kreivi68

Norberto Bocchi himself has written articles about it: http://youth.worldbridge.org/a-norberto-bocchis-tip/ http://youth.worldbridge.org/a-norberto-bocchis-tip-3nt-opening-ii/

I sacrificed 5♣ + 4♥/♠ hands in my own method called Valiant to be able to show 6+♣/♦. It goes like this after opponent's strong 1NT opening: X= a) a club one-suiter or b) 5♥/♠ + minor -> 2♣ asks partner to pass with clubs, to bid 2♦ with diamonds and a major or 2♥/♠ with that major and clubs. 2♦ is a relay knowing that in the case a) we end up at least on the three-level (intervenor's 2♥/♠ show major and a minor and 3♣ clubs). Advancer's 2♥/♠ are natural signoffs. 2♣= a) a diamond one-suiter or b) both majors -> 2♦ asks overcaller to pass with diamonds and to bid longer major with majors (2NT= 5♥-5♠+ and extras). Advancer's 2♥ is P/C with 3+♥-card hearts and short spades, 2♠ is natural signoff and 2NT asks (3♣= majors; 3♦= 6+♦ minimum; 3♥/♠= diamonds, major stopper and extras). 2♦= 5+♦ + 4♥/♠ -> 2♥= P/C; 2♠= natural; 2NT asks (3♣= hearts, min; 3♦= spades, min; 3♥/♠= 4-card major, extras) 2♥/♠= 6+♥/♠ 2NT= a) both minors or b) 6+♥/♠, too good to bid 2♥/♠. -> After advancer's 3♣/♦ overcaller passes or bids major with b). Valiant was published in The Bridge World magazine in September 2019.

I only read about first bids somewhere back in the 90's when you could face strong pass systems here in Finland (written defenses were allowed). Then I wrote developments myself. But unfortunately I don't have my notes anymore because nobody plays HUM systems anymore (strict ruling on them also here nowadays). One thing is that advancer should be eager to pass partner's X with either overall strength and/or length in the fert suit. And I think that I used 1NT as an artificial relay bid while suit bids were weaker. Transfers could also work after X starting from 1NT. And of course we are bit on the shaky ground after X but opponents are even more so. The idea of Antinonse was that it had the same logic whether the fert opening was 1♦, 1♥ or 1♠. It works best against 1♦: 1♥/♠= natural, 11-15 X= diamonds / balanced 1NT= clubs 2♣/♦= 5♥/♠, 16+ 2♥= 4=4=1=4, 11-15 2♠= 4=4=1=4, 16+ 2NT= minors 5-5+

Swedish Antinonsense defense is worth considering. It is based on transfers. Against a 1♥ fert: X= either hearts or balanced, gives better chances to penalize 1♠= spades, 11-15 1NT= 5+♣ 2♣= 5+♦ 2♦= 5+♠, 16+ 2♥= 4=1=4=4, 11-15 2♠= 4=1=4=4, 16+ 2NT= minors If the opening is 1♠: X= either spades or balanced 1NT= 5+♣ 2♣= 5+♦ 2♦= 5+♥ 2♥= 1=4=4=4, 11-15 2♠= 1=4=4=4, 16+ 2NT= minors

This is something that my friends play. Multi 2♦ contains either weak two, big balanced or GF with diamonds. Opener bids after 2♦-2♠: Pass= spades 2NT= big balanced 3♣= hearts 3♦= 6+♦, GF 3♥/♠= a four-card major, longer diamonds, GF 3NT/4♣= diamonds and clubs, GF After opener's 3♣: Pass= long clubs 3♦= heart invite 3♥= signoff 3♠= 6+♠, GF (constructive if you wish) 3NT= 5♠, CoG 4♣/♦= 5-5+ in spades and a minor, GF

This is a modification of my method called Mixed Transfers (see The Bridge World 6/2019). 1m-1M; 2NT 3♣= 5+M, denies four cards in the other major 3♦= Both majors 3♥= 4M + clubs 3♠= 4M + diamonds 3NT= To play 4X= Autosplinter, 6M 4M= To play After 1m-1M; 2NT-3♣: 3♦= no major support (3♥= 5M+clubs; 3♠= 5M+diamonds; 3NT= To play; 4X= 6M, cue; 4M= 6M, mild SI) 3M= 3-card support 3oM= 4-card major support 1m-1M; 2NT-3♦: 3M= support assuming 5-4 3NT= no major support (4♣= 5-5, SI; 4♦= 6-4, SI; 4oM/M= natural, to play) 1m-1M; 2NT-3♥: 3♠= club support after a 1♦ opening or real club opening with 4+ cards, not willing to pass 3NT 3NT= no club or major support 4♣= 4+ clubs, good hand Higher= 4-card major support 1m-1M; 2NT-3♠: 3NT= denies diamond support (or slam interest, if the opening was 1♦) 4♦= diamond support (or good hand if 3♠ already showed diamond support) 4X= 4-card major support

It depends. Heart raise is ok with three-card support, if responder has a short side suit, good controls or strength is concentrated to hearts. With balanced hand and lots of queens and jacks best bid is 1NT.

I am from Finland I have played this kind of system. Although we had a weak NT opening (12-14) and a semiforcing 1NT response 1M opening - but the problem is the same. We decided to tackle this in the following way: if opener has 15 HCP and balanced hand, he has to decide before making an opening bid whether it is good 14 or bad 16. So with 15 HCP opening bid is either 1NT (good 14) or 1M (bad 16). If responder bids semiforcing NT after 1M opening, opener has just enough to invite with 2NT. Not the perfect solution because the range of 1NT opening and 2NT invite gets wider - but it worked ok.

