dokoko

Has "Wikipedia" won any tournaments so far? ;)

Many ideas in this thread have some merit in hiding opener's shape but have serious drawbacks for slam purposes. We bid 3♦ with 5♠ (and 3♥ with 5♥). This caters for opener having 54 in the majors (which is acceptable as we play) and responder having 42 in the majors (and using 2NT instead of 2♣ to hide information when no 4-4-fit is present). After 1NT-2NT;3♦: 3♥ agrees ♠ 3♠ shows 4♥ 3NT is to play After 1NT-2NT;3♥: 3♠ puppets to 3NT (to play there or agreeing ♥) 3NT shows 4♠ Responder avoids to bid the major which he (might) want to play in.

We considered Chris' ideas, but don't like to use two bids for the (even opposite a rock) rare negative hands.

What about 1M-2♣-2M as negative and 1M-2♣-2♦ as catch-all? This is obviously better when M=♥. Responder has the same rebids over 2♥ negative as he had over 2♦ negative (2♥ being replaced by pass) and has an additional (forcing) 2♥ rebid over the catch-all rebid. It's probably also better when M=♠. Responder loses one rebid over the negative rebid and wins two over the catch-all rebid.

What about a mixing strategy by opener? Say he passes all heart hands and some spade hands. Knowing that, responder might even save him by redoubling when the double is passed and he gets some vibes from the opps.

Seems rather routine to me!

I like to play that 2NT-3red-3M denies a fit. Together with 2-under-transfers at the 4-level for slammish 1-suiters you now don't need responder's rebids in a new suit as cuebid and can use it to search for a minor suit fit (natural or otherwise). You lose the ability to play 3M with a fit which is no great loss when 2NT shows at least 20 or so. Mats Nilsland in his recent book (available for free as pdf from his site AFAIK) even recommends breaking the transfer to 3♠ without a fit.

We play: 2♣ = strong 2 in a major / 22-23 bal / any game force. Usually opener has a plan how to bid his strong hand so responder tries not to get in his way: 2♦ = waiting FG 2♥ = very weak (0-3) 2♠ = a good 6-card suit (any) Opener's rebids over 2♦: 2♥ = hearts or balanced (responder must bid 2♠) 2♠ = natural (2NT asks for second suit, other bids are natural) 2NT = clubs (3♣ asks for second suit, other bids are natural) 3♣ = diamonds without clubs (3♦ asks for second suit, other bids are natural) 3♦ = 5+ diamonds & 4+ clubs higher = sets trump Opener's 2M then 3NT shows a very strong 5M332 Opener's trf to 3m then 3NT shows a 1-suiter (NF - bid 4♣ instead if very strong) Opener's rebids over 2♥: pass is an option 2♠ is NF 2NT shows 22-23 (here you should probably adjust your 2NT structure) Opener's rebids over 2♠: 2NT = transfer to your suit other = natural (responder bids his suit without fit, raises or jumps with fit) Responder shows a solid suit with the cheapest NT (1st step then asks for length, 2nd step for the suit - just in case).

Did I mention that South should bid NT on his balanced hand?

Good technique is to ruff a heart, then play a diamond to the queen. IMO this should be a routine move at the table by an expert declarer.

Why not open 1♥? To profit from a 4-card major system as opposed to 5-card majors you should open your major whenever reasonable.

As a practical guide a new suit at the 4-level is seldom needed as natural. A diamond suit not mentioned over 2♥ cannot logically be worth a 4♦ bid. In my regular partnership a new suit at the 4-level is natural only if there is no logical alternative. But I think the OP wasn't interested in how he should use the bid but how he should interpret it when used by opps. I would expect it to agree hearts and inviting slam - usually showing control of diamonds. There is a minority approach to use any bid of 4M-1 as Last Train, even with plenty of room available below 4M. In that case 4♦ would ask opener for extras and tend to deny control of diamonds. This is clearly alertable if the regulations require alerts at that level. In any case - whether alerted or not - I recommend to ask the meaning of opponents' bids once the bidding is over. There are so many non-standard treatments around that you can't be sure opponents use a bid the same way as you do.

