A hand

[kenberg]

Here is a hand. I have left the participants names in since the only error, if there was an error, was mine.

http://tinyurl.com/kk4k3sg

Nobody got to 6H although as you can see there are 12 easy tricks.

E cashed his A and switched to a club.I played A and a small heart, so I would have made 6 even if E had a stiff heart. Easy enough.

The hands fit perfectly of course, and maybe it's not a surprise nobody was there.
One was in 6NT, that did not work so well!

 
Perhaps it is worth thinking about what I might have done.
1C-1H
1NT-2S
3H

This seems like a normal beginning.

If I want to try, I have to choose, over 3H,  between 4C and 4D. Bidding 4C is appealing but I am not sure that "bidding around the singleton" applies here. So maybe it has to be 4D. If that elicits 4S from partner we will get to 6H. Should S call 4S over the hypothetical 4D? Well, she could reason "I told him I am limited to 14 hcps and he is still interested, my hand cannot be better than it is. So ok, 4S."
 I did not offer this opportunity, so we will never know.

It occurs to me that I could have bid an nmf 2D over 1NT but I am not sure that's a good idea. Partner would bid 2H, I could show the club fit with 3C but now partner would bid 3S not only with this hand but also with a hand where her club Q is the club 3. In which case I do not want to be in 6.  Of course if I start with nmf and partner bids 3H, not 2H, maybe then we get there.

 The above is equally applicable in Std Am or 2/1 agreements are irrelevant. If Precision folks want to use it to test their agreements, feel free. I assume S opens 1NT in OCP?

A further thought. There is another problem with the nmf auction 1C-1H-1NT-2D-2H-3C.
As most people lay, there are two reasons for bidding nmf. The most frequent is to find a major suit fit. The other is to make a minor suit slam try. So very possible the 3C over 2H would/should be taken as a slam try in clubs, not hearts. Imagine I have a strong hand, interested in slam, with only four hearts but with four clubs. What to do over the 1NT rebid? Nmf followed by 3C is the usual answer. I think the reverse into 2S is the right way to start.

[OliverC]

Nice hand, and an instructive one, too.

Game All, Dealer South

North
  KQ93
  AK1082
  Q
  K105


South
  A64
  Q93
  J97
  AQJ2


1 - 1
1NT - 2
3 - ??

I think North at fault here, to be honest. The 2 bid (a reverse by Responder) is game-forcing in almost any system. That being the case, we should apply the principle of "Fast Arrival" to the 3 bid by South, ie: 3 is stronger and more encouraging (ie: slam-invitational) than 4 would be. That being the case, I feel North should be doing something other than timidly signing off in 4 .


At the end of the day what action that is depends largely on your cue-bidding style, but 3 or 4 must be cue-bids for Hearts (4 perhaps more unambiguous). Now when South doesn't show a Diamond Control, the value of North's Diamond singleton becomes apparent and North should have no further difficulty in pushing to the slam. So...

1 - 1
1NT - 2
3 - 4 // Cue
4 - 4NT // Spade Cue, no Diamond Control / RKCB
5 - 6
All Pass

[Masse24]

I think North at fault here, to be honest. The 2 bid (a reverse by Responder) is game-forcing in almost any system. That being the case, we should apply the principle of "Fast Arrival" to the 3 bid by South, ie: 3 is stronger and more encouraging (ie: slam-invitational) than 4 would be. That being the case, I feel North should be doing something other than timidly signing off in 4 .

At the end of the day what action that is depends largely on your cue-bidding style, but 3 or 4 must be cue-bids for Hearts (4 perhaps more unambiguous). Now when South doesn't show a Diamond Control, the value of North's Diamond singleton becomes apparent and North should have no further difficulty in pushing to the slam. So...

1 - 1
1NT - 2
3 - 4 // Cue
4 - 4NT // Spade Cue, no Diamond Control / RKCB
5 - 6
All Pass

This.
Though I prefer the 3 control, rather than 4 .

Also, while the 2 bid is almost universally played as a game-force, it does not necessarily promise a five card suit. In other words . . . "Fast Arrival" does not apply. The 2 rebid could simply be a means to force game while keeping the bidding low.

As an example, picture responder with this hand: KQ AKJT 2 KT9876 . . . and, he still goes through the 2 GF bid on the way to exploring slam in s.

[OliverC]

[1] Cuebidding Spades rather than Clubs
The only "problem" with 3 is that it might be misconstrued as showing 5-6 in the Majors rather than being a cue-bid for Hearts (and so Partner might just convert to 4 or 4 not realising it really was a slam try and not you're not sure how to proceed), whereas 4 is unmistakeably a cue-bid for Hearts.


