relknes

Most people play 2N with a 2 point range, whether it is 20-21 or 21-22 or whatever, but I have heard that some advanced pairs (Itallian, I believe) used a 3 point range without much trouble. So how much of a disadvantage is it to use a 3 point range, like 19-21? I realize that you will have to be happy landing in game with 19 oposite 5, and not landing in game with 21 oposite 4, but how much of a problem is that?

I like Straube's idea of using 2M-1 for the raise instead of drury, and having the 2m bids show a weak hand with a 6+ suit and no support. How is this for a response structure? 1♠ (over 1♥) = 4+, 8-11 points 1N = 8-11, denies 4 spades or 3+ support 2♣ = 5-9 points, 6+ clubs, denies 3+ support or 4+ major 2♦ (over 1♠) = 5-9 points, 6+ diamonds, denies 3+ support or 4+ major 2♦ (over 1♥) = 10+ support points, 3+ hearts 2♥ (over 1♠) = 10+ support points, 3+ spades 2M = 6-9 support points, 3+ support JS = mini-splinter, 4+ support, 9-11 HCP and a singleton in the bid suit As you can probably tell, we open all 12+ HCP hands. We also open 10-11 point unbalanced hands that are not 4441. Our preempts in first or second seat show a 6+ suit, less than 10 points, and follow the "Rule of 2 and 3."

I was wondering, given that most strong club systems routinely open 11 points hands, and often open shapely 10 point hands, what responses people use when you have passed and partner opens 1M. Obviously, you cannot force to game without a great fit. But do people still play a new suit as forcing for a round to differentiate between 3 and 4 cared support, or is it better to use 2m as a suggestion to play and just raise partner's suit with 3 card support? Or do people play 2m as some form of Drury?

I also open 2N on these cards, rather than 1♣.

2N - 3♣ 3♦ - 3N P I don't think I need to translate here...

So far, the strong club system that my partner and I have been working on has tried to make the 1♣-1♦-1M auctions mirror our 1M opening auctions. For instance, after 1♥ (showing 5+ hearts, 10-15 HCP, and 5-8 losers) responses would be: 1♠: 4+ spades, 8+ points (or a good 7) 1N: 10-13, 0-2 hearts, 0-3 spades 2m: 4+, GF values 2♥: 3+ support, 6-9 HCP or the ability to cover 2-3 losers (so a hand like a side singleton and an outside ace would qualify) JS: mini-splinter, singleton with 10+ working HCP and trump support 2N: GF with good trump support, but no singleton or void 3♥: limit raise, no singleton or void And after 1♣-1♦-1♥ (showing 16-~21 HCP, possibly an upgraded hand with 4 losers, 5+ unless 4441 shape) the responses would be: 1♠: 4+ spades, 5+ points 1N: 5-6 points, 0-2 hearts, 0-3 spades 2m: 4+, 7-8 points 2♥: 3+ support, 3-6 HCP or the ability to cover 1-2 losers (so a hand with nothing but a side singleton would qualify) JS: mini-splinter, singleton with 4+ working HCP and trump support 2N: 7-8 points with good trump support, but no singleton or void 3♥: preemptive So any sequence that was GF now shows ~7-8 points (or a hand that upgrades to that strength). I am, however, concerned about the mini-splinters. I am basing the numbers around the assumption that the strong club opener should have a 6 loser or stronger hand: thus, if my hand can cover 2 losers we are safe at the 3 level (analogous to splintering oposite a 8 loser or stronger hand when you figure you can cover at least 4 losers with your 10 HCP and a singleton) We did this for simplicity, but I am not sure that they are analogous because opener could have only 4 hearts. Then again, I hate to add a whole lot of complexity just to cater to the occasional 4441 hand... What do people think? should I redesign these sequences completely, or just make slight tweaks (such as requiring 4 card support for the mini-splinters)? Thanks in advance.

