contract.

As for the hand in question, I kind of like a SJS if available, I think the Morehouse school (read "On bidding") is right, get the hand off your chest, tell partner you have a slammish hand with a good heart suit, then let him decide. You can make all these delicate forcing bids, but what exactly are you hoping to hear that will make things
clear for you to place the contract? Sometimes it is better to just tell instead of trying to ask.

[pbleighton]

Quote

What I'm objecting to is your "any strong hand" statement. That is simply not playable, even if partner can be assumed to be on the same wavelength. Remove the suit slightly weaker and I don't think anybody would make a SJS. Also, if this is the correct strength for a SJS, you cannot make a SJS with three points less as well.

1. I should have said "any hand with 17+ hcp", not "any strng hand". My bad.
2. As a matter of judgment, I agree that I wouldn't make a sjs without a decent 5 card suit at the 2 level or a decent 6 at the 3 level, but in fact the sjs in sayc isn't restricted as to hand type, and if you are playing with a pickup pd, with no discussion, and pd makes an sjs, you had better be prepared for any hand with 17+ hcp, regardless of shape.

Peter

[jdeegan]

2♥. Classic strong jump shift. Just ask yourself three questions:

(1) Will this hand produce a laydown small slam opposite a perfect minimum(s)?
(2) Do I have a two suiter such that the final strain is in doubt?
(3) Is my suit long and strong - a good source of tricks?

If #1 is yes - and a small family of "perfect" mins is much more better.
If #2 is no - don't use up bidding space you may need to establish your best fit
If #3 is yes - pard will value minor honors in your suit like aces and kings.

Then the classic jump shift is for you when playing SAYC. Playing 2/1 is another story altogether.

[vuroth]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 17 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

Quote

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt".

Agreed, and I'm glad someone pointed it out.

An interesting thread, and probably one that rates as high intermediate. Not that all B/Is can't or shouldn't play FSF and NMF, but I'm sure many leave at least one of them off the scoresheet.

The moral of the story seems to be that there's more than one way to force to game, and having a clear distinction between SJS and other GF methods make sense.

In a B/I pickup match, I think 2♥ rates to be a clear winner. In an established B/I partnership, I think I'd want to discuss this kind of hand with partner - vis a vis 1♥ vs 2♥.

V

[foo]

vuroth, on Jun 17 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jun 17 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

Quote

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt".

Agreed, and I'm glad someone pointed it out.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

Your POV here is a reasonably common misconception I've seen, but even if not playing NMF, the sequence 1m-1M;1N-2om is =100%= forcing.

This is a new suit, and at a new level to boot, by responder. When responder could have
a= passed 1N
b= rebid their suit
c= taken a preference
to show a passable minimum.

Check any reliable reference on SA such as _Common Sense Bidding_ or _The Bidding Dictionary_ to verify this.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 04:17 AM, said:

vuroth, on Jun 17 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jun 17 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

Quote

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt".

Agreed, and I'm glad someone pointed it out.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

Your POV here is a reasonably common misconception I've seen, but even if not playing NMF, the sequence 1m-1M;1N-2om is =100%= forcing.

This is a new suit, and at a new level to boot, by responder. When responder could have
a= passed 1N
b= rebid their suit
c= taken a preference
to show a passable minimum.

Check any reliable reference on SA such as _Common Sense Bidding_ or _The Bidding Dictionary_ to verify this.

Foo is correct on this one

Check out the following quote from the ACBL's original SAYC write up available at

http://alumni.imsa.e...aksho/sayc.html

Quote

SUBSEQUENT BIDDING BY RESPONDER

If responder has bid a suit at the one level, he next determines
whether he wishes to sign off in a partscore, invite game, sign off in
game, or force to game and get more information about opener's hand.
Having made his choice, he selects the best available bid.

Bids available for signoff in partscore: Pass, 1NT, 2 of a previously
bid suit.
    1H -- 1S
    2C -- Pass, 2H, 2S = 6-10 points, signoff in partscore.

