perko90

Thanks for all the good discussion in the posts. A have a few comments for some of the concerns. Thanks, Adam, for already addressing most of them. Let's be clear, opening 1♦ on a xx45 pattern or 1♣ with 5 Ds is a concession - not a strength. The whole point of my post is an attempt to show that refusing to make these concessions is only a small price. I think I packed a lot of good things into this approach and was willing to accept some trade-offs. For ex., when I started, I was fully prepared to concede that not having a bid to show 5 Ds & 4 Cs after 1♦-1M was a weakness. But, surprisingly, it feels like a strength. I learned early that hiding 5-5 minors is not a good thing and fixed it. But with a minimum 5-4 Ds & Cs, 1NT is actually a good rebid. After 1♦-1♥, you're ahead of the field in that responder knows you have 5 Ds. And after 1♦-1♠, a 1NT rebid that doesn't mislead partner and might be a fine final contract is handy. There's some hidden nuggets, too. For ex, when Opener has 2=2=5=4 and responder has 5=4-x-x with minimum hands, we're ending up in 2♠ (1♦-1♠; 1NT*-2♥(NF); 2♠-P) while the field is likely ending in 2m after a 1♦-1♠; 2♣ start. @DavidKok: I guess we go in the middle on our philosophy for transfers in T-Walsh. We keep it constructive with only a 4cM, but are ok with 0 HCPs with the extra safety of a 5cM. We're also in the camp of accepting the transfer with 3 pcs or 2 with a minimum balanced hand. I'm familiar with M Goetze's write-up and have borrowed ideas from it. It's beyond the theme of this thread to discuss much further, but PM me if you may be interested in seeing our T-Walsh approach. @DavidKok: I'm familiar with Yuan Shen's articles and have exchanged a couple e-mails with him on this topic. Of note, Yuan started out in my camp with opening 1D when holding 5 Ds, but switched over to "the dark side" (as he called it). I developed my approach cognizant of his suggestions, but ultimately decided to go my own way. @Zelandakh: Looks like you had already gone down the path I was suggesting in my comment to 1♦-1NT, but swapped the 1♥ and 1NT replies. Cool. @Periiz: I tend to avoid "too much" artificiality. But the 2♣ retransfer rebid by Opener is just too good to pass up. It's a 5-in-1 bid which fortunately isn't too hard to untangle because the opponents usually stay out of the way (they both already had a chance to act the 1st time). As for the age-old concern of losing the H suit after a 1♦-1♠ start, it's not that big a deal when you have a 2♥ 2nd bid by Responder as non-forcing. You'll always find the 4-4 H fit anyway, and with Opener having at least 4 cards in the Ms, you can't land in less than a 7-card fit by trying.