I haven't played such a system, but this comes to my mind: 1♠-2♥: 2♠ = min 2NT = extras, majors 5=4/6=4 3♣ = natural, extras 3♦= 3+♦ support (including 18-19 balanced) 3♥ = 5♠+5♥, min/max 3♠ = 6+♠, self-sufficient suit 3NT = 5=3=2=3, 18-19

I have arranged these bids a bit differently after 1NT-2H; 2S: 3♥ = Single-suited, GF (either 5♠332 or 6+♠, slam-try) -> 3S asks: 3NT= bal; 4X= cue, 6♠ 3♠ = 6♠, INV 3NT= 5♠, CoG -> Opener bids always 4♠ with support

You seem to have two bids for same the hand type after Stayman and 2♦ response: 3D = GF with 5+H and 4+S. Could be 5-5 majors. 3S = Smolen. GF with 5+H and 4S. Could have SI 5440 Could it be better to use 3♦ here for 5-5 majors INV+ (3M= declines; 4♣/♦= accepts and agrees ♥/♠)

If you play Namyats convention or similar, you can add one-suited major blockbusters to it. I wrote an article about the idea to The Bridge World (July 2016) called SuperNamyats. So 4C/D opening would be either strong preempt or very strong one-suiter with heart/spade suit. After responder signs off in 4H/S opener continues with strong variant: 4NT is key-card ask, new suit is Exclusion Blackwood and jump to 6C/D shows strong two-suiter missing only one honor in either suit. This leaves 4NT opening for more useful purposes.

More information about Stenberg in english: http://www.acblunit390.org/Simon/Stenberg.htm

It is almost standard to play 2NT response after a major opening as INV+ raise in Finland where I live. We and the swedes call it Stenberg, though. As you noticed, there are some difficulties in continuations. Even if opener shows extras, both players are still unlimited and responder has hard times when he has just a limit raise. That may lead to useless cue bidding or space eating jump to game. Furthermore, opener reveals short suit (or lack of it) even with some 14 points which leaks information to the opponents, if there is only game. My solution is to split opener's strength in three ranges. After 1M-2NT: 3c= 11-13 -> 3d asks for short suit; 3M= limit raise; 3NT= choice of games; new suit= strong splinter (15+ or so) 3d= 14-16 -> 3h asks, other= see above 3h= 17+ -> 3s asks 3s= Unidentified void, not absolute minimum -> 3NT asks; 4m/h= limit raise and weak side suit (accepts slam try only if opener has void in this suit) 3NT= 18-19 balanced 4m/h= Jump in new suit shows good 5-card side suit, not absolute minimum 4M= 6-card M, minimum (expects to make facing INV)

Gambling is very infrequent, true. But the idea is to have meta defence that works also against 3NT preempt with either minor. And that is quite common.

It helps if you play some sort of defence against Gambling. I recommend Multi Landy, so bid 4C to show both majors. If partner makes simple preference (4M), you can ask for key cards because partner's possible key card(s) is not going to be the ace of diamonds. If partner asks for longer major with 4D, jump to 5S.

Just play normal 2D Odwrotka and put minor hands to 2C. Something like: 1C-1M; 2C = 5m 1C-1M; 2D = 3+ M support 1C-1M; 3m = one-suiter, 17-19 After 1C-1M; 2C you can bid natural 2M/3m (6 cards or 5-5) or relay with 2D: 2oM= 4M + longer minor 2M= both minors, 17-19 2NT= both minors, 20+ 3m= one-suiter, 20+ Cheers, T.

In theory, yes. But if opener has 12-14 and responder 0-4, they are probably not going to declare, Not without penalty double at least. :) So I think that range is not that wide IRL. T.

+1. When responder transfers to 2M to play there, she has still weaker hand than weak 1NT opener. So there is something to protect. Negative side is that transfer gives opponents more possibilities to enter the stage. T.

+1 for Straube. As a newcomer I feel this kind of welcoming downgrading. I've had my share already. You should support people to make posts, otherwise these forums are just for insiders. Sometimes posts are stupid, I know. But still, you need people to participate to keep discussion alive. Totally f***d up posts lead sometimes very important and valuable conversations. And if you don't like them - just ignore, like Fluffy said. Cheers, T.

Hi Zel & rest. For your knowledge: Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal had something to say about FP in their book Partnership Bidding at Bridge (1993). They also set clear rules. See pages 45-49: http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/PartnershipBiddingAtBridge.ZIP Yours, T.

I would like to add one more defence. This is something I've been playing: X= Take out of their shown suit Their shown suit at one level= four cards in other major + longer minor (Raptor) Their suit at two level= Michaels T.

According to Pietro Campanile Kamikaze is winner. He has done statistical analysis on hands in Bermuda Bowl and EC to figure out which NT range is the best. http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/Which%20NT%20range%20is%20the%20winner.pdf Any comments on this article? T.

My method is to pass with club stopper and answer stayman without it. There is one good reason. It doesn't matter if pass shows or denies stopper after 2NT but it does after 1NT. 1NT-P-2♣-X ? If NT opener doesn't have stopper LHO is more likely bid 3♣. That's why I want to show my majors immeaditely if I don't have clubs stopped. And after 2NT I just want to play same method than after 1NT

Anybody willing to play Multi 2[diamonds (or two-suited 2-openings) should read the following article by Pietro Campanile. It gives something to think about. This guy has done statistical analysis of Bermuda Bowl, European Championships and Olympics and laid down the question: does Multi really work against weak two's? http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf