- 95
- 16 578
Adam Parrish
United States
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 27 มี.ค. 2012
Adam Parrish is a bridge teacher and author based in New York City. His books include When to Draw Trumps and When to Bid Notrump (And How to Play it), both finalists for the IBPA's Book of the Year. Adam writes a monthly ACBL Bridge Bulletin columnist and is a partner of Bridge Winners.
I learned NMF watching this 3-part series a while back and wanted to review it again, this but parts 2 &3 are no longer on TH-cam!
Only if you teach using the kind of whiteboard that hangs on a wall and nothing else.
You look like Fr Pío
I have been trying to get the responses to this convention clear in my mind, and your video really helped! Like your teaching style. Thanks!
I greatly prefer natural new suit forcing. The only advantage NMF has is that a rebid of 2 Hearts is not forcing and the partnership can play in hearts without getting too high.
Nice clear lesson. Just need to remember the sequence with my partner.
Very good analysis!!! Thanks!!!😊
IMO the direct 7S should show a more distributional hand - one that doesn't think 7N would play better. For example, the same values partner had but with one fewer diamond (so stiff K). If you have the DJ instead of CJ, all of a sudden 7N is not only making, it's odds on and chances are 7S is actually avg- in a strong field. I would've bid 6C with partner's hand and then 7D over whatever you bid next (6D, 6S, or 6N). This should show both minor suit kings but a balanced hand that would also be ok with 7N. WDYT?
Loved all of these videos! Very insightful commentary
Thanks … really enjoy your lesson
"Checkback" (always bidding Clubs rather than the "New" minor) is used in the same situation... Is there any advantage/disadvantage compared to "New minor forcing" Interesting fact: Nmf (or "checkback") achieve what Stayman and transfers achieve those playing Weak NT hands (12-14 HCP).
great lesson! I am a stranger, and you explain not too fast, I can follow you. Thank you very much
𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐦
Adam. On the hand where the bidding is: 1C. 1H, 1NT. - 2H, at the 7:20 mark, the responder is showing 14 cards. S T83, H AQ875, D 95, C Q542. This needs to be corrected.
When we're just trying to play a partscore, I like the max-min principle. I try to play in the suit where our SHORTEST POSSIBLE fit is the LONGEST. I won't give up a KNOWN 7 card fit for a POSSIBLE 6 card fit, even though there MIGHT be a second seven card fit. It's just playing with fire.
Great hand, and great story of the other one. When you explain exclusion, do you say it shows the void or not? I would think it's just "show me keycards outside hearts" and why asker is asking is between them and their god, but haven't actually played it to have this come up.
There's really no reason to ask for keycards excluding one suit unless you are void in that suit. So you're right, it's an asking bid and the asker can have whatever they want, but for all intents and purposes it promises a void in the suit. Full disclosure, one of the 2 psyches that I've made that worked out really well (in my 20+ years playing bridge) was bidding Exclusion when I didn't have a void. I was playing with Greg. (Good to have an understanding partner when you psych.) And it talked them out of leading their ace and I made an unmakeable slam. But don't make a habit out of that!
Do you really think this one is wrong? Greg's actions seem so reasonable to me, unless he can picture you having 11 black cards (maybe you will always be 6-5 or 7-4?)
Of course I think Greg is wrong and he agrees with you that everything he did is reasonable. :) I don't preempt in spades with longer clubs, so passing 5C was weird. And I clearly have a big 2-suited hand to bid like this, so choosing to defend with a double fit doesn't feel right to me. It could have worked, and given the fact that Greg was in The Zone and everything he did was working I'm fine with his playing his gut. But in retrospect I think even he agrees it was the wrong decision. Bridge is hard!
I seem to remember that Rodwell once advocated an even more flexible cuebidding style. I've forgotten the details, but I believe that he had some agreements where if you cuebid a side suit that you've shown length in, it showed two of the top three, and if you cuebid a side suit that PARTNER has shown length in, it can be the queen (but never shortness). Do I have the details right here? What do you think about this approach? Is it too much to contemplate in any partnership that's not very serious and advanced?
Yeah, that's right. Based on the fact that when you show 5+ length in a suit you usually have a control, he had the suit holder's control bid show 2 of the top 3 and allowed their partner to show A, K, or Q. This takes something away from the standard goal of making sure you have a control in every suit (so they can't cash and AK). But knowing about that queen can be very important for slam. This is definitely advanced stuff!
Great stuff. Thanks guys.
It's nice to see, that even pros like you have misunderstandings in a seemingly "simple, everyday" auction. This makes me feel better about my bad/wrong bids :)
Better at 1.5 speed.
Love that you can laugh at your goofs! Great videos guys.
008fd vur.fyi