rbforster

Extra values and natural, non-forcing.

That's probably a good agreement. I was thinking about the various rebid options and it seemed like having 2♠ be the 5-6 was a very rare use for a cheap bid in this situation.

Really? I would take 2♥ for real support, i.e. 3 cards. Are you raising with 4351 to 2♥ last round, instead of showing your 4 card spade suit? Do you have some checkback after 2♣-2♥ to prevent responder with a 5 card minimum from just bidding 4♥?

Couldn't 2♦ by North have just been a punt, say with 4252 or 4153 and no club stopper? I don't think he's promised the 6th diamond yet until he bids again.

Can see 2♦ or 3♦, but not pass.

Just to clarify a few things. I am not proposing that one bid 2♦ on everything from 6322 KQTxxx♦ and out, to an 8 bagger with two aces. I am suggesting that you might have a playable system in which you bid 2♦ on the "normal" hands (5-10 pts, ok 6 card suit, no 4cM), and also on some freak preempt hands that might normally bid 4-5♦ except they have some flaws (too good to bypass 3N, too many aces make slam more likely than partner would expect, etc). The latter hand type would bid again if possible. I was planning to bid 4♦ if the opponents have not clearly found or shown their major suits at the point were I can bid, such as the auctions listed in OP. It's possible that it comes back to me at 4M (and I'm passing for the same reasons I'm not opening 5♦), but with both majors in play and the opponents expected to have diamond shortness, I think it will be much more likely that they will start slow with a double to keep both majors in play. I wouldn't suggest doing this if my suit were a major, for example, because (among many other good reasons) there's no major-suit ambiguity to the opponents' takeout doubles - a factor that makes preempting more effective in diamonds than in other suits. Yes, I am in the camp that 2 level bids are more constructive than 3 level ones. This is why, if I didn't bid 1♦ on this hand (which is fine), I would bid 2♦ to keep partner in the loop about forward-going possibilities.

Bonus points for East popping H from Hxx♣ on the first round of clubs to get us to take the ill-fated double hook later.

You misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not saying play transfer preempts (I don't). It's an example about how forcing bids can contain unexpected hands, and how, under the right circumstances like this hand, normally non-forcing bids can be viewed as nearly forcing as well. Here we don't know whether it will be us or opps that will feel compelled to bid over 2♦, but I really really doubt it's going 2♦-AP. If you knew someone was going to bid over 2♦ and give you another chance to bid to show a hand like this, would you feel as bad about opening 2♦? That was my point.

I thought a while about this and it's not as good as you think. Sure you've got good chances if partner has Kx or xxx, but only counting the 2-2-1 and 3-1-1 splits, the relative odds are 60:40 respectively. This means that partner has a stiff 46.7% of the time. In those cases, partner will need a huge hand to cover you - the K♠ to preserve your entry (or Q♠ and spades lead away from the K), as well as double stops in both other suits to keep them from being run when lead and continued after losing the diamond trick. But even with xx (32% of the time; 40% for 2 and 8% of that he has the K), your side still needs double stoppers in all suits since they lead a suit and get to continue it after you give up a diamond. That's nearly 80% of the time 3N is going to have problems unless partner has a huge hand. My point is that if you're giving partner something like: Kxx AQxx Qx KQxx just so you can make 3N, that's enough that he can bid it over 2♦ too. If you want to make 3N with a light partner, you really need no diamond losers, which means either Kx♦, xxx♦, or stiff K♦ and the K♠. Then you only need xxx Axxx Kx Kxxx but of course you aren't going to find 3N over 1♦ then either.

Yes, seriously. Let's suppose we played transfer preempts at the 2 level and this showed a regular weak two (no strong option). Since 2♣(showing ♦) is essentially forcing, you could open with a hand like this and then bid again to show some unusual hand. Here, with everyone at the table having diamond shortness (1-2 cards each most likely) and 31 hcp unaccounted for, my claim is that a 2♦ preempt is essentially forcing so you can play the same way if you want. Whether or not that's a good idea, well, that's why I started this thread. The cardinal rule of preempts is that you don't bid the same hand twice. But maybe you can bid again with the extra two cards in length you didn't promise the first time?

