akhare

This is an aside, but it was interesting to see that Revision Club has adopted the idea of 1♦ as a potential GF. http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/revision_club_4th_ed.zip In this case, the auction will go: 1C* - 1D* (16+; various, including GF hands) 1S - 2H (natural, natural GF) 3H - 4H Richard and Adam haven't posted yet, but I bet that the plurality of auctions on this thread will begin with 1C* - 1D* B-)...

We play a somewhat similar method (variation of Pagan): 2M = Natural 2m = Minor and 4+ Spades X = H + another We immediately establish 4+♠ or 4+♥ at the cost not being able to immediately distinguish the relative length of the suits. In your methods, the tradeoff after the immediate 2m is that the major (if any) is unknown, but the X shows a 5 card major.

Let me throw one in for Precision. 1C* - 1H Playing Gamma, opener may decide to bid 2H: 1C - 1H 2H* - 2S* (5+ trumps, no honor) 4H Without Gamma, the auction might go: 1C* - 1H 1S - 2D 2H - 4H Alternatively, if opener decides to rebid spades: 1C* - 1H 1S - 2D 2S - 4S In both cases, responder will be keen on quickly signing off given the lack of values in the red suits.

Looks like a 1N opener to me (assuming a 15-17 NT). JX and the other xx spots don't exactly inspire effusiveness about this hand...

For this sequence, I think that the original version with 2♣ = 3+♣ DN works best. 2♥ as 6+ is too narrow a target and 3 vs. 4 spades in a DN hand are really unlikely to matter much. With a shapely hand and 4+♠, responder is free to jump to the 3-level and 2♠ should show 3/4 with a less than promising hand.

After the 1C - 1D - 1S - 2x DN response, is it really necessary for opener to show shape? One can allocate a single bid(say 2N) establish a GF. Alternatively, 2N can some sort of puppet and direct bids show two suited GF hands etc...

Ah OK -- the 2-way transfers make sense.

Isn't the inability to play in 2M with a DN hand a concern? Instead of showing the really good minor super positives with 2D+, it might be best to have them start off with 2C and pattern out opener's hand. Granted, having the unbalanced hand ask isn't ideal, but such hands should be far and few in between.

IMO, this is just another band aid solution and while it's better than using 1H for all semi-positives, trying partition the hands into DN / SP / GF immediately creates more problems than it solves. A better approach is to partition the hands into potential DN / SP+ / GF hands (a la IMPrecision). While it's true that the SP responses don't create a forcing pass situation, it's a small disadvantage compared to the frequent awkward situations created after a 1C - 1H (SP). Yes, there are more band aids available after 1C - 1H (SP), but a kludge is just a kludge.

Sorry team mates -- we were clearly out of our elements today. We clearly owe you for boards 1, 13, 16, 23 and 26. Also, we should probably be in 4S on 17.

Both of us (straube and I) can play on Saturday.

FWIW, I think that playing 1C - 1D DN / some GF hands is very playable. For example, consider what Adam does in IMPrecision over 1C - 1D (details omitted for brevity): 1H: Natural unbalanced with hearts or strong balanced hands 1S: Natural, unbalanced, forcing one round 1N: Minimum balanced NT 2C: Natural 2D: Natural 2H: Strong with 4+ H, 4c 2S: Minors with at least 5+5+ 2N: 6+ in a minor, very strong 3C / 3D / 3H / 3S: GF Note that as Zelandakh pointed out, bidding 1N with a minimum balanced hands doesn't really cost anything because one can always use 2C as the start of a relay Stayman sequence or something along those lines. One valid critique about such methods is that they don't set up an immediate GF. However, this is more than balanced out by the equally valid concern that compressed SP responses don't convey any distribution information. IMO, it ultimately comes down to a choice of what one deems more important (setting up an immediate GF or conveying distribution information).

Check my reply on this thread.

Is this in context of a limited opening system? It's much easier to design something that works if that's the case...

In our arguably limited trail, they seem to work pretty well. We do use attitude leads, which probably makes it easier to read the opening lead...

I do think that agreements will be shaped by vulnerability and other conventions(like NAYMATS) as well.

♠9 seems to be a standout...

Edit below: It's an interesting situation indeed. FWIW, in our case, the A♥ would normally be for attitude, but when it doesn't make sense, we fall back to OS when there's QXX in dummy we signal count. If we had led led K♥ (for the OS) and pard would presumably discourage ♥s to show K♦. If pard encourages, we can hope for the A♣...

Assume 2S is 3S on #2 ;)...

[hv=pc=n&n=saqthaqj96da8ct86&e=s84hkt32dkcakq753&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=3d3np4sppp]266|200[/hv] You would have rather defended 3N, but c'est-la-vie. Pard leads Q♦, declarer wins with A♦, draws two rounds of trump ending in hand (all following). Small ♥ from hand follows with pard playing small and Q♥ from board. You play udca and don't have to worry about pard holding 8-diamonds at this vul. Thoughts?

I am ducking with the most emphatic encouraging card and following up with Smith echo or equivalent (if we play it and there's time for it)..

HSGT on #1 and 2♣ -> 2♠ (invite) on #2.

I would draw the line at stiff K=1 and leave it there. IMO, discounting stiff Aces simply isn't worth the mental effort and the hands on which it matters for the better are likely far and few in between.

+1 for 4N to play...

+1...