Intro: Ever since the ACBL loosened up the allowable conventions, we've been enjoying Transfer Walsh. T-Walsh goes well with a short club (more opportunities to use it with a balanced hand). Many pair short club with a natural, but unbalanced 1D. And now the majority of those people will open 1♣ even with a 3=3=5=2 shape. I like the concept of an unbalanced 1♦, but believe opening 1♣ when holding 5 Ds is taking a good idea too far. There's surprisingly little system detail for those who share my opinion. So, the purpose of this post is 2-fold: 1) Share battle-tested ideas on how to accommodate keeping 5-card D hands with 1♦, but trying to leverage some ideas from the Unbalanced 1♦ crowd 2) Solicit feedback and suggestions on improvements, keeping in mind the ground rule above Some of the things I like about the below structure include the following: - Immediately sorting out 3-card and 4-card raises of Responder's major - Figuring out in many situations that Opener has to have a 5-card D suit and using that info beneficially - Being able to play more 1NT contracts when it's right - Solving some hard rebid issues, like having a real rebid with a stiff S when the auction starts 1♦-1♠ or handling the Bridge World Death Hand Super Natural 1♦ Opening: 1♦ = 5+ Ds or any 4441 with Ds, usually 11-19 HCP (can also use judgment with say Kx Qxxx AKxx xxx without harm) Responses: Normal (1NT is essentially semi-forcing; usually safe to rebid a 4-card C or a 5-card D suit. Only hand that passes is 4=4=4=1 min or a bad 5-card D suit with no M shortness) [There's a possibility to make 1NT forcing and 2♣ & 2♦ natural and non-forcing. But I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.] 2♣* = Nebulous [GF, usually natural, but with a balanced hand can be short in Cs and/or contain a 4cM] Opener Rebids After 1M Response: 1♠ (over 1♥) = 4 Ss, tends to deny 3 Hs, but possible with a strong hand (e.g. 4=3=5=1 shape) 1NT* = 11-15 HCP, usually 1-2 M (only exception: 0=4=5=4 after 1♠) - If over a 1♠ response, it’s considered “balanced”(ish) (at most 5 Ds & 4 Cs) - If over a 1♥ response, it shows clubs, usually 4+ (only exception 3=2=5=3) *** Lots of ways to continue as Responder. Noteworthy: we found 2♣ as NMF (including club sign-off) and direct 2♦ as sign-off to be better than 2-way NMF. 2♣* = shows D's, either a minimum w/ 6+ D's, or 15+ HCP w/ 5+ D's *** Responder, with a minimum hand, puppets to 2♦ or rebids 2M; other responses are at least invitational strength 2♦* = 5+ D's & 3-card M raise, 11-14 HCP “Impossible" 2♥* (over 1♠) = 11-14 HCP, at least 5-5 Cs & Ds [a true reverse goes thru 2♣* retransfer] 2M = 4-card minimum raise 2NT* = 16-17 HCP usually 5 Ds & 4 Cs (includes 1=4=4=4 shape after 1♠ response) 3♣ = 5+ C's & 5+ D's, 14-16 HCPs (4-5 loser) [special rebids are OFF over ANY 4th seat competition, (including Dbl)] Opener's Continuation After 1♦-1M; 2♣*-2♦ 2NT = balanced 18-19 HCP w/ 5 D's 2M (delayed raise)= 5+ D's, 3 pc raise, invite strength 2 of new M = classic reverse 3♣ = strong, 4+ C's & 5+ D's (GF)

To pile on, 2♣ was a good bid. No, N can't pass 2♠. N should have replied 2NT in response to the 4SF bid.

If you have a forcing 4-card Limit Raise (like Bergen, or whatever), I'd use that and insist on game if ptr tries to sign-off. If you don't like Bergen, consider Stenberg (2NT = inv+ 4 pc raise). If you force me to choose between Jacoby and 4♠, I guess I'd take Jacoby, but wouldn't like it.

Just curious what others do. For context, shortly after the ACBL did away with the GCC, we've been having fun with Transfer Walsh. We play the type where we open a short club on all out-of-NT-range balanced hands except those w/ 5 Ds. We accept the transfer with 3 pcs or with 2 pcs and a minimum balanced hand. But when the transfer gets doubled we have extra options. Now we can pass with a min balanced hand with 2 pcs and only accept with 3 pcs. We don't need the redbl as support. So, we're free to choose something else useful. Since club length can get lost with short club, we use the redbl here to show exactly a 5-card club suit. As far as I know, I made that up myself. What does everyone else do?

Upside-down attitude is better than standard for several reasons: 1) It's a card-saver. With standard, sometimes using those high spot cards to encourage can cost a trick 2) Less calculation. With standard, when you have say KT42, you have to do a calculation of whether you can afford to play the high card to encourage or whether ptr can read that 4 as high. Even if you get it right, it's a totally unnecessary thing with upside-down attitude (your lowest is your lowest) 3) It's more consistent, especially for beginners, with how we teach the rest of the carding. Regardless of signals, we teach novices: "lead low if you like it and high if you want a switch." That's a form of attitude leads, which is more consistent with upside-down signals. Low = like; High = don't like. For count, it doesn't matter too much which you choose. But here, especially for novices and intermediates, with upside-down count, you're expected to switch to standard current count after the suit's been broken. This takes extra thinking for the context switching. It's unnecessary for standard count. So, for the above reasons, my favorite is upside-down attitude, standard count. And no, it's not "perverted." And, no, it doesn't get signals mixed up for situation X or Y. If you and partner don't know which situation is count and which is attitude, that's a different problem! And it has nothing to do with which method you choose!

