JLilly

What is 1♠-3♥ for you? It's not very valuable as a weak jumpshift since your side has the majors. If you play it as 6+ hearts, invitational, then that hand is removed from 1♠-2♥. So when responder rebids 2N, he or she can't have six hearts, which means that opener's 3♥ isn't needed to show two-card support. So it can be six spades, accepting the invitation.

Or make it a strong-or-long diamond system, with 0+ 1♣ unless 4M+5♦ goes canape: 1♣ = out-of-range-1NT balanced hands, 13-15 6+ clubs, otherwise unspecified primary-club hands, 11-15 {1,2,3}={3,2,1}=5=4, 11-15 4M+5♦ (if not canape) 1♦ = 16+ unbal all, 17+ bal all, 14-16 6+ diamonds 1M = 11-15(16) 1N = 14-16 or 11-13 2♣ = 8/9-13 6+ clubs, 8/9-13 5+ clubs and 4 of a major 2♦ = 8-13 6+ diamonds 4=4=4=1 per usual tells the least-bad lie.

Does anyone know of any systems where all (or nearly all) hands above a certain strength are opened 1♣, as well as some stronger-than-minimum hands with primary clubs, but no other hands? That is, no balanced hands or 4441s. Polish Club and An Unassuming Club have these other hand types. Or a strong diamond system that also has some less-strong primary diamond hands. The idea is to get very frequent intermediate, Fantunes-style 2♣/♦ openers that pressure opps by taking stronger-than-minimum opening hands out those bids, at the expense of some loss of definition in the strong 1m opener. For example, 1♣ = 16+ unbal all, 17+ bal all, 14-16 6+ clubs, 14-16 5+ clubs and 4 of a major 1♦ = out-of-range-1NT balanced hands, 13-15 6+ diamonds, otherwise unspecified primary-diamond hands, {1,2,3}={3,2,1}=4=5 1M = 11-15(16) 1N = 14-16 or 11-13 2♣ = 8/9-13 6+ clubs, 8/9-13 5+ clubs and 4 of a major 2♦ = 7/8-12 6+ diamonds 4=4=1=4 tells the least-bad lie. This would go well with 1red transfer responses, with opener jumping to 2M with the 14-16 5♣+4M hand and a fit, non-forcing, while accepting at the 1-level with a bigger hand.

It seems like there might be a case for compromising only one of 1♦-2♣ and 1♦-2♦. Keep 1♦-2♦; 2NT as 15-17 FG without getting too high on the 15-facing-9 deals, and put the 9-HCP 33(43) hands both into 2♣. Responder still has only two buckets below a game-force, it's just 6–9 and 10–12 now. (If 1♦-2NT isn't 11–12 rather than GF.) Right, if a 2♦ rebid is any minimum, NF, then you end up in a silly 4-2 fit when both hands are minimums and opener is 4441 and responder is 3325. This requires two exact hand shapes, and so it should be less likely than ending up in a probably-bad 3NT whenever it's a balanced 15 facing a balanced 9. I suppose an alternative is to use 1♦-2♣; 2♥ as either a natural reverse or exactly 4441, the latter à la Kokish, even though Kokish allows responding 1M with only three for weak responding hands and so he doesn't need 1♦-2♣ to be on as little as 9 HCP. Responder with a minimum balanced hand bids NF 2♠, and you end up there with a 4-3 fit, unless responder is exactly 2335 and has to decide whether 2NT or 3♣ is less bad. But this just shuffles the silly contract around, compromises the 2♥ rebid, and doesn't give opps the chance to balance with an unfortunate (for them) 2M.

Most people in my area (Northern California) who play four-way transfers, with or without 2♠ as "range ask or clubs", use acceptance of the 2NT->3♦ transfer to show Hxx (H=A,K,Q) or better. This way responder can make a light invitation to 3NT with HHxxxx and little else, which opener accepts with a diamond holding that will let responder's diamonds run for six tricks. So after 1NT-2NT; 3♦, 3NT = "I have HHxxxx, so we've got 3NT", and 4♣ is the sole slam invitation with club shortness.

