antonylee

Going back through the Montreal relay thread I noticed that what I said (1M response must be "natural", with whatever meaning "natural" has) is wrong. The correct answer is (probably) "1M must be either natural or GF" (though it is (probably...) not legal to combine both). Well, that opens up other possibilities...

Yes, the problem is with 1H and 1S, not with 1D. Without starting an exegesis of what the GCC really says, assuming that they must each show 4+ in the bid suit is a (probably) a reasonable interpretation.

Why do you think so that the method is unworkable without conventional responses? Something like 2N=natural invite; 3C=3+, NF; 3M=GF sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure you can find useful and natural meanings to the remaining bids.

I don't see how this is relevant then. The GCC only prohibits conventional "understandings" over such an opening, not natural ones (for whatever meaning you attach to "conventional" and "natural").

Pretty sure that they don't (no Blackwood, penalty doubles and redoubles, etc.). At least every time I've played against (or with) them. CPU=?

The alert I got from them is "unbalanced, exactly 4 cards in the major, not 4 in the other major", e.g. 42(61) hands are included as well (and 43(51) too).

I am pretty sure I know the pair Stephen was playing (congratulations, by the way!) and no, their 2M doesn't include (31)(45), though it does include (41)44. Looking at mid-chart again, only 12) (Muiderberg), 14) and 16) (altogether, a 2H opening showing 5+4+ in the majors) are about "natural" bids (in the sense that they show the major BID, not just any major). Logically I assume such bids would be allowed if 8+ (well, if the ACBL is consistent with itself at least). In any case, "much of mid-chart" is not about "natural" bids.

Sorry to insist, but let's say 1S-2C 2D-2S 2N-3D 3H (assuming this shows perhaps honor doubleton of hearts in a 5242 hand?) ... what is now the difference between 4C, and 3S-3N(frivolous, or offer to play, depending on your agreement)-4C? In both cases 4C should be a club cue with spades agreed, right? For what it's worth, I play a strictly up-the-line control cuebidding style, together with (something similar to) LTTC.

I think it is quite clear that in a Walsh framework, 1C-1D is an underused sequence (not claiming I came up with anything brilliant here), thus the apparition of transfer Walsh which reallocates 1D, 1H and 1S to optimize the use bidding space. Unfortunately, transfer Walsh is not GCC legal, no matter how much you complain. Still, GCC allows any (forcing) meaning for 1D, so I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid. In particular, I was thinking of having it include weak(ish) hands, say 3-6HCP, with both majors, using some artificial rebids by opener to allow responder to signoff in 2M when needed, though I didn't work that out fully. But I'm sure I'm not the first one to have that idea, so any contribution is welcome!

In a fairly standard 2/1 framework, assume the auction starts 1M-2m-2red-2M. M is now set as trumps and a GF has been created. I now use the 3-level to show concentration of values (for slam evaluation); I guess cuebidding controls works too even though I don't like it. But in any case, while both partners are showing COV or controls on the way to 4M (or higher), there are two bids with no simple "natural" meaning: 3M and 3N. Well, some may actually use 3N as an offer to play, others (most players, in fact, I guess) as serious or as frivolous. But what about 3M? I'm trying to come up with a useful meaning for bidding 3M, or bypassing 3M, on the way to 4-level cuebids, and interested in hearing about your treatments.

I disagree, the bid shows 4 cards in a major which by itself makes the bid natural: "An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit" (GCC). This also does not satisfy a)ii) of WBF BSC, and is thus not BSC. Yes, natural bids are not specifically allowed by GCC but note that natural 1M openings aren't specifically allowed by GCC either; thus logically it implies that all natural openings are allowed. On the other hand such an opening bid is restricted by - Disallowed 1) Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods (I guess the ACBL ruled that 8+ made it non-primarily destructive, whereas 6+HCP Muiderberg is primarily destructive... don't ask me :-)); and - Disallowed 7) CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after [...] and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit (note that the wording makes it reasonably clear that such an opening is legal; only conventional responses etc. are illegal).

Funny, I would have thought it is T/O; otherwise you have no bid(?) with AKxx xx AKQx AKx.

Hi, I used to play the following with a few French juniors, a couple of years ago: X=4♥5any or 55 majors (X followed by 2♥ shows 4♥5♠, X followed by 2♠ shows 55) 2♣=4♠5any 2♦=multi 2M=5M4m When I moved to the US I put the one-suiters in X and moved X and 2♣ up one step, to 2♣ and 2♦. I think such methods are reasonably playable but I now prefer being able to show the long major immediately (or at least with a multi 2♦ call).

I know there's another topic about a 5-0-0-8, so this one is just slightly less impressive... IMPs [hv=pc=n&s=skj76hadak987654c&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1cd1hp2h]133|200[/hv] Now what? At my table South bid 4♦ (undiscussed), fetched a 4♠ response and East came back in with 5♥(!)... then?

