rr9000

I agree with Stephen that the "older" ranges for 2NT and 3NT have advantages, and the history is perhaps illuminating. The ranges changed not because the new ones were seen as superior per se, but because they were needed in order to accommodate the 2/1 problem hand type of an invitational level response to 1D that's not suitable for a major suit bid, an inverted minor raise, or an invitational 3C bid. At one point, the system bid was 1H on a three card suit (gag!). Then 2NT over a 1D opener was shifted down to invitational and 3NT had to come with it. Originally, these 2NT and 3NT responses were just after a 1D opening, but first some and then all or nearly all who play 2/1 moved to having the lower HCP 2NT and 3NT responses to 1C as well, for consistency. To the occasional detriment of those who play 2/1 fully game forcing (as opposed to Mike Lawrence style), this doesn't solve all of the 1D-2C problems, but then again, neither do "standard" or Lawrence's thoughtful solutions. RR9000

Many good suggestions thus far. The only one missing from my list is Lebensohl. I'm not sure how I'd get by without it. RR9000

If you were playing SAYC (complete version as described at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_card.pdf and the accompanying booklet at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf), what handful of conventions or specific agreements would you *most* want to add to it, and why? Thanks! RR9000 PS - I'm having trouble getting the inserted booklet link to work. There's a functioning link at http://www.bridgebum.com/sayc.php

So there seem to be several here who play xyz after opener's one level suit rebid. Whether or not you respond to a 1C opening with 1D or 1H on a 1=4=4=4 hand, what's your rebid with a minimum after opener's 1S rebid? Thanks! RR9000

Some people consider xyNT a "form" of xyz. Some consider it a separate convention. If I'd just written xyz, some would be writing in that I should distinguish whether I'm including notrump or not. I thought I was opting for clarity. RR9000

I'm interested to know how many people have tried xyz where z is a suit, and what their experiences have been. Thanks! RR9000

I'm thinking more about Flem72's excellent "MUST" here, and it's not obvious to me why Weinstein-Kaplan don't take more account of the meaning of XX by responder and whether opener is forced to XX if it's all float back to them. (They mention memory load, but maybe this one's worth it?) If the opps' system means that 1NTX can't be the final contract, why should advancer ever pull without a five card suit, let alone a questionable club suit? Wouldn't it be better to show a balanced hand by passing and let the doubler run? My first reaction was that these methods by the opening side would mean that overcaller's side could play systems on (to facilitate getting to major suit games, when plausible) *and* allow responder to run out into two of a minor when that's best, but on more reflection, I thought it might be better to allow responder to run immediately when holding a five card minor. RR9000 PS - Thinking more, I'm realizing that the 2C call is about more than running: it's about defining the hand as weak. That makes pass strong enough to initiate their doubling scheme when the opener's side starts their runouts. So maybe the only time when it might make sense to revise 2C in the Weinstein-Kaplan scheme is when XX is strength-showing, so we know our side is not going to be doubling the opps.

Yes, I had read the Weinstein-Kaplan piece. My question here was mostly relevant to part I, when the opps pass. It's a very nice discussion. They use 2C as artificial runout, but other runouts natural. Larry Cohen and his partners play systems on. Some people play all the two level bids as natural runouts. IMO, there are surprisingly few online or written discussions of this seemingly important topic. RR9000

What are various people's experiences with playing systems on (i.e., the systems you would play as if your side opened 1NT) vs "natural," allowing runouts into 2 of a minor when advancer is bust and has a minor. Thanks! RR9000

Sorry I didn't make that explicit. Double is penalty for both systems above.

