MickyB

Klinger's version uses 2N as a sign-off in clubs or an autosplinter for responder's first bid suit.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skqt42h3dk5cajt32&s=s3haqt984dt7ckq95]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I bid 3♥, missing a poorish game that most others were in. Of course, the ace of diamonds and KJx of hearts were on side, and should you need it the ace of spades was doubleton onside! Despite the flukiness of 4♥ and 5♣, I wondered if I had underbid - after all, I would have bid the same with any hand with 1-6 in the majors that had wanted to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, and those spots are very nice.

I like to play forcing pass over 2m and takeout doubles of 2M...but I guess Justin's version makes more sense in this situation, you are likely to have to make a bid at somepoint anyway due to the forcing pass so you may as well make the bid immediately, even if you've got nothing much to bid.

Justin - I think as long as the preemptive raise is kept well defined it shouldn't be a problem. After all, you are more likely to be approaching the values for game when holding a limit raise than holding a preemptive raise, and the limit raise will be much more common. Why would you want to bid straight to 3m with the limit raise - who are you preempting? ;)

Hannie, Would you not play 1♣-P-1♥-P, 2♥-P-P-X as takeout?

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s3haqt984dt7ckq95]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠:2♥ 2♠:?[/hv] Playing Acol, partner has rebid a non-forcing 2♠, typically showing 11-14 with 5+♠ - we would open most 11 counts and few 10 counts. Do you game-force with 3♣, or invite with 3♥?

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq862hk964d2ct832&e=sat54hjt32daq8cq5]266|200|Scoring: IMP 2♣:2♦ 2♥:2N 3♠:3N[/hv] Butler IMPs, North South have the above uncontested auction - and yes, it was North that opened! North showed 7-10 points, 4-5♣, 4♥ and 3-4♠, South made two forcing enquiries then signed off in 3NT. Partner leads the ♦3, and declarer remonstrates with dummy for overbidding! What's your plan?

I agree that this double sounds like penalties, partly because responder chose not to double 1H for takeout...however 1S-P-2S-P, P-X is takeout even though that hand could have doubled for takeout immediately. Does anyone know of a rule to formalise when doubling a suit at the 2nd opportunity is for takeout, and when it is for penalties?

That version of Acol is nearly as old as this thread! Think it is accepted by all that it is more important to show 5 cards in your first suit when you bid your second one, particularly when the 2nd suit is being bid at the two level. IMO it is usually right to open 1N on 2452, a lot of the time on 2425, rarely on 4252 and hardly ever on 4225.

Maybe it has changed recently, but last time I checked AUC used a 6 card 2♣ opener and put minimum 5♣4M hands into the 1♣ opener. It is this that David and I disagree with because it is now hard to show your flat 16 count in many auctions.

I don't think canape works too well with unlimited openers - for a start, responder can give preference to opener's first suit much less often.

Of course, but that's true of any situation where you've agreed the suit at the 3 level. If you think being able to cue is more important than continuing to bid your hand naturally then just play cuebids in this situation. No idea which is the better method, interesting idea though.

I don't like this structure - an unbal hand that is maximum in terms of high cards will have *far* more playing strength than a bal hand that is minimum in high cards. Back to the original problem - If you could afford both 2N and 3m as invitational over 1m:1M, 2M then I think you are ok, I'd suspect this makes slam bidding pretty hard though! My style is to prefer sound openings in the minors anyway, the reasons to open light in the majors are that you have the playing strength to start looking for a 10 trick game in your suit and you want to make a decent description of your hand.

