Siegmund

I would guess that minors (and quite often 5-4 either way, rather than strictly 5-5 like 1S (2N) is standard, along with X = "3-suited in principle, but often hearts, one minor, and a prayer." I would not be surprised if something else is better. I quite like Zelandakh's proposal. But I've not run across very many people using it as Michaels, and two places to play is not GCC legal on the first round of the auction and therefore a non-starter for a lot of North American players. (I was going to write "two places to play is Midchart" but just this minute I am having trouble finding anything on the Midchart that permits it.) I'd certainly be willing to give Two Places a try playing somewhere where it was allowed.

Wouldn't dream of passing. Kings behind the 2C bidder feels like a lot of defense to preempt insanely, so 2S is fine by me. I wouldn't be all that offended by someone who wanted to bid 3S at this vulnerability only.

It came up playing with a GIB in a Free Express game (not a robot game, where you can mouseover the bid before you make it and see what GIB is going to interpret it as.) I made what I thought had to be a penalty double, and GIB announced it as takeout, and duly ran, turning +300 into -1100. It did not help that GIB had lebensohled with 3-0-5-5. It DID have a heart void, but QJxxx opposite xx doesn't play well at the 4-level with 20HCP between you, six of mine wasted in hearts. I posted the thread mostly to see if I should post it as a system bug in the GIB forum.

An auction: 1NT - (2H) - 2NT - (P) 3C - (3H) - P - (P) X 1NT=15-17 2H = Cappelletti 2NT= Lebensohl (so 3C forced.) Clearly "bid your suit now, p"? Clearly penalty? Just look at your own cards and try to guess what partner is trying to do?

I don't think 3C is a serious alternative -- this is at least a full trick short of what my fourth seat 3-bids look like -- but am surprised there is so much hate for pass (which I voted for, and actually expected to see winning the poll.)

Glad to hear it described as better-than-insane, anyway :) Yes there is potentially room to accommodate responder's weak 4-6es, and raising immediately with the weakest 3541/3514 hands is an option. It's not so much that I believe its "better than Gazzilli," as me having a hard time believing the "clubs or not clubs" nature of the 2C rebid is optimal -- and me having a real dislike of the way 2C-then-2D sequences get used in XYZ / 2way NMF, so I am not predisposed to wanting another "2C is artificial and the 2D reply to it is also artificial" auction in my system to keep memory problems simpler. (Actually I had a need for 2C=diamonds and 2D=clubs in a few other auctions in the same system; otherwise I would have never thought to try it after 1H-1S.)

There are people who'd argue for using them much more extensively than that (search for 'transfer Walsh' for one application of the idea, and transfer responses to natural 2-level openers in systems like An Unassuming Club for another.) But ACBL rules being what they are, for a lot of us they are only legal over a 1-level opening bid if our opponents use a convention against us. Takeout doubles are far and away the most common convention used by the opps against us after we open... so the posted auction is the only common situation where they are allowed in GCC events.

I would describe natural and nonforcing as mainstream, whether a passed hand or not, and transfers as the only serious contender, not mainstream but quite a lot has been written about them and they are in use by a number of expert pairs.

As already discussed, you need some very firm agreements about 1M-2m-2M, 1M-2m-2NT, and 1M-2m-3m especially if you open light: you need at least one way to bail out below game with 11 opposite 11, and you need to take some time to think about what it should be. It helps greatly to un-burden the 2m rebids of some of the hands that 2/1ers like to put in them. For instance, if it's your partnership style to respond 1S to 1H anytime you have 4 spades, you now have the option of 1H-2m-2S as "third suit forcing", giving you two paths to reach 2NT and 3m, one of them gamegoing one of them signoffish. It is an area without much in the literature -- since where system regulations allow, there has been a lot of work on making either 1NT or 2C an artificial game-force, and making all the other 2-level responses limited or even nonforcing, but not very much work on Acol or SA style 2m=positive but not GF values systems. Nice to hear gerben's and awm's posts. About time someone wrote up a set of agreements.

