perko90

Your example is a bit unfair. T8x and 98x are not MUD situations. The T is an honor for leading and the 98 is a sequence. So even with MUD agreed, the expected lead is T8x and 98x. The highest spots you can hold for a MUD lead are 976. If you're already playing 3rd/low, low from xxx is normal and best. But if you're playing 4th best, MUD works fine. And actually, low from xxx doesn't make sense in a 4th best context.

It's worth noting for those of us in the USA, including a 3-card LR in the 2♣ response to 1M is not GCC legal, unless it also always shows 3+ clubs. Conventional 2m responses to 1st or 2nd seat 1M openers need to be game forcing.

I definitely prefer SF 1NT. I agree that getting the 3-card LR out of the 1NT response is definitely recommended. Conveniently, I like Bergen raises except for the mixed raise. So, it's a simple substitution of plugging in the 3-card LR wherever your 4-card mixed raise usually is. Other considerations: -- You may want to get invitational Heart hands out of 1NT, too. 1♠-3♥ for a 6-card invite or allow 1♠-2♥ to be made on a bit less than GF values. Or even use 1M-2♣ as an generic GF. -- If you can get your system to where a 2m rebid over SF 1NT shows 4, as JLOGIC suggests, that would be really powerful (I never quite got there in my treatments). That could really help win the partial wars and take some guesswork out. I once had the misfortune of playing in a 6-card fit after forcing 1NT auctions 3 times in a single session! -- Some die-hard forcing 1NT advocates swear that the average 5-2 major fit plays better in 2M than 1NT. I have serious doubts, but I don't know of any simulations to back either side. Finding the answer might add some science to the arguments. -- Sometimes you can manage a nice top (at MPs) when the opponents decide to balance after opener passes 1NT. The 1NT bidder is in an excellent seat (knowing ptr is a balanced hand in a tight HCP range) to wield the axe on a known misfit.

As, long as you like the 2-way 1♣, I would definitely recommend Adam's suggestion of including 4-4-1-4 hands in 1♣. There's really no rebid problems.

That's cool! At least some people are starting to teach up-side-down attitude (UDA) to beginners. UDA is a card saver. Don't have to do any mental calculations of "can I afford to pitch the 9 to show I like it"? Lowest is lowest - no extra thinking required. And, I always thought it was more consistent with the rest of what we teach beginners: lead top of nothing (when you don't like the suit) and low (or 4th best) from an honor to show you like it.

2/1 auctions can be tough with SAYC. There's good reason most advanced+ players prefer 2/1. Nonetheless, there's some things you can do to make it easier. Here's some of my tips from when I used to play it: 1) Do not include 3-card limit raises in your 2/1 response. It makes some auctions nearly impossible. Almost any other agreement is better! Options for what to do w/ the 3-card limit raise: -- allow 1M-3M to be either 3 or 4 card support -- play forcing or semi-forcing NT and tuck the 3-card LR into the 1NT response -- (recommended) use a modified Bergen Raise structure, where, in response to 1M, 3♣ = 3-card LR, 3♦ = 4-card LR, 3M = 4-card weak raise 2) Any rebid of 2NT by either side is weak and is an offer to play (Sorry, while 2/1'ers can fit the bal 18-19 in the 2NT rebids, I do not recommend it for SAYC. Rebid 3NT. Yes, it's a little clumsy, but it's rare, a tightly defined range (denying support for ptr's 2/1 suit), and can get you by for now) 3) I used the following agreement for opener's rebid for years and it worked quite well: 2NT = 12-14 (5-3-3-2) w/ at least partial stoppers in the unbid suits (too hard to promise full stoppers, but at least you'll right-side the NT contracts); a new suit below 2 of your original suit is just shape showing and can be a bare min, but should be 4+ cards; rebidding your suit should be a 6+ suit or a good 5-carder; bidding at the 3 level (whether in a new suit or raising ptr's minor shows some extras (enough to force to game opposite a min 2/1 response). And if you don't have any of the above (rare!), find the nearest lie. Bottom line, it's more useful for ptr to bid assuming the above agreements rather than worry about the rare times when you have to stretch the meanings. 4) Consider using 1M-2NT as natural and game-forcing (15+ HCPs). This takes a lot of pressure off your 2/1 responses! Yes, yes, I know everyone and their Grandmother plays Jacoby 2NT, but you don't have to. Instead of Jacoby 2NT raise, you can substitute 1M-3NT to show a balanced 4-card raise worth 13-15 pts (there's a nice bonus of not disclosing opener's distribution when game is the limit of the hand). With a stronger hand you can start w/ a 2/1 and then support opener's major at a low level (usually indicating extra strength (even tho opener won't be able to tell the diff between 3 and 4 card support)). Without a good way to describe a balanced hand w/ extras, even simple auctions can be problematic in SAYC. Consider a responding 17 HCP hand with 2=4=3=4 distribution. The auction goes 1♠-2♣; 2♠-?? Now what? 2NT would show 11 HCPs or so and be non-forcing. And a jump to 3NT should be around 13-14 HCPs. A natural 2NT makes it easier on ptr: rebidding your major now promises 6 and bidding 3m should only be done w/ extra values/shape. If you still want to play Jacoby 2NT, consider making 1M-3NT 15-17 or so with xx in the major. The point is, balanced responding hands of around 16 HCPs are hard to bid in SAYC and you should be ready for them. 5) The only times you should stop short of at least 3NT is when either ptr bids 2NT, opener rebids their suit twice (1M-2X; 2M-2Any; 3M), or the 2/1 bidder rebids their suit (Ex. 1♠-2♣; 2♦-3♣) 6) if either ptr bids 2NT and the other takes it out, the auction is now game-forcing! (Ex. 1♠-2♣; 2NT-3♣ ... even tho the 2/1 bidder rebid their suit cheaply, this rule takes priority) Unfortunately, the above tips don't fill all the weaknesses of Std Am 2/1 bidding. But fortunately, whenever you discover a weakness accidentally, it's usually a good learning experience and topic of discussion.