All Vul and MP: My hand: Jx K8x AKJ98x AJ Ptr: A8 T9xx Q K8xxxx Bidding (I open): 1♦-1♥ 2♣!1-2♦2 2♥!3-3♣4 3♦-3♥ 4♥ 1 = re-transfer to ♦ (either a min w/ 6+ or other stronger hands (16+ HCP)) 2 = accepting re-transfer, < invite values, < 6 hearts 3 = 16+ HCPs, 5+ diamonds, exactly 3 hearts 4 = natural, but also confirms GF Ptr thinks I should have bid 3♠ (asking for S stopper) instead of 3♦ to end up in 3NT. I thought my 3♦ described my hand quite well. I have sympathy why he didn't choose 3NT over my 3♦ (Ax is much worse as a stopper than Axx in this auction). But I was critical of 3♥, which strongly suggests a 5th heart. I said, if not 3NT, then ptr needs to bid 3♠ (asking me for a stopper). Assign the blame. Should we end in 3NT, 4♥, or 5♣?

Thanks for the replies so far. I'm still listening :)

I think apollo's post is spot-on.

6+ months ago, we switched to Swedish Jacoby 2NT raises (showing a 4 pc raise with invite+ values) in a 2/1 context. For reference, we are using the following (standard?) Swedish rebids after 1M-2NT*: 3♣* = any minimum (may or may not have enough for game opposite an invite) -- 3♦* by Responder can ask for shortness, if any 3♦* = extras (we play K better than min) and no shortness 3♥*/3♠*/3NT* = extras (K better), and shortness in ♣/♦/OM, respectively It's been working pretty well. And in general, we play that Responder, with only an invitational hand, jumps to game after any extra-showing rebid. The problem is that sometimes Opener may still be interested in slam opposite an invite, but now has to start exploring above 4M. Don't get me wrong, it's a minor issue and in general, I really like this Swedish approach. Nonetheless, I'm wondering if it's worth redoing Opener's rebids a bit. Here's my suggested attempt at an improvement. After 1M-2NT*: 3♣* = extras with shortness -- Responder continuations: 3♦* asks; 3M says I only have an invite; others are control showing w/ at least opening values 3♦* = extras, no shortness -- Responder continuations: 3M says I only have an invite; others are control showing w/ at least opening values 3M = bare min, can't accept an invite 3OM* (and possibly 3NT*) = 1 or 2 flavors of respectable minimum, at least enough for game opposite an invite. You can use your imagination for how to divide the 2 bids (w/ or w/o shortness, 5 or 6+ trump, or whatever) The advantages of the above structure are: 1) Minimal feature disclosure when the limit of the hand is game 2) Both sides can show minimums right away (but below game) -- Never jumps to 4M when the other partner is unlimited (a common criticism of standard Jac 2NT) 3) Both sides can cooperate below game with modest extras when slam may be possible 4) Not too complicated The main disadvantage vs our current structure is that the shortness ask when opener is a minimum has to start higher or just forego it. So, please let me know if you like my suggestion or if you have a favorite suggestion of your own, or if you believe I'm over-thinking the weakness of our current structure.

I think you're already getting some good advice. I wanted to make 1 clarification and 1 suggestion. When you heard that following 2/1 books may not be good in a Precision context, I think the good news there is that your auctions, for the most part, will be simpler. And those areas should be easy to spot if you are using 2/1 books as a reference. So, I don't see the harm. Anyway, the biggest thing I wanted to share that I've adopted in the last few years is that 1M-2♣ is a "nebulous" treatment. In other words, 2♣ = real clubs or a balanced hand. Similarly, a 2♦ rebid by opener = diamonds or balanced. Why would you want to do that? Well, it's rather easy to untangle (if responder doesn't bid NT at their next opportunity, then the clubs are real) and it makes all the other sequences much clearer. Now, 1M-2♦ = a 5+ card suit; 1♥-2♣; 2♥ = an unambiguous 6+ card suit; etc. It really helps in many practical situations. See here for more description: https://www.bridgewebs.com/ocala/The%20Nebulous%20Two%20Club.pdf

Is opener's bid a weak NT? It makes a difference.

