[ArtK78]

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on May 28 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level.  As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

I love the way this forum works.

It starts off with a question about what's alertable in Germany.

It becomes an argument about to what extent NMF is a 'standard' part of 2/1. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Well, Art, I've got some news for you (I'm sure you know this really, but your post doesn't make it clear):

- of course NMF is a regional treatment. You are just arguing about the size of the sub-region of the ACBL in which it's considered standard.
- the use of New Minor Forcing is by no means universal
- SA or SAYC are not 'standard systems' for much of the world
- "2/1" is not a system at all for much of the world

Around here (the UK), a 2D bid in this auction would mean
i) I have a weak hand with the major and diamonds (vast majority of club players)
ii) Game forcing checkback, coupled with 2C as a puppet to 2D (reasonable percentage of tournament players)
iii) Transfer (small percentage of tournament players)

I don't think I've ever knowingly played against anyone playing NMF. Honestly. Ever.

Oh yes, and my other rant on "2/1". I learn from reading these forums that the phrase "2/1" is used to describe a whole system (or possibly more than one system depending on whose books you have read), which seems to include all sorts of agreements such as Jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, 1NT rebid structure....

Again, round here, 2/1 is just used to describe one particular agreement, that a 2-level response to a 1 major opening is game forcing. Everything else is by agreement (including whether you play Kaplan inversion or not, and whether 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing). I know people who play 4-card majors with 2/1. I know people who play 14-16 NT, canape major suit openings and 2/1.

[SoTired]

Cool - If I ever get to visit the UK, I want to play some bridge.

I think the reason 2/1 has all those attached conventions, is that most are taught Std American (4or 5-card majors) and then players advance after several years to the more modern 2/1 system, so they bring their advanced conventions with them. Very few novices are taught 2/1 out of the gate.

[ArtK78]

FrancesHinden, on May 28 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

ArtK78, on May 28 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level.  As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

I love the way this forum works.

It starts off with a question about what's alertable in Germany.

It becomes an argument about to what extent NMF is a 'standard' part of 2/1. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Well, Art, I've got some news for you (I'm sure you know this really, but your post doesn't make it clear):

- of course NMF is a regional treatment. You are just arguing about the size of the sub-region of the ACBL in which it's considered standard.
- the use of New Minor Forcing is by no means universal
- SA or SAYC are not 'standard systems' for much of the world
- "2/1" is not a system at all for much of the world

Around here (the UK), a 2D bid in this auction would mean
i) I have a weak hand with the major and diamonds (vast majority of club players)
ii) Game forcing checkback, coupled with 2C as a puppet to 2D (reasonable percentage of tournament players)
iii) Transfer (small percentage of tournament players)

I don't think I've ever knowingly played against anyone playing NMF. Honestly. Ever.

Oh yes, and my other rant on "2/1". I learn from reading these forums that the phrase "2/1" is used to describe a whole system (or possibly more than one system depending on whose books you have read), which seems to include all sorts of agreements such as Jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, 1NT rebid structure....

Again, round here, 2/1 is just used to describe one particular agreement, that a 2-level response to a 1 major opening is game forcing. Everything else is by agreement (including whether you play Kaplan inversion or not, and whether 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing). I know people who play 4-card majors with 2/1. I know people who play 14-16 NT, canape major suit openings and 2/1.

Frances:

I was responding specifically to blackshoe's posts. I was not referring to what is played in Europe.

Obviously, if one is not playing a system based on Standard American (and the 2/1 that I refer to is based on Standard American) then all bets are off. But blackshoe is stating that it is not uncommon for players in his area - Rochester, NY, USA - to play a Standard system and not play New Minor Forcing. Both jdonn and I disagree. While I have never played in Rochester, it is within my ACBL District (District 4) and I do play against a number of players from Rochester on a regular basis at major tournaments in this area. So, if "regional" means the Northeastern US, I can state with authority that the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal. I would be willing to venture the same for the entire "region" encompassing the ACBL.

As to what is played in Europe, you are on your own.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on May 28 2008, 07:30 AM, said:

I have been playing in tournaments for well over 30 years.

I cannot recall the last time I saw the 2♦ bid in the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ as anything other than New Minor Forcing by a pair that was playing a standard system (SA, SAYC, 2/1).

I submit, blackshoe, that a player who does not play New Minor Forcing (or 2♣ checkback, a minority treatment) in the context of a standard structure is playing at a very low level. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the use of New Minor Forcing is nearly universal.

The argument that it is a regional treatment is 100% untrue, as jdonn stated earlier.

Rochester, NY, is in my District (I am in Southern NJ), and I guarantee you that all of the players from the Rochester area that play in tournaments play NMF.

That's all very nice, but...

1. I did not argue that it is a regional treatment. I know that it is wide spread amongst good players. What I said was that I don't believe the majority of players around here play it. And frankly, the majority of players around here suck.

2. As to your opinion regarding the level at which players don't play NMF, so stipulated.

3. "100% untrue". Are you calling me a liar?

4. You guarantee it, do you? And what penalty will you pay me when I prove to you that you're wrong? And I can prove you wrong.

[blackshoe]

<sigh> Perhaps I am guilty of Britannus' error myself.

Art: there are some players from Rochester who regularly go to "major tournaments" (do you mean regionals and nationals only, or do you consider sectionals "major"? - not that it matters) in District 4 and adjoining areas (and places like Gatlinburg. They are nowhere near the majority of players in this area.

What Frances said is absolutely correct - and I got my start in duplicate (though not in bridge) in England, so perhaps that experience was in my mind in my earlier posts.

As for "thread drift" that's the nature of the Internet beast.

For the record, my preference is 2-way Checkback, but I don't play *any* form of checkback, or NMF, or whatever you want to call it, with any of my regular partners because none of them are willing to take it up.

[mycroft]

I, too, prefer Checkback, probably 2-way CBS, to NMF. Of course, in my Precision partnership, NMF *is* CBS...

Of course, played 2-way CBS in a system where we played 2-way Stayman, so it just fits.

Also, of course, there's always http://www.marvinfre...etopics/nmf.pdf