relknes

Using a fairly basic strong club with reverse-cuebids, I would bid: 1♣-1♦ (1♥) 2♠-3♣ 3N Translation: S: 16+ points, N: 0-8 points, E: typical overcall S: 6+ spades and 9+ playing tricks, N: 5-8 points, natural S: to play

Using a fairly basic strong club with reverse-cuebids, I would bid: 1♣-1N 2♦-3♦ 3♥-3♠ 4♣-5♣ 6♣-6♦ Pass Translation: S: 16+, N: 9+ balanced, GF S: unbaanced, 5+ diamonds, N: diamond support, 4+ controls S: Do you have 1st or second round control of hearts?, N: yes, do you have first or second round control of spades? S: Yes, and two of the top 3 trump, do you have first or second round control of clubs?, N: Yes, and first round control of both majors and one of the top 3 trump, do you have first round control of clubs? S: Yes, as well as second round control of both majors and the J of trump, do you have third round control of clubs?, N: no. S: then 6♦ it is.

Playing a fairly straightforward strong club with reverse-cuebids: 1♣-1♥ 1♠-1N (or possibly 2♦, which would not change the subsequent auction) 2♠-3♠ 4♣-4♦ 4♥-4♠ Translation: S: 16+, N: 9+ points, 5+ hearts, GF S: 5+ spades, N: balanced (or 4+ diamonds if chosing the 2♦ bid) S: 6+ spades, N: 4+ controls, 2 spades S: 2 of top 3 spades, no 1st or 2nd round control of clubs, N: Clubs controled, but not diamonds S: Diamonds controled, but not hearts, N: No heart control, signoff

For me, 4♣ and 4♦ show a 5 loser hand with a 7+ suit vulnerable, or a 6 loser hand with a 7+ suit non-vulnerable (that don't qualify for a gambling 3N and don't have 11+ HCP). With 1 less loser, I would bid 5♣ or 5♦. 4♥ and 4♠ show a simmilar hand type, but I won't preempt at the 5 level, and a self-sustaining 6 card suit is ok. 3N is a "gambling 3N" showing a solid 7+ minor and no outside A or K. 2N, if you want to use it as a preempt, could show 5-5 in the minors and a hand with 6 or fewer losers vulnerable or 7 or fewer losers non-vulnerable, with 0-10 HCP.

On the first hand: ----- 1♠ - 4♥ and you are off to the races since opener knows the shortness is working On the second hand: ----- 1♠ - 4♥ - 4♠ since opener can see that there are wasted values in hearts On the third hand: ----- 1♠ - 3♠ - Pass Or, if you are not playing 2/1, the third hand might go: ----- 1♠ - 2♣ - 2N - 3♠ - Pass so to say that fit showing jumps are the only way to bid these hands acurately seems like an exageration.

People have mentioned Strong Jump Shifts, Bergen Raises, Fit Showing Jumps (54+), Weak Jump Shifts (0-5), and slightly less Weak Jump Shifts (4-8). I hope it is not off topic if I bring in "Mini-splinters" where a jump shift shows inv+ values, 4+ support, and a singleton in the bid suit. I am a fan of these since it allows opener to re-evaluate based on distribution of values. They seem a lot more useful for evaluating how the hands fit when they come up, though I am not sure exactly what their frequency is.

I have two questions. I realize as I ask them that they may seem strange because no one in their right mind would say that SAYC is not GCC compliant, but I can't for the life of me figure out where the GCC permits the methods, and since methods are disallowed unless specifically permitted I feel like I must be missing something glaring. First, and most strange, I can't find where the GCC allows natural openings or responses. I see where it defines them, along with defining "Convention" and "Relay system" etc, but not where it actually says you can use them. Second, and the reason I started looking at this, is that I can't see how a potentially non-natural, non-forcing 1N is allowed in response to 1M. For instance, over 1♠, 1N says nothing about balanced or not balanced, it simply says that you don't have enough points to bid at the 2 level. Since it is non-forcing, it dosn't fall under #2 of responses and rebids, and since partner's opening wasn't strong and forcing, it dosn't fall under #7... so where is it permitted? Thanks for taking the time to answer this somewhat rediculous question.

I always thought it would be fun to play this scheme: (1♣)-2♣ = 4+ spades with 5+ in a red suit (1♣)-1N = 4+ hearts with 5+ diamonds (1♦)-2♦ = 5+ clubs with a 4+ major (1♦)-1N = 4+ spades with 5+ hearts (1♥)-2♥ = 5+ diamonds with 4+ spades or 5+ clubs (1♥)-1N = 4+ spades with 5+ clubs (1♠)-2♠ = 5+ hearts with a 5+ minor (1♠)1N = 5+ clubs with 4+ diamonds The ambiguity in the cuebid will never prevent advancer from giving perfect preference if the opponents decide to try to set you. For instance, after (1♥)-2♥-(P): 2♠ = wants to play in spades if overcaller had diamonds and spades (overcaller passes or bids 3♣ to allow advancer to give preference between minors) 3♣ = wants to play in clubs if overcaller has diamonds and clubs, but in diamonds if overcaller has diamonds and spades 3♦ = wants to play in diamonds regardless These are easier to remember than it seems: the cuebid always promises the suit below and one of the two suits above, while the 1N overcall always promises the two suits above opener's suit.