The partner of the 4♦ bidder (advancer) should have controls and a fit - not just HCPs to make a slam try. What would the expected reasonable minimum hand look like for the 4♦ bidder? Something like AQxxx AKxxx x Kx? So, advancer should drive toward slam with 3 or so cover cards and a fit. So for the 4♦ bidder to make a move over a preference auction, he would need to have a chance at slam w/ at best 2 cover cards and xxx support from ptr and some expectation of 5-level safety if ptr's hand proves disappointing. So, I'd say: AQJxx AKQxx - Axx or AKJ9x AKJxx - KQx would be around the minimum for making a move - definitely needs at least 4 out of 5 of ♠AK ♥AK ♣A and then some. BTW, I would suspect that (3♦)-5♦ would be exclusion Blackwood, but if I hadn't discussed it, I wouldn't make the bid and torture ptr.

There's definitely a matter of style here - whether you bid strictly up the line or a majors 1st approach (Walsh). Assuming the latter, the auction would likely go: 1♣-1♥; 1NT-P. I almost never rebid 1♠ w/ 4-3-3-3 shape. Also, for many pairs, a rebid of 2♦ would be new minor forcing (nmf), implying 5 hearts and an invitational or better hand. Even without an agreement of nmf, 2♦ would usually be forcing implying 5 hearts. In general, I would rather end in 1NT anyway - it scores better. If you don't want to have those minor fits lost, it's probably better to play up-the-line. But even there, you'd likely get a 1♣-1♦; 1♠-1NT auction anyway. You'll at least have lots of company if 1NT turns out to be worse than 2♦'s.

Easy pass.

1) 2♣ then 2♠ (asking for a stopper), then 3NT 2) Not strong enough for a splinter. My preference is to bid a Bergen style limit raise and then raise to game if ptr tries to sign off. Slam could still be on with a perfect fitting 19 from ptr and it costs nothing to keep that alive. If not an option, 4♠ is probably the right call. 3) easy pass 4) you've got a bit of transportation issues... Spade finesse, then Club finesse.

You might be taking away the wrong impression. I believe what's still standard today after 1m-1M is that a jump to 4M is still likely an 18-19 balanced HCP hand - just not the one in the OP. A jump to 2NT should deny holding 4-card support. A jump raise to 3M is an invite on a wide range of distributions. As for GF bids w/ 4-card support there are splinters and 4M. An additional popular treatment - but not standard - is to use a double jump rebid of 4m is to show a strong 6-card suit + 4-card support for the major. Yes, the 4M raise is still typically a balanced 18-19 HCP hand, but it needs to be worth at least 19 in support. The hand in question is closer to 17 than 19 (due to the not well placed J's and the 4-3-3-3 shape). On the other hand, with still a balanced 18 HCPs, if it were instead KQx AQxx xx AKxx a jump to 4M would be fully justified.

Sounds pretty good to me, too. I would make the max for 1♥ 17 HCP, but that's splitting hairs. Making room for the relay makes sense to me. And I like that Spry system. I tend to discount non 5-card Major systems, but that one has promise.

I have a different view than the other esteemed commenters. I have full sympathy for West's 4♠ bid; not pretty, but stuck is stuck. After that, it seems East is unnecessarily concerned about the ♥ suit. But if you give North credit for ♣KQ w/ an Unfav Vul preempt, it's hard to imagine West's hand without the ♥A or K, or more likely, 2 of the top 3. I believe the burden is fully 100% on East to offer up a choice of slams - that wonderful ♦ support was never disclosed! As such, 4NT is not the vehicle for that; and so East's 5♣ bid seems OK, as does West's 5♦. I don't like East's 5♠ bid at all. 6♦ is fully justified. How can there not be a play for slam? The ♠'s will provide pitches for whatever loser there may be. In East's mind, only the unlikely misfortune of a stiff ♥ lead to the A and a ruff or a 5-0 trump break could possibly sink the ship. The 5♠ bid also puts ptr in a bad spot. West has a great answer for the apparent ♥ concern, but that xx support makes the 6♠ raise very brave. Yes, a 6♦ bid would have been better, but East shouldn't have put that test to ptr.