I'm looking at Meckwell's defense against weak notrump, 2C = spades and a round suit 2D = diamonds and a major 2H = hearts 2S = spades and wondering whether anyone knows the follow-up bids for this. If not, maybe our collective efforts can work out what they must be in order to get to the best major suit fits with the various hand types. Thanks! RR9000 PS. While we're at it, any comments on follow-up bids for the following response system are also welcome. 2C = majors 2D = diamonds and a major 2H = hearts 2S = spades

Another one for the detectives, if I may: what's this one called? 2C majors 2D diamonds plus a major 2H natural 2S natural Thanks! RR9000

My main pard and I have been playing 2NT as limit raise or better for a long time, and like it, but I wouldn't disagree with your suggestion that the gains and losses even out, in principle. (I agree with others who suggest that standard Jacoby 2NT has some shortcomings, so even though I think we're coming out ahead of Jacoby 2NT on constructive auctions, it's not clear we'd come out ahead of a good revised version.) Where I feel like we have an advantage is in being able to bid a direct 3M preemptively. There are other ways to get there, but they're not my preferred methods. They let the opps get in lead-directing doubles or actions that can help to compete or get to sacs. And more importantly, in my opinion, they prevent other good uses for the jump shift(s) into 3 of a minor. In my 2/1 partnerships, I want that jump shift to show the invitational hands. And in my non-2/1 partnerships, I want that jump shift strong. Just my $.02. RR9000

Nor am I. All of my regular partnerships use different methods against strong notrump, each of which uses double artificially. I'm not willing to give up the penalty double against a weak notrump. RR9000

I see your point. But what if overcaller bids *2S* (rather than always hearts) when holding longer spades? You play 5-3 fit when you have one and play 5-2 when that's all there is or when you're choosing between 5-2 and 4-3. If responder has a two card discrepancy, they support the major they like rather than bidding 2D, since that's the right major suit fit regardless of overcaller's shape (e.g., 4-3 with a side single vs 5-1). Should we be worried about bypassing 2D on those hands? I don't think so, since in that case partner of overcaller has 9 minor suit cards. If 3 or 4 of those are diamonds, 3D is a reasonable resting place if overcaller has diamonds, so 2M by partner of overcaller can be bid on the 1-3 major suit hand, with the understanding that 3C or 3D by overcaller then shows that minor suit. If partner of overcaller only has 2 diamonds, that makes 7 clubs. With a weak hand, partner of overcaller could pass 2C, and with a strong enough hand not to want to have the auction drop in 2D, can bid a forward-going 3C or force and ask further description with 2NT. I'm just making this up as I go along. Wish we had Baker-McCallum here to tell us how they deal with it. Even if I'm right so far, and I may well not be, I'm still concerned about what happens if the auction gets more competitive, but that's a problem with all the competition methods that have ambiguity about what suits overcaller has. RR9000

Taking the arguments against 2D for majors into consideration, I'm looking at some of the 2C for majors conventions (such as Multi-Landy) and started wondering why 2C can't be *either* majors or a single minor. As it happens, this is what Baker-McCallum play (I expect there are others, but this was one of the first convention cards I pulled up). Anyone know what that's called? Is it worth giving up having pard know right away that you have at least 9 cards in the majors to have possibility of playing 2D? Cheers, RR9000

In one of my partnerships many years ago, we used to play the following over weak notrump: 2C = minor 1 suiter or major-minor 2 suiter 2D = majors 2H = hearts 2S = spades Looks like at least some people describe this or something very close to it as Modified Cappelletti, though others used Modified Cappelletti for different conventions. Anyone know if there are other names for the above? Thanks! RR9000

It's responder who's apt to be able to double. He knows opener has 14+. RR9000

If we were playing against a system with light openings and replies, I'd be more inclined to agree. Vs this system, it's not clear to me that that's a benefit. After 1S reply and with spades stopped in my hand, I'm guessing 1H is likely the 14+ type (though it'd be interesting to simulate this). And they're playing minor suit openings 14+. In neither case is game likely for our side unless opener is a bare minimum and responder is 0-1. Even if a simulation suggested that a natural notrump might be better after 1H-1S, would we really want to play different methods against the 1H opening and the minor suit openings? RR9000

