32519

Now this is good. It tells me that you have been thinking about this madness. Before answering your question, let’s see how the auction would progress in 2/1, etc. The bidding would go: 1♥-2♦-3♦-X 3♥-? The 3♦ bid being a cue-bid raise. The X showing ♦ support. At favourable vulnerability, the 2♦ overcaller may push on to level 4. Your assumption of missing a game contract in ♥ with a combined 22 HCP count is based on the belief that the ♦A is held by the overcaller. That isn’t necessarily true although probable. It’s also based on the assumption that the ♥Q is dropping underneath the AK. There is no guarantee that standard bidders will reach the ♥ game. Now to your question: The opposition interference has disrupted normal communication channels. So now they change. X would indeed be for takeout with 7-11 HCP and support for BOTH majors. Here you can support only 1, so just bid it, 2♥ in your example hand. Fourth hand also enters the auction with a 3♦ bid. A ♥ fit is known and you can compete for the part score in 3♥. Same result as in standard bidding. But what if opener’s suit is ♠? Up to the 3♦ bid the auction remains unaltered. Opener will pass the 3♦ bid knowing about the major suit misfit. With a combined 22 HCP count, we now switch to defence and try to get the plus score by defeating the contract.

You guys seem to be getting unnecessarily tangled up in the 1♥ bid. Well let me untangle it for you. Here’s the deal: 1♥..13-15 HCP, either 5+♥ suit, 5+♠ suit, balanced or semi-balanced ..2♠..0-6 Negative ....Pass = 5+ ♠ suit. With the right sort of hand and/or favourable vulnerability, the auction can be lifted to 2♠ pushing the opponents out of their comfort zone into the 3-level. ....1NT = balanced/semi-balanced .......2♣2♦2♥2♠ all transfer bids to improve the auction ....2♥ = Good 5-card suit or a 6-card suit, competing for the part score ..1NT..7-10 HCP minor suit orientated hand ..2♣...7-11 HCP 3+ support for a ♥ suit ..2♦...7-11 HCP 3+ support for a ♠ suit ..2♥...7-11 HCP 3+ support for both ♥♠ ..2NT..11 HCP, invitational, minor suit orientated hand ..3♣...GF, 12+ HCP 3+ support for a ♥ suit ..3♦...GF, 12+ HCP 3+ support for a ♠ suit ..3♥...GF, 12+ HCP, 3+ support for both ♥♠ ..3♠...Minor suit Stayman, mild slam try ....4♣♦ = Minor wood for the suit bid, accepting the mild slam try ....5♣♦ = To play, hand not suitable for 3NT ..3NT..To play, 12-16 HCP, minor suit orientated hand So what do you do with only 12 HCP and a 5-card ♥ suit? Here are some options to consider: 1.) Do you have a 4-card side suit? If yes, the hand meets the Rule of 20 requirements. Open the bidding. 2.) Is partner already a passed hand? If yes, the hand probably belongs to the opponents. But that doesn’t mean you need to pass and make life easy for them. Open with 1♥ and keep them guessing. 3.) At favourable vulnerability and partner already a passed hand, open 2♥. Don’t roll over and play dead. The fact that this system violates much of what is considered normal, doesn’t automatically classify it as unworkable. How many play T-Rex? Outside of New Zealand, probably not that many. Maybe this system should be renamed “The Rhino.” At the rate these animals are being poached, the species will soon become extinct as well. Many of my threads have been posted to find out the thinking behind certain conventions. In particular here are the threads on Flannery and Gerber. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about regarding all the Flannery/Gerber bashing. Turns out much of the bashing is completely unfounded. Many top USA players have Flannery on their CCs. I have absolutely no idea who started the Flannery/Gerber bashing. Maybe it was some or other bridge guru who decided that his appraisement of Flannery was better than the USA players using it. Then other self-appraised bridge guru’s also started jumping on “Bash Flannery/Gerber” bandwagon. Another example of a convention falling into disfavour is Cappelletti. Even the creators of Cappelletti don’t use it anymore. I’ve already had a go at Jacoby 2NT. Fred Gitelman’s modification was the only version that managed to find the ♥ slam. Maybe it was a bit much suggesting to dump J2NT altogether. But at least rethink if your version is optimal or not. I am lining up to have a go at the Multi as well. From all the feedback received to that thread, the downsides for Multi outweigh the upsides. Yet it remains popular. Why? I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps those still playing it haven’t yet figured out that the downsides outweigh the upsides. Or maybe no one has yet bothered to put in the effort to come up with something else where the upsides outweigh the downsides.

