tlgoodwin

The "problem" is that accurate terminology is an aid, whereas inaccurate terminology is a hindrance, to understanding.

Three clubs. Wasn't it said some time back (in MSC) that in these awkward negative-double situations, the cheapest available suit bid -- not a stopperless cheapest bid in notrump -- tends to be the best chance to avoid a disaster? With the same honors, but with 3-3-3-4 instead of 3-3-4-3, you would open one club and rebid three clubs over the negative double of two spades. Of course, you can avoid some of these problems by not opening a 3-3-4-3/3-3-3-4 mousetrap (fewer than 2 1/2 quick-tricks). TLGoodwin

As I recall it, Jean-Rene Vernes studied this issue. He looked at World Championship deals where the same contract was played at both tables, but after a different number of bids by the declaring sides. The result was not at all surprising: the side that used fewer bids did significantly better on these deals than the more talkative side. I don't recall just how much each extra bid "cost," according to Vernes. The study was published either in the "IBA Annales" or in Pierre Collet's "Bridge de Competition" magazine, late 1960's or early 1970's. The result of the study wasn't surprising: extra bids tend to convey extra information, and extra information tends to be useful to the defenders in the same-contract situation. The flip side -- and the side that is perhaps harder to study -- is that extra information may be useful to the declaring side when it points them to a different contract. TLGoodwin

I am not aware that a definitive published description of "canape tendency" (as played by Jais-Trezel) exists. Accordingly, it seems that a partnership that wants to play this general style must "roll its own" in defining the sequences. These are the rules we apply in one natural-system partnership: 1. If opener bids a lower-ranking suit, then a higher-ranking suit, that is canape (at least five cards in the second, higher-ranking, suit) if it is a reverse (or a jump-shift). If it is not a reverse (that is, opener rebids the higher-ranking suit at the one-level), it might or might not be canape; if opener next rebids the higher-ranking suit, that confirms that the rebid was canape, and implies the extra values that would be associated with a reverse. (To see why a sequence like 1C-1D; 1S-1NT; 2S must show extra values, consider what opener was going to rebid over 1C-1NT: clearly he was going to bid 2S, because he wouldn't have organized the bidding to conceal a five-card major suit. 1C-1NT; 2S would have been a reverse, so opener clearly has reversing values.) 2. If opener bids a higher-ranking suit, then a lower-ranking suit, that is canape (four cards in the first, higher-ranking, suit) if the rebid is a reverse (that is, opener rebids at the three-level after a two-over-one response) or a jump-shift. But if opener bids the second, lower-ranking, suit at the two-level, that is not necessarily canape. If opener bids a lower-ranking suit at the two-level, then rebids that suit, he confirms canape but denies extra values. To show an extra-values canape after a sequence like 1S-2C; 2D-2NT, opener rebids 3S -- the first, higher-ranking, suit -- conventionally. (We think this convention is original with us, but somebody else might well have thought of it first.) 3. With a minimum non-canape type (that is, the longer or equal-long suit is higher-ranking than the second suit), opener starts with the higher-ranking suit. He can rebid in the second suit if he can do that without reversing; but he must then be careful not to rebid either suit, because that would imply canape (as in par. 2). (He might be able to bid notrump on the third round, or raise a suit bid by responder.) Or he might just decide to open and rebid his long suit, ignoring the second suit for the time being. 4. With a minimum canape type (four cards in the higher suit, five or more in the lower suit), opener might not be able to bid the four-card suit first because of rebid considerations. With 4-2-2-5, for example, a 1S opening bid might be unprepared for a response in either red suit. So opener bids 1C, then 1S over a red suit. When he next fails to rebid 2S, that means 1S wasn't canape after all. We call this style "canape tendency," although it almost certainly differs from the Jais-Trezel style. (That has been summarized elsewhere as "canape with extra values, but not with minimum hands." Our version is more like "canape with extra values, and sometimes with minimum hands.") We don't have a lot of experience with the style, as the one partnership that employs it has been inactive, so we don't make any claims about its actual viability. T.L.Goodwin

Flame, can you elaborate on the part of your theory about the lack of importance of distinguishing between four and five spades? Jean-Rene Vernes argued just the opposite: he held that distinguishing between 4 and 5 spades should be a primary objective of a bidding system. He went so far as to devise a method (La Majeure D'Abord, 1971) in which 1S showed five (or more) spades and 1C showed exactly four spades. I've been experimenting with a method that flips Vernes' meanings, so that 1C shows five spades and 1S shows four. If you are correct about the unimportance of distinguishing between four and five spades, then I have been wasting my time with that experiment. (I don't regard that as especially unlikely, given the results of other experiments I've tried.) I'd really like to hear your argument.

Can anyone provide a reference to a description of Fantoni-Nunes two-bids, including responses and continuations? I can find their convention card, but it doesn't contain much detail. I am especially interested in the 2M openings, but would also like to see what happens after 2m. Thanks in advance. T.L.Goodwin

And if opener does have AKxxx K10xx x xxx, where would you want to play? I'd rank the contracts in this order: (1) 2H. (2) 3H. (3) 2S.