Sorry all for posting again, but I realized N had a much better action. I must be tired this morning... 1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ 2N - 4♠ Translation: S: 16+, N: 0-8 S: 4+ spades, 16-~21, N: 6-8 points, 4+ S: 4+ hearts, 5+ spades, N: spade preference S: 18+ points, exactly 5-4 majors, diamonds stopped, 5+ controls, N: real spade support, 0-3 controls note: I upgraded North's hand to invitational because if south only has 4 spades, there is a 10 card club fit, so I can coult the singleton for points Also, in regards to the previous auction, I can't picture a laydown slam oposite a perfect minimum (the minimum for a splinter there is a good 4 HCP with the singleton) so south should have bid 4♠ over the splinter... like I said, I must be tired.

1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ - 3♦ 4♣ - 4♠ 4N - 5♠ P Translation: S: 16+, N: 0-8 S: 4+ spades, 16-~21, N: 3+ spade support, singleton diamond, invitational+ S: 5+ spades, 16+ working points, 5+ controls, heart control, 2 of top 3 trump, "Do you have first or second round control of clubs?" N: "No first or second round control of clubs" S: "Do you have the last of the top 3 trump?", N: "No" S: lets play 5 spades Note, 1♠ will only have 4 if it has a 4441 shape with a singleton heart

I usually go by the theory that you should at least investigate slam if it could be cold opposite a "Perfect minnimum." Here, once opener has shown 5+ clubs, it is cold opposite the ♥A and ♣Q, so once they are known to have a minimum of 6 points, slam is worth a check. Looking back, I do think I pushed too hard on the hand where the ♠3 was replaced with the ♠J. There, a perfect minimum no longer gets you to a cold slam, so I would probably have left it in 3N (a case of me resulting, unfortunately). I do think we find it opposite the 2♠ or the 3♣ bids. If you look back at what I posted before partner's hand was revealed, I think that should show that slam was being considered, so long as there was no spade wastage. Now, will I find it 100% of the time over the board? Probably not. But I think I would have to be having a prety bad day to not have slam at least cross my mind with a hand like south has, so I think if slam isn't reached it is on account of my own blunder. I really did enjoy not seeing partner's hand. I always wonder if I am resulting, and in fact I think the later 1N hand proves that I sometimes do. I wish we could do more bidding with the other 3 hands hidden, but after a few rounds I realize that such a thing becomes impractical...

1♣ - 2♣ 2♥ - 3♣ 3♠ - 3N P Translation: S: 16+, N: 9+ points, 5+ clubs, unbalanced S: 4+, N: 6+ clubs S: 5+ hearts, 4+ spades, 19+ points, N: diamonds stopped, 0-3 controls S: lets play 3N

If the ♠3 were the ♠J, then a 1N response to the double would be in order (for our system anyways). 1♣ - 1♦ -(1♠) X - 1N 2♦ - 2N 4♣ - 4♥ 6♦ Translation: S: 16+, N: 0-8, E: overcall S: takeout double, N: 6-8 points, spades stopped for NT S: 20+ points or 0-3 losers, 5+, N: balanced hand, stoppers in clubs and hearts S: Gerber, N: 1 ace S: to play

