mikestar13

5♣ seems obvious, partner will seldom have a perfecto and will be able to bid 6 on at least some of those. On second thought, forcing pass (or neg double if fp doesn't apply here) might get to a making 3NT when even 5♣ is hopeless due to spade waste, but may not work so well if partner has no spade cards, which is fairly likely, but less so if opponents interfere fanatically in big club auctions. High level competition is a PITA.

I learned this method in a Bridge Winner's article by Kit Woolsey and can testify it works quite well--the round forcing nature of the bid means you can also use it on very strong major suit hands, thus freeing up 1♣-1♦-2♥/♠ for whatever uses suit the partnership. A scheme we have found useful is 2♥=relay to 2♠ with a strong balanced hand, 2♠=strong minor two suiter.

Yeah you have.:) 1♥ playing Little Major, 1♠ playing Fantunes, 2♦ playing Benji Acol, 2♠ playing old fashioned strong twos, 1NT playing Vienna, ... The only systems where a forcing opening is not appropriate is a system that doesn't have one. 1920's Official System, anyone? (Played by Sidney Lenz/Oswald Jacoby in the famous Culbertson/Lenz match.)

Took the words right out of my keyboard, was posting the same thing when I saw your comment.

Thanks for that info! I have played the method but didn't know it came from Cambridge Precision. A modification I have sometimes played is that 1NT could be 4 good spades that are eager for a 3 card raise, while a more normal 4 spades bid 1♠, showing 0-4 spades.

Clear opening in any seat IMHO. Rule of 15 was intended for borderline openers.

I prefer XYZ in the sequences where it is available, and to prefer the FSF to be GF, but I have played it both ways. RP is right to credit Goren with teaching all second round jumps by responder are GF (forcing style), But Goren didn't invent the style, Culberetson taught forcing style in his Gold Book (1936), though he taught limit style in his Blue Book (1930). In the 30's fourth suit was usually natural.

Have a look at Kit Woolsey's Grunt Defense on bridgewinners.com. Simple, effective, legal against even vs. ACBL "natural" doubleton club openings.

Really normal 1♠: you admittedly have 16 HCP if you give full value to an aceless hand with a stiff king and an isolated jack. 1♠ followed by a 3♠ rebid is perfect: 14-15 HCP and a good six card spade suit.

Maybe this should be suit preference at IMPs (where you want to defeat the contract, and the passive spade continuation is unlikely to help) but attitude at matchpoints (where a spade continuation may avoid giving declarer an overtrick).

Part of winning strategy in a weak field games is to bash the bunnies better than the other strong players do. I agree that no inferences can be drawn about how a method that works in a weak field would work in a strong field, but it matters what you play unless you are the only strong pair in the game, which is rare.

This is a perfectly normal 1♦ opening if and only if you are playing a weak NT. If you play strong NT, this is the hand type it was made for. It will go wrong if partner has a positional stopper in a one of you weak suits and they find the lead, and maybe not even then. (The position might be right, or they can only run four tricks and you have the other nine, etc.)

Maybe this is the best answer. Allowing 4 card major advances over the 1♦/1♥ overcalls covers all cases after (1♣) and all cases after (1♦) except the 2♣ overcall--this already cuts the problem down quite a bit.

Lovely method but can't play it here (ACBL) because of stupid system restrictions--suit bids other than cues of enemy suit that show 2 suiters must specify both suits. In a more enlightened bridge jurisdiction (such as you own), I'd be quite pleased with this.

Been experimenting with methods to show the Raptor-type hands on defense without sacrificing the natural 1NT overcall. Here is what we've come up with,notice the similarities to and the differences from The Overcall Structure: Double, non-jump suit overcalls, and 1NT are normal. (1♣)-? 2♣ = 4 spades and 5+ diamonds.2♦ = 4 hearts and 5+ diamonds.2♥ = 4 spades and 5+ hearts.2♠ = Weak jump overcall.2NT = strong two-suited including hearts.(1♦)-? 2♦ = 4 hearts and 5+ clubs.2♥ = 4 spades and 5+ hearts.2♠ = 4 spades and 5+ clubs.2NT = Strong two-suited including spades.(1♥)-? 2♥ = 4 spades and 5+ diamond.2♠ = 4 spades and 5+ clubs.2NT = Strong two-suited including clubs.(1♠)-? 2♠ 4 hearts and 5+ minor (advancer's 2NT asks).2NT = Strong two suited including diamonds.With a strong two-suited hand lacking the appropriate anchor suit, cue bid instead and follow up with a strong rebid, most commonly by rebidding an unsupported major. This shows the 4-5 hand that aren't suitable to double, at the cost of giving up weak jump overcalls at the two level (except (1♣)-2♠). So far finding it a worthwhile trade.