Inverted on a 3343 9-count is its own problem, yeah? May well get you too high opposite a minimum opener, and you have less safety to use bidding space to investigate sensitive games or slams.

So 1♦-2♣ has to be 9+, may be a fragment if no major? That seems pretty rough.

When playing a weak no-trump (12–14 or thereabouts), the auction 1♦-1NT (6-10) leaves us doing a lot of guessing. 1♦ can promise 4, or it can be convenient minor, or even promising an unbalanced hand (and thus not a strong NT). If opener has a strong no-trump hand, or really any hand that may want to invite 3NT opposite a maximum, it can be dangerous to do so by a simple raise to 2NT: balanced 16 facing balanced 6 is likely to go down. Some pairs allow responder to bid 1M with a minimum hand and a fragment, in order to narrow the range of the 1NT response. If you don't want to do that, I propose the following to more accurately assess game values: 1♦-1NT 2♣ = natural (about 11–16) or strong no-trump (15–17). Then, . . .pass or 2♦ = 6–8, to play. Responder has seven+ cards in the minors and can get us to a reasonable 2m contract. . . .2M = 9–10, invite to 3N (or possibly 4M) opposite opener's strong no-trump. Fragment / concentration of values. Probably has shortness somewhere. If opener has an unbalanced minimum, we can find our way to a playable fit in 3m. . . .2N, 3m: 9–10 natural Opener's rebids are natural, with 3M or 3oM over a non-signoff accepting the game invite. If responder bid 2M, 3M is four cards and implying concern for the other major, looking at 3NT if responder has the other major covered or 4M if not. This can be non-forcing because opener is limited by not having reversed over 1♦-1NT. Nine tricks may be the limit of the hand, with 3M the last contract that makes despite game values. Is this a common treatment by weak no-trumpers? What do you think? Thanks.

Hi all, a partner and I are working on improving our weak-NT, 2/1 system. We want to be able to open 1♠ on 12-14-count 5(332) hands, but this leaves opener's 2m rebids after responder's semi-forcing 1NT very undefined. So the idea is to put all of the strong-NT hands into 2♣, which then is natural and less than a jumpshift OR 15-17 5(332). Responder shows any hand that's inv+ opposite the strong NT with 2♦; all other bids are minimum, or perhaps some picture jumps at the 3-level. Then I figured, at this point, maybe we should just import an established Gazzilli system, but treatments that my searches have turned up all assume a strong NT context, where 1♠-1NT; 2♣ could be a weak NT hand that has to manufacture a 2♣ rebid. Can anyone point me to a well-elaborated weak-NT Gazzilli system? Or, alternatively, one that still uses opener's jumpshifts for strong hands, but uses the two-way 2♣ rebid described above? We currently play invitational jumpshifts of 1M-3m, and the three-card limit raise of 1M goes through 1NT; it would now start with a 2♦ response if opener's second bid is 2♣. Thanks!

Does anyone have experience with obstructive, two-level jump overcalls showing 5-4 hands? I'm thinking in particular using (1♦)-2♥ to show five+ hearts and four spades, with (1♦)-2♦ now showing four M and five+ clubs. This has a number of advantages compared to Michaels and Unusual 2NT: (1♦)-2♥ puts their cues above 3 of their suit, unlike Michaels. (1♦)-2♥ will often be passed by advancer, so opps are more pressured. (1♦)-2♥ denies them an easy penalty/values double. (1♦)-2♦ gives them only one, costly cue. (1♦)-2♦ puts you on the hook for only eight tricks while (1♦)-2NT requires you to take nine. (1♦)-2♦ lets you make an overcall with clubs+spades in a single bid, which requires two bids and thus substantially more strength with standard methods. You lose the natural 2♥ overcall; on the other hand, they can easily find their 4-4 spade fit anyway. You lose strong Michaels; a solution is to use (1♦)-2NT for any strong two-suited hand. Thanks

2NT is skipped as a transfer because the most common hand type for a 2♣ opener is the very-strong-and-balanced one, and it's nice to not wrong-side NT with such unequal strength.