I was debating whether or not to post this when the Gazzilli and Kaplan Inversion thread went up. Something I've been experimenting with, in the context of a system where the 1M openings include weak balanced hands, and opener is expected to respond 1S to 1H with most hands with 4 spades (no responding 2D on 4-2-4-3 hands to set up a force, etc.) In such a system, opener has a lot of things he wants to do: get out at 1NT if he's weak and balanced and there is no major fit; find 5-3 spade fits if they exist (and, if he's weak and semibalaned, not be too afraid of 4-3 spade fits and 5-2 heart fits); still be able to show minimum, medium, or maximum hands in either major; and cope with the 3S6H version of the BW Death Hand. Here is what I am trying for opener's rebids: 1NT = 11-14ish, natural, including all the 5332s (responder has ways to ask for 3 spades if he is INV+) and some of the 2-5-2-4s and 1-5-3-4s, but not 3-5-1-4s. 2C = 4+ diamonds, unlimited. 2D = 5+ clubs or 3-5-1-4, unlimited. Over 2C, responder completes the transfer if he's willing to sit for 2D (and opener with a weak 3-5-4-1 corrects to 2S over 2D); can rebid 2H with 2 or 2S with 6, or a natural 2NT with inv values, and the usual array of inv or strong 3-level bids. Over 2D, responder goes farther out of his way to rebid 2H when he would rather hear a preference than go to 3C (for instance a weak 4-2-5-2). Meanwhile, opener is able to put all of his 5-5s, weak and strong, into the transfer rebids, as well as the strong 6-4s (transfer then rebid hearts) . The immediate 3C and 3D rebids are freed up to take care artificially of hands that are hard to bid naturally. My tentative plan here: 1H-1S-3C: game-going hands with exactly 3 spades: 3-5-3-2/3-5-3-2, and 3-6-3-1/3-6-1-3. 1H-1S-3D: game-going hands with 6+ hearts and not 3 spades - just like a 1H-1S-3H bid but stronger, leaving room to explore for slam. Now 1H-1S-3NT can promise 2-5-3-3. Opener's 2M and 3M rebids as in standard. Opener's splinters in support of spades as in standard. The point of the transfers is sequence creation, not making responder declarer in minor-suit contracts, but when opener has the 11-count, you aren't wrongsiding the contract at all -- in fact you are making the hand in which 9 cards are already described dummy, and keeping the less well defined hand hidden. And it avoids completely wasting a round of the bidding on non-descriptive relays as Gazzilli's 2C by opener-then-2D-by-responder structure does. There is much less need of such a structure over 1H-1NT since you can get away with 2S as a semi-artificial rebid to handle awkward strong hands, not needing so have all of 2H,2S,3H,3S natural and nonforcing. Over 1S-1NTF, it's not 100% clear to me whether to include all 3 unbid suits in the transfer scheme, or just swap the minors. Thoughts are welcome.

One reason among many that I prefer 2D FSF to be 1 round rather than game. Have never understood why people even considered FSF(game) to be playable. If you impose 2D FSF(game) and invitational jumps on me, I am endplayed into jumping to 3C on this, but I am not happy about it. I have real sympathy for the heavy-1NT folk. (And none at all for the argument that the 1C opener is likely to have diamonds covered, as an excuse for things like jumping to 2NT.)

I am sympathetic to the style that 1S "tends to show" 5, and that the shapeless 4333s and 4342s either bid 1NT or pass the double -- but this isn't shapeless, we aren't going to pass, and we might as well show our suit such as it is. Hearing partner compete to 2S over 2H won't be the end of the world.

Double-dummy sims against 1NT-3NT say to lead the queen even from QJ9xx and QJxxx. Deciding how to compare double-dummy against single-dummy results is just about impossible without looking at the cases where single-dummy play is different than double-dummy play (for QJxxx, the big one is that there are a bunch of holdings along the lines of KTx on the table, or Txx on the table K8x in hand, where declarer has a guess single-dummy that he never gets wrong double-dummy. If you find a good method for evaluating the size of this effect, by all means let us know. I've never taken the time to work through enough sub-cases to come up with good proof either way.

Suit quality does matter more than HCP do here... but these are 5-loser hands. With the honors distributed as they are, they are "just" adequate 3H bids, instead of being game forces or near to it. Give me Kxx AQJxxx AKJ x or something instead and I would feel like I was too heavy for 3H, and be fishing for a fake 2S bid or something. That's in the context of a partnership where responder essentially never has less than 6 HCP. I imagine many posters in the thread expect less from a 1-level response, and more for a 3-level rebid, than I do.