[2] 1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 not a reverse
You really believe that? Words fail me! LOL

Are you seriously suggesting that Opener, with 4-card Spades, is going to bid 1NT rather than taking the opportunity to show their Spades at the 1-level? That is such an unconstructive and misleading route to take. I don't actually know of anyone (other than yourself) who has ever suggested that it's a remotely sensible methodology.

Some people will even take this further and take the view that 1 -1 -1NT-2 is always showing 5-6 in the Majors, on the basis that with 4-5, there's no real point in showing the Spades, because the 1NT rebid by Opener effectively denies having a 4-card Spade suit.

Whether you go that far or not, showing a Major suit at the 1-level is far more important than showing a balanced hand with <15 hcp. If Responder has a relatively weak hand with 4-4 in the Majors, and Opener follows your methodology, you'll inevitably end up playing in 1NT rather than 2 when you have a 4-4 Spade fit and 2 is inevitably going to be a safer contract. That is just plain silly (and precisely the reason why nobody does as you suggest).


That being the case I think the vast majority of people who accept and use the principle of fast arrival would agree 100% that it applies here.


[3] Reverse into with KQ, AKJT, 2, K109876
Hmmmm. I must confess that were I playing 2/1 (which I do occasionally despite my preference for Super-Precision) it would never remotely occur to me to completely misrepresent my hand by responding 1 with that lot and then reverse into a 2-card Spade suit solely as a means of creating a GF sequence. How do you expect Partner to make the right decisions on any hand if you're not prepared to try to have a sensible bidding conversation where you show what you have and Partner shows what they have?

Seriously, I'd be more likely to bid an inverted 2 and then show the Hearts later. Yes, you're "not supposed to do that" with inverted Minors, but it's less of a perversion of your hand description than reversing into Spades (and suggesting 4-5 in the Majors in the process when you are actually 4-2 and have 6-card support for Opener's first bid suit). You are now also suggesting delaying your support for Partner's Clubs until you're at the 4-level, which seriously restricts your space for slam exploration, especially since you've probably got Partner hopelessly confused, thinking you've been dealt 17 cards

[kenberg]

I think we have just established the usefulness of this Forum!

It would never occur to me to bid 2S over 1NT without five hearts. I think the 5-4 shape is enough though. It's true that I do not expect to be playing in spades but bidding out shape often helps find the right contract. I am not so sure that 4C over 3H shows three clubs, and thus inferentially a stiff D, but perhaps so. At any rate it certainly shows slam interest. And would quite possibly, on the logic mentioned in my OP,  produce a 4S call from opener, and now we are on our way.

As noted, I felt comfortable posting all names as surely my 4H over 3H ends the auction. If I had chosen differently, maybe we reacj 6H. I didn't..

I am looking forward to putting up some more hands. Maybe someone else would like to do so as well?

The club slam try hand of Masse:
By coincidence, I had discussed this with my StdAm partner today. We begin  1C-1H-1NT-2D

The nmf call of 2D is used in either of two situations. Search for a major suit fit OR minor suit slam try. With the Masse hand it goes 1C-1H-1NT-2D-whatever-3C. This is a slam try in clubs, whether or not opener showed three hearts in response to 2D.
 
Btw. Joe's write up uses Walsh responses to 1C. I believe 2 way nmf, where both 2C and 2D are artificial,  is particularly useful when Walsh is being played. After 1C-1H-1NT responder might well have long diamonds, and of course his strength is not yet known. In 2 way nmf, a bid of 2C over 1m-1M-1NT forces opener to bid 2D, and with a weak diamond hand responder then passes, with an invitational diamond hand he bids 3D. With a forcing D hand he starts not with 2C but with a gf 2D and then bids 3D. There are many other sequences.
There is a nice write-up at
https://lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Education/2-WayNewMinorForcing.pdf
and of course in many other places.

[OliverC]

Yes, there are a number of possible ways to proceed without completely misleading Partner if you have Masse's Club slam hand. I've never actually used 2-way NMF although I had read of it. It would work well here if Partner knew it.


There is a big difference, though, between a call that is agreed to be artificial, as would be the case with either version of NMF, and using one that is ostensibly natural but in a completely artificial and potentially misleading way, especially when it comes to showing a Major I don't actually have. That smacks of master-minding, which I have always tried to persuade my students to avoid.

[Masse24]

[1] Point taken about the possibility of 3 being mistaken for a shape showing bid. The 4 control bid would be less likely to be misinterpreted and is a better choice. 

