[jmcw]

Playing 2/1 with nmf are partners ♦ bids forcing or not.

1♥ 1♠
1N 2♦
2♥ 3♦

Please add commets especially regarding the 3♦ call

[awm]

Obviously you can have whatever agreement you want here...

However, it makes sense that if a direct 3♦ would be forcing, this 3♦ should be invitational (and vice versa). Most would play the jump shift over 1NT as a game force, so this one should be the invite.

Root/Pavlicek (Modern Bridge Conventions) agree this is invitational.

[peachy]

Depends on your agreements. 2/1 players commonly play that responder's 1M followed by a jump to 3m (or 3 other minor, if the opening was a minor)is "to play" with 4-card major and 6-cards in the minor. If you don't play that style, then make some agreements.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Matter of partnership agreement.

We play, that a direct 3D call is inv. 5-5, while the delayed is forcing,
of course I believe this to be standard , but more serious - if Root /
Pavlicek suggest it the other way around, than this may be the standard
way in NA.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Jlall]

awm, on Feb 22 2010, 01:55 AM, said:

Root/Pavlicek (Modern Bridge Conventions) agree this is invitational.

This book is only 29 years old, so I'm sure it gives a good indication of how modern bridge is played.

[campboy]

I don't understand this. Are both 2♣ and 2♦ nmf on this auction? If so, what is the difference between them?

If not, surely 2♦ is natural and non-forcing and so is 3♦ (so he is now showing a weak responding hand with 4 spades and long diamonds).

[awm]

While it's true that Root and Pavlicek is an old book, I think looking at older things is often a good way to determine what the standard version of a convention is.

Are you aware of any more recent book which gives a comparably thorough discussion of new minor forcing, and which is somehow more in line with the popular modern treatments? I'm not.

In fact it seems like more and more people these days are playing two-way new minor force. This is arguably a better convention, but doesn't answer the original question of what is forcing playing "regular" nmf.

[Stephen Tu]

It's an old book but still a lot younger than the typical competitor who is 2.5-3x Justin's age! Bridge changes slowly, so 30 years isn't that much .

I'm with Adam, there really hasn't been a superseding book in recent years that covers the basic essential conventions with comparable depth/clarity/thoroughness. And while their style of nmf / 4sf is the opposite of what many players now play (jump to GF, go through artificial sequence to invite, while I think majority of players now reverse this), I've never been convinced that the new way is any better.

[Jlall]

I disagree really strongly with "30 years is not that much" because bridge changes slowly, but oh well.

The fact that the most recent book you can find is 30 years old does not mean that's still the normal way to play it. The game can evolve without books, most people learn from what their friends play, and those friends probably learned from their friends, and that person probably learned from the local "expert" who learned it from a larry cohen lecture or a bridge world article or something online or something on the forums etc etc.

I do not think that most people learn from the Root/Pavlicek book about "modern" conventions. In fact most people don't read books at all, let alone 30 year old books from people who don't even play bridge anymore.

I mean stephen tu, you said it yourself, most people play the opposite of what root and pavlicek wrote in their book... doesn't that mean that the standard definition these days is not what it was when the book was written? That means *gasp* the book is outdated, at least on this convention.

IMO standard is defined by what people are playing. IMO there is little correlation in what a book 30 years ago thought about a popular convention today, and how people play it now, so referencing such books doesn't add much value. A far more relevant reference is Stephen Tu himself basically saying that he believes most people would play this as forcing in todays world.

Personally I am with campboy in having no idea why both 2C and 2D should be nmf if you aren't playing 2 way, it seems like 2C should just be artificial then you can follow with 3 of either minor as invite or forcing whatever you want to play, and 2D should be NF. But I don't claim to be an authority on how most people play 1 way NMF over 1H 1S 1N.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The fact that the most recent book you can find is 30 years old does not mean that's still the normal way to play it. The game can evolve without books, most people learn from what their friends play, and those friends probably learned from their friends, and that person probably learned from the local "expert" who learned it from a larry cohen lecture or a bridge world article or something online or something on the forums etc etc.