Long as we're on the subject, you may also want to keep your eye out for Bridge is a Partnership Game, the "original Roth-Stone book," from 1957 or 1958. (Admittedly mostly of historical interest - it has quite a few treatments that did not stand the test of time well.)

I learned them from the Journalist book and loved them. Only ever had one regular partner willing to play them. As mentioned, low if you want your opening-lead suit returned and high if you don't. A big advantage if you have say AQxx J732 xx xxx against 3NT - you lead a heart, but H7 in hopes of inspiring partner to realize what's going on in spades, while from Txxx J732 Jx Axx you'd lead H2. As mentioned, it avoids telling declarer if your suit is going to break for him or not (there are a lot of hands where you take a different line if you 'know' the defense's suit is 4-3 rather than 5-2, or 4-4 rather than 5-3, and attitude forces you to guess), and on rare occasions you can lead second-lowest and, after seeing dummy, decide whether to play third-lowest ("my opening lead was low!") or lowest ("my opening lead was high!") at trick two. Room for judgement. Oooooh. Scary. Probably a dangerous toy in the hands of novices.

Spelling it out a little more clearly for OP... it's a mandatory 1S bid. If you pass, you are telling partner that you like his suits equally well and want him to choose.

I've never felt a need for a convention for the 5-5 bids (2D-then-2S and 2H-then-3H works fine for the majors, and at least one of the minor hands can be handled via the 2S or 2N response.) So, I guess if you like Puppet , go ahead and use it... I would prefer 3C and 3D to show shortness, myself. Come to think of it, there isnt that much difference between the two - if you're short in one minor you must have a few cards in both majors. Question is whether to have the shortness bids promise 3361, or 4441/4450.

A tough choice. For me the system bid would be 2C-then-4D, even though that bid, showing an 8 1/2 or 9 trick "preempt" is usually a little more in distribution/suit quality and a little less in face cards. The problem is that removes any hope of 3NT. That might sway me into 2C-then-3D... or a crazy gamble on 1D-then-3NT at matchpoints... Very close to what a 4D bid in 4th could look like, too - once again I hate that it shuts out 3NT. Just a tiny bit too strong for 3D.

I'd be willing to open this hand 3C in first or second seat too. Put me down for 'no such thing as a passed hand 3NT' at this vulnerability. Ain't no way you are ever gonna see AQxxxxx in the dummy when I open only-3-clubs favorable. You can make a case for passing because partner obviously miscounted and passed a 17-count in first maybe... or you can pass to punish him for being stupid... but 4C is the practical action to avoid a bottom.

For me it's because of the schedule at the bridge club: I just moved from a town with two evening games a week to one with FIVE games a week, ALL in the afternoon (one novice game in the evenings) - so I am now averaging about 0.4 games a week, playing only on the weekends I'm not out of town. I was just stunned by that, when I moved; I thought that "everybody" played bridge at night, with just the occasional afternoon game mostly in snowbird land. I guess arguably that's a vote for "most other players are not in my social group" - they are retired and I have a job. (But I voted "other" in the 2nd poll.) For tournament attendance, other things (compatible partners and to some extent system regulations) are a factor. Cost too high is a specific reason to skip an NABC in favor of another type of tournament, but not in general a big factor.

There's a reason why I have a gadget for these 4-5s. :) In the absense of a toy, I try 1S with a partner who is unlikely to take offence to it, and pass with one who will. I am not happy with any of the 4 calls available in garden variety standard.

I thought so too. But nobody else at the club yesterday believed that was the way to avoid guessing wrong which longest suit to lead. Heh. Declarer was sort of annoyed that his Jxx-opposite-Kxx diamonds didn't get led for him at any point.

Yeah. And make an overtrick when they lead the unbid major, beating all the poor suckers in 5D. B-) Though if you make responder's hand any better he'll pull 3N to 4D, and then we'll get to 6D. I am with the first 4 posters in the thread. "Playability of 3NT" isn't so much the question, as non-playability of either of the two suits responder has proposed (who may well have wished for a slam in one of them.)

1NT (15-17) on your right. You pass, so does LHO and partner. (You are playing DONT, direct and balancing, if that matters to the range of hands you envision from pd.) What do you lead? How obvious is it? ♠Qx ♥87x ♦AQ9x ♣Axxx