dougbennion

Often there is tension between those kibs who prefer chat limited to bridge discussions, and those who engage in, um, "social" chat. You can enemy individuals so their chatter will be hidden, and you can opt not to see any chat, but you cannot choose to view just bridge chat. Would it be possible to do something like this: You could opt to see just "bridge chat". To identify "bridge chat", kibs would start typing with, say, the "@" symbol (or whatever). A BBO text-parser would look for that whatever, and show only those chats to those who opted for "bridge only", hiding the "social chat". Maybe BBO and Chat Assistant would include an option "all my comments are bridge related", and the symbol be auto-included.

Thanks. I'm often looking at hands the likes of Kxxx x KQxxx xxx when partner opens a weak notrump and overcaller bids 2C. A 'systems on' X = Stayman kind of works provided a retreat to 3D is to play, but is risky. The system I've been using ... I bid 2S with that hand, promising 5m ... allows opener to rest in a 4=3 spade fit with the likes of 3=4=2=4 (instead of risking a 5=2 diamond fit at the 3-level). I suppose with that hand I could pass first, then neg X the expected 2H rebid, but that allows RHO to announce his suit.

I think Capp is a bad system for a number of reasons, but primarily because you have to bid 2C with the likes of Kx AKxxxx xx xxx, just begging your opps to find their fit before you are able to introduce your suit. That said, a lot of your opps insist on using it, and especially weak notrumpers should have some system to quickly and efficiently probe for a fit of their own. Anyone have a system they like? I've recently been using this, but the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. I also use it after the DONT X. After 1NT (2C) ?? Pass then X is primarily takeout X = invitational+ Stayman 2D = 5+ hearts or 5+ spades, relay to 2H 2H = 4 hearts and some 5m, strong enough to play at 3m 2S = 4 spades and some 5m, strong enough to play at 3m 2N = Leb higher = forcing Not perfect but nothing is.

That's totally true, and especially for your opps. I think it was Kokish who said approximately "weak notrumps create problems for the other three players, thankfully two of which are your opponents". And it's not like strong notrumpers don't miss some (albeit different) lower-level suit fits as well.

To satisfy my own curiosity, I did a quick and dirty analysis of two balanced hands each with 11 HCP, and a 4=3 spade fit. I played 2S for 5000 hands, then 2NT for 5000 hands. The 2NT contract makes about 60% of the time, the 2S contract about 55%, on a 'normal' lead and a 12-trick double dummy analysis. For the times they both make, the 2NT contract will score higher in a matchpoint event. That would confirm my judgment of the merits of the two contracts, so I've not become a big Keri fan. Thanks all.

Phil: Right. You can stop at 2M in your 5=3 and 4=4 fits. The clunker I'm playing stops in 2M for the 4=4 fits but not the 5=3 fits. But if I understand Keri properly, you will also be playing your 4=3 rejected invitations in 2M and I'd rather be playing those in 2NT. I think. Keri also lets you play in 2D, which in theory is nice, but playing a weak notrump the opps will rarely let you settle there. Thanks.

Thanks for your suggestions. Phil: Can't see how any system can stop short of 2NT, once you initiate the system and don't locate an M fit. I had looked into Kiri, but I'm too old to remember it all. Oleberg: Agree Garbage Stayman not missed. MFA: Yes gobbles Mm if opener has max. Siegmund: Any system, strong NT or weak NT, will lose M fits if responder is less than invitational and you don't play Garbage. I played for awhile what you called a 'split' Stayman, and found it had redundancies, but maybe I hadn't optimized it very well. wclass__: Thanks I'll take a good look at that. benlessard: Thanks ditto. kenrexford: Not at all panicked. I think the system gets good results, just looking to improve if possible.