I think you are allowed to play anything EXCEPT a "relay system," which is defined as a sequence of relays that starts with opener or responder's first call. (definitions #5 and disallowed #5)

The GCC allows "All constructive methods starting with the opener's second call", (#8 on the GCC)

I think this hand is too weak to invite hearts, so I voted for the takeout double. Absent partnership agreement, I would take partner's cuebid as looking for a spade stopper to play 3N. I could also see it as agreeing hearts, however. Competitive auctions are tricky, by nature, and this situation should really be discussed. The basic situation of opponents agreeing a suit and you showing a suit of your own is frequent enough that a cuebid should be well defined for a consistant partnership, imho.

3N. I go by the general rule that if you can't see a way that a "perfect minimum" is a virtual laydown, then sign off in game rather than risk getting too high. Here, 12 perfectly placed points just don't seem to do it.

Stayman is covered under item 10 on the general chart (all calls are allowed after a natural NT opener that promises at least 10 points and has a range of 5 or less high card points). It is also not a relay because opener's response says something about their hand, where a relay bid tells opener something and their response says nothing other than a desire for more information (hence the "tell me more" terminology). You might consider a 2♠ response to a 1N opening in SA to be a relay, since it is a puppet to 3♣ and says nothing further about opener's hand, but that is still covered under item 10 of the GCC. Also note that relay or puppet bids themselves are ok at midchart, but a "system" of relays (and no, I can't define that precisely) has to promise game forcing values.

Because at the midchart level, a relay system must promise game forcing values.

here is one idea: 1♥ = 3+, 11-13 balanced or 16-18 points 4+ 1♠ = 3+, 11-13 balanced or 16-18 points 4+ 1N = 19-20 balanced 2m = 16+ points, 4+ (5+ if 16-18) 2M = 19+ points, 5+ 2N = 23-24 balanced 3x = 3 or fewer losers, 5+ After 1♣-1♦-1♥: Pass = 0-4 points, 4+ hearts 1♠ = 0-7 points, 4+ 1N = 13+ points, GF 2m = 0-7 points, 4+ 2♥ = 5-7 points, 4+ After 1♣-1♦-1♠: Pass = 0-4 points, 3+ spades 1N = 13+ points, GF 2♣ = 0-7 points, 4+ 2♦ = 0-7 points, 4+ 2♥ = 0-7 points, 5+ 2♠ = 5-7 points, 4+

Thanks, that does put it in a bit more perspective. I was working under the assumption of a natural overcalls system, not pass, double, and 1♦ being strong and everything else being destructive as Martel says about his system.

The first pass seems odd with this hand. I could see bidding (1C)--1N, or (1C)--X, or even (1C)--1H depending on partnership agreement and style. I can't see pass being a winning bid long term, though it happens to work out well sometimes. If they end up playing a 2C partscore and it turns out you had game cold (which really dosn't take that much from partner) you will regret not jumping in when you had the chance.

To be fair, it isn't totally unheard of. The "Tangerine Club" uses the same 1♣ opener. Not saying it's good, just that it is not quite as crazy as we have made it seem.

a sweedish club (11-13 balanced or 17+ any) has the same idea, in principle, as your 1♣ without being so overloaded. You might want to look into a sweedish club with a 2 way diamond response (where 1♦ is either a hand so weak it can't force to game even oposite 17+ or else so strong that it can force to game even oposite 11-13). This avoids using up quite so much space when you are exploring slam. To reach 2 NT without having agreed on a suit is trouble if you find yourself in a misfit. Shape is as important (probably more important, actually) as the point total.