This is an extremely selfish statement to make. You are implying that whenever you designed a new system, you got it right the first time. If we got it right the first time there would be no need to come to the forums. The OP stated that we were having difficulty with the continuation structure after the 1♥ opening. Thanks to other posters we believe that we are well on the way to resolving this. Go back two posts and see the reply to gwnn. Our initial thoughts were channelled into a different direction by others. This tells me that the forums work. Gwnn possibly missed an earlier post to the minor suit orientated hands in the 10-15 HCP range. These are opened 2♣. In any system (including regular Precision with the nebulous 1♦ opening) you will be dealt hands that don’t optimally fit in anywhere. So before deciding on what to open, consider what your second bid will be after partner’s response. Based on that, make the appropriate opening.

Regarding the 1♥ bid, I am looking for some suggestions from MOSCITO players. The bid is designed to be semi-destructive to the opponents. The easiest hands to cope with are those containing 5♠ or balanced. When the bidding goes: 1♥ (13-15 artificial) 1♠ (0-6 negative) it is easy to (a) pass with a 5-card ♠ suit, or (b) bid 1NT with a balanced hand. When the opponents enter the auction showing some values, with the right sort of ♠ holding it should be possible to push them out of their comfort zone into the 3-level. When the bidding goes: 1♥ (13-15 artificial) 1♠ (0-6 negative) 1NT (balanced) Responder can still strive to improve the auction with Jacoby Transfer bids; 2♣ = transfer to ♦, 2♦ = transfer to ♥, 2♥ = transfer to ♠. With a 6-card or longer ♣ suit, 2♠ is used to transfer to 3♣. When 1NT is doubled for penalty, we are considering various escape routes: Option 1: Redouble = Lebensohl demanding opener to bid 2♣. This might be the only way to keep opener as declarer on level 2 when responder has a long ♣ suit. Transfer bids are otherwise unaffected. Option 2: Redouble = Requiring the of bidding 4-card suits up the line searching for a 4-4 fit. We are not to keen on this option, instead trying to limit the damage for the doubled contract. (Someone else may have a better suggestion here). The problem hands occur where opener has a 5-card ♥ suit and the bidding goes: 1♥ (13-15 artificial) 1♠ (0-6 negative) ? When the hand is semi-balanced, 1NT may be the best option. With a good ♥ suit or a 6-card ♥ suit, we don’t hesitate to rebid 2♥. It is descriptive of the hand and also consumes bidding space for the opponents. I’m hoping the MOSCITO players can provide some better continuation bidding sequences for the 1♥ bid.

Thanks for this. It was such an obvious oversight on our behalf that we have corrected it immediately. 1NT-2NT is now forcing. Regarding the responses to 1♣, you are correct here as well. Will relook at that. No doubt once we start playing this at our local bridge club other obvious oversights will jump out of the woodwork (paperwork?). Nonetheless, it was still fun to do.

I corrected the typo error. This crazy system is far from completion. I keep monitoring this thread for any constructive feedback, much like Zelandakh gave higher up. I always appreciate anything constructive.

I don’t agree with this at all. I find that the further you lower your minor suit pre-empts, the greater the probability of the opponents making marginal games in a major when one of them can enter the auction. The further you lower your minor suit pre-empts the more any (required) finesses are taken through partner. I favour bumping up the HCP range for minor suit orientated hands as suggested in the OP. You may lose the part score, but not a game score.

