Siegmund

In principle it should be possible; we don't seem to have any trouble coping with the 4-point range for the 1NT rebid in an auction like 1♣-1♠-1NT. Two thoughts come to mind: Over the 3-point range 1NT opening, the invitational sequences are nearly idle bids (opposite 15-17, passing all 8s and bidding 3 with all 9s works pretty well. You almost always lose more going down one in 2NT than you gain from finding thin games when you invite.) Over a 4-point range you will actually use them a lot. The previous posters regard this more as a flaw than a feature. If your point count is wider then the distributional range needs to be narrower. We cope fine with non-notrump opening bids with 6 to 9 point ranges, after all. I think where you run into trouble with a 4-point NT range is if you still want to put every balanced and semibalanced hand under the sun into it. Thinking back to 1♣-1♠-1NT, here opener's distribution is 1-3 spades 2-4 hearts 2-4 diamonds 2-5 clubs (the 4 spade and 6 club hands, along with all the 5-card major hands, have been removed, and only the 1345ish hands have been added.) If you DO play a 4- or even 5-point NT, I think you have to do that by constraining the distribution quite tightly, perhaps tighter even than a 1950s NT opening. (That may defeat your purpose, if you're trying to take all the balanced hands in a certain range out of another sequence.)

In my non-Drury-playing partnerships this is a semi-mandatory opening, because we're going to have a rebid problem if we pass and partner opens 1♥. (If you do play Drury, there is a similar set of marginal hands with long clubs that open to avoid a rebid problem.) Otherwise, looks optional and very borderline to me. If you do open make sure you've chosen your rebid after 1♠-2♣ and 1♠-2♦. If I am playing Drury I think I pass even at MPs.

One more vote here for 1♦-swish. (And there are people who play 2♣-2♥-3♦ as nonforcing. But if you're going to drop this hand in a partscore opposite a weak response, might as well drop it in one as in three...)

No law against having a maximum. It's still 1NT for me. (Bear in mind that's in the context of someone who has upgraded 14 to open 1NT about twice in his whole life. )

Isn't as-such a 4CM system I'm working with, but a Polish Club variant where the 1♣ opening includes weak hands promising 4CM. Right now I'm thinking of 1NT 11-14, no 4CM, debating whether to allow long diamonds or not. I appreciate all ideas. I find the two-under transfers very intriguing but I think that may be partly just novelty value. Does anybody use anything more scientific than "range inquiry" for the invitational hands? In my strong-NT system, I have a way to find out whether an HHxxxx minor suit will run or not, to get to some good 23-point 3NTs. I am thinking it'd be very handy to be able to do the same here. Lots of ideas to kick around in my head. Part of the frustration for me is that living in the ACBL world, a full-on relay system isn't an option (though 1NT-2C relays are allowed), so I don't quite have the "just dump all the strong hands into the relay sequence" mentality that the Aussie/Kiwi system designers do.

This is on my list to ask my regular p about it at the club tonight. I can't honestly remember ever having this auction come up. If it did come up without discussion, I would assume forcing and artificial (maximum for the overcall, expecting to reach game opposite advancer's 8-ish points and 5 hearts.) I am not entirely convinced its actually needed as forcing and artificial, since I've already not doubled, and I have a wide variety of jump cues, jump raises, jump shifts, etc available if I really like partner's hearts.

I wouldn't be surprised if 1430 is slightly the more popular of the two. The technical differences are small. But mostly, if people play 1430, they say "I play 1430," NOT "I play RKC." If you say "RKC" you are saying you want to play 0314. Two names for two agreements. I think you may be seeing a selection bias caused by inquiring about RKC.

1S with most my partners, but pass with the ones who expect sound opening bids. Anybody's vote different in 3rd seat? (I ask because I saw an almost spot-for-spot identical hand in 3rd seat in a team match earlier this week. The person holding the cards bid 1S, which I think was obvious, but the kibitzers were criticizing him for not opening 2.)

Open it. And take Flannery off your card.

3S set trumps. Now we cuebid. Whether that means my next bid is 3N, 4C, or 4D depends on our agreements in that department. Feels almost like a wtp auction - unless of course you don't have cuebidding style agreements. I like the posted auction better than the hidden one, FWIW. Though the hidden one gives some hints which cuebid style will work best :blink:

I wouldn't sit for a penalty double of 1S with this hand, nor do I want to hear about his spade stopper, so I don't reopen with a double. For me the choices are 2♣ >> pass > double. It's more likely overcaller will continue with 2♠ than anything else - in which case I DO want to hear from my partner as to which minor he prefers, and DON'T want him to be a hero with his xxxx heart suit. I'm sorry, but I can't see any up side whatsoever to double.

