errline

I play it as Lebensohl when I can. But the natural treatment is non-forcing, thus 6-7 HCP. It sounds like Ingberman, Moderateur, and Lebensohl are all the same thing. Kind of like Cappelletti, Hamilton, and Pottage. Is that right? If so it's a good thing to know.

Now if there was one rating I could understand it (minimum number of boards per segment for the convention to be ACBL legal) but what's the situation between the 2 and 6 boards per segment ratings? My guess was that this rating is the maximum number of times it could reasonably come up in a round 24 to 32 board matchpoint round or team game segment. 5-5's would be a lot less common than 5-4's, thus 2 times per round rather than 6. Those seem like reasonable numbers of times for those bids to come up if the opponents are really lucky. I tried to find a definition but for me no other defense database links seem to work.

Thanks, D. In general when playing a weak NT I like 2D as an 11-14ish mini-Roman; not because the hands themselves are difficult to handle, or because mini-Roman auctions hold any appeal (in fact I hate them), but for the added inferences about opener's 1m opener. The opening ensures that a 1m opening either contains considerable extras or that it's a 5 card suit in an unbalanced hand. so, I had basically rejected using this idea. I just posted it because it was asked about. :P

Is a free bid of 3C with this hand Very Wrong? :o The clubs are the primary feature of the hand. How about a bid of 2NT showing at least a semibalanced and spade-stopped 11-12 HCP? With honors in both doubletons it's pretty balanced.

I like the fit jumps, but with no discussion at all, I'd assume it was a splinter. Over a 2♣ overcall to one of our major, would y'all play 3♦ as a limit-or-better fit jump, and 4♦ as a splinter?

So with slam interest responder would always 2/1? I'd be really grateful for a brief description of followups and of your 2/1 methods, though I understand if too complicated for this forum. :o Although Bergen raises and Jacoby 2NT or some variant thereof are the de facto standard for younger 2/1 players here, a friend and I had rejected the idea of jumping with 4-card single-raises, and we also decided there is no reason that 2NT can't be limit-or-better. An idea I got from this forum, as noone I know plays that method. Recenty we were working out methods for it, similar to Mila85's, but with 2NT showing nearly all balanced limit-or-better 4+ card raises (even if slammish). We use Serious 3NT in 2/1 auctions, and it seems easy to meld that into this structure. With unbalanced hands responder would either 2/1 (with a good 5+ card outside suit) or would splinter (possibly with two game-going splinter strength ranges available). We were trying to do something logical and simple expanding on the ideas of Serious 3NT and simple game tries that would work like this: Opener and responder, with minimums, each attempt to sign off at the 3 level; other 3-level bids below 3 of our major show extras and are at least game try or counter-game-try fragments; and a balanced 15-17 opener would bid 3NT over 2NT; each side is required to give a courtesy cue if the other has not limited his hand; each can keep bidding to show slam interest and clarify previous bids, and each can sign off in game once slam interest is denied by partner.

