[squealydan]

My partner and I are trying to learn 2/1 (having been Acol-ers previously), and having played a couple of sessions, it seems we've failed to learn a couple of fairly standard auctions.

1♣ - 1♦
1NT - 3♦

What does this show in standard systems? Invitational or forcing to 3NT?

Likewise

1♣ - 1♥
1NT - 3♥

vs

1♣- 1♥
1NT - 2♦ (later edit : New Minor Forcing, if that wasn't clear)
2NT - 3♥

Just wondering what either of these 3♥ bids should show?

Thanks,

This post has been edited by squealydan: 2013-January-08, 05:31

[P_Marlowe]

Simplified speaking - The meaning is the same as playing Acol.

The difference gets introduced, if you start to add something like NMF / Two-way NMW
(two-way Checkback),
in which case a 2C / 2D bid by responder after the the 1NT rebid becomes artificial

see your 3rd auction

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

Depending on the choosen flavour, this has influence on the meaning of the 3D / 3H bid in
your 1st and 2nd auction.

For a writeup of New Minor Forcing see
http://www.bridgehan...nor_Forcing.htm

but this is easily the simplest structure, nand not necessarily the most common.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rmnka447]

Both jumps by responder 1 ♦ - 3 ♦ and 1 ♥ - 3 ♥ are invitational. Typically, these bids would imply 6 or 5 very good cards in the suit.

With a 5 card suit and invitational values, responder would normally raise 1 NT to 2 NT. Opener, after a 1 ♥ response and raise of NT, could then show 3 card ♥ support by bidding 3 ♥ on the way to 3 NT.

The third auction where responder forces with a 2 ♦ bid after responding 1 ♥ and rebids 3 ♥ over 2 NT is game forcing. It should also show 6 ♥ because opener had an opportunity to show 3 card ♥ support by bidding 2 ♥ over 2 ♦.

[squealydan]

rmnka447, on 2013-January-08, 04:10, said:

Both jumps by responder 1 ♦ - 3 ♦ and 1 ♥ - 3 ♥ are invitational. Typically, these bids would imply 6 or 5 very good cards in the suit.

So how do you force after 1C-1D-1NT when there's no new minor to bid, without leaping past 3NT? Is 2♣ here best played as artificial and forcing? Our basic structure after 1C-1D is that opener will rebid 1NT even with a 4-card major, so I don't want to fabricate a major suit "reverse". Perhaps I need to go back to basics and reconsider that?

[helene_t]

squealydan, on 2013-January-08, 05:29, said:

So how do you force after 1C-1D-1NT when there's no new minor to bid, without leaping past 3NT? Is 2♣ here best played as artificial and forcing? Our basic structure after 1C-1D is that opener will rebid 1NT even with a 4-card major, so I don't want to fabricate a major suit "reverse". Perhaps I need to go back to basics and reconsider that?

Yes if the 1NT rebid does not deny a 4-card major, you should play the 2♣ rebid as artificial and forcing here.

Walsh (the agreement that the 1NT rebid does not deny a 4-card major in this auction and that responder therefore will bid a major before diamonds even with longer diamonds, unless he is strong) is a popular treatment among advanced players but I am not sure if I would recommend it to beginners, or even to advanced players who don't want to keep their number of specialised agreements to a minimum. Yesterday I had this auction with my regular f2f partner:

1♣-(pass)-1♥-(1♠)
pass-(2♠)-3♦*

Partner who bid 3♦ turned out to have a weak hand with four hearts and longer diamonds. Of course I realized that she might have that but I was wondering if she might have 5 hearts and four diamonds. If we had been playing 4-cards up the line I would have known that her hearts must be at least as long as her diamonds since otherwise she would have bid diamonds first.

Of course, Walsh makes some other auctions clearer but over-all I think bidding 4-cards up the line is a bit simpler.

[P_Marlowe]

squealydan, on 2013-January-08, 05:29, said:

So how do you force after 1C-1D-1NT when there's no new minor to bid, without leaping past 3NT? Is 2♣ here best played as artificial and forcing? Our basic structure after 1C-1D is that opener will rebid 1NT even with a 4-card major, so I don't want to fabricate a major suit "reverse". Perhaps I need to go back to basics and reconsider that?

