NickToll

The idea of reserving an opening bid for balanced hands of 18-20 points is not new. I have three questions about this subject: your ideas and comments will be welcome. 1) Is it useful to remove these hands from one of a suit and show them at once with a specific bid at the two level? 2) Assuming you have answered yes to the first question, which is the most appropriate opening bid? 2♦, 2♥ (with Multi), or even 2NT? which are the relative pros and cons? 3) For those of you who prefer 2♦ or 2♥, what development do you use or like?

Agree. IMHO jumping to 4♠ at the second round is acceptable with all your strength in the majors and two vacant doubletons in the minors, which is probably not your case since you were interested in cuebidding.

This is the most unpleasant part of the whole thing. Is it so hard to accept that misunderstandings can always occur in pickup partnerships? Anyway, I use to play 4NT RKCB only when a suit has been agreed upon: that is, bid and raised, not just implied. When this is not the case, 4NT is Roman Blackwood, counting only Aces: 0-3, 1-4, 2, 2 plus the King of the first bid suit. Far from perfect but sensible, especially when partner preempts and you have a very good hand with a suit of your own.

Over a natural weak two bid, responder would like to have multiple options after opponent's pass: raise opener's suit preemptively or constructively, look for support or tolerance for a suit of his/her own, inquire about a specific stopper, show where his/her values are located implying a fit ("fit non jump"). A lot of things, given the limited bidding space available. How do you cope with this? Do you prefer to focus on some of the items above (i.e., 2NT positive relay and change of suit FNJ) or are you able to handle all of them? I know, a lot depends on your weak two style. My preference: in 1st or 2nd seat opener promises a fair hand (about 6-9 pts) and would like his suit to be led; five cards are OK, but with KJTxx or better. Thanks.

But in Acol, the 2♦ rebid is frequently passed. We could easily be playing in a 4-1 fit, then... Well, responder is not likely to pass 2♦ with a singleton diamond. A minimum two-over-one promises 10-11 points or a good club suit, usually with no four card major (otherwise 1♥ or 1♠ is probably more appropriate than 2♣, even with five clubs). Hence, a singleton diamond means a 3-3-1-6 hand: with that shape, a 3♣ rebid seems much better than pass...

1♦ seems the best choice to me holding a 4441, 4144 or 1444. 1♣ is the obvious choice with 4414. Points of discussions with partner: - 1♦-1♠-2♣ does not promise more than four diamonds (1444); - 1♦-2♣-2♦, once again, can be bid with a minimum and four diamonds only (4441). Both the treatments are not perfect, but the alternatives are worse. Alternative n.1: minimum 1444s and 4441s could be included in the 1NT opening bid. Matter of style: it is relatively common with a stiff King (if you are allowed to do so under your local regulations). If you choose to do so, your weak NT will include hands with 6-8 losers instead of the usual 7-8: moreover, you will never discover the ruff potential when a 4-4 fit is found. Alternative n.2 (for the second point only): minimum 4441s could be bid via 1♥-2♣-2♦. This is the standard Acol route. Anyway, playing four-card majors and weak notrump, when partner opens 1♥ or 1♠ you are entitled to assume a five-card suit or extra values: this enables you to raise with three cards only, knowing that partner will usually have the strength to correct in notrump when appropriate. To me, this principle is so valuable that I won't give it up. Compared to the alternatives above, opener's rebid showing five or rarely four diamonds seems more than acceptable.

1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♥ 3♦ - 4♦ 4♠ 3♦: game try, suggests 5422 and no clear direction 4♦: ok, let's play game, pick a major, suggests decent spades 4♠: maybe the long suit of the weak hand has a better chance to succeed

In my usual partnership 1NT - 3x is a slam try with a singleton or void in the bid suit and three or more cards in the other three suits. So, for example, we bid 1NT - 3♣ with 6331 and a six-card major. We accept to stop in 3NT, even with an eight-card fit, when the short suit is well stopped. Opener's rebids: - 3NT: double stopper, usually ending the bidding; sometimes responder will correct to 4♥♠ with a six-card suit; - jump to game: five-card suit and some wasted values, but unsuited for 3NT; - "raise" of the short suit: 1NT - 3♣♦ - 4♣♦ shows both four-card majors and denies slam interest (wasted values), whereas 1NT - 3♥♠ - 4♥♠ shows both four-card minors and, again, no slam interest; - suit: four or more cards, does not promise nor deny slam interest (no wasted values). Now: - bidding responder's short suit (by either player) agrees partner's last bid suit and is encouraging: opener implies no wasted values, responder suggests a maximum hand (about five losers opposite a weak notrump); - 3NT says "tell me more": 4 of a suit bypassing 3NT shows five cards.

