[JeffMorrow]

I’m back with another probably inane question. I was dealer at favorable vulnerability and held:

♠J10652
♥A
♦QJ92
♣763

The bidding went P, (P), 1C, (P), 1S, (P), 1N, (P)

Back to me. Only 9 HCP, but an ace, QJ9, and J10 do not look shabby. Partner’s 1N promises in principle no more than 14 HCP, but I’d be neither surprised nor chagrined to find it was 15 with no intermediates or 3=3=3=4 distribution because my partner has good sense. So, my obvious choices are pass because no game is likely or 2D (new minor forcing). I was not thrilled about playing in no trump with a singleton and three worthless clubs in what is possibly partner’s suit.

I bid 2D (nmf); partner, holding only two spades, correctly rebid 2N; they led hearts of course, and we got a bottom.

Upon reflection, I am now thinking that my choiices were wrong. They were pass or 2S. Partner was likely to have two spades for her 1N bid and might have three. In short, if you don’t like no trump and have no game in sight, either pass 1N or make a non-forcing bid.. NMF was permissible in this situation but unwise. Am I making sense now that it is too late? (I have not given partner’s hand because her bidding was completely sensible.)

[jillybean]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-22, 17:34, said:

I was not thrilled about playing in no trump with a singleton and three worthless clubs in what is possibly partner’s suit.

I hear this a lot and you would never bid 1nt with this hand.
Your partner has bid 1nt, saying I have a hand suitable to play in 1nt, pass. Your hand is not strong enough, and spades are not good enough to take this to the 2 level.

[JeffMorrow]

jillybean, on 2025-August-22, 19:50, said:

I hear this a lot and you would never bid 1nt with this hand.
Your partner has bid 1nt, saying I have a hand suitable to play in 1nt, pass. Your hand is not strong enough, and spades are not good enough to take this to the 2 level.

Thank you for your sensible answer, which goes to the specific issue of choosing between pass or 2♠. There is much merit in what you say because it is remotely possible that partner may have a singleton spade or (more likely) a worthless doubleton in spades. But I am not sure your answer provides an answer to my general question, which is:

When there is no likely possible game shown by partner bidding 1N and you have reason to fear no trump is not a good strain, is it (almost always) good practice to avoid a forcing bid (because you may just end up in no trump one level higher)?

Sorry that I was not clear originally.

[smerriman]

New minor forcing promises invitational strength; you can't use it on weak hands.

As for 2♠ vs 1NT, most studies that I've seen have shown that rebidding your major is almost always correct, as partner will likely have 2 card support and 2 of a major will play better than 1NT (even if you had a balanced 5332). It does depend on how likely your partner is to rebid 1NT with a singleton, or raise to 2♠ with just three card support, but this would be a 2♠ bid for me.

[jillybean]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-22, 21:19, said:

When there is no likely possible game shown by partner bidding 1N and you have reason to fear no trump is not a good strain, is it (almost always) good practice to avoid a forcing bid (because you may just end up in no trump one

Yes, why misrepresent your strength? Your 1S bid shows no more than 4 spades and 6 hcp. Trust your partner, or bid 2S if that’s your style.

[DavidKok]

Exactly right - bid 2♠, a shutout bid.
In previous discussions on these fora we have found some 5332 hands that were so (poorly) concentrated that it was better to play 1NT double dummy, but in practice these are very rare and hard to identify. My rule is to simply always rebid the major holding five, which I believe to be a winner on average. If your 1NT rebid may include a singleton in our long suit, or perhaps even frequently contains one, this strategy is a lot less attractive. For me 1NT is always 2-3 cards in my major (with 4, raise).

[apollo1201]

Your 9HCP (I suppose the CJ is missing) and weak S make the difference to possibly chose 1NT rather than rebid 2S, were you 5332. But 5143 better rebid, although partner will probably be more often 24 rather than 33 in the majors. The decision is trickier if partner on a 1435 hand rebids 1 NT (same with 1345 that they chose not to bid 1D then 2C).

In all cases your 9 HCP will not make game. Change it to AJTxx x QJxx Jxx and that is another story.

There is a way to always play the relay to check back majors at 2C always with answerr 2D as no 3-cd major fit, to avoid a dreadful 2NT contract.

