perko90

I agree that 1♣-2♣ does not need to deny a 4cM. Often enough the PC 1♣ opener will have real clubs and starting with a forcing raise (regardless of 4cMs) is the best way to have a constructive auction.

While it's certainly good practice in a standard auction to bid a longer minor before a 4cM with a game forcing hand, I don't think the same is true in PC. 1♣-2♦ is a well known awkward start to an auction in PC. Why complicate it more with the possibility of also having a side 4cM? I think agreeing that 1♣-2♦ denies a 4cM is the simplest solution. I would rather have the problem of convincing ptr I have a longer minor and a GF hand after 1♣-1M than trying to untangle the "Do we have a 4-4 fit?" "Do we have a slam?" type Q's after 1♣-2♦.

Back to Dinarius ... Absolutely, vs strong NT, using the Dbl conventionally is the best use. But the proposed method has LOTS of weaknesses. Dbl = minors OR either major is sub-optimal. As has been pointed out already, showing the minors should not be a top priority and certainly not for a good use for the most flexible call of the entire defense. Adding in either major doesn't make it better either. 2M natural or 2D multi style is more preemptive and easier to compete (especially with 2M natural) if the other side continues on. "2 1/2 level" overcalls, especially when the 2nd suit is unknown, like your 2♠ bid is either unsound if 5-4 either way (it often gives advancer an impossible problem to solve) and if 5-4 but known which suit is longer(such as shows 5 in the major), you are still in dangerous territory and you've lost half the hand types that may want to overcall. If 5-5, it's safe, but seriously restricted on frequency. If your M + m hands can be 5-4 either way, it's a big benefit to offer the choice for either at the 2 level. This offers some degree of safety when advancer with equal length guesses wrong. That's why knowing which is longer (M or m) can sometimes be more important than knowing which specific suits. That's the beauty of Woolsey's Dbl = 5+ m & 4+ M bid. It gives advancer a better chance of getting to the best fit. If you still prefer knowing which suits are which (but are ok with the 5-4 either way concept), Meckwell does it quite safely. Or let me offer up this which has more emphasis on the major but still has 2-level safety: X = H + another suit (could be S) 2♣ = ♣ + ♠ 2♦ = ♦ + ♠ 2M = natural Advancer to the Dbl, bids 2♥ w/ 4. With less than 4, they bid the cheapest minor they're willing to play in. Overcaller passes or corrects. With a H + S hand, overcaller corrects to 2♥ with 5 H's or 2♠ with only 4 H's and 5 S's. This tends to select the correct major fit even tho there's no direct H + S call.

That's NOT how it works when 2♣ = majors. Advancer only bids 2♦ with equal length and takes a 2M preference with ....well ... a preference. It works quite well in practice.

Agree. That's why I put the assumptions in my OP. Specifically, raise implies no 4CM (exceptions exist, especially for slam-going strength, but I'm excluding it from the design space). And a single raise does not assure an 8-card fit.

Yeah, agree with this meaning for the 1st action. And I would choose to use it. 5♠.

Thanks for all the replies! I think my partnerships wouldn't tolerate too much artificiality (such as Justin's system). Although I found it interesting how much he de-emphasizes showing stoppers / right-siding. I did see Steve W.'s article before posting. It has an internal consistency, but I wasn't crazy about returning to 3m w/ only a 3-card suit and such. I did, however, take away the importance of describing when opener has extra trump length and the notion that 2NT can be forcing (which was never the case in any treatments I had played previously). It seems like "next step = minimum" is popular. I always shy away from showing splinters when 3NT is within the possibilities. It seems bad to give the defenders a blueprint, but at the same time, it helps in choosing NT vs 5m/6m. I guess I'm still on the fence whether it's a good idea. I don't think I can get away from 2NT being natural in some sense. Even if using next step = minimum, 2NT retaining a "happy to declare NT" message is appealing a la Wesley's treatment. If you have more ideas, I'm still listening.

100% agree with every point above.