I do not think that most people learn from the Root/Pavlicek book about "modern" conventions. In fact most people don't read books at all, let alone 30 year old books from people who don't even play bridge anymore.

The thing is most people who learn from what their friends play mostly are lousy since the friends they learn from aren't very good. They aren't like you, with national champ fathers and friends w/ other WC players / top juniors.

For most of us, copycatting local mediocre players can get you a biased/wrong/region-specific view of what is standard/good, a range of books usually leaves you much better placed even if the book is old and the authors dead/retired. The differences between 30 years and now are rather minor, the alternatives are mostly mentioned in the book, you can figure out relatively easily the minor modifications/differences that need to be discussed with a new partner.

[awm]

I'd be surprised if you get a lot of votes for 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♦ as non-forcing being at all standard. It's a jump shift after all.

Of course, there are probably people who play both this sequence and 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦-2X-3♦ as forcing, perhaps even with little distinction between the sequences. However, this approach doesn't make much logical sense. If we assume that one of the two sequences is forcing and one is invitational, I'd expect that it's "more standard" for the jump shift to be the forcing sequence.

The one that Pavlicek/Root play that's more weird is 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♠ as forcing, even though it's rebidding a suit that's already been named (i.e. not a jump shift). This makes for a lot of consistency (direct jump forcing, nmf then bid is invite) but I agree that not many people actually use that approach.

[PhantomSac]

awm, on Feb 22 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

I'd be surprised if you get a lot of votes for 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♦ as non-forcing being at all standard. It's a jump shift after all.

This is very misleading because we aren't talking about standard, we are talking about standard in the context of people who play 2D as NMF. It is non standard to play nmf (especially 2D here as NMF).

[PhantomSac]

Quote

The thing is most people who learn from what their friends play mostly are lousy since the friends they learn from aren't very good. They aren't like you, with national champ fathers and friends w/ other WC players / top juniors.

For most of us, copycatting local mediocre players can get you a biased/wrong/region-specific view of what is standard/good, a range of books usually leaves you much better placed even if the book is old and the authors dead/retired. The differences between 30 years and now are rather minor, the alternatives are mostly mentioned in the book, you can figure out relatively easily the minor modifications/differences that need to be discussed with a new partner.

The fact that you read old books, and even the fact that that is superior to learning from mediocre "experts" does not mean that it is standard to do so. It does not mean that what you read in those old books is standard. Thinking that the average person is reading outdated books from people they've never heard of and then thinking that they are easily figuring out the modifications is funny.

Did you not notice that in my post I put "expert" in quotation marks? I am aware that people learn bad things from bad people, the point is they're more likely to learn what joe shmoe at the club taught them, and joe shmoe is probably teaching them the "trendy" thing to play, not what root recommended 30 years ago.

Also a complete lol @ all of you people who pretty much never play bridge, and spend most of your time reading (zomg yes people who read an internet bridge forum are more likely to read old books and learn from them than average) about bridge consistently acting like I am out of touch because I am a good player who is friends with good players (and has a dad who has no clue about conventions/ what people play).

I am sorry that I'm good but that is pretty much only because I spend most of my time playing at a variety of venues/regions against a variety of players with a variety of partners talking bridge with a wide variety of players (including on this forum). To consistently act like you know more about what most people play than me simply because I'm good is pretty funny.

I would say that most people who play one way NMF would not play 2D as NMF. Most people who learn new minor forcing these days learn jumps = inv, and NMF then bid = forcing. Whether that is theoretically correct, or whether the people who teach this are good at bridge or not, it doesn't matter. I think that saying that because YOU read root/pavlicek from 30 years ago rather than listen to the shady people who teach these conventions, THAT way is standard, makes you the one who is out of touch.

In fact, you are the one who said earlier that most people play it the opposite way of Root/Pavlicek, which seems to validate my point? Do you just disagree that a "standard" way to play a convention is defined by what most people play and we are just into semantics or what?