As far as rebidding 3♣, this one is close. I would normally want a better suit, a longer suit, or another point or two. The thing that makes it possible is that the other rebids available to the system are not too attractive either. After 1♣ - 1♦ - (1♠) - X, responder has to choose between the following distortions: 1N = 6-8 points, spades stopped for NT (I don't like lying about the spade stopper here) 2♣ = 0-5 points, prefers clubs to either red suit (This bid is the worst of the options, in my opinion) 2♠ = 6-8 points, spades not stopped, no biddable suit (This is less attractive because of the two red-suit doubletons, since partner will be counting on support) 3♣ = 6-8 points, good 5 card suit or any 6+ suit (this hand is pushing the definition of good) Really, only the last two are contenders, in my opinion, so I will give two auctions, depending which road North picks. Auction 1: 1♣ - 1♦ - (1♠) X - 2♠ 3♦ - 3♠ 4♥ - 4♠ 6♦ Translation: S: 16+, N: 0-8, E: overcall S: takeout double, N: 6-8 points, no spade stopper, no biddable suit S: setting ♦ as trump, N: "I have first or second round control of hearts, do you have first or second round control of spades?" S: "Yes, and I have two of the top 3 trump and first or second round control of clubs, do you have first round control of hearts?", N: "Yes, do you have first round control of spades?" S: "That A of hearts was all I needed to know. Lets play 6♦" Auction 2: 1♣ - 1♦ - (1♠) X - 3♣ 3♦ - 3♠ 4♣ - 4♦ 4N - 5♣ 6♣ Translation: S: 16+, N: 0-8, E: overcall S: takeout double, N: 6-8 points, 5 good clubs or 6+ clubs S: 20+ points or 0-3 losers, 5+, N: no spade stopper S: setting ♣ as trump, N: "Do you have 1st or 2nd round control of diamonds?" S: "Yes, and 1st or second round control of both majors, but do you have two of the top 3 trump?", N: "No." S: to play South has no qualms about going to slam, it is hard to picture a hand that would have bid 3♣, dosn't have spades stopped, has no points in diamonds, and can't produce two of ♣A, ♣Q, ♥A, and ♥Q. Funny, in a way, that ours is the only system that might end up in 6♦

By the way, straube, I kind of like not being able to see the other hands. Even though it makes the explanations a bit more difficult and long winded than a simple bidding sequence, I like knowing that I am not just resulting (I always try not to, but it is hard to know for sure when everything is right in front of me).

For us the auction starts 1♣-1♦-(1♠) X - 3♣ 3♦ - ? This is influenced by the fact that 1♦ was 0-8 points and 3♣ by shows 6-8 points with a decent 5 card suit or any 6+ suit. Doubling and bidding a new suit after a strong club shows a very strong hand (usually 20+ HCP or 0-3 losing tricks) with a very good 5+ suit. If partner signs off at 3N, I will pass since there are wasted values in spades (that would sow a hand with spades stopped for NT, leaving partner with 3-5 working points). If partner bids hearts, I am going to cuebid spades to agree to hearts and start slam investigation. If partner cuebids spades asking for a spade stopper, I would bid 4♣, agreeing to clubs and asking partner to start reverse-cuebidding. If partner raises diamonds I will start reverse cuebidding, and we will probably end up at slam in diamonds. If partner rebids clubs, I will cuebid 4♠, agreeing to clubs and they will reverse-cuebid (they will bid 4N without 2 of the top 3 trump, or 5♣ to show 2 of the top 3 trump and no outside first round controls, and anything else is impossible unless they have a void somewhere)

If he was balanced oposite flat, 3N is odds on to play as well as 4M in spite of the fit. If he was unbalanced, he should bid his second suit and allow you to show delayed support (ie 3 cards). Either way, it dosn't seem to be a problem... If partner dosn't like playing in 3N with a 5-3 fit with balanced facing flat, then let him know you are going to bid 2♣ on a 3 card suit there, or else convince him to take up 5 card majors. Those are prety much the only options.

1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ - 1♠ 1N - 2♣ 2♠ - 4♠ Then west calls a misdeal when he sees that he and north both have the 10 of clubs, and there is no K of clubs anywhere... But anyways... Translation: S: 16+, N: 0-8 S: 16-21 points, 4+ hearts, N: 5-8 points, 4+ spades S: 16-18 balanced, N: 5+ spades and 4+ clubs S: simple preference, N: to play

I assume their 1♣ is forcing? If so, you could try something along the lines of: P = 0-7 that can't preempt or 17+ X = 8-16 points, 4+ clubs, canape 1x = 8-16 points, 4+, canape 1N = 13-16 balanced 2x = 8-12 points, 6+ 2N = bad 3 level preempt in any suit 3x = good quality preempt 3N = bad 4 level preempt in any suit 4x = good quality preempt so overcalling in a suit and rebidding it shows 6+ and 13-16 points, passing and bidding a suit is natural and shows 17+ points, and passing and doubling later is for penalties. Might not be best, but it looks kind of fun.

