[ArcLight]

I think for a convention to be useful it should:

a) come up frequently (or at least more than once every 6 months)

provide some real benefit, rather than a very incremental gain

c) not be too costly in the off cases. (Ex. Jacoby 2NT takes away your ability to show a balanced 11-12 point hand in response to pards opening bid of 1 of a major. So in that case your system forces you to misrepresent your hand))

d) as simple as possible. A complex set of responses that are forgotten on occasion may more than offset any gains.

How would you rate: New Minor Forcing?

Is it very useful and common?
Moderately useful and occurs occasionally?
Of limited use, with some downside on occasion, and occurs every so often?

[FrancesHinden]

In the auction 1x - 1y - 1NT, virtually everybody plays some sort of artificial meaning either for 2C, or for 2 of the unbid minor. This comes up a lot, allows a great deal of useful information to be exchanged and only gives up on playing in two of the suit bid, which you'd want to do very rarely anyway.

Whether you play this bid as NMF (very common in the US), as some form of "checkback" (very common in Europe) or as part of a more complicated system of continuations (as used by assorted expert pairs worldwide, but requiring rather more discussion) is up to you.

[whereagles]

NMF is simple and it definitely is effective. There is of course better stuff out there, but NMF is a relatively simple scheme that works well and is easy to remember.

[P_Marlowe]

1) It comes up often enough, this increases also, in case you throw 3rd suit
forcing also NMF, i.e. sequences of the form

1C - 1H
2C - 2D (1)

with the sequence

1D - 1S
2D - 2H (2)

as the only sequence, when the artifical bid is a mayor.

and the situtions after a 2NT rebid in the same pot.

2) It solves seveeral problems, most of all the probleem of finding
your 5-3 fit in the mayors

3) No real costs, because responders bidding a new suit was forcing
for one round anyway

4) It is simple, there are much more complex methods out there,
the gain using these methods instead of NMF is marginal, at least
if you do not play pften

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Agree with Frances that all kinds of checkback's after 1m - 1M - 1NT are certainly part of the most useful conventions.

They allow lot of useful information and inferences because they can give for example the "forcing" nature to a bid.

Alain

[reisig]

On any 1x-1y-1z auction ...some form of checkback is needed. NMF is easily playable and never (almost never) forgotten. We need an artif forcing bid on many hands for furthur exploration finding 5-3 Maj fits/finding the best game or slam. I prefer 2 way checkback but have played NMF very often.

[Free]

Checkbacks are indeed one of the best things available. I still prefer 2♣ as checkback since it can use a very simple but accurate response scheme:

2♦ = min, no 3 card support
2M = min, 3 card support
2OM = max, 4OM, no 3 card support
2NT = max, no 4OM, no 3 card support
3X = max, 3 card support, descriptive

- 2♦ and 2M are the only minimums
- other 2-level bids deny 3 card support
- 3-level bids show 3 card support

Never messed those bids up, and they can be very handy!

I haven't played NMF a lot, but I know it's quite similar, very simple, and gets the job done as well.

[ArcLight]

Thank you for your replies.
The reason I consider NMF not simple is based on the length of the responses (from www.bridgeguys.com)

1♣ - 1♥ -
1NT - 2♦ -

2♥ = minimum hand with three Hearts

2 ♠ = minimum hand with fewer than three hearts, or natural if the 1 NT rebid may have concealed a 4-card Spade suit

2 NT = maximum hand, but fewer than three Hearts

3 ♣ = a natural bid, a 5-card suit

3 ♦ = maximum hand, less than three Hearts, no Diamond Stopper

3 ♥ = maximum hand with three Hearts



1♦ - 1♠
1NT - 2♣

2♦ = a natural bid, a 5-card suit

2 ♥ = a natural bid, a 4-card suit

2 ♠ = minimum hand with three Spades, but does not deny a 4-card Heart suit

3 ♣ = maximum, less than three Spade, no Club Stopper

3 ♠ = maximum hand with three Spades



Or is the Simplified version, by Martin Gellman more commonly used?

[FrancesHinden]

This list of responses looks long, but requires no effort to learn, because all you are required to do as opener is bid naturally.

[inquiry]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 24 2005, 09:58 AM, said:

This list of responses looks long, but requires no effort to learn, because all you are required to do as opener is bid naturally.

can't play without it. But, I prefer not nmf, but rather xyz. The difference between game forcing and game invite makes all the difference in the world. In fact, without discussion, I would assume I am always playing nmf with anyone who is advanced or better, and I generally ask to play xzy.

[ArcLight]

Ok, thank you all very much for your replies.
I will spend the time to learn it.


Another question - lebensohl is one way of dealing with interefence over a 1NT bid. Is lebensohl a good system? Are there much betetr systems?

[luis]

ArcLight, on Jun 24 2005, 03:42 PM, said:

Ok, thank you all very much for your replies.
I will spend the time to learn it.


Another question - lebensohl is one way of dealing with interefence over a 1NT bid. Is lebensohl a good system? Are there much betetr systems?

Leb is almost standard, Rubensohl is almost the same but using 3 level transfer bids, so it's slightly better since it tends to place the contract in the right side more often. I never understood well why people that play Lebensohl and know it in full detail don't switch to Rubensohl but in a world where Sayc is presented to beginners as being simple I can't be very surprised.

[Double !]

Some form of checkback has been in use for the last half cenury at least, even longer if you add Stayman (and Baron) as forms of checkback bids after P bid some number of NT. NMF is just another, as are checkback, 2-way checkback (referred to as "double-barrelled checkback stayman" way back when, and XYZ to name a few. I agree that having some form of checkback in your system is extremely important.

BY THE WAY In reality, are not nmf or some structure of checkback bids just other forms of asking bids (as is Blkwd), a concept that has been around and permitted by Sir ACBL of Memphis since as far back as my bridge book collection goes? (I can't wait to see how many of you relay-system advocates agree with the following:) Is it not a semantic contradiction if not hypocracy that the acbl permits staymanish bids and its derivatives, checkback bids that say nothing about strength of hand or if it's GF or not, and asking bids such as game tries that ask a question but says nothing about the bidder's holding in the game try-bid suit. Yet, the acbl does not permit relay systems unless (and only at mid-chart+ level) it's a GF hand. and it doesn't permit 1NT forcing GF.

Oh, I don't know...maybe I'm stretching things too far. If so, then I can always say that it "must be the medication speaking".

[Winstonm]

You can get as complicated as you want; however, my suggestion is to not add anything until the lack of same becomes a problem; if you and your partner keep finding yourself in nt when you hold a 5/3 major suit fit, eventually you'll ask: I wonder if there's a way to bid this? Sure, NMF or checkback can handle it, but you have to give something up.

I've found that bids are much easier to learn and remember if I've identified a bidding problem that needs a fix.

WinstonM

[luke warm]

if i had to choose it would be 2 way ckback (agree with ben, the 2♦ gf bid too valuable to throw away) over nmf any day... i also prefer it over xyz, but that's probably habit

[Double !]

A question. I could easily look this up since I have the material bookmarked and printed out, but..

In your opinion, with the exception that XYZ also applies to sequences when opener has not rebid 1 (or 2)NT, in what ways does XYZ differ from 2-way or double-barrelled checkback (stayman)? ie: 2C--> 2D, and 2D =GF?

Thanks in advance