People are forever designing new bidding systems as fun exercises, “knowing” more often than not, they will rarely if ever get to play them in any tournament. This is no different. Attempting to modify someone else’s ideas in a non-natural system that you will have few opportunities to use is no fun. So pard and me decided to try something that, (as far as we know), has never been tried before by anyone else. The crazy 1-level structure is an attempt at combing basic Precision principles (the 1♣ and 1♦ bids), with (not quite) constructive major suit orientated hands (the 1♥ and 1♠ bids), and mini pre-empts (the 1♠ and 1NT bids). That said, what do the bids promise and what are the first round responses? 1♣ = 20+ any distribution. The probability of being dealt such a hand is only 1.45%. 2/1 and SAYC players have an artificial 2♣ opening promising 22+ HCP. The probability of being dealt such a hand is only 0.42%. Yet they have it. Responses 2♣ = negative, promising 0-3 HCP. The idea for using 2♣ as the negative response is threefold: (1) With 20+ HCP opener must surely be able to find another bid somewhere, (2) every attempt is made to ensure that opener becomes declarer, (using 1♦ as the negative response still runs the risk of the weak hand becoming declarer when that is openers suit), and (3) when responder starts supporting opener after a double negative he is showing a distributional hand; trump support and shortness anywhere else. With the right sort of hand, game can still be reached. 2♦ = “waiting,” promising 4+ HCP and game forcing. Sure the 1♣ bid is susceptible for pre-empting by the opponents. The agreements thus far are: (1) With 4+ and a 5-card major, show it as high as level 3, (2) with 4+ balanced, double, (3) pass with 0-3 HCP. 2♦ = 16-19 HCP any distribution. The probability of being dealt such a hand is 8.31%. Responses are similar to Precision in style. 2♥ = negative, promising 0-7 HCP. Anything else is similar to Precision promising 8+ HCP and game forcing. Depending on the level of any possible pre-empting by the opponents, responses are: (1) Pass with 0-4 HCP, (2) show any 5+ card suit with 5-7 HCP, (3) double promises 8+ HCP and is penalty orientated, especially if the opponents are vulnerable. 1♥ = 13-15 HCP, both suit length and strength concentrated in the majors, or balanced. Therefore when the bidding goes 1♥ (13-15 artificial), 1♠ (0-6 negative), 1NT (promising a balanced hand as in regular Precision). Responder can still use Jacoby Transfer bids after 1NT to improve the contract, including 2♣ as a transfer to ♦. After the 1♠ first response showing 0-6 HCP, 2♣ couldn't possibly be Stayman. So we use it to transfer into a long ♦ suit instead. The hands in the 10-15 HCP range with suit length and strength concentrated in the minors are opened 2♣. 1♠ = 11-12 HCP, balanced in first and second seat as a mini pre-empt, 5-card ♠ suit in third and fourth seat (the rule of 15). 1NT = 10 HCP exactly, balanced in first and second seat as a mini pre-empt, pass in third and fourth seat. The bid absolutely denies holding a 5-card suit. The probability of being dealt such a hand is 2.94%, still a reasonable rate of frequency. With a 1NT bid so low and so exact, the 2-level belongs to partner as follows – 2♣2♦2♥2♠ = to play, a so-called “shut-up” bid. Sure we gonna go for some telephone numbers here but we will keep record of the gains and losses before changing the 1NT bid. 2NT = a sort of “reverse Stayman.” Responder has 14+ HCP with a 4-card major. Responses are as follows – Pass = no 4-card major and a really bad 10 HCP (not backed up by good 10s and 9s) 3♣ = both majors 3♦ = 4-card ♥ suit 3♥ = 4-card ♠ suit 3NT = no 4-card major, HCP backed up by good spot cards (10s and 9s) Other responses to a 1NT opening bid – 3♣3♦ = 6-card suit 15+ HCP, invitational to 3NT or 5 of minor 3♥3♠ = 5-card suit 14+ HCP, game invitational Making these sort of sweeping statements have yet to be proved. Walter the Walrus and his partner, Dumbo the Elephant, are having fun with these crazy ideas.