Heh, what a timely post. I wrote up a version of this a few weeks ago just to see if I thought it could be made to work. Here is what I came up with. I'd be really interested in input, esecially from Double! since you have experience with something similar. :-) Designed to be used with a weak NT -- my ranges were 10+ to 13 1/2 NV, and 12-14 all other positions; but it would work fine with 12-14 or whatever. So that means minimum 4-4-(23) hands would be opened 1NT, not 2D. So that makes it 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors, or mini-Roman shape with minor suit shortness and 4-4 in the majors. Advantages: 1. Show both majors and find fits right away in minimum unbalanced hands. 2. Preemptive -- hope to have the auction 2♦ - P/X - 3♠ fairly often. Especially true when combined with weak NT; we will open higher than the competition quite often. 3. Opening 1M and then bidding the other major shows some extras. 4. Fewer bidding problems on 4522 Flannery hands (still might have problems on good 14 or 15 counts; might just have to reverse decent 15 counts). Opening specifications: 2D = 4-4, 4-5, 5-4 or 5-5 in majors, 10+ to 14- HCP. If 4-4 will be three-suiter short in one minor (e.g. Mini-Roman hand with both majors); if balanced we would have opened 1NT or passed. If 5-5 it should be at best a "bad 5-loser hand". Shouldn't open 5-5's 2D with too much playing strength. Open 14 HCP 4-5-2-2's or 14 HCP with stiff honors when appropriate; don't open good 14 counts. KQTxx AQ9xx xx x is too good, open 1♠. KQxxx KTxxx K9 x is a bad 5-loser hand, open 2♦. KJxxx AJxxx Kx J is 6-loser 13-count, open 1♦. I am not sure whether opening 8-9 HCP 6-loser 5-5 hands is allowed per ACBL GCC (which specifies 10 HCP -- are you allowed to "upgrade" hands?). If not, it's a serious issue. Responses: Pass -- weak, no majors, long diamonds 2♥/♠ to play 2NT relay ask 3♣ natural -- NF, <3 in both majors and long clubs 3♦ invitational to game with 3-3 in majors 3♥/♠ preemptive, to play 3NT to play 4♣ splinter with 4+ in both majors 4♦ splinter with 4+ in both majors 4♥/♠ preemptive, to play Resp to 2NT relay: 3♣ = 4x1 (or 4-4-(05) 3♦ ask shortness 3♥ = ♣ 3♠ = ♦ 3♥/♠ = set trump, force game, asks opener to bid short minor. 3NT/4♥/4♠ to play 3♦ = 5-5 in majors 3♥/♠ = set trump suit, force game, ask for cuebids (opener bids Serious 3NT to show good max) 4♥/4♠ to play. Not sure about responder's 3NT bid. direct 4NT -- two suit key card for majors 3♥ = 4S-5H 3♠ = set trump suit, force spade game, ask for cue. 3NT/4♥/4♠ to play. 4♣/♦ = cuebid with hearts as trump. direct 4NT -- two suit key card for majors 3♠ = 5S-4H 4♣/♦ = cuebid showing slam interest with spades as trump. Others as over 3♥. It seems like 3NT rebid could be used by opener to show a maximum 13-14 HCP 4-5-2-2 Flannery hand, perhaps.

The first two hands evaluate to 11 Goren support points. So they are clear limit rasies even to the more old fashioned and/or n00b player like me. :D I'd have raised the third hand to 4♠, showing 5 piece trump support and very unslammish single-raise values otherwise. Assuming we were playing 5 card majors, anyway. Am I just oversimplifying it to a Law of Total Tricks thing, and would a lot of people limit raise on this hand?

With 19 you would bid 2NT, then bid again over partner's almost certain signoff to show the big hand. But you sure have eaten up a lot of bidding room. That hand has never come up for me though. I'm kind of thinking out loud here. :D Many players in my area play (or at least used to play) that 3NT/1M shows 13-15 HCP balanced and a doubleton in opener's major. I suppose this means that over 1H it would have to be specifically 3-2-4-4 shape. I never liked that treatment, for the same reason -- it preempts opener's second suit. Anyway I think I've been talked out of the 16-17 HCP 3NT bid, and also 2NT on 18-19. 2/1 could show 5 cards, OR a good 4 card suit in a very good hand of 16+ HCP. That leaves 3NT open for a concealed splinter over 1♠ or something. Just what I was trying to get away from -- adding complexity. :)

Yes, I had read Fred's Improving 2/1 articles. I like that structure fine. It's just a matter of convincing partners to play it. :-) I agree that it's really suboptimal to take up so much room with the forcing raise. Is there a recommended response structure for 2S and 3C?