Maybe we should take this to the Water Cooler when we are discussing who is more or less pro-Israel and whether Israel should be banned from any event because of actions (real or imagined) of the Israeli government.

I've been playing around with Gerber's excellent proposal and I find it easy to make another change that many of us would prefer: Number 3 under Responses and rebids could be simplified to ALL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. No qualifying language whatever and all relay methods in which the first relay bid is one (or more) of: a) a game forcing response b) a response to a strong opening c) a response to an opening of 1NT or higher d) opener's rebid or later. will be legal without needing any special language to declare it so, though it might be made explicit in the notes that this is an intended consequence.

Quite a good piece of work, given the design goals of retaining the general tone of the GCC but clearing up the (sometimes nonsensical) language. Not everyone here will agree with these objectives (I don't, maybe Gerben himself doesn't) but this is an improvement that might be achievable. The more far reaching changes that many of us would prefer just aren't going to happen in the ACBL in the near term. (The glacial pace of change in the ACBL in this area suggests something like "near term" = "before 2025".) Substantively, the only alteration I would offer to Gerben's work is to remove the restrictions on NT defenses (as many areas within the ACBL already do for games in their jurisdiction).

How do you handle Raptor-type hands in the balancing seat? Seems that 1NT natural is needed here.

Not correct for a normal novice game--the normal equities don't apply because both sides are quite likely going to drop tricks, and this is more likely to hurt the side that is facing the longer odds (making a 40% game requires better technique than making a 70% game). Texas is reasonable with the mentor as the no trump bidder, as he presumably is a good card player, but not the right thing to teach the mentee unless he is always partnered with good card players. I know that in my novice days, I played many more boards partnered with another novice than with an expert!

Indeed, if the rest of the structure suits the partnership, the modification you suggest works well. I have played it with partners who want 2♣ to be 6+ and I rather like it myself. I've not found 1NT on 4M-2OM-2♦-5♣ hands to be that much of a problem. I often open 1NT on 2=4=5=2 hands as well (when not good enough for a reverse).

I've played a similar style for years: 1NT = 12-15, 1♦ = 4+♦, 2♣ = 5+♣, etc. Passing balanced 11's is only a small loser; the worst auctions come from passing a 2♣ opener when responder could have found a better partial after a 1♦. I've found the more accurate competitive sequences after 1♦ to offer some compensation. It is probably true that 1♦ = 2+ is better if played well, but it requires significantly more work to play well. (Obviously NOT a problem for the Meckwells of the world.)

About the 1M-2M auctions, clearly a well-designed game try structure is better, but the if only thing available is a power invite (whether due to poor agreements or a hand that just doesn't fit your structure), I prefer pass or bash.

In fairness, not my idea (some have associated it with Meckwell), I'm trying it out with partners who are also doing it. Really reduces the information leakage to the defense. A concealment-oriented strategy (for game bidding) may or may not be wise, but how is it anti-patnership?

I've read about this style (Andrew Gumpers mentioned it in an article on Bridgewinners.com) and have been trying it in power no trump auctions. In response to a 1NT opening, if I want to play in no trump, I will pass or bid game. The auctions 1NT-2NT- P or 3NT not longer happen with us, we are either in a safe 1NT or playing 3NT: maybe with 23 points, maybe with 30. Really doesn't give the defense much help. This has proved a winner at IMPs, but is has been ok at matchpoints, surprisingly. Stealing 3NT gains only moderately over 2NT making on the nose or down one less than game--but it avoids the match point doubles of 1NT-2NT-3NT. Been thinking of using the same style to avoid 1M-2M-3M-P or 4M auctions, where making defense harder and avoiding doubles on bad trump splits may well pay even better. Love to hear pros and cons about this, especially from those of you who have used it and like it or have chosen to abandon it.