OK, you caught me out. I wasn’t using a bog standard 2/1 auction. I was using Fred Gitelman’s article titled “Improving 2/1 Game Force – Part 1.” You can find it here http://bbi.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/2over1.html Applying Fred’s suggestions, then the 2♣ bid by North guarantees a 5-card suit. The double fit is now uncovered and the slam bid. This thread is generating a lot of very interesting arguments and counter-arguments which I believe is beneficial to all. Challenging bids or conventions considered the “norm” creates 3 possibilities – 1.) The bid or convention solidifies its place in the bridge community. 2.) An improvement to the bid or convention is identified by one (or more) of the top class posters in these forums. 3.) The bid or convention is replaced by something else more effective. Regarding point 3 above, Fred’s article may well be an example of something more effective replacing a bid or convention that is currently considered the “norm.” We have gotten this far with this J2NT discussion. Let’s not stop now. Let’s take it to the next level. Let’s start dissecting Fred’s suggestion and see if there is any way of improving on it. Bridge continues to evolve. None of the J2NT solutions provided found the ♥ slam.

From the feedback in this thread “Jacoby 2NT” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/51099-jacoby-2nt/ , kenrexford, whereagles and TWO4BRIDGE all advise to steer clear of Jacoby 2NT. When this hand occurred I was looking for ways on how to find the slam using Jacoby 2NT with a combined 28 HCP count in a natural 2/1 system. Unable to find the slam using Jacoby, I am now convinced that kenrexford, whereagles and TWO4BRIDGE are all correct. It’s time to dump Jacoby 2NT! [hv=pc=n&s=s64hakjt9dj64cak5&n=sa8hq862da3cqj962]133|200[/hv] Trying the different methods suggested in the above thread, I came up with this: Method 1: SAYC Booklet • 3 of a side suit = singleton • 4 of a side suit = good 5-card suit • 4 of trumps = minimum (11-14 HCP), no shortness • 3NT = medium (15-17), no shortness • 3 of trumps = maximum (18+), no shortness OPENER...RESPONDER 1H............2NT 3NT...........? How would the auction continue? Neither partner knows about the ♣ fit, a place for declarer to dump losers on. Method 2: Suggested by Roger Clee • 1M - 2NT • 3♣: Min, 3♦ asks • 3♦: Extras, shortness, 3♥ asks • 3♥: Extras, 5422, 3♠ asks • 3♠: Extras, 6+ no shortness (3NT non-serious over this) • 3NT: 18-19 bal • 4 lower: 5-5, extras • 4M: Min, 6+ no shortness, good for slam 1H............2NT 3C............? After a minimum response, responder will most likely signoff in 4♥. Again, the ♣ fit is not discovered. Method 3: Suggested by gwnn • 3♣ minimum (i.e. less than an ace above a minimum, now 3♦ asks and we have the same structure except 4M shows a 5332/5422) • 3♦ non minimum, no shortness • 3♥ short clubs • 3♠ short diamonds • 3NT short other major • 4x=5-5 • 4M min, 6M, no shortness. 1H............2NT 3C............? Same result as method 2. Again, the ♣ fit is not discovered. Method 4: Suggested by Zelandakh • 3♣ = min with shortage (3♦ asks, 3♥ forces cues + frivolous, new suit natural) • 3♦ = mid with shortage (3♥ asks, 3♠ forces cues, 3NT spades, 4m natural) • 3♥ = min without shortage (frivolous and cues) • 3♠ = mid without shortage (cues) • 3NT/4m = max (you can choose between cues or shortage-showing bids here, cues are probably better as these hands can effectively take control) 1H..................2NT 3S..................4D (cue) 4S(Kickback)..5H (2 with the queen) ? With 2 ♦ losers (1 taken care of with the Ace) and 1 ♠ loser, opener must gamble on bidding the slam. The gamble works here because of the ♣ fit. However, I don’t believe that top flight players take these sort of gambles. Should the gamble fail, you have cost your side plenty of IMPS. Method 5: Bog standard 2/1 as suggested by Vampyr • Or you can just do it the old-fashioned way and bid 2/1 followed by a "delayed game raise". 1H............2C (2/1 GF) 3C (fit)......3H (double fit, ♥ and ♣) 4NT (6-card Blackwood) With bog standard 2/1 the ♣ fit is found and now the slam can be safely bid.

1.) What is regarded as minimum? I presume 12-14 HCP. Therefore extras would be 15+? 2.) When responder continues with the 3♦ asking bid after a 3♣ minimum response by opener, obviously responder must hold the extras and is still interested in slam? Thank you.