System foundation: 2/1 game forcing, 12-14 notrump including 5M332. Issue: find a decent way to handle minimum hands with five hearts and four spades. Common practices: (1) open 1♥ and, over a forcing 1NT, rebid in a 3card minor, or 2♣ holding a 5422; (2) open 2♦ (or maybe 2♥) Flannery; (3) open 1♥ and apply Kaplan Inversion. As often discussed in this forum, none of the three is perfect. Playing (1), we basically accept this case as a problem and choose to live with it. Playing (2), we solve the problem but accept to pay a high price, losing a valuable bid. Playing (3), everything works but we present opponents with a great (for them) opportunity to double our artificial 1♠ response to show a spade suit. I've read about a different approach, adopted by some world class players. Briefly, Flannery hands are opened 1♥: both 1♠ and 1NT responses can include some hands with spades, and the continuations enable to find a convenient fit. Since after 1♥ - 1♠ responder can have spades, a spade-showing double by opponents is not as appealing as before. Playing Nightmare, as an example, 1NT shows 8-11 with 4+ spades, whereas all the other hands with spades (and up to 11 without spades) go through 1♠: in this development 1♠-then-2NT/3x by responder is Good-Bad, and other rebids are artificial too. This idea makes the overall system more complex, but should also bring benefits. I have never seen it in action: has anyone experimented this approach, or played against it? What is your opinion?

In my partnership I use to bid 1♣♦ - 2♣♦ with eight or more points, in order to have 3♣♦ as a genuine preempt: after the single raise, 3♣♦ is limit by either player, even when opener reveals a strong notrump. Moreover, since we open 1♣ holding 15-17 points and any 4333 or 4432, we add another simple agreement: - 1♣ - 2♣ - 2♦ shows 15-17 balanced, saying nothing about clubs: now both 3♣ and 2NT by either player are limit; - 1♣ - 2♣ - 2NT shows a non-minimum hand with both major stoppers (with just one, rebid 2♥♠), one round forcing; - 1♣ - 2♣ - 3♦ shows a non-minimum hand with values in the minor suits. The 2♦ rebid is also used in 1♣ - 1♥♠ - 2♦, 15-17 balanced with four cards in responder's suit, whereas 1♣ - 1♥♠ - 1NT denies a fit and 1♣ - 1♥♠ - 2♥♠ guarantees an unbalanced hand with real clubs.

According to David Bird and Tim Bourke ("Tournament Acol"), both 2♠ and 3♠ rebids are non forcing: 2♠ shows a minimum 2-over-1 and usually a doubleton spade, whereas 3♠ is invitational with a reasonable three- or even four-card fit. To force in spades, one needs to bid 3♣ FSF, then support spades. This fits well with the traditional ACOL style, that encourages limit bids. Accepting the sensible agreement that 2♦ guarantees game facing a strong notrump, 3♣ by opener seems acceptable: good hand, suggesting 3NT if partner has a club stop.