A recent Master Solvers problem from Bridge World was approximately "What do you open at first seat Unfavorable with this?" ♠Ax ♥Jx ♦ATxxxxxx (8) ♣x Top marks and the strong consensus was 1♦, with a few passers receiving reasonable scores but a small minority. I have nothing against 1♦, but I sometimes overthink these things and wondered if I couldn't get some good results out of opening 2♦. Sure it's too strong for a "weak two", but with lots of shape and few points in your hand, you'll have another chance to bid and you're conveying your approximate values (if not shape) to partner in case he has game/slam aspirations. Also, if it's the opponents' hand, you'll have started with a preempt that can get them to the wrong strain if you bid again since both majors are in play. For example, I think these auctions could work out well: 2♦-(X)-P-(2N)-4♦, when advancer uses Leb (invitational with 1+ major) and either hand is 4-3 majors 2♦-(P)-P-(X)-4♦, when either hand is 4-3 majors 2♦-2N, then do something unexpected like 4♦ or maybe 3♣ (bad/bad) and then surprise over 3♦ with 3♠, raise 3N to 5-6♦, etc It seems like the opponents will have any easy time finding their major fit over 1♦, while if their points are unevenly split and/or they don't both have both majors, they may guess wrong under pressure if you start 2♦. Sure this will miss a few light 3N hands where partner has the right 12 count and won't go over 2♦, but you really do need a fair bit of help to run your suit especially if spades gets attacked. Also, you'll no doubt save yourself some embarrassing auctions where partner doubles their game on your open strength and you have to either pull at too high a level or hope you've got more than 1 trick on defense. Thoughts?

Here are some non-game-going cases to consider to help compare the two methods. (GF values should be able to work out the right strain either way) Opener....Responder.....Your Auction.....My Auction......Comments Max.........preference......2H-not 2S.........2S-P............... I think you can get too high trying to pre accept over a preference sign off Max.........inv- <2M...........2N-> 3N/4M......2S-P................if opener can't make a jump rebid, we take the low road here on a misfit. Could miss 3N if the tricks are there. Mid..........inv- 2M...........2H-2S-2N.........2H-2N..............same, we both could miss a 6-2 partial (* see edit) Mid..........inv- <2M.........2H-2S-2N.........2S-P................I take the low road, hoping to scramble to more trump tricks rather than trying 2N on 22-24 hcp misfit Min..........inv- 2M...........2S-P.................2H-2S-P..........same Min..........inv- <2M.........2H-2S-2N.........2S-P...............nothing is great, but I think I'd rather play 2M than 2N on 20-22 hcp misfit Min..........inv+ 2M..........2N-P..................2H-2S-P.........here I think with a 5-2 fit, 2M is probably better than 2N Min..........inv+ <2M........2N-P..................2H-2S-2N.......same In short, I am a bit more pessimistic in general, and specifically we get to play 2M over 2N on some weaker misfits which I think is a win. I can miss some games, but you have to play a level higher on some busted invites. Edit: I think I can pick up the 6-2 partials for Mid-vs-(light Inv with 2M) in my methods by having the 2H-3S bid show 6-4 Mid instead of 6-4 Max and shuffle the Max hands around a little. This way we play 3S instead of 2N on the declined invite, which should be an improvement.

Was there something you didn't like about my version? It seems a bit more comprehensive than this one. In particular, note that you don't need to show 0-1 vs 2 spades when opener has a min (since he won't have a 6-4 min and rebid 2m), but you do want to be able to find the 6-2 fit opposite a medium strength opener. Another question you should answer for yourself is how you bid maximum hands with 6(332) shape. Are you willing to jump to 3M with only a 6 card suit (possibly a poor one) and no shortness? I don't like to. If not, what does this mean for your 1M-1N-2M rebid? Is it really everything from a 10 hcp 6 bagger to a 6-4 15 count? I know some people who will bid 2♣ with a max 6(322), possibly on only 2 clubs, and plan to raise a 2♠ preference later. I haven't thought through this entirely, but there's certainly an issue that the 2M rebid has a wide range even in Precision (and an even wider range in std).