It's not completely ridiculous to agree that one or two out of 1♠-2♦-2♠, 1♠-2♦-2NT, and 1♠-2♦-3♦ can be passed. (With one partner, I have the agreement that the first two are passable, as an escape route with "11 opposite 11".) It's a somewhat uncommon and old-fashioned agreement. But in an unknown partnership playing SA, assume all of these will lead to a 2nd bid by responder. And with OR without that kind of an agreement, 1♠-2♦-2♥ is 100% forcing, and on the posted cards you have a nice easy raise. Game is very possible!

Pass then 3♥ looks like a sensible approach opposite a sane partner without agreements. If my spots were better e.g. AT98x+ I would be arguing for 2♠ on the first round. Starting with X or 3♦ guarantees we will lose the spade suit. Maybe you're OK with losing a spade suit when you have A87xx and know there are 4 of them in your right. If you're fine with that, I can see 3♦ on the first round.

Looks a) good enough to open 1♣ to me, but b ) as bid, we have to pass 5♦. No reason to be expecting 4 cover cards here. If you really do play 1♦-1♠-3♦-4♦ as invitational, and 1♦-1♠-3♦-3♥ as a cuebid, I think you are going to have quite a few system problems. I feel very strongly that responder's 4♦ has to be slammish asking for a cuebid here. Somewhat less strongly that 3♥ needs to be available to help us find 4♠ or 3NT. Incidentally, if we're looking for systemic solutions, there was a post by Frances Hinden advocating 1m-1M-4m as promising 3 cards in the major and 7 in the minor just a day or so ago. I've never seen that treatment anywhere else, but gee, it suddenly looks more appealing.

Let me just add that, playing nonforcing notrumps in SA, I am happy responding 1NT here. If I were responding to a 1st/2nd seat opening I would make the same response but I'd be somewhat less happy that it wasn't forcing.

The choice here is pass-and-pass-again-when-partner-doubles vs pass-and-bid-3NT, I think, and I lean toward the former. If partner coughs up a 3S bid instead of course I'll raise.

Eugene said much more eloquently than I did what my opinion of the skill level was. (And I confess to a bias as to which type of skill I find more interesting, as I already exposed in the thread he linked.)

I had natural go bad (both me bidding it and being set, and me setting my opps who used it) sufficiently many times that I've been using it for 4-5 in the unbid suits for quite a while, and considered the fact that it removed all temptation to bid a natural 1NT and get one's ass kicked one of the big plusses of the method. We further agreed that 1D-p-1H-X was takeout of hearts and 2nd seat was allowed to bid a natural 2D, while the 5-5s jumped to 2NT. There was an inference then that if we reopened after 1D-p-1h-p-2h-p-p that we must be 4-4 or have 5 bad spades. The posted hand I would have said was passwtp. Of course in my experience the steal by responder is quite rare, too. I am curious, eugene - at what level would you say the crossover happens and natural becomes useful again? (Mine is that it's somewhere considerably north of regional A/X pairs games and 2nd/3rd brackets of KOs.)

Over precision 2C I think you can make a case for natural being better. That said, I play it as unusual anyway, just since "natural only if the opening is weak" is straightforward and guarantees no accidents, and I know I want it to be unusual opposite the other 11+ 2-level bids like Flannery and Roman. I think we could make a much stronger case for unusual over a 2D, 2H, or 2S opening (including Precision 2D) than we can over a 2C opening.

I too interpreted 4D as a slam try in diamonds (and it was an aces-first cuebidding partnership.) I sure do wish I had better agreements after opener's jump shifts, but I've never had any with any of my partners... so I am mining the forum for ideas :)

First hand I overcalled 2D the first round. Second hand, I don't like the fact they have most the points and couldn't raise. At MP I double, at IMP I pass. And if I believe they are in the midst of a system accident, not just a judgment issue, I def pass.

Having a way to show specifically HHxxxx in a minor is a REALLY valuable response to 1NT to have, if you like reaching cold 23-point games :) Those of you who play the 2-under transfers might consider using your two steps to show "I have a high honor in your suit" and "I don't". (In my own system, we use 1NT-2S for both the balanced raise to 2NT and the minor-suit invite, with other bids for weak-or-strong minor.)

IMO "many (most) people use it as any 2 suits" is a significant overbid. I would have expected that treatment to be in third place behind minors and h+minor.

It wouldn't occur to me to try anything other than 3NT at either form of scoring. I'm sure you realize that no matter what the form of scoring, you only get to control 1/4 of your result. Matchpoints just allows you the chance for skill on almost every deal rather than concentrating it on the swingy ones :(

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sj3hq5dt962ca7652&w=sa8762ha8642djc84&e=shjt973dq74cqjt93&s=skqt954hkdak853ck]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] The popular auction (at my table and others) was 1♠-1NT, 3♦-4♦, 5♦, which enjoyed varying degrees of success around the room. Oddly nobody in the room found the unbeatable 4S.