[phil_20686]

The auction is
1c-1s
2N-3d
3H-

You are playing in a pick up partnership with an expert level partner. You agreed to play NMF. So answer the poll questions.

[jmcw]

According to your pick-up agreement, seems save to assume.

3♦ is NMF
3♥ shows 4.

[Bbradley62]

Phil: It's been documented that multiple-question Forum polls "blow up" if you answer the first question but not the second and try to submit your answer. Therefore, you might want to add "N/A" to the second poll to allow people to answer "NMF" to the first and not answer the second.

[phil_20686]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-January-21, 17:15, said:

Phil: It's been documented that multiple-question Forum polls "blow up" if you answer the first question but not the second and try to submit your answer. Therefore, you might want to add "N/A" to the second poll to allow people to answer "NMF" to the first and not answer the second.

Ta

[aguahombre]

I answered the first one differently than the others, because simply agreeing to use NMF doesn't mean after both 1NT and 2NT rebids; and I guarantee there will be no expert consensus that NMF does apply to both cases for them.

Merely agreeing to use NMF is woefully insufficient in either case. Follow-ups, and what they mean are essential.

[awm]

If you agreed NMF without discussion of 2NT, then I think 3♦ is NMF here too. Obviously you could have more/better agreements.

If 3♦ is actually natural, then there's no real reason for 3♥ to show a suit. I'd take the 3♥ bid as a cue, showing a diamond fit and cooperating with responder's apparent slam try.

[benlessard]

Its important to defined if 3C is forcing. IMO the expert standard is 3C forcing at MP (for sure), NF at imps (discutable). If 3C is forcing, 3D show a real suit and 3H is a cuebid in support of D . If 3C is NF than 3D is a artificail punt often slammish in wich case 3H is a cue fowardgoing.

With 5S+4H just bid 3H, with 5S+5H bid 3H followed by 4H. I dont think Wolff signoff relay or anything to stop at 3S is standard. It would not surprised me that in 10 years standard will be all transfers after 2nt rebid.

[Phil]

Why wouldn't NMF be on? I don't understand.

This is on par with, "Sorry partner, I didn't realize we didn't play Puppet Stayman after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N, even though we agreed it after a 2N opening".

[aguahombre]

 Phil, on 2012-January-21, 22:51, said:

Why wouldn't NMF be on? I don't understand.

This is on par with, "Sorry partner, I didn't realize we didn't play Puppet Stayman after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N, even though we agreed it after a 2N opening".

Not exactly. Many players use natural bids after a 2NT rebid, and have posted same here.

[Phil]

 aguahombre, on 2012-January-21, 23:35, said:

Not exactly. Many players use natural bids after a 2NT rebid, and have posted same here.

Do these same players specify NMF in a pre-game discussion?

We are largely at a guess here, so who knows?

[rduran1216]

idk if its consensus but 3H for me shows specifically 5-5 majors and a gf. With 5-4 start with 3d and partner will show 4 hearts first, then over a 3NT rebid, can bid 4S to show 3

[gordontd]

 Phil, on 2012-January-21, 22:51, said:

Why wouldn't NMF be on? I don't understand.

This is on par with, "Sorry partner, I didn't realize we didn't play Puppet Stayman after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N, even though we agreed it after a 2N opening".

No, it's more like "I didn't realise when we agreed to play Puppet Stayman that it applied after both 1NT & 2NT".

[phil_20686]

 Phil, on 2012-January-21, 22:51, said:

Why wouldn't NMF be on? I don't understand.

This is on par with, "Sorry partner, I didn't realize we didn't play Puppet Stayman after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N, even though we agreed it after a 2N opening".

I really dont understand this comment: if you had agreed to play two way checkback would you assume that was on over a 2N rebid?

In my neck of the woods, it is pretty unthinkable that a checkback structure would apply after a 2N rebid, as in, I don't know anyone who thinks that it should be. Is it not just obviously inferior to playing natural and forcing? Might I not occasionally wish to show diamonds on this auction?

I was very surprised that my partner on this deal thought that NMF should be on here. I was wondering if this is a UK/world or a Europe/world divide.

