NickToll

Try this: 18-20 balanced! Maybe not fashionable, but... The rational behind this not-that-popular choice is simple: remove those tricky hands from one-bids. You will be free to use a strong rebid in notrump in a number of ways, tipically to show strong hands difficult to describe in standard methods. An example: I like 1♠ - 1NT - 2NT showing a strong hand with six spades and three hearts, offering a choice of games when partner has responded 1NT with a 5-card heart suit. Another example: after 1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (2♥), you will be able to build a more efficient rebid frame if you don't have to take 18-20 balanced into account. Double? 3card support if you like it, or strong hand with no spade fit, or whatever. 2NT? Good-bad, minimum unbalanced hand (3♣ and 3♦ being natural and strong). Not only good news, of course. First of all, 18-20 2NT is cumbersome. Constructive sequences are easier if you start from a one-bid and are able to show this hand with your rebid. If you accept to play 18-20 2NT, you'll have to extend your constructive sequence to the 4 level (i.e., show a short suit after responding 3♣ or 3♠) and give opener the chance to stop in 4NT. Sometimes you will be one trick high, but usually it will work reasonably well. Yes, I know, 18-20 is scary! You might think that opponents will be there, ready to double you, whenever partner is broke. Reality is: - partner will have 7 points on average; - when partner is very weak, he might have a 5card major to play in; - when you open 2NT, it is very, very hard for opponents to double you. Think of this 2NT as a kind of preemptive bid, a "big weak notrump", and consider your results on the long run. See you after your evaluation...

You've raised a good point. A possible solution, as bad as any other, is the following: go on opening 1♣ with balanced hands; raise to 2♣ assuming that opener's clubs are real; then, rebid 2♦ with unreal clubs (hence, balanced); otherwise, rebid 2♥ or more with real clubs, as descriptively as possible, proceeding along the normal development of inverted minors. This is not perfect (you are not able to find out about a diamond stopper under 3♣), but it's simple enough and should be fine most of the times. The real problem with this kind of 1♣ bid is about preemptive raises. In "real clubs" systems you are able to raise to 3♣ with five clubs only, if your hand calls for it: you can't be that confident if partner is entitled to open 1♣ with an 11-count 4-4-3-2 with a club doubleton...

I would like to know your opinions about the following point. In my partnership we play 12-14 NT with 2way Stayman, trying to develop bidding as naturally as we can. We have a doubt about what is the most convenient development after 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦♥♠: is there a way to describe both weak and invitational distributional hands? And if not, which of the two is better to be shown? As an example: 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3♣, weak or invitational with clubs (and probably four hearts)? Up to you...

As an advocate of weak notrump, I appreciate not only its frequency and preemptive effect, but also (and primarily) the indirect benefits on a number of sequences starting with a suit bid: your opening suit is "real" whenever you rebid in other than notrump. Moreover, if you play 4card majors your suit is real from the moment you open: usually you have 5 or more cards, and if you have only 4 then you have extra values. Lots of advantages, well beyond the dreaded "down-a-bunch" which you could get every now and then. About your questions: 1. Transfers are as useful as over a strong notrump. It's not that much about who plays the contract: it's about how many sequences we have when responding to 1NT. Transfers greatly increase responder's options. 2. I don't know who can say this. For a start, three out of the four best Italian pairs (Lauria-Versace, Bocchi-Duboin, Fantoni-Nunes, Buratti-Lanzarotti) use to play weak notrump, some of them returning to strong notrump at red. 3. I like a convention which allows opener to rebid 2♥ with four diamonds and a minimum (rebid 2♦ with five) OR as a reverse into hearts: partner relays with 2♠ to find out, and opener clears up with: - 2NT: minimum, 4.4.4.1, singleton club; - 3♣: minimum, 4.4.4.1, four clubs (a minor 2suiter with 5 bad diamonds is fine); - 3♦ and more: reverse into hearts. 4. Playing 5card majors, I would open 1♦ with all minor 2suiters and use diamonds rebids for better definition: - 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT: 15-17, balanced, less than four hearts; - 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦: 15-17, balanced, four hearts (2H would be 11-14 unbalanced, with real clubs); - 1♣ - 1♥ - 2NT: 18-19, balanced, less than four hearts; - 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♦: 18-19, balanced, four hearts. - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT: rebid in clubs, longer diamonds; - 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣: rebid in clubs, canapè; - 1♦ - 1♥ - 2NT: jump-shift in clubs, longer diamonds; - 1♦ - 1♥ - 3♣: jump-shift in clubs, canapè. Playing 4card majors, all this science is not necessary: open 15+ balanced in your 4card major, if you have one. You find quickly your major fit when you have a balanced hand, and your partner can raise with 3card support as if you had promised a 5card suit. If you are minimum, you have it. If you have not, you have extra values and are able to suggest notrump.

