NickToll

IMHO, the key is the meaning of 4x. Is there a reason to bypass 3♠? It could be - opener could have something as AKxx xxx AKx AKx, with no interest in declaring but wanting to protect a heart control in partner's hand. This seems the only logical way to play a cuebid in this sequence. If so, retransfering is pointless. To me, 2NT-3♣; 3♦-3♥; 4♣-4♥ sounds like responder has a heart control but not a diamond control. [...]; 4♦-4♥ sounds more like LTTC, surely with a club control if playing Italian cuebids (hoping opener has AKxx AKx AKx xxx).

Any opinion deserves respect. I can understand having just one person in charge of picking the national team does not suit everyone's taste, even if this happens regularly in most sports and in most countries (soccer, as an example). By the way, this method was used in Italy in the 50s-60s-70s to select the Blue Team, and it didn't work that bad. But you could be right on this point. On the other hand, you can't possibly be right in referring to Maria Teresa Lavazza as "some rich Italian woman". She has been running the most successful Italian team for around 25 years, as a player and (mostly) as npc. Her knowledge of top Italian players and experience in leading a bridge team can't be questioned.

This is true, but not entirely. A good responding system may allow you to preempt at a reasonable level when holding a fit in both majors: typically, 3♥ with three hearts and three or more spades, 3♠ with three spades and four hearts, 4♣ or 4♦ with four cards in both majors (4♣ asks for a transfer in the long suit). Of course you can't preempt when you have a major doubleton: but then opener's long suit rates to be responder's short one. Something similar is also possible when 2♦ includes strong balanced hands. 3-level responses could be: 3♣: long unspecified minor, game forcing, guarantees a stopper in the other minor; follow-ups allow to land in 3NT or 4M when appropriate; 3♦: 3-3 in majors, game strength opposite a strong balanced hand; 3♥ or 3♠: 3-4 in majors, bid the 3card suit, game strength opposite a strong balanced hand; 3NT: 4-4 in majors, game strength opposite a strong balanced hand; 2NT is game invitational or better facing a weak two, slam invitational (usually) facing a strong balanced hand. Should opener occur to be balanced, he/she will bid 3NT with no fit, 4♣ with a fit in hearts, 4♦ with a fit in spades. Not perfect, but playable: and you can still open 2♥, 2♠ or 2NT to show additional hand types.

Playing 3♦ as good hand / bad suit has a technical advantage: it allows you to introduce hearts in 2♠-2NT;3♦-3♥ as natural and forcing, knowing that opener's spades are bad.

Playing 3♦ as good hand / bad suit has a technical advantage: it allows you to introduce hearts in 2♠-2NT;3♦-3♥ as natural and forcing, knowing that opener's spades are bad.

In "Bridge in the 80s" R. Sundby described the then-current version of Breakthrough Club. In that system 2♣ was strong, artificial and forcing (but not to game), including unbalanced hands only. Responses were relatively natural: 2♦: no 5card major, any strength 2♥, 2♠: 5card suit, any strength 2NT: 8+, balanced, no 4card major (with some exceptions) 3♣: 8+, positive, good 5card or longer suit 3♦, 3♥, 3♠, 4♣: six cards headed by two of the three top honors 3NT: any solid suit Over 2♦, opener's rebids were canapé-style: 2♥ and 2♠ promised four or more card, possibly with a longer minor, whereas 3♣ and 3♦ showed a long and strong suit and 2NT was rebid with a minor 2suiter. Negative rebids by responder: 2NT after 2♦, or 3 of the major suit shown in response, or 3♥ over opener's 3♣ or 3♦, or a 3level preference over opener's 2NT: other rebids positive and natural. I have no significant experience in bidding this way, and would be curious to hear from others about it.