Bids available for inviting game: 2NT, 3 of a previously bid suit:
    1H -- 1S
    2D -- 2NT, 3D, 3H, 3S = 11-12 points, inviting game.

Second-round forcing bids. A new suit response (other than after a 1NT
rebid by opener) is a one-round force. If it is a fourth suit in the
auction, it may be artificial.
    1H -- 1S
    2C -- 2D = one-round force, could be artificial.
... but ...
    1H -- 1S
    1NT-- 2C, 2D = non-forcing. Responder must jump shift to 3C or 3D
                  to force game.

[neilkaz]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 17 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

Quote

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt". The reason the convention is called "new minor forcing", is obvious, it's because its different from the standard meaning, which is non-forcing. It's just that NMF is such a common convention now that some people think it's part of standard.

Note also that people who play checkback stayman only, often play 2d as NF. Sometimes it's good to be able to play a 2d contract.

As for the hand in question, I kind of like a SJS if available, I think the Morehouse school (read "On bidding") is right, get the hand off your chest, tell partner you have a slammish hand with a good heart suit, then let him decide. You can make all these delicate forcing bids, but what exactly are you hoping to hear that will make things
clear for you to place the contract? Sometimes it is better to just tell instead of trying to ask.

Why something simpler than NMF (try teaching B/I whatever varient you prefer that includes ways to probe for minor suit slams) like X-Y-Z or two way checkback or X-Y-NT isn't standardized is beyond me !
http://bridgehands.c..._Convention.htm
http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.com/2005/06/...convention.html (Ben's)
http://www.2over1.com/modules/wfsection/ar...hp?articleid=12 (Roland's)

Correct me if I am wrong(being a 2/1er), but SAYC really cannot properly handle the given hand after a 1NT rebid since the jump to 3♥ is invitational. Responder can just jump to 4♥ knowing opener has 2 or 3 card support, but that misses many slams. Thus responder may wish to jump shift to 3♦ but that can become messy if opener suspects real ♦ but at least responder can pull any 6♦ to 6♥.

Many of us "experts" here rarely play basic SAYC and may have forgotten some of the often poorly defined bidding sequences. Some of us play 2/1 as non GF, but most use a few gadgets along the way. Once, again, beating the dead horse, but I jump shift to 2♥ here with any SAYC PD.

.. neilkaz ..

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Foo is correct on this one

Check out the following quote from the ACBL's original SAYC write up available

Did you even read what you quoted? It contradicts him directly.

Quote

A new suit response (other than after a 1NT
rebid by opener) is a one-round force

Look in between the parentheses ...

Foo, you have no idea what you are talking about. You will not find it published anywhere anything that supports your contention. I don't have Commonsense Bidding or the Bidding Dictionary, but I did check Modern Bridge Conventions, whose section on new minor forcing explicitly states that the default assumption is non-forcing. "25 Bridge conventions you should know" states the same thing. Bill Root says the same thing in ABC's of Bridge though he doesn't address specifically new minors, and I'm 99.999999% certain Commonsense bidding will say the same. Don't know about Truscott, but he hopefully distinguishes between sequences that are "expert std", say the assumption if playing Bridge World Std, and vanilla std.

New suit by responder is not by default forcing after 1nt rebid. I hope you will agree for certain that 1c-1s-1nt-2h is non-forcing. In standard, without conventional understandings, new minor is also non-forcing. It would be stupid to call the convention "new minor forcing" if the distinction between it & standard wasn't that it was forcing vs. non-forcing. It should be named "new minor artificial" or something like that if default forcing was the assumption. I challenge you to quote a passage / page # from Commonsense bidding that supports your contention.