Here's a nice writeup called Anti-BART by Josh Sher that you may find useful if you change your mind :).

This is ok, but I think you may want to reverse it, i.e. 2♥ shows the better hands and direct bids show the worse ones. This is because you'd like opener to be able to make some descriptive bid sometimes instead of just 2♠ (when he has a pretty good hand), but you want this to be relatively safe and you have more space if you do it before responder preempts you by bidding 2N or 3m. For these purposes, and for what I've tried to do in my methods, I divide up the opener's hands into 3 ranges - min, mid, and max corresponding to 10-11/12-13/14-15 approximately. The idea would be that if 2♥ showed an invite opposite a mid range hand or better (strong invite), then opener with an acceptance could now make various forward-going bids instead of 2♠ to help clarify strain, etc. On the other hand, direct bids would be lighter invites and tend to invite only opposite a maximum hand by opener. 1♠-1N-2♦- ? 2H art generally stronger invite (~12-13ish typically, could be balanced 10-11 with doubleton major tho) ....2S any min opener (responder passes or corrects to 2N/3m as appropriate) ....2N mid, catchall (responder will bid on unless holding the 10-11 balanced hand) ....3C max, catchall (could have club fragment, or semi balanced with concern about NT stoppers) ....3D mid, 5+/5+ (NF opposite the weaker responding hand only) ....3H max, fragment 5341 ....3S max, 6-4 ....3N max, 5242 with cards in the short suits 2S weak preference 2N sound invite (~12-13), but 0-1 spades (bid 2H with doubleton and good values instead) 3C light invite with a good suit 3D light raise I'm assuming you'll make a precision jump rebid by opener with some distributional maximums, so some of those aren't accounted for above. I also tried to arrange the bids so you could make a light NT invite, but still get out in 2M opposite a bad hand or 2N opposite a medium hand that wasn't accepting. What do you think?

In the US, 4-4 weak bids are Superchart with a known suit or when they deny the suit opened. Things like 2♦ Jammer or 2♥ Multi that might or might not have the suit opened are not allowed in any US events, except your local club games if they're open minded.

David - can you comment a little more on the inferences on opener's 2m rebid in your system? For example, what hands would rebid 2M in preference to showing a 4m suit? Is that how you bid a minimum 6-4? What about your 2M openers? Are those available for a weak 6M hand that might overlap with the low end of your 10-15 1M range? I ask about this because if you are thinking about showing an invite vs constructive 2 card preference to 2♠, it would seem to matter what value range opener could have when he was in fact holding a 6M suit and you might have a real fit. Otherwise, if that's not possible or likely, you're more just judging whether to play 2M on a misfit vs 2N. Another question - do you play any BART or similar over 1♠ - 1N - 2♣, or is 2♦ there just natural NF? You can fit in all sorts of stuff in the space there if you give up stopping in exactly 2♦.

If you played 1N as forcing, you could play to 2H as an art GF, since with just a 1M-2C GF relay you may have some hands/questions that can't be well managed. Harder to put in really good hands when they get. Passed out in 1N

I don't really want to play 3H with a stiff honor opposite a bad hand, so I voted for the club values. That said, I wouldn't hesitate to invite on xx♥ with appropriate values, so if I lacked either minor values, maybe I still need an invite. So maybe the direct 3H is just any invite with a fit and not diamond values. Are you sure concentrated values instead of something else, like shortness, is the best type of invite to use? I dont know about your range on the 2H opener, but what about catering to 3 strength ranges? You could have a light invite and a sound invite for your two sequences, and opener would only go opposite the former with a really nice hand.