In my (limited) experience, the principal losses resulting from opening 1NT holding a five-card major come when responder would raise a 1M opening bid to 2M (on three-card support), and then accept a game try -- but has no reason to bid at all over a 1NT opening bid. Something like xx K10x Axxx 9xxx opposite a 14-16 or 15-17 1NT. You might play this hand in 1NT (1NT-P) at one table, vs. 4H (1H-2H-game try-4H) at the other. That suggests a rule like, "Don't open a strong 1NT when holding a five-card major if you would try for game after opening 1M and getting a single raise." A similar rule might apply to weak notrumps, although then the concern is a responding hand that would limit-raise a major-suit opening bid, but pass over a weak-notrump opening bid. Because a weak-notrump type would generally pass after opening 1M and getting a limit raise, this isn't such a serious problem. All of this assumes IMPs, not matchpoints. As indicated in some of the above posts, 140 vs. 120 (and the like) is a far greater problem at matchpoints. T.L.Goodwin

In the next-to-last paragraph of that last post, it should say "2C, then 2H," not "2D, then 2H." Responder would have a hard time bidding 2D, then 2H, without a friendly double from the opponents . . . .

There is (at least) one more glitch in Revised Keri, as set out in this thread. When it goes 1NT - 2C ; 2D - 2H (invitational, 4-5 hearts, fewer spades) and opener has a maximum, the outline says opener bids: 3D, 2H + 5S; 3H, 3H + <5S; 3S, 2H + 4S; 3NT, 2H + 3S. Thus, if opener has only two hearts, he can show three spades (3NT), four spades (3S), or five spades (3D). Left unsaid is how opener shows two hearts and two spades, but that is easily included in 3NT, since responder will not have five spades and won't care whether opener has two or three. The situation is worse if opener has three hearts. The only rebid in the outline for that, 3H, shows fewer than five spades. Accordingly, if opener has, say, KJxxx Axx KQx Kx, he is out of luck if responder bids 2D, then 2H. Responder might have three spades and four hearts, but there doesn't seem to be any way to determine that (according to the outline). This is easily fixed. After 1NT - 2C ; 2D - 2H, let opener (with a maximum) bid 3D with only two hearts and 4-5 spades: there is plenty of room for responder to check back for five spades after that. Opener bids 3H over 2H with three hearts and fewer than five spades; 3S over 2H with three hearts and five spades; and 3NT over 2H with two hearts and 2-3 spades. TLGoodwin

That is correct for "book" Keri: 1NT-2C-2D-2NT is forcing to game, and responder might be on his way to revealing a five-card major. But in "revised" Keri (as promulgated in this thread), 1NT-2C-2D-2NT is just an invitational raise of notrump, with no interest in a major; it isn't forcing. I do not believe there is in "revised" Keri any strong hand with 5+ in a major that responds 2C, so 3M by responder cannot mean that after opener bids 2NT/3C to show a six-card minor. Responder does bid 2C with a strong hand containing five or more diamonds and a secondary four-card major, intending to rebid 3M over opener's 2D. Perhaps 3M by responder still means that. (It would be improbable for responder to have five diamonds when opener has six of them, in the sequence 1NT-2C-2NT-3M; but one must not confuse "improbable" with "impossible." The 5D + 4M meaning is of course more probable if opener shows six clubs.) There won't be a 4-4 fit in the major, but it may still be valuable to describe the general hand type. As I have suggested elsewhere in BBO forum, I am not at all convinced that there is merit in opener showing a six-card minor (and a minimum) directly over 2C. I am dropping it from my partnership agreement (or rather, I am not implementing it at all, since I never did include it). I do like opener's new 2M rebids over 2C, though, and those have now made it into my Notes. TLGoodwin

A question about Revised Keri, as described in outlines in this thread. The sequence 1NT - 2C ; 2NT/3C - 3M is defined as forcing to game with 5+ in M. But I do not see that such a hand responds 2C in the first place (as opposed to a transfer to the major). So, isn't the definition given for that 3M rebid "impossible"? Maybe it is meant that the sequence shows a forcing hand with 5+ diamonds and 4 in the major (i.e., what 3M would mean if opener rebid 2D instead of 2NT/3C). Can anyone clarify this? TLGoodwin

The French-language version referenced above does not appear to be the "revised standard Keri" that started this thread. I've had some trouble deciphering the outlines presented here -- probably my own limitations, no fault of the outlines -- and would appreciate it if someone could send me a copy of the Keri file mentioned above. My e-mail address is goodwintr@adelphia.net One observation about opener's rebids of 2NT(D) and 3C over 2C to show minimum hands with six-card minors: What if opener has an invitational 4-4-4-1 and hears 3C? There are other shapes where opener has a singleton in responder's long minor, and would prefer to be playing in two of a major. Even 4-5-2-2 might be happier playing in 2H on a 5-3 fit, than 3C on a 6-2. I guess I am wondering if the "new" 2NT and 3C rebids are truly valuable. (I am just asking, as I have no doubt at all that Mr. Klinger knows a lot more about the value of these sequences than I do!) Thanks in advance to anyone who can send me the Keri file.

A (very) long time ago I did a study of strong-club opening bids in the World Championships. It showed that the people opening a strong club did better when their opponents intervened than when they had a free run. Of course, they did pretty well in either case, since the big-clubbers at that time were mainly Italians, and they were winning every year. I wonder what a similar (although more thorough) study would show today, now that there has been a lot more experience with and against the strong club. Everybody seems to assume that the way to defeat the strong club is to intervene against it aggressively. Maybe that is right -- but it would be interesting to see some data on the point. TLGoodwin