I am trying to establish whether A/E play Jacoby 2NT or not. If not, then why not? 1.) Do they have other methods for describing these hand types? 2.) Their bidding agreements don't have room for Jacoby 2NT? 3.) Something else? Obviously the system played will be a massive deciding factor whether Jacoby 2NT can be incorporated or not. The more "Non-Natural" the system, the less likely will there be room for Jacoby 2NT. I'm thinking more in the line of Natural Systems. Many B/I's I've encountered play Jacoby 2NT as described by ACBL. That is of little help in knowing whether the bid is GOOD or BAD. Thanks again.

I don't yet see much on whether the Jacoby 2NT bid is good or bad. 1.) What are the arguments IN FAVOUR of Jacoby 2NT? (Law of total tricks and game forcing auction could possibly be the first two). 2.) What are the arguments AGAINST Jacoby 2NT?

Playing Jacoby 2NT, what is the recommended continuation bidding structure? I have seen different partnerships playing different structures. All have merit. But which one is recommended/optimal? As a secondary question: What are the PROS/CONS of playing Jacoby 2NT? Thanking you all in advance.

Absolutely, without the boss suit (♠) you are letting the opponents in to steal the part score. In 4th seat I prefer opening 2♥ with full values (defined as a hand containing a minimum of 14 HCP and a 6-card suit). It places partner in a better position to assess game possibilities. With ♠, I open 4th seat with a constructive 2♠ showing 8-12 HCP. Holding the boss suit, I am quite happy to contest the part score.

I use Mini-Splinters in Precision (not 2/1) as follows - OPENER.......RESPONDER ♠K4..........♠A10963 ♥AKJ92.......♥10763 ♦AQ..........♦K96 ♣9432........♣8 The bidding: 1♣[1].......1♦[2] 1♥[3].......3♣[4] 4♣[5].......4♥[6] 4♠[7].......4NT[8] 5♣[9].......5♦[10] ?[11] 1. 16+ 2. Negative 0-7 HCP 3. My suit 4. Mini-Splinter bid 5-7 HCP, 4-card ♥ support 5. Tell me more: Do you have a singleton or a void? 6. Singleton ♣ (Returning to game in the agreed trump suit confirms the splinter as a singleton. With a void the response changes – see example auction 2 below) 7. Tell me about any 1st or 2nd round control you have in side suits (1st step above game level asks for side suit controls) 8. I have 1st or 2nd round ♠ control (with no other 1st or 2nd round controls, Responder signs off in the agreed trump suit) 9. Do you have any more good news? (Bidding the splinter suit asks for more info. Without any other 1st or 2nd round controls, Responder returns to 5 of the agreed trump suit) 10. 1st or 2nd round ♦ control 11. From the bidding Opener knows that the ♥Q is missing. However holding 9 trumps Opener can play to drop the Queen. You can play safe and signoff in 5♥ or bid the slam hoping to drop the Queen. Example Auction 2 (Same hand as example 1 except that this time Responder has a ♣ void) OPENER.......RESPONDER ♠K4..........♠A10963 ♥AKJ92.......♥10763 ♦AQ..........♦K986 ♣9432........♣ The bidding: 1♣[1]........1♦[2] 1♥[3]........3♣[4] 4♣[5]........4♦[6] 4♠[7]........4NT[8] ?[9] 1. 16+ 2. Negative 0-7 HCP 3. My suit 4. Mini-Splinter bid 5-7 HCP, 4-card ♥ support 5. Tell me more: Do you have a singleton or a void? 6. ♣ Void. I have 1st or 2nd round ♦ control (With a void in the splinter suit, Responder can start showing Aces and Kings at a lower level) 7. Tell me about any other 1st or 2nd round control you may have in side suits (1st step above game level asks for other side suit controls) 8. I have 1st or 2nd round ♠ control 9. From the bidding Opener knows that the ♥Q is missing. However holding 9 trumps Opener can play to drop the Queen. You can play safe and signoff in 6♥ or bid the grand slam hoping to drop the Queen. These are but two examples. There are other suggested bidding sequences where Responder also has 5-7 HCP and 4-card support for Openers suit which only contains Queens and Jacks. Also a bidding sequence where Responders hand contains an Ace or King in the trump suit. You need a sequence to convey the message across to the Opener. Playing Mini-Splinters in Precision, other agreements are needed on how to cope with the "Impossible Negative."