Extending the opening 1NT range to 11-14 from 12-14 increases by 40% or so, the frequency of the opener. The problem with that wide range is that you will often get too high in invitational sequences. I've been using the following response system and I like it, but maybe someone here can suggest improvements. The 2C bid is invitational or better, and cannot be used for garbage hands (intending to pass any response). With weak 54 MM hands we simply transfer. With weak 44 MM hands we pass and pray and trot out a rescue system if need be. Opponents don't like doubling 2M contracts ... Actually with a weak chunky 4-bagger maybe KJTx xxxx xxx xx I like to transfer because opps less likely to penalty double without a decent trump holding and they have no idea what's going on anyway. We play 4-suit transfers as well, with 3C/D slammish and 3H/S showing GF shortness typically the likes of 3145. The responses to a 2C query: 2D = 11 or 12, with one or two 4-card majors. If responder has one and wants to stop at the two-level he bids his major. If opener sees 2H and he has four spades but not four hearts he will bid 2S (responder might have both) and play there or in 2NT 2H/S = 11 or 12 with five M 2N = 11 or 12 no majors 3C = 13 or 14 with four hearts or both 3D = 13 or 14 with four spades 3H/S = 13 or 14 with five M 3N = 13 or 14 with no majors It isn't perfect. You cannot garbage. It can quickly eat up a lot of bidding space when responder might want to investigate slam. But it works really well for the majority of hands, we rarely get too high, and we can open 1NT a LOT. See any tweaks one could make?

I've been playing these transfers for several years now (stuffing all balanced 15+ hands into 1C since we use weak notrumps). I've tried several options for the 1M 'raise'. In my opinion, using 1M for a balanced 3-fit doesn't make a lot of sense, because opener should want to reveal his strong notrump, and the partnership should right-side that strain. Using 1M for unbalanced 3-fits make some sense, but they were truly rarely encountered, making for a inefficient usage. What I settled into, was using 1M as a 'good' 15-17 4-fit, and 2M as a 'bad' 15-17 4-fit (or switch them up). You never invite and get too high, and since opener is known to such precision, responder can place the contract with confidence, and you can start slamming at a really low level. Since responder can be quite weak if not holding some clubs, another option is to use 1M as a 4-fit with 15-17, and 2M with the 18-19 holding.

What do you do with 16 or 17 and that shape and auction, reverse? I had the exact same problem with 4414 and 1♣ 1♠, I think I tended to rebid 1NT with up to 16 and reverse with 17. Blech. We open 11-14 notrumps, so with 15-17 or so and 4414, we'd reverse with an el primo top-end hand, rebid 1NT with a stiff diamond honor, and otherwise hold our nose and rebid 2♣. Partner will likely hold clubs on that sequence. We play that 1♠ is a major-denial, not that it promises diamonds although it strongly implies them. Responder might be 3334 or even 3325 with no suitable club raise. With game-forcing diamonds he can bid 2♦ directly; possibly with a 4-card major.

I've been using those transfer responses for many months, with good results. They fit well with a weak notrump opener. To take maximal advantage, I stuff all my balanced hands (including 3=3=5=2) into 1C or 1N (I like 11-14), so 1C is 15+ balanced, or natural. The two main advantages are these. It rightsides (almost) all of your major-suit fits, including those 18-19 HCP hands that are often declared by a weak responder (and for weak-notrumpers those 15-17 openers where responder declares the major and all the strong-notrumpers have rightsided with Stayman). And it gives you the two 'acceptances' 1M and 2M. We started by using the 1M acceptance to show a 3-raise, and the 2M to show a 4-raise (usually a strong NT, sometimes unbalanced). Since I like to rebid 1NT with a balanced hand even with 3-support, this meant our 1M 'raise' was unbalanced, and that seemed to arise very rarely so we ditched that approach. Next we decided that 1M would be the unbalanced opener say 4=3=1=5 or 4=4=1=4, and 2M the strong notrump. That doesn't happen much either, and often the unbalanced dummy will play as strongly as the 15-17 balanced, so it wasn't clear if you were gaining much. I considered denial rebids by opener, so that 1M would deny four, and show two or three. We examined hundreds of auctions, and determined it was nice when opener had a reverse-strength hand, but otherwise didn't seem to add much. What we decided was best, and it arises frequently, was to use it to narrow the range of our opening bid. We use 1M to show the top range of a 15-17 opener, say 16+ to 17, and 2M to show the bottom range say 15-bad 16. We appropriately include unbalanced hands. With opener describing his range so precisely, responder never has to invite. We have no invitational sequences, we never get to 3M or 2N down 1. Responder simply places the contract. If he makes any other bid, he is slamming. (Except here ... 1♣ 1♦; 1♥ 2♥ ... we permit responder to raise to 2♥ to make it harder for the opps to balance.) There are a couple of lesser advantages. The 1♠ response (no majors) is mildly preemptive, and will rightside some notrump contracts. And since checkbacks aren't required after 1♣ 1♠; 1N ... responder can settle in a non-forcing 2♣ or 2♦. A corollary to stuffing your balanced hands into 1♣, is that your 1♦ openers are unbalanced and usually 5+. For weak-notrumpers this has a further advantage. If opener has a 15 HCP hand with say 4=3=4=2, standard weak-notrumpers will open 1♦. Responder with no major and 6 HCP will respond 1N, wrongsiding the contract. Opener must show his strong notrump with 2N, down 1. We avoid that in the auction 1♣ 1♠; 1N Pass.

