akhare

Heh, heh, reminds me of the time I played the district GNP qualifier finals right after running a full marathon (no, I am dead serious). Since I had to rush from the finish line to the table, there was no time to shower in between (yes, no kidding again). To this day, I wonder how much that extra "edge" contributed to our win :)...

Actually, I came up with something very similar a while back :P. You may want to consider playing 12+ - 15 for the 1 level openings and say 8-11 for the 2 level (depending on vulnerability of course). It might be best to retain 2♥/2♠ as loose preempts (especially the latter) and use only 2♣/2♦ for the 8-11 type hands. The 1♣ - 1♦ GF idea is good, but I would recommend using one of the several semi-positive structures discussed in several threads on this forum. The 1♣ - 1N bid doesn't convey anything useful and that purpose is better served by a lower level bid (say 1♣ - 1♥). It would be useful to further specialize the 6-7 (5-7) responses into hands with one or both majors etc.

Huh, where does that come from? Certainly there are hands with a singleton heart that would bid 4♠ over 2♥. Don't you think that the XX strongly implies a ♥ void? The person making the XX bid 4♠ also...

What kind of structure would you recommend over 1♣ - 1♦ (5-7) and higher level interference? For example, some pairs play pass / double inversion after 1♣ - <Positive> - (3X). Basically, X by opener isn't for penalty and shows at least two other places to play and P asks for a X. I don't think that this agreement necessarily makes sense after say 1♣ - 1♦ (5-7) - 3♠. Should a direct bid by opener, say 2♠ after 1♣ - 1♦ (5-7) - (2♥) be to play and should stronger hands start off with a X?

P -- the lead problem might be tougher though. Assuming sane opps, the 4♠ bidder must be void in ♥s (7♠42, 8♠32). If pard's X is based on say AQX of ♣ (besides ♥ values), we might very well be leading ♦s into declarer's AKJX. So, I am on lead, I would try a ♠ to see what dummy looks like...BTW, would pard X with a ♠ void in this situation?

1) 7♣ -- hopefully my pard isn't sick enough to psyche 3♣ 2) P

Is it far better in that it allows opener to know that we own at least half of the deck? If so, given the relative infrequency of the 0-4 range, opener may assume that it's the case for 1♣ - 1♦ (negative) and be right most of the time. IMO, for SP responses, it's much more important to identify the hand type and get the suits on the table ASAP (especially on hands with one or more major suits)...

Very interesting, but 1♣ - 1♦ (SP) is still as vulnerable to 4th hand preemption as 1♣ - 1♦ (negative). Perhaps the trick might be turn this on its head and play 1♣ - 1♦ (GF) and 1♣ - 1♥ (double negative) and the rest as SPs? The downside of course, is that we may end up too high...

Interesting -- don't you think that 1♣ - 1♠ should be the balanced 9+ hand? Given that it's so common, you want to rightside NT by allowing opener to just bid 1N. It should be quite easy to sort out the minor suit oriented hands over 1♣ - 1♥ (0-4) or 9+ with no 5CM.

Hmm...is RHO conservative enough to bid only 2♥ NV. vs. V with 7♥222? Anyway, if you assume it's the case, small ♣ is fatal, ergo: A♣, draw trumps, then duck ♣ into RHO's presumed stiff honour. Win presumed ♥ return, now simple minor suited squeeze against LHO, targeting a three card ending where LHO has to discard in the following situation: - - ♦KX ♣K

#1: Seems like a toss up between a relatively passive ♠ and an active A♦. Since the ♣ situation doesn't bode too well for our side, it might tip the scale a little in favour of the latter. #2: Yet another toss up between the passive ♥ and active A♣. The "poor opps" comment seems to suggest a cash out, so A♣, hoping not to blow a trick.

Interesting question, but couple of things to consider: 1) 2♣ usually starts at 22+ and 1♣ is usually (15)16+. In the absence of an immediate double negative, even the 3 level might be too high with the latter range 2) Assuming 1♦ as GF, does the ability to show an extra SP shape with 1♠ offset the loss resulting from the inability to show the DN immediately?

Own all three -- enough said :)...

This does beg another follow up question: How many people who P can do so in tempo? Surely, most of us can't resist gawking at those 7♣ for at least a bit? How does a P after a long tank affect pard's ability to make another bid over say 5♠? Hopefully, the opps took some time to recollect their agreements over 4N - (5♣) and gave us some time to think...

Hmm... pard is either massively two suited with longer clubs or has a ♣ void is hoping I have a sense of humour. However, I don't think that the latter explanation carries much weight since a lightner X conveys the message if they do bid slam.

22 was just a number for illustration...the point being that 1♠ and SP responses can accomplish the 1♣ - 1♦ proposal suggested by your pard and offer more in the bargain.

I wouldn't want to play 2♣ as an absolute GF either, but it seems that can play the proposed alternative *and* SPs using: 1♣ - 1♠ (FN) - 2♣ (22+) - 2♦ (SN -- absolute junk) - blah

Isn't 1♣ - 1♦ (0-7 any) more vulnerable to preemption than 1♣ - 1♦ (GF)? One can argue that 1♣ - 1♥ (mostly bal 4-7ish) is vulnerable too, but at least opener has some idea of the likely hand type...

As the 1S negative shows 0-4, as Atul says, it is infrequent. Also, as has been pointed out, there are schemes to deal with them. How worse off are you after 1C 1S 2C gf than any standard system? Imo you are better off as you are at a comparatively low level and already know responder has trash. I also agree that semi positives do leave you far better placed. They are more messy in relay structure though. I am becoming increasingly convinced that it might be best to eschew relays after SP responses. Since the most common SP response is 1♣ - 1♥ (mostly balanced hands, some minor suited hands) something along the lines of this should work pretty well: 1♣ - 1♥: 1♠: Showing extras, forcing. Responder clarifies hand type, new suits by opener forcing 1N: Balanced or semi-balanced 15-17(18-) 2♣: Majors (forcing) 2♦: Single suited in a major (forcing) 2♥/2♠: 5CM, 4+ minor, NF

IMO, SPs leave you better placed than the standard 1♣ - 1♦ auctions. 1♣ - 1♠ can be difficult, but: 1) It's not very frequent 2) There are several schemes to tackle it with arises (including the one you posted)

Color me 4♠. If it goes for 1100, chalk another one up for "preempts work"...

How does it fare compared to negative free bids? I suppose the advantage here is that it gives responder one more bite at the apple, i.e., instead of NFBs, where the auction might go: 1♠ - (2♦) - 2♥* (* = not forcing) 1♠ - (2♦) - X* (* = mostly negative, could be some GF hand) you now have 1♠ - (2♦) - X* (* = transfer to ♥, sign off or invite) and 1♠ - (2♦) - 2♥* (* = 4♥) I am guessing that the 2♥ isn't forcing, right?

As I recollect, Richard (hrothgar) advocated this idea also -- basically, it was Moscito in the 1st and 2nd seats and then 2/1 or Blue Club in 3rd / 4th...

Why not make the 3rd seat NT wider ranging when NV? 12-14 or 13-15 or even 14-16 is OK when vul, but it seems that you can really make them guess by opening say 10-14 in the 3rd seat, NV....

Hmm...I guess the table bid was 4♣, trying to do a preempt over the prempt? Unless you have such an agreement, it seems like a easy P at this vul...