The way I have seen Turbo played by Italian best players: (1) 4NT is Turbo if it's not a jump (otherwise is RKCB or simple Blackwood, or quantitative when appropriate); (2) when 4NT has been bid or bypassed by the partnership, bidding 5NT denies the trump Queen, while bypassing 5NT promises it. Turbo is usually played together with Italian cuebids (1st and 2nd round cuebids altogether). Advantage n.1: Turbo does not interrupt cue-bidding. Suppose partner opens 1♥ and you have: ♠ x x ♥ A K x x ♦ A J ♣ Q J x x x 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ 4♦ 4♠ 5♣ 4♦ promises a diamond control and denies a club control. Now opener's 4♠ shows both spade controls and implies a club control: hence, 5♣ shows an odd number of key-cards and the Queen of clubs (skip-then-bid = Queen). Advantage n.2: Turbo is on when a minor suit has been agreed upon. Example: ♠ A K ♥ A K x x x x ♦ A ♣ K J 10 9 ♠ x x x ♥ x ♦ x x x x ♣ A Q x x x 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 3♣ 4♣ 5♣ 5NT 7♣ 3♣ is natural and positive (whereas 2NT would have been negative), and 5♣ shows one key-card with no convenient cue-bid (the only side control is a singleton in partner's suit). Now, 5NT asks for the Trump Queen. Defect n.1: yes, Helene is right, Turbo is not the best when one of the players needs to retain the captaincy. If the strong hand has to bid or bypass 4NT, his/her partner will have to decide. Sometimes the weak hand will be able to clarify that all keycards are held by the partnership through further cuebidding, but not always. Defect n.2: it is very difficult to handle voids. You can manifacture a patch (i.e., jumping in the void suit with an odd number of key-cards), but nothing will be perfect. Defect n.3: Bill's point about the potential ambiguity of 5♣ (odd KCs or an uncontrolled suit?). This is a serious issue: one can choose to address it with Negative Cuebids, or to live with it. IMHO playing 4♣ as Turbo instead of 4NT opens other problems: you have to be sure that (1) clubs has been established as trumps before 4♣ and (2) 4♣ is not needed as sign-off (e.g., after a stopper-showing sequence): this is not always the case. (The two examples above come from an article by Marina Causa).

Uhm... in teoria, l'apertore ha detto di avere: - 2♣: sei fiori, oppure cinque fiori e quattro quadri; - 2SA: fermo a quadri (se trattiamo 2♠ come terzo colore); - 3♦: mano interessante (altrimenti 3SA) e concentrazione di valori a quadri (altrimenti sarebbe stato più utile 3♥ o 3♠). A questo punto, io sarei per un salto a 5♣. Dopo il forcing precedente e una risposta non negativa dell'apertore, 5♣ dovrebbe far capire che l'unica preoccupazione sono le atout.

I remember reading something similar in "Bridge in the 80s", an old book by Robert Sundby. His Breakthrough system is based on a strong 1♣ with natural responses, four card majors, constructive and forcing 1NT response, non forcing two over one. The general concept of two-over-one in Breakthrough is more or less on your same line: 2♣ over 1♦♥♠ is non forcing too, whereas 1NT is game invitational or better, including any hand unsuited for a strong jump shift or a 2NT Jacoby raise. This kind of two-over-one appears simple and effective. On the other hand, a weak point in this structure is the inability to find a response to 1♦♥♠ with up to 9 points and balanced distribution, with insufficient fit for a single raise and no convenient one-over-one response available. Playing a strong 1♣ it is reasonable to pass these hands (running a small risk to lose a game in another suit): but if you are not playing limited one bids, this can be a serious issue.

Somebody will do. Any team you like. You know, we Italians are very superstitious... B)

I need opinions about how raising responder's suit in a five-card majors and weak notrump foundation. The sequence under discussion is 1m - 1M - ?, and the question is: how do you bid as opener holding 15+ points, balanced distribution and a fit for partner? Is there a way to differentiate good balanced hands from minimum and better-than-minimum unbalanced hands? Better minor versus four-card diamonds could make a difference here. If you have a case for both, you're welcome...