My favorite from my local club. A weak player to his partner immediately after the session, "42 percent!? How can that be? I didn't make a single mistake and neither did you."

After 1♦-1M, the 2♣* rebid includes a minimum hand w/ 6+ Ds. Responder only accepts the xfr if they would have passed a natural min 2♦ rebid by opener. With inv+ hands, responder needs to make a move.

BTW, since posting this, it's become apparent to me that after 1♦-1♥, switching the meaning of opener's rebids of 1♠ and 1NT is very beneficial. Even though I'd like to keep the artificiality to a minimum, the treatment is too irresistible. So now opener's rebids are: 1♠ = 11-15, clubs or balanced OR 16+, natural w/ 4 Ss. Forcing. Responder can use a modified XYZ with an invitational or GF hand. Opener should break the 2♦ relay after responder's 2♣ with the strong, natural spade hand. Responder, with a minimum hand, chooses a rebid among 1NT, 2♣ (intending to pass out the 2♦ relay), or 2♥. 1NT = 11-15, 4 Ss. NF. Responder's rebids can be the same as if it had gone 1♦-1♥; 1♠. For the 1♦-1♠, the rebid structure straube suggested can work. Or, you could even flip the 2♦ and 2♥. Losing the 2♦ landing spot of 5/5 minor hands doesn't seem like a huge loss (you often get pushed to the 3 lvl anyway) and there's still room for responder to rebid 2♠ to try to get out cheap. This gains a 2♦ landing spot for whenever opener has a 3 pc raise and responder only has 4 Ss and some Ds. It's probably just personal taste at that point. @msjennifer: I can treat a strong 3=4=5=1 hand similarly to what you'd do in standard. In standard the bidding would go: 1♦-1♠; 2♥ and then bid Ss at the next opportunity. So, in this treatment, it'd go: 1♦-1♠; 2♣*-2♦; 2♥ and then bid Ss at next opportunity. Yes, in some sequences, responder may not be convinced you have real 3 pc support, but you should have company.

I like Walsh, too. But especially then, this is a 1♦ response with the plan to do a "Responder's Reverse" (GF hand with ♦s longer than ♠s). I'll bid ♠s at next opportunity.

I think we're saying the same thing. Showing encouragement as low when leading and high when following is confusing and unfortunate to be called "standard." I was merely wishing that reverse attitude when following was considered standard because it's both technically superior and more consistent with leading conventions (which are always low encourages).

I'm an American that prefers upside-down (reverse) attitude and standard count. However, I'm not currently playing it because my partners prefer both upside-down C&A. Popularity: I think UDA is slightly gaining in popularity. At an Open section in a local tournament, I'd say maybe 2-3 pairs out of 15-20 tables (30-40 pairs) play it. UDCA is definitely most popular, followed by all std. As an aside, if you don't know whether you're giving count or attitude, that's a whole 'nother problem - not related to any conventional agreement. UDA has a clear advantage: it's a card saver and brain saver. There's no need to do any calculation of whether playing a high spot to encourage could cost a trick. UDC, on the other hand, isn't as clear that it's an advantage. Actually, this is how I started playing UDA only. As a novice, I learned all standard. When I found out about upside-down carding, I suggested playing it with my partners. My main partner only agreed if I could prove the usefulness of making the switch. I could only prove the case for UDA and so that's the only thing we changed. Why prefer std count? I think at least part of this is that "expert standard" when playing UDC, is to switch to std count after the suit is broken (present count). For me this extra wrinkle is enough to prefer std count. As a side note, I really wish upside-down attitude was called "standard." After all, it's most consistent with the way we treat spot cards in all other situations. If you want your suit led back, you lead .... small. If you want a switch, you lead ... a high spot ("top of nothing").