Natural 2NT in this sequence would seem very questionable to me, so Good-Bad is more or less the only sensible meaning for 2NT. If so, I would bid it. We're green, my heart suit could be be the key for a successful contract, partner could have extras. Everything is risky in this bad world, so why not?

Another possible use of 1♦-then-2NT is for strong minor 2suiters, usually 5-5: this should allow you to bid 1♦-then-3♣ when you have a strong 2suiter with only four diamonds and five or more (usually six) clubs. This treatment could be valuable if your development of 2♣ opening bid doesn't allow you to show a secondary diamond suit.

Years ago I read somewhere about a Lebensohl-like 2♥ rebid by responder in this sequence, showing a game-forcing hand with clubs and hearts OR a minimum 2♣ response; opener is compelled to 2♠, and now responder shows a minimum hand with 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ (natural and invitational) or forces to game with any rebid from 3♥ on, showing hearts as well. Playing this style, a direct 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ by responder is natural and forcing; on the other hand, he is expected to bid a 4card major over 1♦ instead of a 5card club suit if he's not strong enough for game. By the way, the same trick can be used by opener after 1♦-2♣; he can go through this kind of 2♥ with any minimum hand including only 4 diamonds (with 5, rebid 2♦).

I play a simple version of game-forcing 2♣ (mainly devised by Robert Sundby's "Bridge in the 80s"), where the sequence should be: 2♣ - 2♦ 3♣ - 4♣ 4♥ - 4NT 5♦ - 6♣ pass 2♦: no 5card major, any strength 3♣: 6card suit, or 5-5 with a major (2♥-then-clubs would be canapè) 4♣: fit, 1st or 2nd round control in at least one side-suit 4♥: asking in hearts 4NT: 2nd round control (probably the King, otherwise would have splintered over 3♣) 5♦: asking in diamonds 6♣: no control I am aware that evaluating opener's hand as a game force is not the choice of everyone. IMHO here the risk of getting too high is limited: should partner be very weak, he would bid 3♥ at second round (artificial negative, 3♦ being natural positive) and opener would complete his sequence with 4♥, showing his 5-5 2suiter. If partner has three or even two hearts, 4♥ should have a play. If he is short in hearts, 5♣ could be a reasonable contract. Open 1♥ is too great a risk...

A me 4♥ sembra perfetto: fotografa sia i valori di taglio a cuori che i valori di testa in tutti gli altri colori, e rende bene quanto è diventata forte la mano in questa sequenza. A giudicare dal passo dell'avversario di destra, il partner dovrebbe avere un bel po' di cuori da tagliare, quindi poche carte sia a picche che a quadri, magari con il Re in almeno uno dei due colori: è difficile immaginare una mano dove ci siano meno di 6♣. 3♥ dice solo che abbiamo una bella mano, ma non dice altro: il partner la intenderà come un tentativo per i 3SA, e li dichiarerà con qualsiasi scusa (magari anche con D 10 x x a cuori). E allora noi, riaprendo, non riusciremo più a descrivere la mano così bene. Certo, 4♥ consuma spazio, ma ne fa l'uso migliore possibile...