Years ago, I used to play a strong diamond system (17+). My partner and I had a very simple development over 1♦: 1♦ - 1♥: negative or super-positive (14+); I think super-positive can be be dropped without any serious loss 1♦ - 1♠: 8-13, GF unbalanced; here, opener's 1NT suggests no special suit 1♦ - 1NT: 8-13, GF balanced; here, opener's 2NT shows a balanced hand with one or both four-card majors or slam interest 1♦ - 2suit: 5-7, fair 6card suit 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠: 17-20, unbalanced, no good suit, typically a 5.4 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT: 17-20, balanced 1♦ - 1♥ - 2suit: 17+, natural, 1RF; if minimum, good suit 1♦ - 1♥ - 2NT: 21-23, balanced (with 24+, rebid 2♣ over 1♥, then 2NT) 1♦ - 1♥ - 3suit: 21+, 3suiter, shortness in the same ranking suit (e.g., 3♣ = short diamonds) 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT: double negative 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2suit: 5-7, natural, even a four-card suit 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2NT+: super-positive, natural 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT: your favourite notrump system will do fine 1♦ - 1♥ - 2suit - 1st step: double negative; here opener's suit rebid is not forcing, a new suit is forcing one round 1♦ - 1♥ - 2suit - others: natural and at least semi-positive; a new suit can be bid with four cards only 1♦ - 1♥ - 2suit - 2NT: four or more cards in the 1st step suit, at least semi-positive Very, very simple and natural, with a reasonable chance to find the best fit within the three level (we used Italian cue-bids in the slam auctions). Surely not the most efficient development after 1♦, but with a good results-to-effort ratio...

I like the following development, derived by Tony Forrester (TRS System, 80s). I admit it doesn't fit with everyone's taste, but maybe you can find it interesting. This version is partially modified, in order to include 15+ balanced hands (Forrester starts from 17, playing 14-16 1NT): you be the judge (uhm... where did I hear this one?...) 1♣ - 1♦ - ? 1♥: minimum 2suiter, higher suit is longer, or 15-17 balanced or GF balanced; 1♠ is semiautomatic, then: 1NT 15-17 2♣ clubs + a major (2♦ relay for the major) 2♦ diamonds + a major (2♥/♠ pass/correct) 2♥ majors 2♠ minors 2NT GF balanced 1♠: minimum 2suiter, lower suit is longer; 1NT is relay (not mandatory), then: 2♣ clubs + a major (2♦ relay for the major) 2♦ diamonds + a major (2♥♠ pass/correct) 2♥ majors 2♠ minors 1NT: transfer to clubs, or 18-20 balanced; here 2♣ is double negative, and opener: pass minimum 1suiter 2♦ 18-20 balanced 2♥♠ clubs and this suit, non-minimum (otherwise 1♠), one-round force 2NT clubs and diamonds, non-minimum, one-round force 3♣ 18-20 1suiter positive bids by responder: 2♦ general positive, 2♥♠ 5card suit, 2NT long diamonds, 3♣ INV raise, 3♦+ Splinter: now opener's 3♣ is limit, others are game-forcing; 2♣: transfer to diamonds; here 2♦ double negative, 2♥ general positive, 2♠/3♣ natural, 2NT hearts, 3♦ INV raise, 3♥+ Splinter; further development is as after 1NT, not considering balanced 18-20; after a general positive, 2NT by opener shows a 2suiter: the second suit is the one artificially bid by partner. 2♦: transfer to hearts; here 2♥ double negative, 2♠ general positive, 2NT spades, 3♣♦ natural, 3♥ INV raise, 3♠+ Splinter; 2♥: transfer to spades; here 2♠ double negative, 2NT general positive, 3♣♦♥ natural, 3♠ INV raise, 4♣+ Splinter; 2♠: 3suiter, 18+; 2NT positive relay for the suit under the singleton, 3♣ and more to play (with 15-17, treat as 2suiter) 2NT: 21-23 balanced 3♣♦♥♠: game-forcing 1suiter

Consider using Puppet 3♣ with a small modification on opener's rebids: - 3♦: one or both 4card majors - 3♥: no 4card majors - 3♠: 5 spades (here 4♥ is slam try in spades) - 3NT: 5 hearts (here 4♦ is transfer to hearts) Swapping 3♥ and 3NT meanings allows you to rebid 3♠ after 2NT - 3♣ - 3♥ with 5spades and 4hearts, retaining the ability to play 3NT when it's right to do so. You can follow this route also with a 5-5 limited to game: if partner bids 3NT over 3♠, you simply follow with 4♥. Other hands based on major suits can be handled in "standard" fashion: - 5hearts + 4spades: 3♦ (transfer), follow with 3♠ - 5hearts + 5spades, slam hand: 3♥ (transfer), follow with 4♥ (forcing)