Bidding 1NT to show the bal. nature, bypassing a 4 card major suit, is a sensible treatment.

How did you solve this issue, as you were playing Acol?

The strength of the NT opener only affects the frequency of the issue showing up, not that the issue is
showing up at all.
Playing 2C as artificial is common, check out Checkback Stayman.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[neilkaz]

I'll suggest XYZ which I just taught to an intermediate partner as he didn't seem to know much about NMF anyhow. I honestly think XYZ is simpler and there's no ambiguities about whether you intend to invite or GF.

[squealydan]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-January-08, 05:55, said:

Bidding 1NT to show the bal. nature, bypassing a 4 card major suit, is a sensible treatment.

How did you solve this issue, as you were playing Acol?

The strength of the NT opener only affects the frequency of the issue showing up, not that the issue is
showing up at all.
Playing 2C as artificial is common, check out Checkback Stayman.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Yes, I know the same problem occurs in Acol, just on different hands. I guess I'm more aware of the problem now since playing against a room full of Acol-ytes I'm finding myself playing different contracts to the room from time to time... And we played a structure where we'd open the major suit when 4-4 in a major-minor, so the 1♣-1♦-1NT auctions were rarer, and responder would know for a fact that opener's club suit was natural and opener didn't have a four card major, which made it a little easier to know when to try for a suit vs a no-trump contract.

[squealydan]

neilkaz, on 2013-January-08, 10:15, said:

I'll suggest XYZ which I just taught to an intermediate partner as he didn't seem to know much about NMF anyhow. I honestly think XYZ is simpler and there's no ambiguities about whether you intend to invite or GF.

Anyone know a link to a good "how to" XYZ page? This is not a convention I've heard of...

[neilkaz]

squealydan, on 2013-January-08, 13:11, said:

Anyone know a link to a good "how to" XYZ page? This is not a convention I've heard of...

Here's a few links. You'll note some differences in whether a direct 2NT invites 3NT or xfers to ♣ to pass and some differences as to what direct jumps to 3 mean.

http://www.sfvbridge...%201%202008.htm

http://www.unit524.o...id=85&Itemid=88

http://inquiry2over1...convention.html

http://www.larryco.c...x?articleID=396

http://www.bridgehan..._Convention.htm

I know this is the N/B forum so I don't want to elaborate in detail, but I honestly find XYZ to be easier and more clear cut than NMF.

[mgoetze]

XYZ is a generalisation of 2-way checkback. Beginners should not be trying to learn XYZ, they should learn 2-way checkback at most.

[P_Marlowe]

squealydan, on 2013-January-08, 13:10, said:

Yes, I know the same problem occurs in Acol, just on different hands. I guess I'm more aware of the problem now since playing against a room full of Acol-ytes I'm finding myself playing different contracts to the room from time to time... And we played a structure where we'd open the major suit when 4-4 in a major-minor, so the 1♣-1♦-1NT auctions were rarer, and responder would know for a fact that opener's club suit was natural and opener didn't have a four card major, which made it a little easier to know when to try for a suit vs a no-trump contract.

If you opened the major, being 44 and bal., playing Acol, than you have the explanation, your openeing structure
solved this specific issue for you in the past.
I played Acol opening 44 up the line, but the modern standard is major first, got developed, after I learned to play,
1-2 years after I left Ireland, and then they just started, I am not sure, when they went public with the reworked
standard system.

[squealydan]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-January-09, 02:38, said:

If you opened the major, being 44 and bal., playing Acol, than you have the explanation, your openeing structure
solved this specific issue for you in the past.
I played Acol opening 44 up the line, but the modern standard is major first, got developed, after I learned to play,
1-2 years after I left Ireland, and then they just started, I am not sure, when they went public with the reworked
standard system.

I too learned the up-the-line method but Andrew Robson's pre-paywall columns in the Times convinced me to try the major-first and it did seem to have some nice flow-on effects. My partner and I were probably the only pair in our club who bid that way, so the new "standard" is a fair way off reaching my corner of New Zealand...