6NT is a very good contract even opposite hand #2. If opps lead a heart, you win unless South has all the diamonds (run ♦9 at trick 2 - duck if North covers).

What about (-)-(1♣)-;(1♦)-(-)2♣? On the normal ♦Q lead I might make +110 if I get everything right (1.♦Q->A, 2.♠A, 3.♠ruff, 4.♣A, 5.♣Q->K, 6.♠ruff, 7.♣J - having seen 8 HCP with West, I will finesse ♥Q and lose a ♦ at the end).

In standard, 1♦-1♠;1♠-3♥ is invitational only, so I would bid 4th suit with a pickup partner. With my regular partner 3♥ would be forcing, but would show a better suit, so I would bid 2♣, too. I guess the OP bid 1♦-1♥;2♠ - a popular method to kill constructive bidding.

Assuming your numbers will be confirmed by bigger samples, it seems more important to explore slam in opener's suit than to explore other strains. I guess that when playing freestyle weak twos finding the right strain with strong responding hands is more of an issue.

Partner will suppress his major after 1♣-1♦ with a balanced hand. If you have the tools to find a fit in your major (some kind of checkback) after a 1NT rebid, you may bid a 4-card diamond suit first. If you have not then start with the major and be prepared to lose a diamond fit if it is there. Anyway don't bid 1♦ if you don't want to play in diamonds. If the only choice is between 3NT and 4 of your major there is no point in bidding a longer diamond suit.

I posted this a few days ago on BridgeWinners (https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/defensive-approach-versus-canape-openings/) and got some useful input. Nonetheless there might be other stuff around here: Standard defensive bidding methods focus on opponent opening his longest suit. This might not be optimal when opponents don't open in their longest suit. Some structures have been suggested versus "nebulous" 1m openings. I am interested in concepts when the opponent opens a real suit when he is sure (or likely) to have a longer side suit. Are there any sensible approaches around covering this situation?

We don't bid 3♣ with 5+♠.

Perhaps a good idea (I need time to check the implications on minor suit auction in detail). For the time being, we play the following: 2NT-3♦/3♥: 3M = 2M, <5oM 3M+1 = 2M, 5oM 3M+2 = 4M max 3M+3 = 4M min 4M-1 = 3M max 4M = 3M min This might not be ideal, but at least gets us to the right strain. Hands that want to play in 3M after 2NT are not that frequent. Hands with slam interest opposite a doubleton are shown by an immediate 4-level transfer, so a 4m rebid by responder is natural if no fit has been established.

1. Do it with a partner and practice it! 2. Don't forget competitive bidding! 3. Practice your system with an open mind! 4. Not everything you design will work. If you face a problem at the table there might be a systemical solution aroud. Perhaps you have to redesign parts of the system. Once the basic structure is there, find detailed description of other systems and look for things you may borrow. Be detailed! When looking at a given bidding situation I found it helpful to assign a description to all reasonable bids, then look whether there was a bid available for any hand I could reasonably have. If more than one bid was available for a particular hand, I asked myself whether I would like to have a choice or would prefer to narrow the definition of one of the bids involved. BTW, I found this interesting: http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com

Playing 2NT as Good-Bad here helps: - 2NT shows a competitive hand with: a) both minors, b) long diamonds, c) heart support. About 13-15 with the right distribution. - 3-level bids show good hands (strongly invitational but nonforcing). - dbl shows a strong hand unsuitable for other action (semibalanced or too strong for a nonforcing bid). Not playing 2NT as Good-Bad I would lower the range for direct 3-level action a little bit and force to game with a little less. I still need dbl for a balanced hand not able to bid 2NT (probably lacking a spade stopper). In any case 3♦ promises extras. With a normal opener you will have to hope partner can reopen.

I would be happy if he did.

I would have led ♣J to the ace at trick two. In any case I would have to be at the table in order to decide how to play the clubs. Whatever happens, if I guess wrong, I will not expect to win the hand by ruling. I will only call the TD if I think that LHO deliberately tried to mislead me; even then it's only to get him punished.