Zel's method but with (non-mandatory) transfers is somewhat popular and pretty easy. So 2♦ = waiting; semi-positive or positive without a good suit 2♥ = bust 2♠ = transfer to clubs 2NT = not used, or a special three-suited hand (described below) 3♣♦♥ = transfers 3♠ = 5-5 minors (?) A fun and pretty simple tweak is to use both 2♥ and 2♠ as busts, but specifically in that suit. This lets you fold into the 2♣ opener the old-school strong twos in hearts and spades (8 playing tricks), since opener with that hand can pass the 2M bust response. And now your 1♥ and 1♠ opening bids are more limited. 2♦ = waiting; semi-positive or positive without a good suit 2♥ = worthless in hearts (not four small hearts, not three small hearts and shortness, less than a K in high cards); may be worth a trick in another suit. 2♠ = worthless in spades, but worth at least one trick in hearts and may be worth a trick in other suits. 2NT = (4441) or (5440), stoppers in each of the three suits. Opener bids cheapest four-card suit. If it's one of responder's three suits, responder then bids their shortness and we're on the way to slam. If opener hits responder's shortness, responder bids NT and you use whatever NT systems you have to check back. A non-obvious benefit of this structure is that it means you will never need to jump shift from 1M into a fake suit. A 6322 or 6331 hand that's too strong for 1M-1something-3M should have eight playing tricks and so it can be opened 2C and stop safely in 2M if responder has a bust. This jump-shifts-are-into-real-suits feature plus the limiting of 1M openers restores a bit of the benefits of strong club systems to a natural one.

"I am a point strong but i have 3 tenaces" If you open it 2♣, you'll rebid 2N over partner's response for most hands partner will have and with most 2♣ systems, so if you were bringing up tenaces to motivate making sure you declare NT, you'll get there anyway.

Bid whatever you and your partner have agreed is a weak option after opener's reverse! If you have no agreement, make one :) In the games I play in my neck of ACBLland, Lebensohl over a reverse is uncommon; most pairs use Ingberman (cheaper of the fourth suit and 2NT is the only weak, non-GF rebid by responder) or have both 2M and 2NT as non-GF options. But how your partner in your area would likely take your bids of 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, and 3♣ absent discussion I have no idea. If I were at the table and had to guess, I'd probably go with the cheapest natural bid, in this case, 2♥.

One of the drawbacks to a semi-forcing 1NT response to 1M is that responder with a weak hand and a long suit can't bid 1NT and be assured that they can get out in their suit. 1NT played by responder with something like xx x Qxx KJxxxxx opposite a flat minimum opener could be disastrous. In thinking about how to accommodate the semi-forcing NT in the context of a 2/1, strong NT that a partner and I play, I was thinking of using 1H-2NT as this hand. It fits with a response structure to 1H that uses 2S as the unlimited balanced raise, and with 3m either as natural and invitational or to express various limited raises especially the three-card unbalanced limit raise that can no longer go through a forcing 1NT response. I'm thinking this is suitable mainly in response to a 1H opening rather than a 1S opening, because (1) a weak jumpshift has more value when opps could have the master suit, (2) an unlimited balanced raise of 3C to 1S leaves too few steps for the various Jacoby structures (standard, Swedish, whatever flavor you like), and (3) we have the impossible 2♠ to distinguish a invitational long-minor hand from a courtesy raise of opener's 1♥-1NT; 2m rebid. So the response schedule is: 1♥ - 1♠ = unchanged; may want to use some science to address that this response has to hold every responding hand with spades, since 1♥-2♠ is no longer available as an intermediate or strong jumpshift. 1♥ - 1NT = semi-forcing. Does not include weak hands with a long minor. 1♥ - 2m = normal 2/1 1♥ - 2♥ = normal simple raise 1♥ - 2♠ = balanced GF raise or balanced lim+ raise 1♥ - 2NT = weak jumpshift in a minor. Opener usually bids 3♣ pass-or-correct; can bid 3♦ with a hand that would bump a natural 3♣ bid to the four level. 1♥ - 3m = natural invitational, or, I think better, limited raises of opener's hearts, such as a 4-card mixed raise and a 3-card unbalanced limit raise. The invitational 6+ minor hand can be shown after 1♥-1NT by bidding it at the 3 level over opener's non-fitting rebid or using the impossible 2♠ if opener's rebid hits it. What do you think, BBO?