I think that the NT range is the major factor here. When playing 15-17 it is possible to remove 5M332s from 1NT and arrange some sequences to handle those hands starting from 1M (e.g., play a simplified Gazzilli - rebid 2♣ over a 1-level response and, if partner is interested, follow with 2NT). On the other hand, when playing 12-14 it seems preferable to open 5M332s with 1NT: otherwise, one has to open 1M and lose the major advantage of the weak notrump - make sure that 1suit bids promise 15+ or unbalanced shape. This in turn has positive effects on the whole 1bids development, that should be taken into account when evaluating results in the long term. Once decided to include ALL 5M332s into 1NT, 5-3 fits can always be found somehow when the partnership has game values. One method could be let opener reply 2M to Stayman and, as responder, follow with 3OM, 3+ cards in M; now opener will bid: 3NT with just four; here responder may pass or follow with 4m (natural slam try), 4M (mild slam try with a 4-4 fit, stronger than 4M at the previous round but still not forcing), other bids strong slam tries with a 4-4 fit any other bid with five (cue-bids or whatever you prefer) No luxury of this kind is allowed for in partscore or invitational sequences, with the obvious exception of 1NT - 2♣; 2M - 2NT; 3M (5332, maximum).

Really brilliant!

This is exactly where my partnership is today: inverted raises and natural fit jumps. Simple and straightforward. Our attempt id to add another option to responder's. If we want to keep the inverted 2♦ as well as the 2♥ response as weak Reverse Flannery, we are left with 2♠ as multi-fit. In this case opener could follow with: 2NT: three or more hearts 3♣: three or more spades 3♦: no interest for any major and a minimum 3♥+: no interest for any major, extra values, exact meaning to be defined (cue? short suit?)

In our definition, after a multi jump the auction can die at 3m only if both players are minimum AND opener has no fit for responder's major. Over 1♦ a typical minimum should be something like ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣xxx, with no upper limit. What you suggest about the range is sensible. Our approach is different because opener's 3NT needs a little latitude: it can show a minimum hand, necessarily unbalanced, since 3♣ and 3♦ are used as slam tries. Therefore, it's more comfortable to raise 3NT to 4NT holding 18+ points. About the four-card majors, we prefer to anticipate notrump when holding a good balanced hand, allowing opener to reply 3♥ or 3♠ naturally (a new suit with four cards, the opening suit rebid with six): if opener has no major to offer, responder will declare in notrump and opponents will have no information about his majors. Take a look at Kent Feiler's page for the details.

This is under discussion in my partnership. We have experimented different kinds of jump responses over 1♣ or 1♦ in our weak notrump foundation. The scheme below is an attempt to play many of them in the same system. Over 1♣: 2♣: limit-plus club raise, forcing to 3♣ - the usual inverted raise 2♦: "multi" fit bid - a good five-card major, four or more clubs, forcing to 3♣ 2♥: weak, five spades and four hearts 2♠: mixed club raise 2NT: natural and forcing, 12-14 or 18+, may have 4card majors (with 15-17, respond in a suit and then jump to 3NT, or respond 3NT with a square hand) - this comes from Kent Feiler, see here 3♣: preemptive club raise Over 1♦: 2♦: "multi" fit bid - a good five-card major, four or more diamonds, forcing to 3♦ 2♥: weak, five spades and four hearts 2♠: limit-plus diamond raise, forcing to 3♦ 2NT: natural and forcing, as over 1♣ 3♣: preemptive club raise 3♦: preemptive diamond raise The 2♦ response is the point I'd especially like to hear from you about. Compared to 2♥ and 2♠ natural fit bids (which we have played for some time, even in non competitive auctions), this 2♦ leaves room for the weak 2♥ response: on the other hand, it does not clarify immediately which major suit is held and deprives us of the natural inverted raise over 1♦. Both minus points appear to be manageable: In non competitive auctions opener can bid 2♥ or 2♠ with three cards, looking for an alternative fit: responder will confirm the fit by raising or showing a short suit (both GF), or deny by bidding the opening suit (minimum, can be passed) or 2NT (good hand, GF) or 2♠ over 2♥ With no interest for any major fit, opener can rebid his minor (can be passed) or mark the time with 2NT (game forcing), or suggest a strong 1-suiter by bidding the other minor (artificial) In competitive auctions opener can rely on the known minor fit, or double a major overcall for takeout, allowing responder to convert the double with the same suit or make some descriptive bid with the other major 1♦-2♠ is not as comfortable as 1♦-2♦, but opener can reply 3♦ with a minimum, any other bid as a natural force - not great, but quite playable Any thoughts? Thanks.

This is exactly the way I play too - it seems to me the best compromise between being effective and keeping it (relatively) simple.