[Stephen Tu]

I'm not arguing against what you think is standard in this particular NMF case, I think you are right about that. I did argue and think I'm right about the other auction last week 1d-1s-2d-3h. With a completely new partnership with insufficient discussion time generally I just always bid in case I'm wrong, bias in favor of having to find an extra trick than missing a cold game/slam.

What I am arguing against is disparaging MBC as outdated/worthless because it's 30 years old. It's still among the better books out there on the subject and I still recommend it to people who are learning, I don't think the game has changed that much that using it as a reference will hurt anyone.

[Siegmund]

This is one of the few things in Root/Pavlicek that really sticks out like a sore thumb these days. They play all 1X-1Y-nonjump-jump to 3 auctions as forcing, and put all the invitational hands through FSF/NMF. I happen to be in the minority who believe that way is much superior to the way it's usually played now; but it HAS been a minority treatment for a pretty long time now - pretty much since the beginning of 2/1 being commonly played. And it's not the way NMF is taught in most "recent" (yes, Justin, I know that you don't think the 90s books are recent enough) books.

I have to wonder if even in 1981 it was something less than standard, but Root and Pavlicek's preferred method. (The alternative approach is around in several books from the 70s.)

As to opener's original question, though -- unless you've explicitly agreed 2-way NMF, I would expect only 2♣ to be NMF and 2♦ to be natural and weak, with 3♦ still natural and weak, in your posted auction.

[jdonn]

I'm out of touch with how most people dress and work out because I'm so good looking.

[PhantomSac]

Stephen Tu, on Feb 22 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

I'm not arguing against what you think is standard in this particular NMF case, I think you are right about that. I did argue and think I'm right about the other auction last week 1d-1s-2d-3h. With a completely new partnership with insufficient discussion time generally I just always bid in case I'm wrong, bias in favor of having to find an extra trick than missing a cold game/slam.

Ok fair enough, I think I said in that thread that I have no idea what standard is (don't remember, but I definitely don't, pretty sure I said that but sorry if I didn't). I just offered how I learned it... I agree with you in that auction one shouldn't pass undiscussed, it might even be a splinter.

[mike777]

jmcw, on Feb 22 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 with nmf are partners ♦ bids forcing or not.

1♥ 1♠
1N 2♦
2♥ 3♦

Please add commets especially regarding the 3♦ call

with no discussion I would assume 2d is 100% game force, 3d is natural.

[jmcw]

Siegmund, on Feb 22 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

As to opener's original question, though -- unless you've explicitly agreed 2-way NMF, I would expect only 2♣ to be NMF and 2♦ to be natural and weak, with 3♦ still natural and weak, in your posted auction.

As the original poster many thanks for the replies. Clearly, I need to discuss with partner.
At the table I considered 2♦ as nmf and would also have taken 2♣ as nmf.
Given my 2♥ response does it not follow that 3♣ would now create a force and that repeating ♦ is showing 5 or more ♦ nf.
Anybody out there play 1♥>>1♠>>1N>>3♦ as weak with 6+♦?

[mike777]

jmcw, on Feb 22 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

Siegmund, on Feb 22 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

As to opener's original question, though -- unless you've explicitly agreed 2-way NMF, I would expect only 2♣ to be NMF and 2♦ to be natural and weak, with 3♦ still natural and weak, in your posted auction.

As the original poster many thanks for the replies. Clearly, I need to discuss with partner.
At the table I considered 2♦ as nmf and would also have taken 2♣ as nmf.
Given my 2♥ response does it not follow that 3♣ would now create a force and that repeating ♦ is showing 5 or more ♦ nf.
Anybody out there play 1♥>>1♠>>1N>>3♦ as weak with 6+♦?

NO


1h=1s
1nt=?

I play xyz so:



now 2c forces 2d and I can pass.

Yes, that means I can never play in 2c on this auction.

btw with 4s and long clubs and weak....I rebid 3c over 1nt.