[apollo1201]

Your 9HCP (I suppose the CJ is missing) and weak S make the difference to possibly chose 1NT rather than rebid 2S, were you 5332. But 5143 better rebid, although partner will probably be more often 24 rather than 33 in the majors. The decision is trickier if partner on a 1435 hand rebids 1 NT (same with 1345 that they chose not to bid 1D then 2C).

In all cases your 9 HCP will not make game. Change it to AJTxx x QJxx Jxx and that is another story.

There is a way to always play the relay to check back majors at 2C always with answerr 2D as no 3-cd major fit, to avoid a dreadful 2NT contract.

[JeffMorrow]

Again great answers. I truly thank all who responded.

Got it (until I forget it): no forcing REBID by responder without invitational strength. And playing 2M with 5 trump in the closed hand and 2 in dummy will usually play better than 1N.

But that leaves a logically subsequent question unanswered. Should NMF ever be used? Obviously it should not be on this hand, but replace ♦QJ92 with ♦KQ102.

Now the hand has invitational strength. “The 5-2 usually plays better than no trump” suggests that NMF is a useless convention because you should almost always avoid no trump when partner has two cards in your 5-card major. On the other hand, 2♠ tends to shut down the auction. Or is this one of the situations NMF was designed to address? With the improved ♦ and six+ ♠, I could invite with a bid of 3♠? With 4 spades I could invite with 2N. With exactly 5 ♠, I could invite with NMF showing interest in game and an exact count o five i♠.

[DavidKok]

Exactly right.

Now, personally I prefer XYNT or Two-way Checkback. However, all these conventions - Checkback, NMF, Two-way Checkback - were developed to allow responder to invite at the 2-level and stop safely if the hands don't mesh well. These different conventions do this in different ways - some by asking and then either passing or bidding again over the answer, some by relaying and then showing the hand with the third bid, and some by immediately demanding that opener show strength as well as shape information. This sacrifices the ability to play in specific 2-of-a-minor contracts, with different versions making different sacrifices, but gains the ability to stay at the 2-level with invitational hands.

This is also why a direct 2♠ shutout is valuable - after partner has limited their hand with the 1NT rebid, if we know game is no longer on, we don't want them getting enthusiastic holding a maximum for their range with 3-card support and push us to the 3-level for no reason. Conversely, if we do want to hear partner's opinion, we can use some of the artificial routes.

The way I think people play NMF (I've never played this, only Checkback which is similar), on 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2♦* opener is supposed to show a 4c♥ or a 3c♠. There is disagreement and partnership style here on whether opener should bid 2♥ or 2♠ holding both. However, either way I think if opener continues 2♥, then responder's 2♠ should be 5(+)♠, not limited to exactly five. It shows an invitational hand and gives opener the chance to evaluate their hand in context.
Do keep in mind that, in using 2♦ as the asking bid, opener also needs a response holding neither major. I expect this will be 2NT or maybe even 3NT with a maximum. This is one of the downsides of NMF compared to the other variants I mentioned - you might not get out at 2♠ at all.

Maybe I really should pick up my writing on balanced hand bidding again some day, if there's interest.

[mike777]

 DavidKok, on 2025-August-23, 06:12, said:

Exactly right.

Now, personally I prefer XYNT or Two-way Checkback. However, all these conventions - Checkback, NMF, Two-way Checkback - were developed to allow responder to invite at the 2-level and stop safely if the hands don't mesh well. These different conventions do this in different ways - some by asking and then either passing or bidding again over the answer, some by relaying and then showing the hand with the third bid, and some by immediately demanding that opener show strength as well as shape information. This sacrifices the ability to play in specific 2-of-a-minor contracts, with different versions making different sacrifices, but gains the ability to stay at the 2-level with invitational hands.

This is also why a direct 2♠ shutout is valuable - after partner has limited their hand with the 1NT rebid, if we know game is no longer on, we don't want them getting enthusiastic holding a maximum for their range with 3-card support and push us to the 3-level for no reason. Conversely, if we do want to hear partner's opinion, we can use some of the artificial routes.