This seems to me the perfect hand for 2♠ (solid spades, or game forcing with a fit in hearts and five good spades), followed by 4♦ (heart raise, good spades, singleton diamond). The immediate Splinter suggests something in clubs too, which I don't have, whereas the Soloway sequence is much more descriptive.

The following seems sensible to me: 2♣: non forcing Stayman, with 2♦♥♠ replies; here responder invites with 2NT or a raise, other rebids are weak - e.g. 1NT-2♣; 2♠-3♦ is to play with four hearts and long diamonds. 2NT: puppet to 3♣, to play in a minor partscore (pass or 3♦) or show a minor 2suiter (3♥ or 3♠ in a short suit, 3NT with 5-5, 4♣ with 5-5 and extra values). 3 of a suit: game forcing, singleton or void in the bid suit, guarantees a four-card major, slam possible if opener has no wasted values. Artificial follow-ups can be attached here, but they are usually unnecessary: opener will reply 3NT with a double stopper opposite partner's short suit (usually ending the bidding), or propose a suit of his own, later suggesting slam when appropriate. Compare with 2♦, that works well when you are looking for a fit, but rarely helps to judge how useful opener's honors will be. 4♣ or 4♦: South African Transfers to 4♥ or 4♠, respectively. Follow with RKCB when you have the right hand.

In Italy the standard meaning of the sequence 2♣-then-3♣ by the responder has been "Re-Stayman" for a long time. It was a minor-suit ask: usual replies by the opener were 3♦ with four or five diamonds, 3NT with four or five clubs, 3M with that three-card major and both four-card minors. After a 2M reply to Stayman, over 3♣ opener had to show a second 4card suit with 3♦, 3OM or 3NT (for clubs), or repeat his original major with 4333 (or possibly 5332). Very simple and very inefficient: today almost nobody plays it anymore. The standard system at that time didn't even include transfers: the only forcing response was 2♣, whereas 2♦♥♠ were natural signoffs and 3♣♦♥♠ were invitational with HHxxxx and out. 2♣-then-3♣ was more or less the only way to handle minor two-suiters and strong balanced hands.

Given that I support 100% your position, did those players explain why 3NT was the correct call?

3♣ relay for majors . 3♦ one or both 4card majors -> 3♥♠ the other major - with both majors responder rebids 3♠-then-4♠, game hand, or 3♠-then-4♥, slam invitation . 3♥ no 4- or 5card major -> 3♠ five spades and four or more hearts . 3♠ five spades -> 4♥ spade fit, slam invitation . 3NT five hearts -> 4♦ transfer to hearts, 4♥ slam invitation 3♦♥ transfer, opener super-accepts (with four cards) jumping to game or bidding a strong suit (3NT if the strong suit is the anchor, to keep retransfer available), responder bids 3♦-then-3♠ with five hearts and four spades 3♠ minor 2suiter, slam try or very unbalanced, opener picks a minor with a fit or bids 3NT otherwise 4♣♦ 1suited slam try in the linked major (4♣=hearts, 4♦=spades), opener denies interest bidding game in responder's suit, otherwise replies with RKCB steps (skipping the negative reply, of course) 4♥♠ 1suited slam try in the linked minor (4♥=clubs, 4♠=diamonds), same as before with 4NT reply as negative After responding 3♣ or 3♠, a 4♣♦ rebid shows a 5card or longer suit: opener replies with RKCB steps, skipping 4NT as negative. After 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT (hearts), 4♠ is a slam try in diamonds, since 4♦ is needed as transfer. After responding 3♦♥, a 4♣♦ is a natural slam try (no RKCB), opener shows interest in the minor bidding artificially the other major.

This strikes me as backwards, i.e. it might be more advantageous to use 2NT as a max huh? If responder has 8 points without club length, he would be stuck when opener bids 3♣. So it's better to play 2NT as showing minimum, then responder can pass 2NT. Clearly right. Supporting the minor with a fit and bidding the in-between step without a fit is also consistent with a 2NT response (transfer to diamonds) that might include weak 2suiters with both minors: opener rebids 3♦ with a diamond fit and 3♣ otherwise, allowing responder to pass when holding both clubs and diamonds in a weak hand.