I like it. Thanks!

Wow! That's a strong statement from someone who's no stranger to creative bidding. I very much like that the 1NT rebid offers a chance to get out cheap in misfit hands. And still hints at diamond length (only 1=4=4=4 hand opposite a 1♠ reply doesn't have 5). I'm also fond of differentiating a 3-card raise from a 4-card one (with the 2♦ rebid). And the 2♣ re-transfer is much better and flexible than a standard 2♦ rebid. I recognize the weakness of not having a good, cheap way to rebid clubs, but it seemed worth the trade-off. I'll contemplate your feedback some more.

Seriously?! That's a cheap shot from the person who opens 1♦ promising 0 diamonds. I'm pretty sure we have very different views on what constitutes common sense bidding. And I'm OK with that.

My list would be (some have already been mentioned): 1) RKC 2) Raising the negative Dbl limit 3) Figuring out what sequences are forcing after 1M-2X. -- Forcing to at least 2NT is a good start; getting 3-card LR out of the 2/1 structure is important, too (either include in the 1M-3M LR or add a semi-forcing 1NT) 4) Ogust instead of Feature (ok, probably not *most* important) 5) Inverted Minors 6) Remove penalty double from 1NT defense (actually requires a lot of discussion and isn't very good vs strong NT). Replace with Dbl = H+S

Thanks to the rules change in ACBL, We're now able to play Transfer Walsh responses to 1♣ in a 2/1 system. It's been working quite well. Naturally, it makes sense to move a bunch of the balanced hands into 1♣. So, we play short club. We still feel that balanced hands with 5 ♦s are best left in 1♦. As a result, our rebids after 1♦-1M are: 1NT = semi-balanced, 11-15 HCP w/ 1-2 cards in ptr's M. (rarely, 0454 possible after 1♦-1♠) 2♣ = Request to re-transfer to 2♦ (either intending to play w/ min 6+ D hands or continue with various invite+ hands and 5+ ♦s) 2♦ = 5 ♦s and 3 pc min raise 2M = 4 pc min raise I know there are alternative methods. But the above is working well and I'm happy with it. So, I'm not really requesting feedback on the structure. It's there for context. The question is, given the above structure, what's the best way to handle 5-5 in the minors after 1♦-1M? Possibilities include: 1) Rebid 1NT with a min, jump to 3♣ with an invite and re-transfer to 2♦ and then bid 3♣ with a big hand Remarks: No, you don't really want to play in 1NT on this shape. But in practice, it probably only comes up rarely because opponents will usually have and find their fit in the other M. And if they don't find it, then playing 1NT, even if sub-optimal, may not be too bad. 2) Same as #1 above but move the 5-5 minors min hand to an opening 2♦ Remarks: Cleanest solution with a nice preempt effect. But is it worth giving up the weak 2♦? 3) Use the jump to 3♣ for the min 5-5 hand, use the re-transfer to 2♦ and then bid 3♣ with an invite and move the strong hand to 1♣ with a planned 2♦ reverse Remarks: The overload of the reverse may seem odd, but it's not too hard to unwind from a standard reverse shape

Thanks guys! That's the stuff I was looking for. I'm actually surprised the 8 is even worth 0.1 HCP. Speaking of spot cards, just today, we defended a fun hand where after a few upper cuts, my partner was able to draw declerer's last trump (a 6) with his 7! Down 2 for a good board.

I know I've seen it before - usually in the context of trying to correct Milton point count. Somebody's done some computer analysis to determine the theoretical values of (usually) the honor cards. Something like A=4.4 K=3.0 Q=1.7 J=0.9. What I'm interested in is the relative values of the spot cards for trick taking. Something like T=0.4 9=<.1 8= tiny fraction 7=microscopic etc. Assuming a NT context is fine. My intuition is that 9 is about the lowest spot card that is meaningful toward "texture." But 8's aren't really worth considering. But I'd like to see some computer analysis. Can anyone point me to some? Thanks in advance.