Se vogliamo determinare quale sia il significato più conveniente della ripetizione del colore di risposta, io ragionerei così: - il rovescio "provocato" parte da un minimo di 15-16; - la risposta può venire da valori minimi: condivido con Mauro che il salto a 2♠ è giocato più spesso forte che debole; - le mani di misfit, in genere, giocano meglio nel colore lungo della mano più debole; - ergo, manterrei il 2♠ NON forzante. Considerare 2♠ forzante mi sembra un po' uno spreco: se il rispondente è in grado di garantire la manche ma non di scegliere l'atout, dispone di una comoda dichiarazione di 3♣. Se invece è nella zona di invito a manche con cinque picche, non dovrebbe essere un grosso danno dichiarare comunque 2♠: se l'apertore ha un fit, o una mano forte, terrà comunque aperta la licita. Senza addentrarmi in questo ragionamento, quando sono al tavolo con un partner sconosciuto tendo a considerare 2♠ non forzante. Alla lunga, mi sembra che ci si prenda più della metà delle volte...

I've read about a convention invented by Benito Garozzo for his 2/1, but it seems suited for Precision too. See if you like it. Over 1♦-1M-3♦, responder rebids: - 3♥: stopper in the other major, or a slam try in his first-bid suit; - 3♠: stopper in clubs, probe for 3NT. Over 3♥, opener assumes the "stopper" meaning and acts accordingly (3♠ can be a substitute for the 4th suit, asking for a half-stopper in clubs). If this is not the case, responder can show a slam try in his own suit with any bid other than 3NT, trying to describe a side feature naturally. An example: 1♦ - 1♠ 3♦ - 3♥ 3NT - ? pass: stopper in hearts 4♣: good spades and a club control 4♦: good spades and a honor in diamonds etc...

Having 2♦ as 18-19 or 18-20 balanced is not intended to raise the strength of a 2NT rebid: its purpose is to exclude strong balanced hands from 1-bids (open 2NT with 20-22 or 21-23). Now your 2NT rebids are free for any use you like: a strong raise of responder's suit, a strong 1-suiter with stoppers, a strong 6-4 two-suiter, everything goes as long as it suits your partnership's preference. Much of the same in competitive sequences: never having 18+ balanced, opener will be able to rebid 2NT over RHO's overcall as Good-Bad or anything else the partnership agrees upon...

Yes, these hands are difficult to bid if you have to start at the 1-level, so putting some of them into the multi is a good idea. You can have fun playing around with the various possible combinations. The alternative is to play a multi which has no strong options at all - this makes it a more effective pre-empt. But if you have already decided to include some strong balanced hands, there's no harm in packing more strong options in. About strong 3-suiters, I would suggest giving a try to Kent Feiler's approach: when 15+, open 1♥ or 1♠, and next support partner's suit or rebid in notrump if he responds in the short suit o 1NT. In a weak notrump and 4card majors system, this approach is quite playable. Maybe you have to define something for very strong 3suiters, some 20 points or more: but giving the very low frequency of this kind of hand, it seems reasonable to ignore the issue, simply manufacturing a bid when it occurs (i.e., treat one of the 4-card suits as a 5-card one). About packing strong balanced and 3suiters in the Multi, that's fine, provided that opener is able to show different ranges of suit qualities of the weak2 variety...

The same old story: use 2♦ to fill a gap in your system, or to keep awkward hands out of one-of-a-suit opening bids. Mexican 2♦ makes a lot of sense to me. It's not a great bid in itself, but enables those pairs to rebid 2NT with special hands (typically strong unbalanced, maybe with some kind of fit for responder's suit): furthermore: - they don't need to bother with 18-19 balanced in competitive sequences - they are able to double for take-out when it's right to do so...

"Partnership Bidding", by Robson-Segal, can be found on Daniel Neill's site: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/index.html. It's not a scan from the original book: it's a complete re-type in A4-format. But IMHO the result is quite readable...