[2] For Opener, with 4-card Spades to bid 1NT rather than taking the opportunity to show their Spades at the 1-level, is BWS if 4=3=3=3. Therefore, there are quite a few who suggest that it actually is a remotely sensible methodology. So much so, that they included it in BWS2017.

[3] As to Ken's suggestion of 2-way NMF. Yes, that would be preferred. My choice is XYZ, which is ostensibly the same animal other than the inclusion of a few more bidding sequences. If so, then over 1NT, a jump to 3 would be a slam try in s. Two-way NMF and XYZ though, are not common in the IAC.

[OliverC]

[2] For Opener, with 4-card Spades to bid 1NT rather than taking the opportunity to show their Spades at the 1-level, is BWS if 4=3=3=3. Therefore, there are quite a few who suggest that it actually is a remotely sensible methodology. So much so, that they included it in BWS2017.

Amending your original hand fractionally:

  A642
  Q93
  J97
  AQ2

Partner holds
  KQxx
  J10xxx
  xx
  10x

1 - 1
1NT -

Partner will not conceivably disturb 1NT, but 2 is clearly a better and safer contract.

[kenberg]

As to 1C-1H-1NT with opener holding 4=3=3=3
If I am asked by opponents before the lead, assuming the contract is 1NT, if opener could be holding four spades i usually respond: "Possibly, but we have no agreements to uncover this if he did, so I wouldn't expect him t do it often". With other partners I might put it more strongly as "I suppose so, but I have never seen him do it".

Still another way of thinking about this:  Agreements are very useful and should be followed, but perhaps with exceptions. I don't think that 4=3=3=3 is enough of a reason the rebid 1NT but if the hand is very no trump oriented, maybe with a lot of 9s and 10s, then fine. Partner does it, partner plays it, I wish him luck. I note when it works and perhaps say something nice, if it doesn't work I let it be. I like my partners to feel free to do what they think is best.

I like Masse citing BWS. It's not that we should all play BWS (although I can think of worse ideas), rather I think it is useful to distinguish between something that is simply a poster's own idiosyncratic idea and something that has an expert following.  Maybe not universal expert following, but still.

In that vein, I note that in Steve Robinson's Washington Standard, on page 143, hes says "New minor followed by three-ot--a-minor is a natural slam try". I only recently saw this in Steve's book but I have always played it that way with anyone who agreed. I suspect it is widespread but I am not sure. Maybe I will look it up in BWS.

I have only played 2-way NMF on occasion, but my impression is favorable. As mentioned, it seems to me to be particularly useful when playing Walsh responses.

Give yourself
Qx
Kxxx
QJxxxx
x

Partner opens 1C. A non-Walsh player bids 1D. A Walsh player bids 1H. After 1C-1H-1NT surely you want to get out in 2D. If 2D is standard NMF you can't. With 2-way, you call 2C, forcing a 2D response, and then you pass.


Strengthen it to
Kx
Kxxx
AJxxxx
x

The Walsh response to 1C  is still 1H unless you think that this is worth a 1D response where, in the Walsh style, you would then bid a game forcing 2H over 1NT. So it goes 1C-1H-1NT and, using 2 way, you now bid 2C forcing 2D and raise that to 3D.

Strengthen it a bit more and with the same shape you would start with 1D over 1C.  But suppose you have
Ax
KQxxx
AQxxx
x

 1C-1H-1NT-2D-2NT-?
OK, maybe 3NT is right but 3D has its attractions. A judgment call. If you like 3NT here you can still probably vary the hand to something where you would definitely like to bid 3D.

To play 2 way you have to give up something. That's always the case with conventions. Here you give up the possibility of using 1C-1H-1NT-2C as a weak shapely hand that wants to play 2C. And that can be a loss. But 1C-1H-1NT-3C is a weak shapely hand that wants to play in clubs so it may not be a great loss. 1C-1H-1NT-2C-2D(forced)-3C is the invitational hand with clubs, 1C-1H-1NT-2D-2anything-3C is the forcing hand  with clubs.

I have not played 2-way often, but it seems to work. And I do think it gains in practicality when Walsh responses to 1C are being used.  I'm not big on Walsh, I'm a very old fashioned guy, but I an see its pluses.

[Curls77]

Great topic, great remarks, very instructive for all !!

How about:
1C-1H
1N-2S
3H-3S   // cue
4C-4D
4S-4N
etc

or using serious 3N?
1C-1H
1N-2S
3H-3N   // slam try
4C-4D
4H-4S
4N

[OliverC]

As I said above, almost any route is possible as long as North does something other than tamely sign off in 4 over 3 .


"Serious" 3NT - love it! More into the frivolous variety myself