With regard to 1♦-2♣ in particular, there are tons of treatments floating out there to handle this problem auction, with little consensus. Kokish Kantar (scroll down about 60% of the way to "A Troublesome Sequence") Some BBO people Some more BBO people nigel_k

Hi all, I have two questions about leading a suit headed by AK against a NT contract. 1) How good does the suit have to be for you to lead the A or K instead of low (fourth, fifth, depending on your agreements)? AKJx? AKJxx? AKJTx? How does this depend on whether you're defending against, say, 1NT versus 3NT? 2) What is your policy on what the lead of the A versus the K asks for from partner? A lot of people (in my area) play "Ace for attitude, King for kount". It seems like the reverse makes more sense if you normally play attitude signals on the first trick, since from KQJ(x..) or KQT(x..), giving count just tells declarer when to take their ace. Thanks!

I infer that your transfer to clubs is 2♠, yeah? If so, you can overload this response by assigning meanings to opener's rebid of 2N versus 3♣. You can accommodate a 5-5 invitational hand by, for example, having opener rebid 2N with a hand that declines the invitation. If responder had the weak hand with clubs, they bid 3♣, or the 5-5 invitational hand that can't stomach playing in 2N, they also bid 3♣, which opener must pass. If they have a GF hand with clubs, they bid whatever they would bid after the 2♠-3♣ transfer.

My two main partners and I play something pretty basic and natural. 1♣-1♦; 1NT is a balanced hand---it could even have both majors if it's 4=4=2=3. Responder's 2♣ is then checkback, with opener's third bid showing, in descending priority, four hearts, four spades, four diamonds, or none of the above, at the two level with a min and at the three level with a max. 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♦; 2M is diamond support with a M control, like in Ken's post above. With one of my partners, we're thinking of switching to a transfer structure rather than natural. We play mainly matchpoints, so we want to be able to stop in 2N even when a good minor fit is found. The current incarnation of what we're playing around with is: After 1♣-1♦; 1NT, 2♣ = relay to 2♦, then . . . . .pass = signoff . . . . .2NT = quantitative invitation to 3NT . . . . .3♦ = GF with diamonds, no slam interest . . . . .something else = minor slam exploration (probably something like 2-lv to find the strain, 3-lv = autosplinters) 2♦ = tr. to hearts, inv+ 2♥ = tr. to spades, inv+ 2♠ = tr. to clubs. Shows filling club honors to invite a light 3NT contract, OR, GF with clubs but no slam interest. Opener declines with 2NT. 2NT = asks for filling diamond honors for a light 3NT contract. 3♣ = weak, preemptive 3♦ = weak, preemptive

Right -- my post was meant just to address the OP's concerns. I don't think I've encountered a structure that accomplishes all of (1) keeping garbage/crawling Stayman, (2) not using Stayman for quantitative invites, (3) using regular Stayman (not Keri etc.), (4) standard Jacoby transfers, (4) allowing quantitative invites, (5) giving 1NT opener a vote on the minor transfers, (6) having a puppet Stayman bid, (7) showing 5-5 minor hands---weak, invitational, and GF, and (8) keeping two 3-level responses for various major-related features (such as 3M showing (31)(45), or 5-5 major hands). I suppose you could overload the major transfers, maybe like this: Invert the meanings of 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ (4=5 invitational) with 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT (5 hearts, invitational). 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ now is ostensibly the 5-heart invitational hand. Opener declines with 2 hearts and a minimum with 2N. This leaves room for responder to enquire about opener's spade holding, or various other things. With 3+ hearts and/or a maximum, opener makes various other 3-level bids that I haven't worked out. You add some artificial bids for opps to double, although puppet does that anyway. You also can't stop in 2♠ when responder is 4=5 and opener has four spades and a minimum hand, although this is a "bonus" -- in general, invitations take the pair to at least 2N.

