perko90

I didn't mean to post this in the Beginner/Novice thread, but here it is. Anyway, I know I'm giving away my position, but I can't see any sane use of it other than a splinter. There's no other artificial use that can't be achieved starting with a 2D cue bid instead. After all, you're forcing a ptr to bid who could have zip.

I'm posting this for a friend. Please vote in the poll.

When Opener rebids 1NT after a 1m Opening, 2-way NMF and XYZ are generally identical. XYZ is more generic and applies to other sequences like 1♥-1♠; 1NT and 1♣-1♥; 1♠. Like the name implies, if the 1st 3 bids are at the 1 level, then XYZ is on. I don't recommend XYZ for Intermediate players. Responder's hand is often better described by natural and forcing bids (my 1st ex) or Opener has a much wider range (my 2nd ex), in which case there's been long arguments on when or whether Opener skips the semi-automatic 2♦ Rebid after Responder's invitational 2♣ XYZ bid. I recommend skipping the extended version and just do the 2-way NMF version (which is definitely superior to vanilla NMF). BTW, 2-way NMF might go by its more accurate alternate name, 2-way Checkback, in the sense that there's not necessarily a new (unbid) minor involved.

I believe he's referring to the problem of having 1♦-1NT = a wide range of 6-10 HCP. I admit it's a bit of a problem. I "solve" it by mainly avoiding it with a short 1♣ approach. In this case, most of the time, the 1♦ opener will want to take another bid. But the issue hasn't disappeared entirely.

Before some posters got distracted with 1m-2NT auctions :rolleyes: , the Q was about 2/1 conventions. You've received a bunch of good advice so far. But let me just add some more: The 2 conventions that I can really think of that are geared toward 2/1 in particular are: forcing (or semi-forcing) 1NT (I slightly prefer the sf variety, but either is fine) and 1♦-3♣ = 6+ ♣s, no 4cM, invite. Also, the Nebulous 2C article above is FANTASTIC and I recommend it to all at all levels. Schuler shift (only for the 2♦ or 2♥ 2/1 auctions) is good (I use it myself), but is not essential and I don't think I'd recommend it to Intermediate players. Once you adopt the Neb 2♣, it will cover the vast majority of 2/1 auctions with the extra benefit of allowing 1M-2♦ to promise a 5+ card suit, putting you ahead of the field already without doing anything else "fancy." Extra Credit: it might be worth having the agreement that ALL dbls of 2♠ and below are NOT penalty except for ____. Honestly, I can only think of 2 situations: after 1X-(Dbl)-Redbl start and when Responder bid 1NT. Ok, if you play in a place (like the UK) where weak NT is common, you'll want to preserve (1NT)-Dbl as penalty / strength. But if strong NT is predominant (like the US) penalty Dbls of 1NT are complete trash. Of course, there are a bazillion ways to defend 1NT (I find Woolsey / multi-Landy the best). But if you want to keep it super simple vs strong NT, everything natural and Dbl = H&S is pretty simple and better than keeping the penalty Dbl. Probably sticking to one system (whatever is best vs the predominant 1NT range) is best for Intermediate players. However, if you're up for a little more complication, Woolsey does a great job of morphing vs weak or strong: vs weak the Dbl is penalty, vs strong it's 5+ m & 4cM; all the other bids stay the same.

Completely agree. The 10 HCP (bad 11) should have a 5th trump.

I fully sympathize with the issue you highlight for strong NT bidders. I shrugged it off and just lived with it for a long time. However, I now employ a system (wasn't my invention, but can't remember who to credit) that solves the problem nicely. I'll use clubs as the example, but it works fine for Ds, too (especially good if you play short club (but also if not)): After 1♣-2♣: 2♦ = <= 4 clubs, usually minimum balanced 2M = at least 4 clubs, stopper in major, implies help needed in other major 2NT = balanced, either 14 or 18-19, both majors stopped, forcing! (tada! this is what makes it click!) ** Opener continues on to 4NT with 18-19 if Responder tries to sign off at 3NT 3♣ = 5+ clubs, min, weak in majors 3NT = 18-19, both majors stopped, but < 4 clubs Responder's rebids are pretty much common sense. Any return to 3♣ by either side is a suggestion to play. Note: this is often available even when Responder raised with only 4 pcs thanks to the 2M stopper-showing bid that also confirms a 4-card club suit. And don't worry about the diamond stopper! 90% of the time, it takes care of itself and 9% of the time, it's open but the opponents lead a major. Hope that helps!

Thanks for the replies. I'm glad to see that LTC is seen to have some uses in expert circles. I admit that the target audience for the streamers I watch is for a skill level around intermediate (or a bit less). So, perhaps that's the reason they don't discuss LTC. Although they sometimes touch on advanced concepts. And I still find some nuggets even though I'm above the target audience skill range. (For ex, I discovered from a stream that 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♠ shows an invite w/ or w/o 4 Hs and is "expert standard" instead of the traditional 1NT-2♥*; 2♠-2NT). And yes, I've seen some abuses of LTC by less experienced players. The worst of which is strict LTC Ogust responses for weak 2 bids. Me: "So, you would respond 3♠ to an Ogust 2NT inquiry with xx KQxxxx x xxxx." Opp: "Yeah, for sure." Me (to self): {crazy!}.

