newroad

Hi Nullve, Interesting - I haven't (and wouldn't have) considered using the technique in that situation. My instinct is that it wouldn't be advisable. When WE open with the (two-way) pre-empt, our responder is arguably the best placed person at the table to know the possibilities on the deal, and therefore to take a view if needed (by, say, passing at risk). Further, the opposition are relatively inclined to come in on marginal hands, for fear of being locked out - which typically helps us (especially if a DBL). Conversely, if THEY open a pre-empt, the same applies to their responder ("in spades", as their pre-empt is not two-way usually). When we overcall such a two-suiter, their responder will have minimal incentive to come in on marginal hands and perhaps clarify the situation for us. Hence, the guessing burden is likely to fall most heavily on our advancer. Regards, Newroad

Hi Adam, I've supplied my answer, but I wonder how much any result may be skewed by predilection to open 1NT with a 5 card M? I know the direction of travel is to do so, but perhaps, somewhat Luddite-like, my preference remains not to. Further, the statistical research that I've seen by Richard Pavlicek suggests it is more effective with 5 hearts than 5 spades: which makes sense as it's likely to pre-empt some 1S overcalls. Regards, Newroad

Hi Kungsgeten. Short answer - no. Slightly longer answer - those who I have seen try to do this and similar need to be particularly honest with themselves and then fully disclose (the actual style) to the opponents. Longest answer - I played something similar and even more expansive, back in the 90's (like Ulf). I would still play it today with the right partner and system, I would have to check the notes, but in short believe it was something like ... 2NT: Sound ♠ pre-empt or aggressive ♣ pre-empt 3♣: Sound ♣ pre-empt or aggressive ♦ pre-empt 3♦: Sound ♦ pre-empt or aggressive ♥ pre-empt 3♥: Sound ♥ pre-empt or aggressive ♠ pre-empt Clearly, 3♦ has similarities to your proposed 2♦ use. Playing such a style, especially if combined with a light/weak opening system (meaning you can choose to pre-empt only at the three level with "pure" values) markedly improves the accuracy of high level bidding - in particular whether to sacrifice or not. Regards, Newroad

Thanks, Kungsgeten. So, the three key sequences you allude to are (2♦) DBL (P) 2♠ (2♦) DBL (2♥) 2♠ (2♦) DBL (2♥) DBL For the first two you are advocating natural, and the third, a good balanced hand perhaps with defensive predilections. I wondered about the first two as showing either Same as via 2NT Lebensohl, but with a ♠ anti-positional stopper, or Same as via 2NT Lebensohl, but with a ♠ half stopper However, back to your suggestion, would it be out of place to define them as (2♦ DBL (P) 2♠ - a hand that would have made a penalty pass of (2S) DBL (P) ? (2♦) DBL (2♥) 2♠ - a hand that would have made a penalty pass of (2S) DBL (P) ? (2♦) DBL (2♥) DBL - BAL or near BAL with exactly 3♥ (with 4♥, one can go through the Lebensohl machinery if desired)? Regards, Newroad

Hi All. For a long time I have played a defence to any Multi 2♦ containing the basic options of W2♥ or W2♠ as follows: DBL = T/O of ♠ 2♥ = T/O of ♥ Lebensohl advances in the partnership style to both the above. There are some other subtleties, but that's the essence. Quite a few people have taken up this defence after me advocating it to them. One has come back to me, admittedly after a few years, asking a couple of questions about atypical auctions. In short, what he's asked morphs to what should the following sequences mean in the above context (2♦) DBL (P) 2♠ (2♦) DBL (2♥) 2♠ I'd never considered it, or seemingly needed to consider it. I have some ideas, but don't want to prejudice anyone else's opinions/thoughts in advance. Ideas? Regards, Newroad

Hi Adam, I read your original post almost as soon as you made it, and had so many ideas flying around in my head that, combined with the fact it was slightly rhetoric in nature, meant I judged discretion was the better part of valour and temporarily kept quiet (unusual for me) :) I'm not sure I fully understand your design criteria, or that I agree with your assertion that you need two relays with such a range - going back to the late 80's, the Antipodeans and in particular the Kiwis relayed* opposite a 9-14 range with shapes far more ill-defined than your 1M openings. I don't think the extra hcp that yours have (and that, only with shape) makes yours intrinsically more problematic. However, you play your system, so you are best placed to judge. All the above said, given your belated switch to relays and your desire to stop in 2M where feasible, I wonder whether taking a different concept from some relay systems might be useful - where there is a "misfit relay" after the first shape showing bid. In this case, the first shape showing bid would be your opening. So ... Step One: Semi-forcing 1NT or equivalent Step Two: Relay, 2 or more in opener's major Step Three: Relay, 1 or fewer in opener's major The relays could continue to taste, but simplistically, it allows 1♥ 1NT 2♣ being a minimum, after which 2♦=R and 2♥=to play Analogous for 1♠ 2♣ 2♦. In the same vein, it allows 1♥ 2♣ 2♦ as a minimum, but two good (or at least, not bad) thing fall out from this 2♥ is not need to play, so can be used as R, and Opener gets to evaluate his hand opposite known shortage if responder breaks relay at this point Once again, analogous for 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ Maybe slightly left field, maybe not - but I hope of interest. Regards, Newroad * in fairness, some of them employed two relays