Yup, N has a 7 loser hand. 3♥ raise would be more like it.

After winning the J♠, I'll draw trump, cash the ♠K, high ♥ (watch for an honor to fall), ♠A (pitching a ♣). If no honor fell in ♥, I'll cash another high ♥, exit with the ♣K, and hope the winner doesn't have another ♥. If RHO drops a ♥ honor on the 1st rd, I'll still cash another high ♥ and exit w/ ♣K, expecting RHO to have the ♣A (due to count of unknown cards and that LHO might have tried to cash it on opening lead in front of the 2♣ bidder instead of trying the lead from QT9(x)). If LHO drops a ♥ honor on 1st rd (presumably not from a Hxx holding), I'll exit w/ ♣K w/o cashing a 2nd ♥. If LHO wins, and started w/ Hx in ♥'s, I won't feel too bad about down 1 because I'll at least have company w/ the declarers who got the ♣A lead. Assuming RHO wins, I'll play the ♥8 when RHO returns a low one. Again, if I got fooled w/ LHO starting w/ H9 in ♥, I should have company.

I think Varvel's An Unassuming Club (AUC) system fits your desires best (assuming you like 5-card majors). multi-club - check weak NT - check all 2 bids (except 2C) available for preempts - check And it has some pretty sound theory to it. As for Miles' Unbalanced Diamond, I've read the book and discussed the system with those who've played it, but I haven't played it myself. I like the 1♦ bid he suggests. He outlines its impact to the rest of the auction well (e.g. 1NT is now forcing!). But bidding a potentially ultra short 1♦ isn't everyone's cup of tea. And that mechanic is only in place to preserve the 1♣ bid as purely strong (which is not your desire). Also, I wasn't a fan of the strong 2♦ concept and from my discussions with others, this seemed to be the least favorite aspect for them as well. Anyway, I'd definitely recommend AUC.

I've seen similar behavior, too, and I don't get it.

Funny you should mention defense to 1NT. It's a topic near and dear to my heart. And Capp / Hamilton (as GIB plays) is probably one of my least favorite choices. Stevenson's excellent site captures well how wide the choices are: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt01.htm Meckwell and Pagan are 2 of my favorite choices, but I'd guess few players would agree with me. I'll save the defense of 1NT discussion for another time because I doubt there's even a large minority (much less a majority) that could agree on what the alternative should be. I focused on Drury because I'm guessing there would be a super-majority of interest in having it added. And it seemed like the "low hanging fruit."

I know we can't have 1 CC that satisfies everybody. Nonetheless, I find that some form of Drury (usually a "reverse" variant) is almost universally played. I was shocked when I learned GIB doesn't support it. I'd like to make a case for adding this to GIB's repertoire. Please add your 2 cents w/ a vote or msg.

I'm not a fan of mixed raises, but love the preemptive raises, so I'm more in the Hardy camp. But I don't quite play it the same way. I use: 3M = 4-card preemptive raise 3C = 3-card limit raise 3D = 4-card limit raise However, if you play it fully the Hardy way, where a balanced 3-card LR is included in the 1NT response, it's not necessary to play forcing NT. Semi-forcing NT works fine (or better, IMO). Opener only passes w/ a minimum 5-3-3-2 (or 4-5-x-x if opened 1♥) that wouldn't accept an invite.

I voted for 3♣'s (not a pre-empt, but a descriptive bid). I have no problem with 5♣'s either (any A in dummy gives you a shot). Heck, even a 4NT opener could be considered (assuming 5C = 0). If ptr has the magic 2 bullet hand and xx support, 6C is a good play. 1♣ is definitely last choice.

Bad system agreement. That auction is NOT like 1♣-(1♠)-P-P; 1NT where it would be 17-19 Bal. After the auction you posted, DBL should be takeout of ♠'s. The 1NT advance by RHO shows 8-11 HCPs. So, you already know they have their share of HCPs. And just because defending 1NT when Opps are NV is in their favor, doesn't mean making a questionable penalty Dbl makes it any better.

8 losers = invite, especially if playing w/ light rule of 19 style. But I (and ptr) also accept most of the invites that come my way.

If I were using the multi 2♦, I would use the Polish style 2-suited preempts, with 2♥ showing ♥'s + another and 2♠'s showing ♠'s and a minor (5-5 or better shape). However, I know I don't share your enthusiasm for Flannery. But if 2♥'s were absolutely reserved for Flannery, then perhaps 2♠'s would be as above and 2NT would be 5-5 in 2 suits out of ♣ / ♦ / ♥.

Jassem's book on WJ2005 addresses it. Essentially, even the older style that implied 5 ♦'s almost always had the exception for 4-4-4-1 hands and x-x-4-5 hands, so partner couldn't confidently raise ♦'s w/ 3-card support anyway. Another reason that's hinted at but not explicitly stated is that 1♣-1♦; 1M auctions w/ a 3-card M are not so hot, but necessary in PC on a few 12-14 bal distributions. However, if you include 12-14 bal w/ 4-card ♦'s into 1♣ opening, there's many more 1M rebids on 3-card M suits, which is undesirable for readily apparent reasons.