I've watched a decent amount of Expert Bridge streamers and I've noticed nobody mentions LTC after finding a fit. I have some speculation why that might be: For finding games, it's not really needed. And for finding slams, they use the same technique that I find valuable - visualization - where they "try out" sample hands that they imagine are in range for their partner's bidding. Nonetheless, I still find LTC useful as another (imperfect) tool that I believe helps my judgment in certain situations. Have I taken too limited of a sample of streamers? Or do experts not rely on LTC for hand evaluation?

This thread has gone sideways from where I was hoping. I'll try to reel it in. I wanted to avoid the discussion about NMF vs Checkback vs 2-way NMF (a.k.a. XYNT, a.k.a. XYZ) not because I was posing a problem unique to vanilla NMF, but because I considered it COMMON to all of them. Apparently, the panel disagrees. I don't even play vanilla NMF by choice. I believe it has irreparable flaws (but mostly when Responder is interested in the minor - not in the major oriented auctions). I rarely choose simplicity over accuracy - just ask my partner! Anyway, let's reset (I'll edit my OP, too). Let's assume we're playing XYNT. My question still stands. Which do you prioritize and why?

It's well known that 4-4 fits often play better than 5-3 fits. But on the hand shown, there's nothin' stopping finding it even by starting with showing the 3-card support: 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2♦; 2♠-3♥; 4♥-All pass

Note: Edited from original post to better shape the conversation. I've seen mixed recommendations from experts over the years, but nothing with a convincing explanation one way or the other. So, I've stuck with what I first learned which was cheapest major first. But, I think I may have found a compelling reason to switch now. When responder is looking for slam after say a 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2♦ start, it seems hard to find out about 3-card support for your major if Opener replies 2♥ while keeping the auction low for exploration. I don't want this thread to devolve into a NMF vs checkback vs XYNT discussion. So, as not to debate the various flaws of vanilla NMF, we'll assume we're playing XYNT where 2♦ is a GF. There doesn't seem to be a standard treatment for XYNT continuations. I could see the 2NT rebid by Responder as an artificial "tell me more" type bid. In which case, there might be room for cheapest major 1st. But I don't see the downside - regardless of which flavor of NMF you use - to switching to showing 3-card support as the 1st priority. After all, Responder can continue with an easy and natural 3♥ bid if interested in finding a 4-4 fit. Besides, Responder will also have a 5-card spade suit, too, if choosing to start with a 1♠ reply when holding 4 hearts. So, finding out about the 5-3 fit first isn't wasted either. Did I miss something? Are there other compelling reasons to choose one way or the other?

I don't know of anyone who plays 1M-3M as a GF, and that includes a few folks in the 90+ age category. Without any discussion, playing with a pickup partner, I would assume it's invitational. But certainly treating it as preemptive or constructive has gained in popularity considerably. Recently, I've switched to 1M-2NT = an invite or better w/ 4-card support. Our response structure works better than traditional Jacoby 2NT, even with the wider amount of responder hands to handle. So, I haven't looked back. We have other uses for 1M-3m, so we don't use Bergen. For us, 1M-3M is either preemptive or constructive based on vulnerability.

I think you have a good runout. You're wise to keep XX by Responder as business for weak (and less) 1NT. The ones that advocate that Pass forces a XX have 2 weaknesses: 1) If you have a business XX, it's hard to communicate it when - inevitably - 4th seat bids 2) You let 4th seat off the hook because they now have an easy pass when they have no shape & weak hand (sometimes 4th seat can't tell who has the balance of the HCPs and may run before your side, which is a victory) I would also recommend that Opener doesn't auto XX with anything not having a 5-card suit. With 4333 shape, it's likely no worse to just play 1NTX than scramble to a likely 4-3 fit. So, in my partnership XX by Opener shows 2 4-card suits. For adjustments when 4th seat doubles, I recommend that Responder uses the XX to show the scramble hand and 2♥ = 4/4 in the majors (assuming you're always trying to play 2M when Responder has 5). For Opener, I recommend that XX is a scramble, too, but shows an anchor suit (like ♠s). BTW, I've never played 10-12 1NT, but I have played 12-14 and 15-17 and currently play 14+ to 17-. Glad you're having fun experimenting!

I've used that treatment before when I was playing a simpler 1♦ structure and needed the 2NT rebid for another purpose. It worked ok. But as long as I can fit it in, I like opening 1♦ when I have 5 of 'em. It's not just for competitive situations. I'll also be much happier if the auction goes 1♦- swish. And there's also a possibility of finding a nice D slam that others may miss. Also, while you often get to rebid 1NT with the big NT hand by starting with a short club and getting a T-Walsh response. There are sometimes where you have to rebid 2NT, too. (ex. 1♣-1♠*). Here, too, it's nice to rule out the possibility of a 5-card D suit.