I have it at the bottom of page 1 (1♣-1♠; 2N-3N).

Increasing the range of 1♦ is certainly an option, as well as using a 20-21 2N (the transfer scheme seems reasonably simple). I should also give more of a thought to making 1♣-1♦-1♠ forcing, putting all WNTs into 1♣-1♦-1♥. Yes, this could lead to some silly partscores but this is assuming the opponents are disciplined enough to start by passing with strong hands (probably good defense against Polish club in general... but not that common here in the US :)) and anyways we could in theory already land in 3-1 fits currently (1♣-1♦-1♥(WNT 3+♥ or stronger options)-P(0-(3)4 any))... not that it ever happened to me. I feel having WNTs with better ♠ in the 1♠ rebid only allows for a tiny extra precision in scrambling (especially when it could still be 3♠2♥).

Good point, I will give it some thought. I just noticed that the discussion is effectively about the following: assuming you have all the bids starting from 2♦ to describe 20+HCP hands (2♣ is already taken for 15+, 5+♣), what is the best way to allocate these?

Sorry to start another convention chart thread but... I was planning to play Polish 2Ms in some mid-chart event when I realized that the ACBL defense database only has defense for 2M=5M4m and 2H=weak both majors, but not for 2H=5H5any (incl. 55Ms). Is that correct that such a convention is actually NOT allowed at mid-chart level? [please, no rants on the ACBL convention charts, we all hate them (I just broke my own rule) but that's life]

You may get too high with 21 opposite 0 but perhaps the good way to put it is that you won't be in a worse spot than the standard bidders (actually, because partner has described his hand a little bit, you're still in a very slightly better spot than after 2♣-2♦-2M). Not saying that other systems aren't better (note the double negative here too :-)) but I'm just trying to play Polish club not too badly right now...

Right now I am playing the WJ05 structure: 1♣-1♦-2M = 21-23 strong NF (à la French standard 2♣-2♦-2M), 1♣-1♦-2♦ art. GF (2♥ double negative, higher bids various semipositives -- again we're basically in the same spot as French standard with the big exception that responder already had a chance to deny values). Especially with big ♥ hands this can be awkward, so I was thinking of changing this to 1♣-1♦-2♦/♥/♠: good 20+, F1, continuations like over std. 2♣-2♦-2M (so 3♣, or perhaps just next step, double negative -- to be decided) This gains on 20+♦ hands (especially 5♦4M) and GF ♥ hands (and perhaps we can even make 1♣-1♦-2♦ specifically start at 18+ or so given how hard it is to bid strong 5♦4M hands in WJ...), basically at the cost of having to jump to 3N on GF balanced hands and sometimes playing at the 3-level when we could have bought it at the 2-level -- a price that seems reasonable to pay. Any opinions?

♦J lead to set up two tricks (don't cash the second one before the end), then ♠ from either hand (3 tricks) when in with a ♣ (1 trick)?

Mostly out of laziness I just play (nearly) the same thing as over 1x-1y-1N: 3♣ puppet to 3♦ to play or for slam invite (3N=slam try in opener's minor); 3♦ simple checkback; 3M NF (if non-reverse).

But there is a big difference with standard here, which is that responder does not need to strain to respond 1♥. So if he has a 7+ hand it seems like 1N (if not 4♠) or a raise to 2♠ (at least) are always available and useful (of course sometimes you'd like to play in a moysian at the 1-level, sometimes you can guess they won't balance despite you finding an 8-card fit at the 1-level, but you see what I mean). So it seems like playing 1♠ as NF is really catering for a small range of hands for responder. Actually I think some versions of PC have 1♠ as always strong (as in 15+), with weak hands rebidding 1N (as in standard). Of course there is still the argument of hiding the strong hand, but once the minimum 4♠5♣ hands are removed (as compared to standard) it seems like at least the issue of sorting out opener's strength (what I dislike when playing standard and rebidding 1♠ on any hand with 4♠) is less important.

What would it show?

In my basic approach, responder is allowed to correct to 4♠ (opener showed 18+ and 5♠). If opener is unbalanced strong he can start with 2♠ over 1N (also strong, though could still be only 5crd but then with doubt about 3N) - note that 2♣ would be canape (5♣4♠ 15-18ish) and at least for me 2♦ would be canape too (catering for the 18-22ish hands because a direct 2♦ is already occupied by strong 3+♥ hands). Indeed another reasonable auction could be 1♣-1♥ 1♠-1N 2♠-3♣ 3N but over 1N it is already too late to right-side the contract (to protect the ♣K) so I'm not sure showing doubt about 3N is the best approach here.