That depends on how you define range, and how you are counting your points. Two hands of 10 HCP each can have vastly different playing strength. Axxxx KQJxx xx x is a much stronger hand than: Axx xxxx Kxx QJx The first has 6 losers and the second has 9, despite both of them having 10HCP. The first is a clear 1♠ opener for us, while the second is a clear pass. These are not even that extreem of examples; both are hand you might expect to see if you play an evening of bridge. If hands that you bid 1♥-1N-2♦ include hands that have aywhere from, say, 4-8 losers, then that is a wide range in my opinion. I do agree with you, however, that reserving 1♥-1N-3m for 6-5 hands is not the most efficient use of space. For us, that sequence means a two suited hand with 14-15 HCP and 5 losers that doesn't have both of the other suits stopped (so, a hand like the one in the OP if the ♦6 had been the ♠6), which also might not be the best but seems to make life easier. Of course this may also be influenced by the fact that a 1N response in our system is non-forcing, easing pressure on the 1M-1N-2m sequences.

The reason that I picked a 1♣ opening here is that oposite as little as Qxxx Qxx Jxx xxx I want to be in game, but I don't have any methods that would let me find it, since I expect partner would pass with stronger hands than this. I realize that interference can make life difficult over a 1♣ opener, but if I thought that was a convincing argument not to open 1♣ I wouldn't be playing a strong club system. As it is, I prefer to limit my 1M bids to 5 losers so that hands with a few stray quacks don't have to worry about missing game.

1♣ - 1N 2♥ - 4♥ P Translation: S: 16+ (upgraded on account of being a 4 loser hand), N: 9+ points, balanced (prefered over 2♣ here) S: 5+ hearts, N: 3+ heart support, 0-3 controls, inability to splinter S: lets play 4♥ North could also have responded 2♣ without changing the auction, but I prefer the 1N bid with a 5 card minor on most hands that qualify, especially with the notrumpish values.

This is a minimum double for me. With 4333 shape, I want a full 13 points (though I would consider it with 12 if the 4 card suit were a major).

3N there would show 16-18 points. South could "lie" a little and bid that way (in fact I was tempted to) but since North had not yet limited their hand, slam was still in the picture and I decided I would probably show the extra strength just in case. Without first round control of hearts I would be a bit more tempted to lie and go 3N, showing my strength if partner pushed on with a slam try. Granted, it is a bit of an akward situation. Every system has akward hands, and ours happen to be strong misfit hands. If North had 11+ points here, for instance, they would probably bid 4♥ showing either 5-3-1-4 or 5-3-0-5 and 11+ points. Since it is highly unlikely that South has 5 hearts (they would have to be 6-5 in the reds), I don't worry about raising hearts there with that shape and 9-10 points, since South will push on with 4♦ if they are 6-5. Like I said, strong misfit hands can be really akward for us. That is actually a good argument for South opening 2N on this hand (which I was also tempted to do). I decided, however, to make the "book" bids to make sure I wasn't just resulting.

1♣ - 1♠ 2♦ - 3♣ 3♥ - 3N P Translation: S: 16+ points, N: 9+ points, 5+ spades, GF S: 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, N: 4+ clubs S: 4+ hearts, 19+ points, N: 9-10 points S: lets play 3N

Let me preface this by saying I am not overly familliar with Acol. I think that bidding 3♥ there shows some interest in game (maybe 5-7 HCP with your shape). With 2 points, you don't belong in game unless partner had enough to open with a strong 2. Pass, and if you end up in 2♥+2, then that's partner's fault for not showing their strength.

Using a fairly basic strong club with reverse-cuebids, I would bid 1C - 1N 3N - P Translation: S: 16+, N: 9+ balanced, no 5 card major, GF S: 16-18 balanced, no 4 card major unless 4333, N: lets play 3N