We both passed and stayed fixed. Pard had Q9, 97, Q94, KJT754, so the common 3NT our way is icy and we lost 8 imps when they made their heart contract. I'm convinced by the arguments that there was nothing good to be done about it. Thanks to all for the comments. RR9000

After some reading some books' treatment of this (mostly Bergen and Cohen, with a little Lawrence) and some online sources (online threads, and a nice series by Marc Smith), pard and I have settled on the following rule: *Non-jump* 2NT bids in competition are *always* artificial, with the following exceptions: • After 1D (2C), 2NT natural and invitational (cue bid available to show good raise) • After 1red (P) 1 of suit (2C); P (P), 2NT natural and invitational (takeout X, 2 level and 3 level all available). • After 1m (2m = Michaels), 2NT natural and invitational (cue bids available to show good raise and good hand in other minor) but 2NT here strongly implies decent fit for opener's minor. With a balanced non-fitting hand, we’d double to suggest penalizing. Thanks to all for the interesting comments. RR9000

You hold AKJ3, AQ8, K2, 9632 red at imps and the auction proceeds as follows: (1H*) P (1S**) P by you (2D***) P (2H) to you *forcing, 14+ with 5+ hearts or 11+ with 5+ hearts and 4+ spades ** 0-9, 4+ spades *** 5 hearts, 4+ diamonds, 14-16 points Do you bid on either first or second round? Normally, you play 1NT unusual in sandwich position. Against this system, what would you want your agreements to be about what 1NT shows on the first round? About what X shows on first round? Against this system, what would you want your agreements to be about what X should show on second round? Thanks for your thoughts! RR9000

I'd be disappointed if undos were removed. Anyone who doesn't want to allow undos doesn't have to, but I basically always grant them. In casual play, I don't want to waste time either with distorted auctions as people try to make up for a mis-bid or with playing silly contracts. I'm happy to give people the right to refuse them, but I'd like to keep the right to accept them. You make a good point that there's potentially UI even when the request is rejected. It wouldn't be my highest priority, but maybe the software could be coded so that the partner of the person requesting an undo wouldn't see that there's a request unless it's accepted, or so that a person could elect a blanket undo rejection that would block requests at their table preemptively. RR9000

If you take away the 6th diamond so that your example hand has 13 cards, you'll probably still make 2NT, thanks in part to those tens, but 2H will be no treat for the opps. I don't know what "standard" treatment for 1NT - - 2M - - 2NT It's an interesting question. I'm not inclined to want it to be natural. If I have heart cards, the lead is going to come through them, and if I don't, we may not even have hearts stopped. If I have a hand that will work in notrump (and I'm not thinking 15 opposite 6 will work too well if opener has a minimum), it'll likely also work well on defense. If the opps have found themselves with a good enough suit fit to make despite being outgunned, we should have a good suit fit somewhere, too. If I don't have agreement, I think I'm going to pass on hands that might want it be natural, unless I'm confident that X for penalties is the "standard" treatment. :) N.b., if 2NT is natural and X is penalty, I have no way to take this out, except when I can take 2H out to 2S showing a 4-bagger. In terms of partnership agreements, there are potential implications related to what X shows, and the choices open to me are different when the M is hearts vs spades. If X is penalty, I think I clearly need 2NT as some sort of takeout. If X is takeout, I would still tend to want 2NT as two places to play, particularly over a 2S call. (After 2H I have the option of X and pass as 3=2=4=4, with X and pull as something like 2=2=4=5.) Question coming back at you and for everyone. What's X show on this auction?

For sure, this is not something I'd try to pull out of the hat without partnership agreement. I'm wondering about how people play it in regular partnerships. As I poke around on the web and some books, I'm finding some support for lots of artificial meanings of 2NT in contested auctions. One poster posited an interesting partnership rule that 2NT can only be natural if 3NT is still a possibility. This would allow unambiguous artificial 2NT in undiscussed auctions to be added to Lebensohl and the usual discussed situations. RR9000