[cherdano]

EricK, on Jun 17 2007, 07:42 AM, said:

I will quote from Terrence Reese (this particular quote comes from "Bridge for Ambitious Players", published 1988 but I am sure I could find similar quotes from him):

"The old-fashioned forcing response, such as two hearts over one diamond, has become - well, it has become old-fashioned. In America, particularly, a jump response tends to show either a very rare giant or, for some players, a long suit in a weak hand. It may be right not to force when you have no fit, but when you have a good suit of your own, or strong support for partner, it must be sensible to make a jump response. As Culbertson pointed out more than 50 years ago, you don't save time by making a minimum response, because you have to jump later; or bid around the cllock, giving no picture of what you hold."

What can be gathered from this thread is that this opinion is, if anything, even less popular these days. And more to the point, that "bidding around the clock, giving no picture of what you hold" (i.e. FSF, NMF, fake reverses and so on) is not considered to be a bad thing.

I, on the other hand, agree with Reese. The fact that forcing immediately is best on this type of hand is constantly reinforced by the sheer number of hands posted here or on rec.games.bridge where somebody asks how to bid a pair of hands and the obvious solution is to start with a SJS. On the other hand one never sees hands posted where a SJS to the 2 level was made and they got to the wrong contract as a result.

I think you didn't get the point of most of the replies. Everybody here assumed 2♥ was a strong jumpshift. Noone rejected it because the hand wasn't good enough, but rather because the heart suit wasn't good enough to insist on it without knowing anything about partner's hand.

You may also note that bidding has improved a little since Reese was around. Playing XYZ, after 1♣-1♥-1N, 3♥ is forcing. While that's a very old concept, the implications of 3♥ forcing are much stronger when you have XYZ: it sets trumps (as the hearts are good enough to be set as trumps after partner has bid 1N), and shows slam interest, and compared to the comparable SJS auction we have not lost space, and know more about partner's hand.
(In the comparable SJS auction 1C 2H 2N 3H, the 2N bid is not even close to being as well defined as the 1N rebid after 1H).

[foo]

Stephen,

1= "New Minor Forcing" is misnamed and should actually be called "New Minor Artificial".
It's not that a new minor was forcing or not before, it's that NMF allows you to make this bid even if you have a void in the bid minor...

2= I called around to a bunch of experts and teachers I know to see if I could find consensus as to whether the sequence 1m-1M;1N-2om "natural" is forcing even if not playing NMF.
Surprise, surprise, there was far from consensus. The strongest players I knew said it was. Many I knew said it wasn't. The best teachers I knew were split on the topic.

So then I started digging through all the books in my library, and I think I found the source of the confusion:
(You may not believe this, I certainly had a hard time with it)
In older books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is non forcing.
In newer books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing.

...and I threw up my hands in disgust. Evidently SA bidding has evolved but no one decided to let anyone know explicitly it had evolved.


For my part, I have always agreed with the more modern logic. If Responder has a minimum, they should not be introducing new strains that might force the auction to 2N; particularly after Opener has shown a minimum.

After 1m-1M;1N-?? a minimum responder has plenty of reasonable places to place the contract without introducing a new strain; especially if the 1N rebid promises a hand w/o a stiff or void (not that I'm necessarily advocating that!) (since if Opener has no stiff or void, this makes rebidding a 5 card suit far less risky).

I am sorry for the confusion. I thought the situation was clear cut when it obviously wasn't.

Right. Reference that 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing:
_ACBL Club Series_ p120 (In NA, this pretty much defines novice SA)

[EricK]

cherdano, on Jun 18 2007, 04:05 AM, said:

I think you didn't get the point of most of the replies. Everybody here assumed 2♥ was a strong jumpshift. Noone rejected it because the hand wasn't good enough, but rather because the heart suit wasn't good enough to insist on it without knowing anything about partner's hand.

You may also note that bidding has improved a little since Reese was around. Playing XYZ, after 1♣-1♥-1N, 3♥ is forcing. While that's a very old concept, the implications of 3♥ forcing are much stronger when you have XYZ: it sets trumps (as the hearts are good enough to be set as trumps after partner has bid 1N), and shows slam interest, and compared to the comparable SJS auction we have not lost space, and know more about partner's hand.
(In the comparable SJS auction 1C 2H 2N 3H, the 2N bid is not even close to being as well defined as the 1N rebid after 1H).