[gordontd]

 phil_20686, on 2012-January-22, 07:42, said:

I was very surprised that my partner on this deal thought that NMF should be on here. I was wondering if this is a UK/world or a Europe/world divide.

Well, it' not surprising there's a divide since NMF is virtually unknown in the UK (and perhaps the rest of Europe?)

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2012-January-22, 08:16, said:

Well, it' not surprising there's a divide since NMF is virtually unknown in the UK (and perhaps the rest of Europe?)

The questions can still be answered wrt Checkback Stayman.

[jdeegan]

If you agreed to play NMF ("New Minor Forcing"), then 3♦ is a new minor (an artificial asking bid that says nothing about diamonds). Priorities are: (1) 3♥ with four hearts, (2) 3♠ with 3 or 4 spades and not holding 4 hearts, (3) 3NT with all other hands.
Many of us experts here in the colonies use this convention. Our methods are steeped in mystery which we seldom disclose to the unenlightened. In this instance, I am making an exception. Mark this well. If you play a convention called "New Minor Forcing", and partner bids a "new minor", his bid, by Jehoshaphat, is fu*king forcing.

Dear BBO. Your censorship software is beneath contempt. Fu*k you and the horse you rode in on.

[gwnn]

 awm, on 2012-January-21, 20:40, said:

If you agreed NMF without discussion of 2NT, then I think 3♦ is NMF here too. Obviously you could have more/better agreements.

If 3♦ is actually natural, then there's no real reason for 3♥ to show a suit. I'd take the 3♥ bid as a cue, showing a diamond fit and cooperating with responder's apparent slam try.

I think you're talking about

1♣-1♠
2NT-3♦
3♥

when the opening post is about

1♣-1♠
2NT-3♥

but maybe I'm wrong about what the opening post is about.

[kenberg]

 Phil, on 2012-January-21, 22:51, said:

Why wouldn't NMF be on? I don't understand.

This is on par with, "Sorry partner, I didn't realize we didn't play Puppet Stayman after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N, even though we agreed it after a 2N opening".

I don't think so. The example you give is is of two different ranges for a 2NT opening but otherwise the same auction. In the OP, some suits have already been shown and this makes the situation very different.

I agree that there is probably not a consensus on this, and on many matters. I can only say what I prefer: Unless there is time for much discussion, I prefer that all bids over 2NT are forcing and natural. After 1♣-1♠-2NT it is very possible that I am interested in exploring for a slam in any strain. I might have a good hand with five spades and four clubs. Or a good hand with five spades and five diamonds. Or a good hand with four spades and five clubs. Or, well you get the idea. Surely it is easier to handle these multiple possibilities if my bid, any bid, over 2NT is natural and forcing. No doubt there are better methods, God forbid natural as the optimal choice, but natural works pretty well in my experience.

This of course prevents me from rebidding 3♠ over 2NT as a sign off, but if we are playing weak jump shifts over the 1♣ opening, then this is not such a loss. I'm not fond of weak jump shifts, but it plays a positive role here. If I have only five spades, it's not clear 3♠ will play better than 2NT, and if I have six and a weak hand, this auction has not occurred since I already bid 2♠ the first time around. If I have six spades and a seven count, I'll take my chances in 4♠.

[bill1157]

Would NMF be necessary in this auction? The situation is totally different from the case where opener rebids 1NT since over the 2NT rebid, new suits would be forcing anyway and therefore don't need to be artificial.

Bill

[aguahombre]

 bill1157, on 2012-January-23, 16:06, said:

Would NMF be necessary in this auction? The situation is totally different from the case where opener rebids 1NT since over the 2NT rebid, new suits would be forcing anyway and therefore don't need to be artificial.

Bill

Yes, that is what a lot of us believe. However, there is a significant portion of the Bridge community who disagree. They want a way to bail out at the 3-level because they wish they hadn't responded in the first place or didn't have WJS's available to use on their 3-count with 6M. Or, they want a gadget which puts responder in charge..as opposed to responder describing.