MrAce, this is a great initiative from you. I have a suggestion to add regarding the later discussion of any hands played in the forums. Contact Fred (or Inquiry) to create a new forum titled something like, “BB Forums vs JEC.” There is already a forum titled “Interesting Bridge Hands.” Having a “one-stop-shop” where all the hands posted vs JEC can be found simplifies sifting through all the hands posted in the Interesting Bridge Hands forum. If someone erroneously posts a random hand here it can either be deleted or moved back into the Interesting Bridge Hands forum. I’m confident that this new forum will generate a significant amount of interest.

Zel, yes I am interested in this stuff. At best I can rate myself as an advancing player, though on my BBO profile I still prefer to use Intermediate. B/Is are taught the more common or wider accepted methods for showing 2-suited hands (the topic of this thread). This by no means implies that these methods are the best. Not knowing what the other possibilities are, how can anyone decide if there is a better alternative or not? The feedback received from these threads trigger off other possibilities which I have every intention of experimenting with. Refer to my post higher up covering Tartan Two’s. I am going to experiment with the possibilities covered in that post. If they work then retain them. If they don’t work then discard them. I greatly value your feedback. Inevitably it is both constructive and helpful. Some of the stuff that I am experimenting with is a suggested modification/improvement from you extending from an idea from me. The boundaries of bridge continue to shift. I’d hate to be classified as a conformist. Read me signature: “Everyone has the right to be wrong. Some are just more wrong than others.” That can easily place me at the top of the list of those who are wrong. I would rather try something different and failing than never having tried at all. Being a conformist will never unlock other possibilities.

Here are a few more lesser known ways for showing 2-suited hands. I stumbled across them purely by accident. 1.) Ivanhoe 2NT http://www.tractat.us/wiki/Bridge:Conventions/Ivanhoe 2.) Frelling 2♦ http://www.tractat.us/wiki/Bridge:Conventions/Frelling_2D 3.) Frelling 2♠ http://www.tractat.us/wiki/Bridge:Conventions/Frelling_2S 4.) Ekrens 2♦ http://www.tractat.us/wiki/Bridge:Conventions/Ekren

What is the frequency of occurrence of hand patterns meeting MisIry requirements?

Off topic but perhaps indirectly related. This is what the introductory paragraph says to BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard) Bridge World Standard (BWS) encapsulates common American expert practices, determined by polls, as a set of partnership agreements (and, where there is no consensus, non-agreements). It is used as a framework for problems in the Master Solvers’ Club, by impromptu partnerships, and as a basis for discussion by those who wish to formulate their own system. Where the experts are in substantial agreement (with close cases decided, when possible, by the votes of Bridge World readers at large), those methods become part of the system. Where there are competing popular approaches, alternative methods, called leaves, are listed. Where one treatment is marked [default] and another (or others) [leaf], the one marked [default] is the most popular in the voting and the one that is assumed if partners have agreed simply to play BWS. Anything marked [leaf] is an alternative that received sufficient support in the polls to be worthy of listing; partners can agree explicitly to adopt any particular leaf and still be using BWS. This is what BWS says about Minor Suit Openings: H. After Our Minor-Suit Opening (See also section I., below) Responder is unpassed except where otherwise stated. Responses: After a one-club opening, responder normally bids one diamond with longer diamonds than either major, or with four-four in diamonds and a major in a hand worth at least a game invitation; but the normal response is in a four-card major with a minimum-range response and four-four in a major and diamonds. A one-notrump response to a minor opening shows 6-10 points. A two-club response to one diamond is forcing to game except where responder rebids his suit simply after opener has not promised extra values. (Thus, in particular, one diamond — two clubs — three clubs and one diamond — two clubs — two diamonds — three diamonds are forcing. With three=six in the minors and invitational strength, responder’s normal plan is two clubs followed by three clubs.) A two-notrump response to a minor opening is natural and invitational. A single minor-suit raise is game-invitational or stronger and denies a four-card or longer major; a double raise is preemptive (but of sufficient strength to support a contract of three notrump or four of the minor opposite a balanced hand with 18-19 HCP); a double jump-shift is a game-forcing splinter. A jump-shift response shows more than ordinary game-going strength (the equivalent of 16-plus HCP), a substantial suit (at least five-card length with at least two of the top three honors), and one of three hand-types: balanced, one-suited, support. A three-notrump response to a minor-suit opening shows a balanced hand, 16-17 HCP, and little suit-slam interest. A triple jump-shift response to a minor-suit opening is natural (an exception to “one level above a splinter is Exclusion Key-Card Blackwood”). The full system can be found here http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwsall.html#IVH Nowhere in all this is there any mention of T Walsh. The questions posed in the OP are relevant and/or BWS needs to be updated (it is now 11 years old, bridge continues to evolve).