Actually, I think you misunderstand Reese's point. One of the points he is making is that only using the SJS when you have an absolute powerhouse with a near solid suit of your own is not getting the best out of the bid. So Reese would definitely disagree with the people who say that this hand isn't right for a SJS.

Another point that a SJS does not in the end waste space is also true.
Your XYZ auction with a jump to 3♥ is exactly comparable in terms of space used to the SJS of 2♥ followed by 3♥. But you are wrong if you think you find out something useful about partner's hand. Often you find out something which is useless or worse than useless because partner doesn't know you have a strong hand. Compare 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ where 1♠ may be xxxx with 1♣ 2♥ 2♠ where you know that partner has a genuine ♠ values. Or compare 1♣ 1♥ 1NT wherer partner may have Kxx or KQ in ♥ with 1♣ 2♥ 2NT where you know that partner does not have any sort of support for your suit.

And this ties in with his third point that not making a SJS forces you to make a load of artificial forcing bids which don't tell your partner anything about your hand except that it is strong. So after eg the XYZ sequence 1♦ 1♥ 1NT 2♦ (GF) what do you bid with, say, KQx Kx QJxx QJxx? Is he looking for a club fit? For this level of Heart support? For confirmation that the unbid suits are well stopped for NT? Co-operative bidding on this sort of hand is much more than one person simply making forcing bids and the other trying to divine what it is their partner needs to know.

[foo]

SJS are out of favor for many reasons, most of them very good ones.

But in order to handle the problems that SJS's solve w/o usiing them, your bidding system has to become considerably more complex.

SJS are in B & I SA because it would be cruel to B & I players to have to learn XYZ, Bart, 2 or 3 way checkback, Inverted Minors, 2/1 GF, etc, etc, along w/ everything else they are trying to digest.

Even w/ all the gadgetry, and even in 2/1 GF, there are Responding hands that might want to "abruptly change the direction of the auction" by demanding Opener not follow business as usual and instead tell Responder very specific information. ...and that is exactly what SJS's are for.

Historical note:
SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener. The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted. I know you're busted. Nonetheless We very likely have a Game. Start telling me what I need to know."

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

[whereagles]

Guys, a SJS is a bit of a mastermind bid. Better only make one if you're absolutely sure where you're heading.

As justin said, this hand is way too flexible to propose her suit. Especially on the possible misfit.

As for

1♣ 1♥
1NT

just use your usual gadget to show a strong hand with hearts.

[helene_t]

whereagles, on Jun 18 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

Guys, a SJS is a bit of a mastermind bid. Better only make one if you're absolutely sure where you're heading.

I disagree (but probably this is just semantics):

A SJS describes your hand and leaves the rest to partner. This seems to me to be the oppoisite of "masterminding".

So the criteria is not if you know where you are heading, but if you think partner will know where he's heading.

[hrothgar]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 18 2007, 06:02 AM, said:

Look in between the parentheses ...

I stand corrected

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Jun 18 2007, 12:44 AM, said:

edit

I agree.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Jun 18 2007, 02:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 18 2007, 12:44 AM, said:

edit

I agree.

Ditto, I changed my mind as well. Oh no, thinking more about it I actually didn't.

[cherdano]

EricK, on Jun 18 2007, 01:29 AM, said:

And this ties in with his third point that not making a SJS forces you to make a load of artificial forcing bids which don't tell your partner anything about your hand except that it is strong. So after eg the XYZ sequence 1♦ 1♥ 1NT 2♦ (GF) what do you bid with, say, KQx Kx QJxx QJxx? Is he looking for a club fit? For this level of Heart support? For confirmation that the unbid suits are well stopped for NT? Co-operative bidding on this sort of hand is much more than one person simply making forcing bids and the other trying to divine what it is their partner needs to know.

You rebid 2N of course. I am not sure I understand your point. Partner can still bid 3♣ over my 2N rebid.