I'm interested in some feedback. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on the best follow ups in a strong inverted minor sequence. I know that inverted minors were originally designed to work with a weak NT, and I admit the 2NT rebid really shines there. Nonetheless, let's make the following assumptions: 1) 1NT = 15-17 2) No criss-cross or other mixed raises, i.e. 1m-2m has to handle all inv+ hands 3) 1m-2m allows a 4-card raise for at least some sequences (only w/ GF strength?) 4) 1m-2m implies no 4CM 5) Minimum balanced opener follows Rule of 20 plus 2 Quick Tricks (fairly solid by today's standards) 6) 1♦-2♣ is not game-forcing (allows some alternative auctions with < 5-card support) I learned and played the following method for years (Root & Pavlicek style): 1m-2m = 10+ support pts, no 4CM, 4+ trump (5+ if less than 10 HCPs) Rebids: 2NT = 12+ to 14-, doesn't guarantee stoppers anywhere 3m = minimum, but 4+ in minor 2X = stopper showing, Q better than open, and promises 4+ in minor 3NT = 18-19 balanced This leaves 2 tough situations: 1) Responder w/ 11+ - 12 HCPs has a tough guess of whether to raise to 3NT 2) Opener commonly has a rebid problem with a balanced minimum and an unstopped major It seems better for the 2NT response to promise at least partial stoppers in the majors and, if non-forcing, be only a 2 pt range. If you promise 5+ support for the 2m raise with only invitational strength, opener's 2NT rebid could be forcing. The 2X bid described above is sweet when it comes up, but it may be a luxury I can't afford. Aug 2016 update: After listening to all of your fine feedback, I've been playing the following: 1m-2m = 10+ support w/ 5+ card raise or 11+ HCPs w/ just a 4-card raise, no 4-card major (may have one w/ a slam-ish hand, but no real way to uncover) Opener Rebids after 1♣-2♣: 2NT = 13++ to 14 HCPs, balanced, stoppers in majors (one good partial stopper allowed e.g. QTx) OR 18-19 HCP balanced (w/ 4+ clubs), forcing 1 rd 2♦ = 12-14 HCPs, balanced, implies short clubs (3334 ok) not good enough for 2NT 2M = stopper, confirms 4+ clubs, any strength (with a min, opener will try to return to 3♣ next round) 3♣ = strong 5+ clubs, weak in majors, minimum hand, NF 3NT = 18-19, only 3 clubs or 3334 Opener Rebids after 1♦-2♦: Similar to above except 3♣ is natural with 5+ diamonds & 4+ clubs, GF [aside: with exactly 4432 and no artificial minimum waiting bid available, stretch to bid 2NT or "cheat" and bid 2M anyway] Rebids by Responder: With only invitational values, Responder only has 2 choices: return to 3m (with a known 8-card fit) or a minimum NT bid (doesn't promise stoppers in the unbid suits). Any other bid confirms a GF and is stopper/control showing. It's been working well and much better than what I started with. Thanks again for the help!

The most common application for my question arises from 1M-1NT auctions when a responder uses a forcing 1NT and then takes a pref to 2M holding a doubleton vs an auction that uses non or semi-forcing 1NT and retains the option of playing 1NT instead. Can anyone point me to some computer simulations to see which is the best contract in the long run - 1NT or 2M? We can assume a 5332 opener, if that helps. Does one win over the other? Are there qualifiers (suit quality, for ex.)? Thanks for any insight.