Hi Cyberyeti, I basically agree with Phoenix214 (at least, if you come from a school where one usually bids 2♦ and gets out of the way of a strong 2♣ opener). You don't really have a problem with heart raises per se. The place you might have an indirect problem is when you have a side suit with heart support - you'll somehow want to distinguish the strength of the hand and/or the quality of the side suit as well as show support - and the fact it could be a full-blooded "positive" (in normal 2♣ response terms) will complicate this. I haven't played this method either (but coincidentally, have just started playing something which may, on occasion, exhibit similar issues). There are many ways your friend could try and handle the problem and I haven't thought any (let alone all) of them through. I think the main point is not to fight the chosen system. This means, agreeing what side suit bids then support mean - and dealing with the problem cases (e.g. if you decide new suit then support is strong, you may need to suppress the side suit with a weaker hand and just support directly). Not sure that was a great help, but I hope at least a little. Regards, Newroad

Hi Kungsgeten, As a general matter, I agree with your partner - weak hand should in general get out of the way of strong hand. There is no particular danger in lightening up the requirements for a (natural) 2H continuation, as it can't pre-empt partner. If, for reasons of symmetry and/or major suit bias, you want to lighten up the requirements for a 2S response as well, fair enough: you only pre-empt partner when they hold hearts and you get a useful bid in much of the time. Pluses and minuses. I wouldn't lighten up the requirements for minor showing. Regards, Newroad

Hi Jinksy et al. Personally, I think the Multi 2D, in any of its main forms, is a net loser against opposition that is both good AND organised (take away either one of these, and it has merit). The above notwithstanding, I think I'd keep 3NT as to play were I to be playing the method - the kind of hand which would bid it is a gambling style IMO, e.g. running minor, short one major, stoppers in the other two suits. There was an article in The Bridge World a while back where someone did an analysis of system responses to the Multi 2D and how often in World Championships they'd actually happened. Most listed 3m as some form of natural (forcing I think) but they'd never actually been bid in a World Championship. The suggestion therefore followed that they could be repurposed - as some part of a raise structure. Regards, Newroad

Hi Shevek, My guess is that a speculative pass would be better in 3rd (with LHO not yet having confirmed the inability to open) than in 4th, a priori. I have done similar a few times in a context where Pass promised a 3+♣ 1♣ opening a few times. Never missed a game, as I recall - in general mixed marginally positive net results. Of course, suit lengths as well as strength play a part in the judgement for my scenario. Regards, Newroad

Hi AWM et al, Check out the November 2015 Bridge World and the "DONK" defence, of which I play a slightly "switched" version (Direct 2♠ shows spades, DBL then 2♣ then 2♠ shows diamonds). In short, DBL shows either Penalty, or Single-suited not spades (in my current version, at least) otherwise, it's mostly like DONT with respect to the 2-suiters. Advancer normally passes the DBL if they can stand the lead of a non-spade (no requirement that the balance of power is needed), bids something Lebensohlish style above 2♣ with shape, else 2♣ POC with nothing better to do (i.e. very weak and/or fears a lead of one of ♣/♦/♥) In the event the auction proceeds (1NT) DBL (P) 2♣ (P) ?, then 2♦ shows a non-directional penalty DBL of 1NT (F1), 2♠ shows a diamond overcall as mentioned above, and everything else is also Lebensohlish - which gives three strength range ways to show each suit. Lebensohlish continuations also occur after the (1NT) DBL (P) 2♣ (P) 2♦ (P) ? auction. Once in a while you pass 1NTX and they make it. Relatively more often, you pass and they don't make 1NTX. So, in that sense, it has a slightly randomising effect which anecdotally seems to be weighted to the upside. Even more often than that, they don't Pass. As to the reason for this, you'd have to poll the opposition - sometimes they systemically can't, others, they choose not to. There is a suggestion in the thread that nullve linked to that this type of thing might somehow be borderline unethical, as the opponents may not expect it. However, NT defences are displayed fairly prominently on most systems cards (making an enquiry easy, and agreement as to what to do, in my view, simple) and my experience is that people who play SWINE and analogous forced redouble competitive devices usually disclose far less on a system card (if anything at all, or occasionally, just an acronym). For what it's worth, I think the prevalence of such competitive devices makes this sort of defence additionally attractive (I say additionally, as I judge that it stands up satisfactorily against organised defence from good players) - as it either leaves them uncertain as to application, if "lazy", or takes away a device the opposition are comfortable with. Regards, Newroad