Matt - you probably know my opinions already, but here goes... I don't like 2♣ for the majors. Knowing which major is 5 cards will come in useful occasionally, but it needs - Responder to have equal length in the majors - Opener to not be 4-4 or 5-5 (true about 40% of the time) - Responder to guess incorrectly (which he should do less than 50% of the time) before you miss your best fit, and even then you may not be left to play there. I'd rather play 2♥ as the majors, which puts a lot more pressure on the opps, although I'm not terribly keen on that either. I suspect that 2♣ for the majors isn't that easy to develop an optimal defence to, simply because you have been given so many options. If I was designing a structure to use at level 4, I'd make 2♣ show either 6♦ or 5-4 majors (2♦/♥/♠ responses all pass or correct, after 2♣:2♦ opener bids his longer major - this works ok unless responder is 2425 and opener is 54xx) and I'd take the strong options out of the multi. I also think playing preempts as 0-5 1st NV is misguided. Their frequency is less than 40% of a 6-9 range. I like opening a naturalish 2 of a minor as it makes it hard for the opps to look for fits in both majors, however I feel it should either promise or deny a side 4 card major otherwise you land up burying your own fits as well. 4-5 cards in the minor and a 4 card major, 5 cards in the minor and 4 cards in the major and natural either single suited or a minor 2 suiter are all good, with fairly obvious gains and losses. If you want to get into conventions that aren't legal at EBU level 4, then the following structures are worth considering... 2♦ = 5major, 4+minor 2♥ = 6♥ 6-9 or 5+♠ 0-5 2♠ = 6♠ 6-9 This is very destructive as 2♦-X-AP can occur quite frequently if the defending side let it, but the 2♦ opener leaves you on a guess when you want to play in 3m if partner holds the major that you are short in but 4M if he holds the major that you have length in. 2♣ = 5major, 4+minor 2♦ = 6♦ 6-9 or 5+♥ 0-5 2♥ and 2♠ as above 2♦ = 6♥ or 5♠4+minor 2♥ = 6♠ or 5♥5+minor 2♠ = 5-5, majors or minors Solves the constructive problem of Rainbow while losing some of the destructiveness.

Double then 5♣ seems normal unless you expect 4NT to be Blackwood.

It seems reasonable to me for double of 2♠ to be penalties here.

Or he might have a 5323, in which case he will give false preference and you will play in 2♦, even though you have a much better fit available.

In 3rd+4th seat, I like to make lead directing bids on weakish balanced hands, and for the weak NT to not be worried about being in 3NT opposite a flat 11, so I play 4 card suits and 14-16 NT. A 2/1 response shows 8-11 and a 5 card suit, so the weak NT can pass it knowing there is a fit.

I find this to be particularly true playing transfer openings.

Gerben, if you open 1♦ on that you will land up in a fair few 4-2 diamond fits. No idea which is more likely to land you in a misfit, instinctively I prefer opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣ unless pard will rarely rebid a 5 card spade suit over a 1NT rebid by me. Chamaco - I thought about something like that a while back. I think it is better for 1♦:1♥, 2♣ to explicitly promise longer diamonds and 1♦:1♥, 1N to show equal or longer clubs, now with xx55 opposite xx23 you can play in 2♣ instead of a false preference to 2♦. I'm also not sure about 1♦:1♠, 1N, not only does it make it difficult to reach the best part-score but constructive bidding afterwards could be difficult. Not quite sure what the best solution is...maybe 1N shows hearts, fairly unlimited, 2♣ shows both minors either way around, below reverse strength, and 2♥ shows both minors, reversing strength?

All three English pairs (Gold-Townsend, Price-Simpson, Hackett-Hackett) play 4 card majors with either a 14-16 or 15-17 NT.

Unless you are one of the top pairs in the field, your chances of winning are improved by playing an anti-field system of equal merit to the field system. If you are one of the top pairs you might choose to stick closer to a slightly inferior field system, but if you are getting 75% using a mini NT then use it! I'm surprised that your MP results after a mini have been better at favourable than at love all, I'd expect some poor results at favourable due to the occasional +120 when the field is +200 and +90 when the field is +100. What systems are better at MPs? Playing 2M on a 4-3 fit for a trick more than the field's 1NT contract is worth little at IMPs and a lot at MPs, so I think strong NT 4 card suits is better at MPs than at IMPs, and weak NT 5 card majors is better at IMPs than at MPs.

A lot of responding hands that would otherwise have bid 3NT will become 5♦ bids if the opps play this pass as forcing.

Phil and I started off the same way, but instead of raising to 3NT I bid 3C, over which Phil raised and I bid 5.

AFAIK Meckwell only play 9-12 1st+2nd seat NV against vul. As Stephen says, if you are putting 15-16 flat in your 1D opener then make a 2/1 on most 9 counts. Personally I'd rather stick with 14-16 NT and 4 card suits in 4th seat - IIRC 14-16 is more common than 12-14 in this position, and being able to make lead directing openings is useful.