Wow! Even before I read this reply, I was going to give almost the same advice. So, I'll go into some detail. I don't recommend Hello. And for me, Cappelletti is about the worst defense against NT you can find! Here's some things to consider when looking for a NT defense (I'll assume a strong NT) 1) Safety 2) Flexibility 3) Preemption 4) Usefulness Out of these principles, a few themes come to light: 1) Finding a major fit is a secondary concern 2) Penalty doubles are a waste over strong NT: you won't get rich; they can escape into contracts they couldn't without the double like 2m; they have Rdbl and the option of forcing pass, your side doesn't 3) A bid showing the majors should be low level - it's already preemptive just by owning the suits and if it's below 2♦, ptr can ask for a preference 4) Assuming you want to "get in there" with 5-4 2-suiters, keeping these as much as possible on the 2 level (starting low) is highly preferred 5) Save the higher bids (2♥,2♠) for the safer, less flexible hands (usually natural 1-suiters fit well here) 6) Mystery 1-suiters aren't preemptive and sometimes you can miss a really good fit 7) "2 1/2 level overcalls" 2M = suit + mystery minor and 5-4 either way are unsound and just playing with fire; to tame it you have to promise which is the 5-card suit and/or specify which minor you hold (either way, it cuts down on the flexibility/usefulness and still isn't overly safe 8) Overcalling 3m is safer than you think (opps usually give up the direct penalty double) and rather preemptive (for ex., they can't confidently determine who has the stopper) Now you can see why I dislike Capp so much! (and not crazy about Hello) On the good side, I recommend Meckwell (w/ X being only majors) or Woolsey. Now that Woolsey's GCC friendly, I give it the nod. It gets bonus pts because, as mentioned above, you can switch to multi-Landy by just changing the meaning of Double against weak NT (where a double is reluctantly kinda necessary) and you can "cheat" against str NT with Dbl when you only have a long minor, but are afraid of taking the 3 level plunge. And in the spirit of Zel, I'll offer my own Str NT defense : ) DBL = H's + another suit (5-4 either way) - 2♣ and 2♦ are both pass or correct bids (BTW, overcaller corrects to 2♠ w/ 5+ S's and only 4 H's) 2♣ = C's + S's 2♦ = D's + S's 2♥/2♠/3♣/3♦ = nat'l 6+ card suit It has a nice balance between safety and preemption and has a mild tendency to find the majors more than some of the safer alternatives (DONT, Meckwell, etc.)

I know this is just a variation of a strip and throw-in endplay. But it seems unusual enough that W (assuming it takes trick 9) has a choice of leading away from a winner or conceding a ruff/discard that it might have a fancy name. http://tinyurl.com/oh6769s Just curious.

You definitely want the ability to play 3m opposite a weak NT. The 2nd hand in particular REALLY wants to get to 3♦. Anything less than Axx for opener in D's, and 1NT becomes a huge uphill struggle with the D's likely dying in the vine. You also don't want to let the opps get in a comfortable balancing bid either. As for system, when I played weak NT w/o transfers, we played 1NT-3m to play. We played 1NT-2NT as a long suit invite with "crash landing" responses (as Danny Kleinman dubbed them). The opener rebids the cheapest minor they could NOT accept an invite in - or 3NT if accepting all invites. So, for ex., 1NT-2NT; 3D = "if your long suit is clubs, please bid 3NT; if it's diamonds, please pass." It's optional, but we included 6-card invites in the major, too, because it fits well and otherwise those hands can sometimes get lost in sequences that start w/ Stayman (especially w/ interference). Same rebids by opener either way. It put the 2NT response to good use and off-loaded some pressure from Stayman. We also used Murray 2♦ instead of the more popular GF Stayman, which meant a 2♣ Stayman bid always had some values, so you could really punish the opps that got out of line! A Stayman sequence and then a 3m rebid was used for the 5m & 4cM hands, where ptr doesn't hit your 4cM.

More worried that 5♠ isn't enough than too much. My H holding opposite a void and expected at least Q-5th of trumps is delightful. On a bad day, you have 2 D losers and a C loser, but I can think of more hands that give 6 a play.

Agree with above. For as much as I love weak NT, it loses its luster in 4th seat.

I prefer a 5♣ opening preempt. But whether it starts with a preempt or the way the auction presented started, I think getting to a Grand is tough. On the given auction, after 5♣, E will be counting tricks. A reasonable assumption is that W has AKxxxxx and an outside high card. But that's only 12 tricks. A 13th could come from finding Kxx in diamonds or setting up the H suit. But you could just as easily have an unavoidable H loser, like xx xx Kx AKJxxxx. Too much of a guess to bid the Grand. And if you back up the auction more, second guessing E's reasonable 3♠ bid seems like "resulting" it to me.

I think I would have opened 2NT (but not really liked it). With no fancy agreements, I would try 2♠ (but not really like that, either). This isn't quite the right hand (but close). I like 4♦ to show long strong D's and a good 3 pc raise of ptr's major. Something like: Ax AQx AKJTxxx x

I would not recommend counting shortness before you find a suit fit. For opening, Bergen's "Rule of 20" will get you most of the way there. Add your HCPs + length in your 2 longest suits; if it's >= 20 you open. I'd also suggest subtracting 1 pt for an Ace-less hand and/or a singleton honor. There's other adjustments you can add as you advance (quick tricks, T's, hard shapes to rebid (ex. 1-4-4-4), etc.), but they can wait until you're ready. Those are more in the "art" category.