If you use the "gap" bid in your minor transfers as the negative response and the completion of the transfer as the superaccept, you can roll the weak 55 minors and invitational 55 minors hands into the minor transfers, freeing up 3♣ for puppet. The treatment below assumes that the suit quality of the invitational 55 hands is such if opener has a club holding good enough to superaccept the single-suited club transfer, you go to game. I just came up with this; there may be something I missed. . .. 1N-2♠ = clubs (weak, inv, strong); or 5-5 inv . . . . . . . 2N = I don't like clubs . . . . . . . . . . 3♣ = signoff . . . . . . . . . . 3♦ = 5-5 inv in the minors, how about diamonds? . . . . . . . 3♣ = I like clubs . . . . . . . . . . pass = signoff . . . . . . . . . . 3♦ = whatever you use that for (e.g., shortness with slam interest) . . . . . . . . . . 3N = 5-5 inv, accepted; or clubs inv, accepted 1N-2N = diamonds (weak, inv, strong), or 5-5 weak . . . . . . . 3♣ = I don't like diamonds . . . . . . . . . . pass = 5-5 weak minors; signoff . . . . . . . . . . 3♦ = signoff . . . . . . . 3♦ = I like diamonds . . . . . . . . . . pass = signoff . . . . . . . . . . 3N = diamonds inv, accepted 1N-3♣ = puppet 1N-3♦ = 5-5 GF Since 1N-2♠; 2N-3♦ is used to show a 5-5 inv hand after answering negatively about clubs, it means you can't use it for responder to show some diamond feature (shortness, etc.) having a very strong club suit with slam interest even opposite a rejection of the club transfer. I think this is better than losing that ability when opener has an acceptance of the club transfer, since in that case, slam is more likely.

Cool, thanks for the input, ppl!

Hi all, my partner and I play 15–17 1NT, and fast-denies Lebensohl over 2♦+ interference. We aren't sure how to treat a natural or DONT overcall of 2♣. Some people ignore the overcall, using X for Stayman and otherwise systems on. This seem suboptimal, since now you know that their strength is over your strength, and game is less likely for you than it would be otherwise. The standard Lebensohl treatment but applied over the 2♣ overcall doesn't quite work, since responder can't go through the 2N-3♣ puppet to show "Stayman with a stopper". Would it make any sense to play a sort of hybrid of Lebensohl and systems-on?: 2R is a transfer to 2M; 2N is a transfer to diamonds (we play four-way transfers). X is penalty per Lebensohl (and should it promise a stopper in C, as part of the basis for penalizing them?). 2♠ is now idle, since without interference it would be a transfer to clubs. We thus have 2♠ and 3♣ available as cuebids. 2♠ as inv+, shows a stopper; 3♣ as GF, denies a stopper. Is there an advanced/expert standard treatment? Thanks!

Ah, yes, thanks! The ACBL is saying that they recommend that clubs use the Open chart, but the Basic+ is a lot more similar to the GCC than is the Open. Is this something many club directors have decided on and announced?

Hi all, here in ACBL land, we're not allowed to use Transfer Walsh (1♣-1♦ = 4+ hearts; 1♣-1♥ = 4+ spades) in ordinary club events. I'm interested in implementing a balanced-club/unbalanced-diamond that's GCC-compliant. Preferably with a strong 1NT. Does anybody play this or have ideas or references? Everything I can find about balanced-club/unbalanced-diamond is built around T-Walsh responses (perhaps there's a reason for this. . .). Thanks!