I like the suggestion of playing 1NT over 1♣ as a minimum 4-3-3-3 with four spades (I read this in Danny Kleinman's "The Notrump Zone"): this way, 1♠ guarantees five or more cards or at least a game invitation. As a consequence, after 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦/2♥ the only negative needed is 2♠, natural with five cards: 2NT can be played as positive.

I like to play as game forcing sequences like 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♦ (always a four-card suit or longer) 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♠ (jump reverse) 1♣ - 1♠ - 3♣ (jump suit rebid: not common, but effective) As a consequence, holding a one-suited hand not strong enough to force, we play that: - a jump to 2NT shows a 15-18 one-suiter, with stoppers in both the unbid suits (strong balanced hands are opened at the two level); - a third suit, reverse or not, can be a real suit or a stopper (the reverse approach is similar to Kaplan-Sheinwold). The odd case is relevant to 15-18 one-suiters with a side suit unstopped: it is usually revealed when opener returns to his first bid suit. In the development, the fourth suit by responder is not necessarily strong, and suggests a fit for the second suit (if real).

With this shape, I usually open 1NT: but, holding AKQxx in diamonds, 1♦-1♠-2♦ seems more descriptive. And 1♦-1♥-2♥ would be even more descriptive...

I used to play a strong diamond system in the 80s (actually strong diamond was pretty common in Italy at that time). It was not a three-layer system as Magic Diamond: it was just 1♦ 17+ and other bids 11-16, with weak twos in the majors and other normal stuff. This structure has its plusses and minuses, as everything else, but its minuses become worse if one wants to pack lots of different hands in 1♣: then that bid becomes an invitation to overcall, with no information still conveyed. I found it useful to open 1♣ only with relatively balanced hands, let's say at most 5431 with a 5card minor: it's not a narrow bid, but at least you imply fair defensive values and deny a distributional hand. On the other side, unbalanced hands with a long minor (5431 with a good suit or any hand with a 6card suit) can be opened effectively with 2♣ or 2♦, removing the one level at once but conveying a valuable piece of information: offensive hand, good suit. We can argue if these bids are efficient or not: surely the high level can make them cumbersome, and you need some gimmicks to find your major fit. Anyway, I find them much more playable than a "any-hand 1♣".

You're not alone... :D In the 1963 Bermuda Bowl final, Italy vs. USA, Giorgio Belladonna opened 3♦ in first seat, no one vulnerable, holding ♠2 ♥96532 ♦AKQJ94 ♣4: after that, Jordan-Robinson stopped in 5♣, making six. In the other room, Howard Shenken passed, and came back with 2NT after two bids by opponents: eventually Forquet-Garozzo bid and made 6♣.

How true! If one wants to put some special meaning on 3NT, IMHO a balanced slam try (asking suits up the line, forcing to 4NT) has some merit. No one of you will ever forget it, of course... but if your partner does, maybe 4NT was your best spot anyway.

Benoit, it is playable for sure, but I'm afraid it doesn't get the point. My interest is: is there anywhere a good development of 1♥-1♠ and 1♥-1NT that enables a good follow-up with Flannery hands AND does not present the opponents with a free-risk double over 1♠? Just to make myself clear, I was thinking about something like the following (in a 2/1 base when minimum 5M332 are opened with a weak notrump and responder's strong balanced hands go through a natural and forcing 2NT): 1♥ - 1♠: weak or inv with less than four spades, or normal 1-over-1 with five or more spades (guarantees five spades if GF) 1♥ - 1NT: weak with exactly four spades, or inv with four or more spades, or inv with a balanced hand A reasonable follow-up could be: 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT: Flannery hand, not forcing 1♥ - 1♠/NT - 2♣: hearts+clubs or 15+ balanced -> 2♦ relay with game interest opposite 15+ 1♥ - 1♠ - xx - 2NT: Lebensohl-ish 1♥ - 1♠ - xx - 3x: natural and game forcing, five or more spades 1♥ - 1NT - xx - 2♠/2NT/3x: natural and invitational 1♥ - 1NT - 2/3♠: natural opposite spades; responder can convert to notrump when appropriate ... etc etc... but it's just on paper. This is the reason why I wondered if someone had experimented something similar in real play.