If you have enough strength to reverse, then definitely open the minor. But if you don't, it's usually best to open the major and rebid the minor twice (if the auction allows), treating the hand like a 5-5.

I've been playing Transfer Walsh since shortly after ACBL made them legal (2018). What's worked for us is to play system on over X and 1♦ interference.

BTW, here was our latest accident. I led the A; ptr encouraged. I continued K and a 3rd Spade. And we never got our diamond trick. (Yes, 4♠ makes, too. But let's not get distracted) [hv=pc=n&s=s832hkt6daq9843c3&w=sqjhaq9874dt65ck2&n=sak964hdkj7ct9765&e=st75hj532d2caqj84&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1h1s4hppp]399|300[/hv]

Yes, I agree with Zel. If you adopt A for Attitude, K for count you HAVE to adjust your other leads in some way. Otherwise, you'll always be in jeopardy of falling for the Bath Coup. One way to do so without adopting full Rusinow is to lead Q from both KQx(x) and QJx(x). It's not as awkward as it first seems. As 3rd hand, if you can see either the K or J in dummy or your hand, there is no ambiguity. And even if you can't, you would normally encourage with the A opposite either holding anyway. But you will have to discourage when holding the T. At least that's a much less important problem. There are a few other times where the ambiguity hurts the defense, but it's decent and, yes, I've tried it. Anyway, back to my problem assuming A from AK. Thanks for the replies so far.

Me and my partner are an advanced partnership, but we've had some accidents of late that key around the same theme. When ptr leads A from AK vs a suit contract, how does 3rd hand signal? FWIW, our agreements are primary signal to ptr's lead is attitude. We also play UDCA. We've been signaling positive attitude for all of these situations: - doubleton and want to ruff - possession of Q - "might as well cash the 2nd card" fearing that it could go away or no switch can help the defense The now obvious problem with the above is that the leader doesn't know if it's safe to continue a 3rd rd after an initial encouragement (for ex. fear of ruff 'n sluff) Some possible modifications: 1) for this special case, a positive signal reflects attitude toward a 3rd round of the suit. Downside: Leader is on his own for whether to cash a 2nd high card; also, signaler can't always be sure when a ruff 'n stuff is threatened 2) For this special case, switch to count. Downside is apparent: Leader can't always be sure the correct continuation 3) Have some sort of hybrid agreement: one for the case where dummy has a doubleton (ruff/sluff considerations) and another for when dummy has 3+ in suit led I'd really like to hear how others handle this situation. Thanks!

When I was first introduced to Stenberg, the rebids looked something like this after a 1M-2NT* start: 3♣ = minimum (might still be enough for game); 3♦ by Responder asks for shortness 3♦ = extras, no shortness 3♥ = extras, stiff C 3♠ = extras, stiff D 3NT = extras, stiff other M 4X = extras, void showing That seemed a bit backwards to me. The weakest opening hands were allowed the most room for exploration. So, I changed it to this after 1M-2NT*: 3♣ = extras, with shortness; 3♦ by Responder asks for shortness (shows a full opener) 3♦ = extras, no shortness -- Responder has 2 ways to show the LR after the above rebids to temper ptr's expectation, but not kill slam either: 3M = LR w/ good controls and 4M = LR w/ bad controls 3M = Dead min; sign-off attempt if opposite a LR 3 other M = min, but enough for game opposite a LR 3NT = balanced, bigger than strong 1NT (18-19 for many) 4m = Good 5-card suit (2 of 3 tops), decent or better trumps 4M = bad hand for slam, but 6+ in M I'm pretty happy with the above modifications, but I'm just curious what others are doing. I can't read all the Stenberg web pages because they're often in Swedish.

Yup, we play T-Walsh, too. And, yes, we've noticed wrong-siding 1NT. But I agree with the posters here: it's mostly just the way it is and it's not that big a deal. And I definitely love paulg's inversion suggestion. I'll be stealing that! :) I'll just add one thought. Don't be afraid to take out 1NT to 2♣ as opener after 1♣-1♦/♥*; 1M-1NT with 5 Cs & 3 M.

Yes, if I had a do-over after realizing N is declarer, I agree with mikeh that playing the 9 from dummy (S) at trick 1 is the best play (to guard against a 4-0 break). But we know that both defenders follow to the 1st trump trick; so, I won't say more on that line. Whether the 9 gets covered or holds doesn't matter much if we go for the ♣ ruff plan. Exit a ♣ at trick 2. Win the trump return high in hand (N). Ruff a ♣. ♦K. Ruff a ♣. Ruff a ♥. Draw last trump. Claim w/ a ♦ entry to the board. [Pretty much like nige1]

A bit amusing. Anyway, the answer to your Q is that I was going for the dummy reversal. But as mycroft pointed out, and apparently you as well at first, I didn't look at the auction carefully and assumed the traditional South as declarer.

Need 3 ruffs in dummy. Win in hand. Ruff a ♥. Exit a ♣. Win trump return in hand (assume 3-1 break). Ruff another ♥. Cash ♦K, ♦A, ruff a ♦ high. Ruff a ♣. Draw last trump. Claim.