I've been playing an unbalanced 1♦ opener for about a year. I like a forcing 1NT response. Opener will rebid 2♣ with 3+ clubs, and 2M with a reverse-strength hand. 1NT can also be the start of a limit raise.

Wow. Now I remember why I don't hang around here, too many dickwads without a sense of humor. There was one good suggestion .. the double guaranteeing at least 2 cards per suit; thanks for that. Other than that ... get a life and I'm outahere again ....

I'm sure this topic has been done to death, but I have convinced myself this is THE ONE!! At least until the next one comes along .. :-) Or maybe it has already been suggested by someone else ... dunno .... Capp sucks. The 2C bid isn't preemptive and loses the long suit in competition and is easily defended (X = stayman and transfers on ... duh ... zero cost whatsover), the 2D bid is ineffective with 5-4 majors, you cannot show clubs at the 2-level, and you cannot distinguish between a boring 5-card major and a thrilling 6+ card major. With BEANO you have to give up a penalty double, but so what? I've been playing weak notrumps for 30 years and can count on two hands the number of times a double has cost me ... a decent runout system invariably gets the job done. What the heck, I cannot make a penalty double against any other opening below 4S, so what's the big deal? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. BEANO ---> 2H/S = 6+ major 2D = 5 major and 4+ minor (like Capp 2H and 2S bids). Pass or correct principles, with 3C response = pass or correct in minors, and 2NT general query (3C = good heart hand, etc) 2C = 5-5 or 5-4 majors. 2D response (or stolen bid X of 2D) shows no preference, and 2H or 2S shows preference. Best fit is found for 5-4 holdings, way better than Capp where you can trash around in inferior heart fit. X = long minor OR 5332 major OR very strong hand. Partner can pass I suppose with suitable hand, otherwise will normally bid 2C, pass or correct. I'm sold.

I used a similar system with pard for several months. I liked it a lot, but he didn't. We use a 12-14 NT, so to our 1C opener we simply announced "could be short and could be any strong NT". Our responses to 1C were slightly different. 1D and 1H were M transfers, 1N was 5+ GF clubs, 2C was 5+ GF diamonds, and 1S was a minor-heavy basket containing everything else, often 5+ diamonds. This 'rightsided' our major suit contracts when we had a strong NT. Pard had a fetish about being able to distinguish between a minimum unbalanced raise with 4 trumps, and the strong NT with four trumps, so we used a 1M 'raise' to show the strong NT, and the 2M raise to show the minimum unbalanced hand. The 1M raise left us lots of room to explore. Over the 1D opener we used a 2C response as a general game force (LOVED that), so a 1M response was non-forcing. Maybe if I tell him the system has a 'name' he'll reconsider it. Yeahhhhhh!