Assuming 2NT as a limit-plus raise, I find the following structure simple and effective. Let's say that hearts is trump (with spades, it's similar) 3♣: game force, usually 15+; partner can: 1. show a singleton with 3♥♠NT (clubs, diamond, spades), usually implying a minimum (otherwise, Splinter at 1st round) 2. show a good suit of his own with 4♣♦, still implying a minimum (otherwise, 2/1 at 1st round) 3. relay with 3♦, asking for a singleton; opener shows it with 3♥♠NT, or cuebids starting from 4♣ with a good balanced hand 3♦: a good minimum; that is, 6 losers and/or a good shape and/or mostly top honors; responder can still suggest a really bad hand with 3♥, otherwise he bids game or cuebids (suggesting a balanced hand, see previous notes) 3♥: a bad minimum; that is, 7 losers and/or 5-3-3-2 and/or mostly secondary honors; 3♠, 4♣♦: good 10-cards 2-suiter, slam try 4♥: bad minimum with 6 trumps 3NT has no meaning: suggestions? It seems to me that 3♦ as a "good minimum" rebid allows responder a greater flexibility, allowing him to step into 2NT with more hands, somehow weaker than usual...

100% agree. In this scenario, it seems to me that a combination of Kaplan Inversion (1♠ as a forcing notrump, 1NT as a 5-card spade response) and Gazzilli 2♣ (opener's rebid, including both weak hands with ♥+♣ and 15-17 hands) could improve constructive bidding. This way: weak hands with five hearts and four spades can easily be solved via 1♥ - 1♠ (forcing notrump) - 1NT (majors, too weak for a reverse); balanced hands can be described with two different routes: 18-19 can be shown with 1♥ - 1♠ - 2NT, while 15-17 go through 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ (Gazzilli) - 2♦ (interested) - 2NT; should partner be very weak, the sequence could be 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥, and opener could choose to pass (similar sequences with other kinds of distribution, except 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ showing a minimum with clubs); Gazzilli 2♣ can also be used on 1♥ - 1NT (spades), or 1♠ - 1NT (usual forcing notrump); bidding a 3card minor is not necessary anymore, whatever the strength; this is, maybe, the most important point.

If the problem is how to bid preemptively while avoiding to create problems to a strong partner, some results might be reached including only a balanced hand in 2♦ as a strong option (let's say 21-23) and allowing only 6-card suits when weak (5card weak2 could be opened 2♥♠). In this scenario, while a 2NT response is the usual positive relay (at least a game invitation opposite a weak2), a 3♣♦♥♠ response is weaker than 2NT but guarantees game values opposite a strong balanced hand (that is, at least a few points), showing: - 3♣: 4-4 or more in the majors; - 3♦: 3-3 in the majors; - 3♥♠: 3-4 in the majors, bid the 3card suit. If opener is weak, he will bid 3♥♠ or 4♥♠ depending on the known fit; if he is strong, he will be able to bid 3NT (no major fit) or 4♣ (heart fit) or 4♦ (spade fit), or 3♦ over 3♣ to find out if partner has a 5card major. An indirect benefit is in 2♦ - 2♥♠ (pass or correct) - 2NT, where any progressive move by responder shows not more than a doubleton in his first bid suit: this helps to design a scheme including singleton-showing and fit-searching bids. I haven't a lot of experience with this development, but it seems very interesting to me. Andrea Buratti and Massimo Lanzarotti, one of the top Italian pairs, play similar responses in their system called Nightmare (for opponents, we used to say in Italy), where 2♦ is a bad weak2 or a strong balanced without 5card majors. Your opinion?

Your description of Gladiator is great! This treatment was included in the first edition of the Roman Club (50's!), with the only small difference in 1NT-2♥♠ being forcing for one round. In the explanation of why using Gladiator instead of Stayman, Giorgio Belladonna wrote that, facing a strong NT (17-20 in early Roman Club) it seemed better using one negative and three positives at level 2, instead of three negatives and only one positive. Using it over 2NT, I've never heard about. IMHO there is major argument against it: if 3♦ has to be the positive inquiry, primarily searching for a major fit for game, the step we lose against 3♣ is gold. After 3♦ there isn't enough space to distinguish a 5card major from a 4card one in the opening hand, and also responder's 5-4 in the majors can't be properly explored within 3NT. A responding structure based on 5-card Stayman (or Romex Stayman), Jacoby transfers and minor-oriented 3♠ seems to be much more efficient... By the way: this is my first post on this great forum. Cheers everybody!