First off, it's good that you play Rubensohl instead of Lebensohl; it's clearly better. Nonetheless, neither work so well over 2♦ (2 unbid majors and a desire to show invite vs GF hands). The X is best treated as Stayman/Takeout. 2M is to play (like normal) and the rest of Rubensohl (2NT and above) is on. Although the transfer in their suit can have a specific Stayman meaning (like GF + stopper). Exception: if 2♦ shows both majors, then X is "I can whack one of the majors ptr; double for penalty if you can." Over 2M interference, using the X for penalty and the typical Rubensohl responses will work fine (at least for the Stayman auctions, there will be only 1 unbid major!).

Worst agreement: Ptr: 1NT (15-17) Them: X Me: "What's the X?" Them "Takeout" Me: "Takeout?!" Them: "Yes, he promises 3-card support in all the suits and opening count" (after hand) Me: (to myself) sure enough, a 13 pt pancake!

1st hand ... alternative system: 2♠ = invite, no 4CM (either 11-12 bal or a long minor) Responses: -- 2NT = min -- 3NT = max, would accept any invite -- 3m = "crash landing" = max, but weak holding in suit (Jx or worse) (you bid the suit you don't like) 2NT = transfer to C's (either sign-off or slammish (any continuation shows the strong variety)) 3♣ = D's (same as above) Above is my fav, but might be too complicated for a novice forum.

On the 2nd deal: 1) I prefer a 3♠ opener, but I'd take 2♠ as a 2nd choice over Pass 2) Response to 2♠: I'd try 3♦ (assuming NF). You're not trying to get to the best MP spot - just trying to improve the contract and a 6-card suit is better than a 5-card suit. Also, you rate to be better than the folks who play new suit forcing and have to pass the 2♠ bid. 3) If you had a chance to open that hand, definitely start with 1♥!! Treat it as a 5-5 hand. It's better to conceal a 6th diamond than hide a 5-card heart suit.

6♦. Too much stuff to pass.

There's no way I would open the E hand and I don't mind the W 3rd seat opener. 2♠ by W is unpleasant, but necessary. E 3♠ raise is a mistake. 2NT or 3♦ are both better.

I'm glad something I posted was inspirational! : ) I have a few suggestions: 1) I would recommend your 1♣ = 17+ Bal, 16+ Unbal Here's why: - canapé is very much a shape 1st bidding system and with your design in particular where a 5CM is not disclosed until the rebid, there's a huge incentive to show that shape. Therefore, it's probably best to keep the strength of the opening bids limited - also, you already have to include hands like 16 HCP and 5M & 4 C's in 1♣. For sequences like 1♣-1♦; 1M it's still not clear whether opener has only 16 or the 18+ variety and so the advantage of 1♣ being 18+ except for limited case A or B is somewhat lost - see #2 below for the balanced hand recommendation 2) Go ahead and include balanced hands in 1♦. One of the big advantages of my Unbal 1♦ is that it has many of the advantages of canapé within a 5CM structure, but when you're already playing a canapé system, there's not as much to gain. You've taken some care to ensure you don't make a bad canapé rebid, but I think if you keep your 1 level bids limited and your relays, when holding a weak hand, to have at least 2 cards in the relay suit, the danger largely evaporates. Responder can bid 2m NF if they don't have 2-card tolerance for the relay suit. Now, you still have to solve the issue of the 5332 hands w/ a major that's outside the 1NT range, but that hand type is always trick in a canapé context. 3) Highly recommend including 4-4 major hands in with your 1♥ opening. A 1NT rebid can show this hand type. With 1♦ including 5-card majors, you don't want to include the 4441 hand types in it. And getting the 4-4-1-4 hand shape out of 1NT is nice, too. Once again, if the 1♥ opening is limited to 11-15 and the 1♠ relay promises 2-card tolerance or a rebid then a 2♠ canapé rebid isn't too scary/misleading. And thus, you can free up the 1NT rebid. If you adopt #3 above and open (41)44 hands 1M (as most canapé systems I've seen do), your 1♦ opening could even deny a 4CM.