The way I think people play NMF (I've never played this, only Checkback which is similar), on 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2♦* opener is supposed to show a 4c♥ or a 3c♠. There is disagreement and partnership style here on whether opener should bid 2♥ or 2♠ holding both. However, either way I think if opener continues 2♥, then responder's 2♠ should be 5(+)♠, not limited to exactly five. It shows an invitational hand and gives opener the chance to evaluate their hand in context.
Do keep in mind that, in using 2♦ as the asking bid, opener also needs a response holding neither major. I expect this will be 2NT or maybe even 3NT with a maximum. This is one of the downsides of NMF compared to the other variants I mentioned - you might not get out at 2♠ at all.

Maybe I really should pick up my writing on balanced hand bidding again some day, if there's interest.

Definitely interested
Your writing is clear and informative.

I would only emphasize the convention known as XYZ or variations of 2 way checkback are powerful,
important and extremely useful. Pick which version you prefer but definitely pick one.

[jillybean]

Excellent, complete answers above, of course.
Be sure that your partner is also playing nmf and 2S is 'drop dead' , or you may get too high.

[Cyberyeti]

Do people play 2 way CB by a passed hand ?

[DavidKok]

I do. It's clearly suboptimal - it's impossible to have a game forcing passed hand opposite my weak NT range - but the cost (inability to play 2♣, and some ability for opponents to double more on the second or third round) is low enough that I prefer to keep it simple.

[smerriman]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-23, 05:57, said:

Now the hand has invitational strength. “The 5-2 usually plays better than no trump” suggests that NMF is a useless convention because you should almost always avoid no trump when partner has two cards in your 5-card major.

You misquoted; the 5-2 is better *when choosing between 1N and 2M*. When the choices are 3N and 4M, 3N is easily better.

Rebidding 2S says you are weak, and spades are trumps. Bidding NMF says you are at least interested in game and also that you do not know what the best trump suit is yet - could be either major or NT - thus want more information from opener.

[JeffMorrow]

Thank you all, particularly DavidKok and Smerriman.

Playing NMF, invoking it shows at least an invitational hand; rebidding your suit rather than invoking NMF shows a hard stop and concern about no-trump; and with 5-2 in a major prefer the major at the 2-level but not at game-level. Furthermore, you need to discuss with partner how opener is supposed to respond to NMF with 4 in the unbid major and 3 in the bid major.

I appreciate the advice that some other conventions may cater to the same problem but with fewer drawbacks, but I think I better get NMF under control before going off on a new adventure that my regular partners may not even tolerate.

If I have not worn out my welcome, I may post a question about inverted minors and bidding controls in a day or two. Or should a question on that topic go to the novice forum?

[pescetom]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-23, 15:14, said:

I appreciate the advice that some other conventions may cater to the same problem but with fewer drawbacks, but I think I better get NMF under control before going off on a new adventure that my regular partners may not even tolerate.

I think you would do well to consider the diplomatic advice that other conventions cater to the same problem but with fewer drawbacks, nobody suggested you should continue to play NMF.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-23, 15:14, said:

If I have not worn out my welcome, I may post a question about inverted minors and bidding controls in a day or two. Or should a question on that topic go to the novice forum?

Welcome! Sounds like you are in the right forum to me.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-August-23, 13:05, said:

I do. It's clearly suboptimal - it's impossible to have a game forcing passed hand opposite my weak NT range - but the cost (inability to play 2♣, and some ability for opponents to double more on the second or third round) is low enough that I prefer to keep it simple.

I was thinking more about 2♣ being one way NMF, 2♦ being natural and bad in which case it's not a terrible bid

[DavidKok]

XYNT already has the ability to stop in 2♦ on 1m-1X; 1NT by using the 2♣ puppet and passing. The main advantage I see of using 2♦ as weak natural NF is that opener might pull to the Moysian if the number of cards is disappointing, but this would imply that opener knows the degree of fit better than responder. In practice I think there's no gain here.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-August-24, 10:02, said:

XYNT already has the ability to stop in 2♦ on 1m-1X; 1NT by using the 2♣ puppet and passing. The main advantage I see of using 2♦ as weak natural NF is that opener might pull to the Moysian if the number of cards is disappointing, but this would imply that opener knows the degree of fit better than responder. In practice I think there's no gain here.

Well it shows 5 spades the way we play as would have bid 1♦ with 4-4