I've been trying to come up with something really easy to remember as a raise structure over 1M, that will still let us play 2NT as natural 13-15 and 2/1 usually guaranteeing a decent 5 card suit. It has to be easy enough not to tax mental energy that I need while trying to learn better card play, and easy enough to convince regular partners to play and not have major confusion. So for that reason I don't like the idea of having to "count steps". My first thought for simplifying the raise structure is that, if playing 2/1 GF, there is no reason why a 2/1 followed by support couldn't contain four piece trump support. ♠ KQ52 ♥4 ♦AJ986 ♣ KJ8 So with this hand, too strong for a splinter, over 1♠ I would bid 2♦, then raise Partner will not know I have four pieces, but that seems less relevant in a game forcing auction which I am likely captaining anyway. So given that, I was thinking of a raise structure like this: 2NT -- 13-15 HCP balanced, 2-3 pieces in opener's major, perhaps 4 card support if 4333 shape JS to other major: game-forcing raise 3♣ -- Bergen limit raise (or mixed) 3♦ -- Bergen mixed raise (or limit, I'm not religious about the order) 3M -- preemptive 3NT -- 16-17 balanced, exactly 2 pieces double-jump-shift -- limited splinter (in the range of 10-(13-) HCP) 3♥ as a forcing raise of 1♠ is not ideal because it eats up so much room. But many game forcing raises have other ways to be bid. These raises may contain shortness, but will usually deny a good 5 card suit (else 2/1, then support) and will contain very good values of at least 13 HCP. So in effect the forcing raise is a catchall bid that should only be a few, usually quite strong, hands. J2NT is not very commonly used in my experience and this would be even less so. The forcing raise will always show slam interest outside of a bare minimum by responder, so you're going to cue-bid over it anyway. It has the advantage of not showing responder's hand shape the way that J2NT does. And for gigantic supporting hands we might tend to 2/1 in a very good four-card suit rather than use the forcing rasie. Opener would deny interest in slam by rebidding 3S; otherwise would bid serious 3NT to ask for cues. Alternately 3S could show good trump quality or extra length, while skipping S3NT to cue would show neither good trumps nor slam interest. 2♠ as a forcing raise of 1♥ is much better, and would allow opener to rebid his second suit with a good hand, or 2NT to show a balanced minimum. Above that we would cue-bid. Then to simplify even further, I was thinking of using a similar structure over the minors: 1m - 2m inverted raise, invitational 1m - 3m inverted raise, weak 1m - 2M weak jump shift 1m - 2NT 13-15 or 18-19 HCP balanced, no 4 card major 1m - 3NT 16-17 HCP bal, no 4-card major JS to other minor (3♣/1♦ and 2♦/1♣) is a game forcing raise, usually showing an unbalanced hand (else 2NT or 3NT) with length in opener's suit (else 1D or 2C). These are going to be rare hands by definiton. I don't actually love this -- I'd rather have 1m - 2m game forcing and the jump-shifts invitational -- but it is consistent with the major suit raise scheme and thus easier to remember. This creates a hole over 1D openings where responder has a club suit, less than four card diamond support, no four card major, and only invitational values. To fix that, we'd make 2/1's game forcing only over major suits opening bids; 2♣/1♦ shows only invitational values if responder rebids 2NT or 3♣. Also we could say opener's 2NT rebid in that auction shows 12-14 HCP balanced, and that responder can pass it with less than GF values. Thanks very much for any thoughts, gotchas I haven't seen, or other useful info. :-)

From what I can tell after a week or two, BBO player levels don't correlate that well to anything. ;-) Your reply makes a lot of sense. Particularly the shape bids. If you use LTC, extra card points, Zar points or something like that rather than HCP then that would bring the shape-based rebids just about into the hand strengths above. The difference would be in promised defensive values. I've always assumed a balancing double is basically mandatory even with any minimum hand when playing negative doubles, which means always. Thanks very much for the help.

Hi, I have just started playing again after a long layoff and I have a basic bidding question. After the auctions 1♦-X-P-1♥ and 1♦-1♥-P-1♠ my understanding is that opener would need considerable extras to rebid. I've never seen it covered in a book, but unless my memory is tricking me, my better (ACBL Flight A) partners taught me to play it something like this: P shows a minimum hand with nothing much to say. Often would have been a 1NT rebid. X would be a card-showing double, in a better than minimum hand with no other clear rebid, say 15 HCP. 1♠ or 2♣ would show a hand with near-reverse values (so about 15 HCP for a 5-4, at least a good 13 for 5-5 mnors). 1NT shows 18-19 balanced if playing 15-17 NT, maybe only 17 if playing weak NT (not sure?). It seems to me this bid in particular has to show a lot. You are often (always over the X) saying you have a shot at 1NT over partner's near bust hand. 2♦ is the only bid that doesn't require a good hand. I would do that on a decent 6 card suit and just a little extra. I have several times erroneously taken rebids in auctions like this from otherwise competent-seeming partners to mean that they had extras. My questions are: 1. Is the scheme above basically correct according to standard expert practice? 2. How would it change over a 1-level balance, or 1-level overdcall and 1-level advance, instead of a takeout double and response? 3. What kind of values would opener need to rebid in a new suit or X if advancer jumps over a X, supports an overcall at the two level, or makes a constructive new suit bid at the 2-level? Thanks!