Have you tried using symmetric relays? They aren't always the most space-efficient, especially if some shapes could be missing (like 5/5 majors over a standard 1♥), but they are super easy to remember. You can use them at +1 level or +2 level too, if you find yourself in a relaying situation that starts higher up. As I said, it's not optimal, but they cover all the shapes and are very easy to remember.

This hand looks at most invitational to me- I'm not forcing to 3NT opposite a min and I'm not sure with our poor suits that we'll have strength for 5m even if we have a fit. If I had a 5/5 invite bid then I'd use it (my system doesn't), otherwise just 2NT. Normally it's 3C 5/5 weak, 3D 5/5 GF, and it works fine in the right NT system.

Max of 31 and no 8 card fit and no long suit? Where are our tricks coming from? Our hearts are so poor that partner can't really have a strong enough holding like AKQ and still have enough strength for us outside, and while it's possible partner could have 4 strong clubs that play well opposite our Axx, there's not enough strength left to make a slam good. Something like ♠Qx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣KQJT is a maximum 14 count and we can plan on ruffing 2 diamonds (with low and then A) and still draw trump, but sadly we're playing 6♣ and partner's Kxx♥ is exposed to the opening lead. I suppose you could try to draw an inference that partner bid hearts artificially twice with no X but still. For hearts to work, I guess maybe: ♠xx ♥AKQ ♦xxxx ♣KQxx and ruff 2 spades high. Anyway, all of these seem super specific, require decent trump breaks, and I'm not sure just a simple key-card answer will tell us whether it's safe to explore past 4N when we could easily be off the cashing AK♥.

Scheme 2 seems pretty good. What about Pass = weak balanced OR game forcing relay? Unbalanced weaker hands would make a direct bid to show their suit, likely NF. Since opener is unbalanced with diamonds, it seems pretty unlikely the auction would die at 1♥ anyway. You'd need to reorganize your relay responses to be semi-natural (so the weak hands can pass), and only use high responses for showing opener's hands with extra strength and/or shape. 1D - (1H) - ?: P weak balanced or GF relay X takeout 1S 5+ NF 1N inv balanced 2C 5+ NF 2D 3+ NF and then after 1D - (1H) - P* - (P): X extra values, no extra shape ...P always an option with the right strong hand ...1S GF relay ...1N-2D some scrambling scheme to sign off in openers' suit(s) 1S min natural 1N extra values and extra shape 2C min natural 2D min natural 2H+ various shapely hands without extra strength First step relays after opener's rebid, pass or other bids are preferences with the weak hand (to play).

Another off the wall suggestion is a balanced pass system, something like pass = 0-15 balanced, with a strong club and fert like natural 2 level openers.

I used to play 1♥ as Kokish but I play an inverted version now. It's basically symmetric to show two strength ranges with the same hands except that you bid 1♣-1♦-1♥ with the weaker ones and make a natural, direct bid with the stronger ones (this caters to some GF hands in 1♦ that are able to show their relay shape opposite the minimum strong club opener). There are some tweaks to handle awkward shapes and we certainly aren't going to do as well on this auction stopping in a part score as standard players. Here's the basic idea: 1♣ (strong) - 1♦ (0-7, or rare GFs with ♥) 1♥ min values: balanced, 1-suited, both minors (+ some stronger hands) .......1♠ waiting with all 0-7's (*) ..............1N min NT ..............2♣ 5+ wide ranging (could have extras with 54xx shapes) ..............2♦ 5+ ..............2M 6+ ..............2N both minors ..............3♣+ various rare strong hands 1♠ min two-suited, not both minors (+ some strong hands) 1N 19-21 2♣ like a strong 2♣ in standard 2♦♥♠ 5+ natural, extra values but not enough to GF 3♣ 6+ natural, extra values (no 4cM) 3♦+ various rare strong hands * - I use the responses over 1♥ besides 1♠ to show various GF hands. If you didn't want to include those in 1♦, you could use transfers starting at 1N to show single suited invites or some other two-suited scheme.