Frequency of Occurrence: Current Multi Frequency...Hand Type 2.49%.......6X♥ Suit 2.49%.......6X♠ Suit 0.85%.......Strong Balanced 0.20%.......4441 Hand Pattern 0.26%.......Strong Minor Suit 6.29%.......Total The frequency of occurrence is heavily influenced by the 2♠ and 2♥ bids. The effectiveness of this structure is reduced when your weak 2 is ♠. LHO can still show a ♥ suit on level 2. Therefore, excluding a weak 2 in ♠, the frequency of effectiveness is lowered to 3.80%. Revised Multi (under construction) Frequency...Hand Type 2.90%.......Weak 2 in ♦ 0.20%.......4441 Hand Pattern 0.64%.......Hand Pattern 3 0.16%.......Hand Pattern 4 3.90%.......Total This is slightly better than the current Multi excluding a weak 2 in ♠. If you choose to remove the 4441 Hand Pattern and replace it with a Strong Balanced Hand Pattern, the frequency of occurrence improves to 4.55%.

Thanks Zel Without realising it, you have put us back on the right path. We ran a whole bunch of hands through BBO's deal generator again. 1.) The hands with 13-15 HCP with the HCP concentrated in the majors or balanced are opened 1♥. 2.) The unbalanced hands with 10-15 HCP with the HCP concentrated in the minors are opened either 2♣ or 2♦. Pard and me are doing this whole thing as a fun excercise. The way the continuation bidding is currently structured, the above 2 pointers cope with it adequately. We will continue running sims through the deal generator and see what needs to be done about the pre-empts by the opponents. Knowing where the HCP are concentrated is the first step in coping with pre-empts. Thanks.

Absolutely spot on here, and it is for that very reason why we stipulate 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours. You need a playable suit because with a negative response from partner the contract does indeed go to the 3 level. Once you know what the other 2 hand options are in our version of the Multi, it suddenly all starts making a lot more sense. If you want to know why I loathe the current Multi, read the thread "Is the Multi 2 Worth it?"

To bring a bit more sanity to this thread, I will include the 2-level bids as well. I didn’t think this was necessary initially. The 2-level bids are there for the more distributional hands – 2♣ = 1 of the following: 6-card club suit or 5X♣ and 5X♦ or 5X♣ plus 4-card major 10-13 HCP 2♦ = Our own version of the current Multi. I absolutely loathe the current Multi. If you want some clues as to where we are going with the revised Multi, you can find some of them here: 1.) Is the Multi Worth It? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48792-is-the-multi-2-worth-it/ 2.) Flannery http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49815-flannery/ 3.) The Hated 4441 Hand Pattern http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50262-the-hated-4441-hand-pattern/ 4.) Showing 2-Suited Hands http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50655-showing-2-suited-hands/ You won’t find all the answers, but this I will say (for now). The Revised Multi we intend using includes 4 possible hand patterns a) A natural weak 6-card ♦ suit with 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours, b) The 4441 hand pattern 17-24 HCP. The other 2 will be communicated at a later stage. 2♥/2♠ = Muiderberg in 1st and 2nd seat, Constructive 6-card suit in 3rd and 4th seat 8-12 HCP. 2NT = 5/5 Majors 8-12 HCP as used by Blue Team Club. We have tested BTC continuation bidding structure and found it to be very effective. Sure you get some bad results, but they aren’t that many. You can find it on Dan’s website. http://www.bridgewithdan.com/ A lot of the threads started by myself have been to find alternatives to what is currently considered the “norm”. Others are just general information being sought by myself.