Hi Mycroft. I'm not sure I'd bother: a fairly generic defence as treat it as natural if and until the oppo show a 4+ long suit works for me (right ratio of efficacy versus effort). However, if not, then you're into the territory of treating it in many ways akin to a Fert (though it doesn't consume space in the same way). I wonder if something built on the Senior "Antiferts" defence to nuisance openings ("The Transfer Principle, pp 110-123) might be something to build on. In short, DBL would show a BAL hand with a bottom limit or an unlimited hand with strength in the suit opened. In this, it shares some commonality with the broad advice earlier of helene_t. In the rest of the original Antiferts, other 1 level overcalls were limited openings, 1NT/2♣/2♦ were transfers excluding the suit opened (strong if it could have been shown at the one level) and 2♥/2♠ were three-suiters short in the suit opened (2♠ stronger). It strikes me that over an opposition constructive opening you'd probably want to reverse the suit strengths (one level stronger than two level) so maybe something like the following (over 1♣) DBL: ♣ overcall, unlimited but constructive (use your own defintion for this) or BAL 15+ (but feel free to choose a lower MIN range for the BAL type) 1♦/♥/♠: natural overcalls 1NT: classic shape T/O of ♣ or any 17+ 2♣/♦/♥/♠: WJO (dovetailing with your definition of "constructive" above) Over a potentially short diamond, similar, except the T/O (of ♦D) moves to 2♣ and 1NT becomes a constructive transfer overcall to ♣. You can figure out your own response structure over the DBL. In the original, 2♣ was invitational opposite a BAL MIN and 2♦ was FG opposite a BAL MIN, but I suspect I'd play something like a reverse Herbert Negative, i.e. step artificial and constructive (i.e. covering the ground of 2♣ and 2♦ in the original) with others natural and limited by the "step". Another option would be instead or additionally use 1NT in the same capacity. Regards, Newroad

Hi Nullve. Do I understand correctly that your design criteria which lead you to consider playing, say, 2♣ as 11-13 hcp BAL no 5M, is that you want to Play a 14-16 hcp BAL 1NT opening, and Don't want any BAL ranges in your 1m openings? For this to make sense (over at least one obvious alternative) the pre-emptive/destructive side of this would need to outweigh the certain constructive losses - predominantly the ability to play 1NT. A priori, your side will have the balance of power with this hand type, even more so if in 2nd and RHO has passed. Further, it doesn't have the benefit of a Jammer style knowing of shortage, allowing you to crawl out at the two level if needed. As someone who plays (i) an 11-13 1NT opening in one key partnership, and (ii) a Jammer variant in another, it just doesn't feel like the odds are in your favour. However, by altering the design constraint, I think you can get to a better option. Play an 11-13 hcp 1NT opening Play a 14-16 hcp 2♣ medium-Mexican 1NT opening With the extra strength in the 2♣ opening, you will more often than not be able to recover the self-preemption when it matters. There is the side-effect that the oppo will be able to DBL 1NT for penalty more often, but from the experience myself of an 11-13 1NT, those of most Fantunes-style players and the more honest Acol ones, I judge this to be only minor. A bit left field, I know, but no more so than the original idea itself. Regards, Newroad

Hi Nullve. Your point on MP vs IMP's is valid. I hardly play any MP's, so am from the opposite side of the fence in that respect. I'm not sure I agree with system being equally applicable with different NT ranges. The weaker the range, the more case for natural responses IMO. Whether this is justifies a move away from transfers when going from 15-17 to 12-14 is dubious. However, with 10-12 say, I think there is a case for playing 2M (and maybe 2D) as natural - perhaps with a relay 2C to handle most/all promising hands. I have a similar concern with other constructive auctions. I don't doubt that you can move ranges without major issues (say, going from a 12-14 optimised method to a 15-17 one) but the losses at the margin are real. In effect, the best reason for playing a WK NT IMO is that partner knows you haven't got one when you open 1 of a suit, meaning that most constructive auctions can be just that little bit more optimised and optimistic. I mentioned the Inverted Minor case earlier - similar considerations arise in 2/1 (game forcing being my preference) auctions in the modern style, i.e. 5M332's included. Regards, Newroad

Hi Nullve et al, My take is that switching NT ranges according to vulnerability needs to demonstrate some serious upside as there are two clear downsides It forces you to, in effect, play two (or more) systems, with the consequent memory effects, and assuming you agree with this One of the two systems is likely logically inferior to the other If the upside is allegedly (reduction of penalty) risk based, then the empirical evidence from Fantoni/Nunes (notwithstanding their current difficulties) playing a WK NT, similar citations from Bill Jacobs and my own anecdotal experience (being a late convert to WK NT's) would suggest that the gain there is minimal. Clearly and separately, a 10-12 NT NV vs VUL has some pre-emptive merit: I'm not sure how to measure this other than statistically over a significant number of deals. Conversely, and for the purposes of discussion, let's consider a 12-14 WK NT as "normal" for these 3-way NT guys, and played at equal VUL. If you then switch to 10-12 at NV vs V, you are presumably going to get range issues somewhere in your system: a mild inferiority I would presume? Similarly, if you switch to 15-17 V vs NV, then you lose some constructive benefits, e.g. if you are playing inverted minor raises, you can now no longer play 1m 2m 2NT as forcing: also a mild inferiority I would presume. Consequently, it seems to me best to pick a NT range and then optimise ones methods around it. Regards, Newroad