I am considering dropping the 5 heart 4 spade hands out of the 1♦ opening, and just opening them 1♥ like everyone else. Mostly this will make things easier in competition, but it will also make it easier to check for stoppers in NT after a 1♦ opener when responder has no 4 card major. For those interested, my current thoughts on replies are: 1♦ = 11-16 points, 4 card major (good quality if balanced), not 4333, if 11-13 balanced then 44 majors .....1♥ = 4+ hearts, 6+ points ..........1♠ = 4-4 majors ..........1N = 4 good quality spades, balanced, 14-16 points, denies 4 hearts ..........2♣ = 4 spades, 5+ clubs (possibly 4441 with a singleton heart) ..........2♦ = 4 spades, 5+ diamonds ..........2♥ = 4 hearts, denies 4+ spades .....1♠ = 4+ spades, 6+ points ..........1N = 4 good quality hearts, balanced, 14-16 points, denies 4 spades ..........2♣ = 4 hearts, 5+ clubs (possibly 4441 with a singleton spade) ..........2♦ = 4 hearts, 5+ diamonds ..........2♥ = 4-4 majors ..........2♠ = 4 spades .....1N = 8-11, no 4+ major .....2♣ = 5+ clubs, no 4+ major, 10+ points ..........2♦= 5+ diamonds ..........2♥ = 11-14 points, 3+ clubs, hearts stopped for NT ..........2♠ = 11-14 points, 3+ clubs, spades stopped for NT ..........2N = 13-14 points, both majors stopped for NT ..........3♣ = 4+ clubs, neither major stopped for NT ..........3♦ = 15-16 points, 3+ clubs, diamonds stopped for NT ..........3♥ = 15-16 points, 3+ clubs, stopped for NT, no diamond stopper ..........3♠ = 15-16 points, 3+ clubs, stopped for NT, no diamond or heart stopper ..........3N = 15-16 points, diamonds hearts and spades stopped .....2♦ = 5+ diamonds, no 4+ major, 10+ points ..........2♥ = 11-14 points, 3+ diamonds, hearts stopped for NT ..........2♠ = 11-14 points, 3+ diamonds, spades stopped for NT ..........2N = 13-14 points, both majors stopped for NT ..........3♣ = 5+ clubs ..........3♦ = 4+ diamonds, neither major stopped for NT ..........3♥ = 15-16 points, 3+ diamonds, stopped for NT, no diamond stopper ..........3♠ = 15-16 points, 3+ diamonds, stopped for NT, no diamond or heart stopper ..........3N = 15-16 points, clubs, hearts and spades stopped for NT .....2M = strong jump shift .....2N = 12-13, no 4+ major, no 5+ minor

Thanks. That is very helpful. What conventions do you use when the opponents interfere over 1♦?

Ahh, I see. Sorry for misunderstanding your point. I see your point about several types of raises, and it brings to mind something I have been thinking about. At the risk of getting a bit off topic (is there such a thing as hijacking my own thread?) I have been interested in the aplication of mini-splinters to the LTC. As I mentioned, the LTC is notorious for duplicating values when shortness faces shortness, or when shortness faces kings and queens. The clasic way to acurately show where your shortness is would be through a splinter (or in this case a mini-splinter). So, with the ♠AQxxx,♥xxxx,♦x,♣xxx hand, when partner opened 1♥ you would bid 3♦, showing 8 or fewer losers, 4+ trump support, and a singleton diamond. Partner can then reevaluate their hand very acurately. 1♥-3♥ would then show a hand that has invitational strength and 4+ trump support, but no shortness. Is this kind of what you meant by "mixed raises"? The drawback, of course, is that you lose the ability to make a strong jump shift, but I have some doubts about their usefulness anyways since the context is limited openers and a 2/1 GF framework.

Something like this might be fun: Pass: 0-7 or 17+ 1x: 8-16, 4+ 1N: 11-13 balanced 2x: 8-10 unbalanced, 5+ For followups to the 1x bids, you could use a fairly simple system simmilar to acol or standard american. After an opening pass 1C: 17+ or 11-13 balanced 1D: 0-7 or 8-10 balanced 1M: 8-16, 4+ unbalanced 1N: 14-16 balanced 2m: 8-16, 5+ unbalanced (except for the 1D response, these are all forcing to game oposite a strong pass and to play oposite a weak pass)

I have 3 concerns about your suggestion. 1) this fails to address most of the problem hands that I was worried about. It does great on the 4441 hands with a singleton minor, but with a singleton major you would have to open on a 4 card suit. It is also fine for hands with 4 spades and 5 hearts, but hands with a 4 card major and a 5 card minor suffer. 2) the frequency of the bid will be too low. 3) too many unused sequences at a low level. Sequences like 1♦-1M-2m are all completely unused. I can see the benefits for competitive bidding, but the cost to uninterupted sequences just seems too high. The benefit of 1♦ showing a 4 card major is that the followups are all very descriptive at a low level, and that the other opening bids are much narrower (it allows 5 card majors, and 2m bids that don't run nearly as much risk of missing a good 2M contract, as well as allowing you to play either 2M or 1N with a balanced hand with a good 4 card major). This is, in a way, the oposite philosophy to 1♦ showing both majors. It has large benefits in uninterupted sequences, but at the cost of making competitive sequences more difficult.

That is exactly my point. Responder's hands have to be stronger in proportion to how much weaker opener is expected to be... my question was how much weaker is opener expected to be in terms of their LTC. If you have duplicated values in 2 suits (a singleton oposite AQxxx and a singleton oposite KJxx in your example), it is true that you go down unless the spade finesse works and you can dump a loser on the A before they cash their winners (which seems unlikly). It is also true that with perfectly working values, you will make an overtrick. This is true in any evaluation system, but particularly true in the LTC which is notorious for overvaluing kings and queens oposite shortness as well as overvaluing shortness oposite shortness. I am prety sure, however, that an 8 loser hand oposite a 7 loser hand is predicted to make 3 according to the LTC... 24-7-8=9. The fact that this prediction is sometimes going to over or underestimate the tricks actually taken is true of any evaluation system, HCP or LTC or otherwise. Your issue seems to be with the LTC itself, which is understandable.