rbforster

Any bid should work well when it comes up. If you use 1M-3m to show major raises, you'll be glad you have that when you hold a major raise. On the other hand, you'll be sad if you hold a semi-solid 6-7 card minor with invitational values (or alternatively a slam invitational hand with a strong minor suit if you play strong jumps). Playing a standard system, I have no real preference either way for Bergen. Playing precision or some other system where 1M is fairly limited (we can't be preempting partner too much if he's got 10-15), I like Bergen raises to preempt the opponents.

Minors, emphasizing diamonds, 6-4 typically.

Well, SuperChart incorporates the MidChart, which has a specific provision allowing multi. But even without that, you can still play it since it promises 1 of 2 suits (majors), neither the suit bid (♦). You could not play 2♥ or 2♠ as "multi" however, nor can you play Wilkcoz 2♦, which shows a 2 suiter with a major (since it could have diamonds). Here's the relevant part of the SuperChart:

No, it's not even SuperChart legal, regardless of whether you judge it to be "destructive" or not (which IMO is far from clear). The problem is that basically weak artificial bids must have or deny the suit bid even at SuperChart level. Here this means that you can play 2D as some weird weak bid, but only if 1) it shows a specific suit, or 2) it denies D and shows 1-2 other possible suits On the other hand, I think it was generally found that playing the "long spade Jammer" version was much more sound (4+ spades is a known "suit"), so you could at least play that.

fixed link above

I'm not sure what your priorities are in terms of accurate part score auctions vs relay game/slam bidding. If you wanted more space for relays, you could use my general structure and just swap the 1♠ and 1N responses, so now 1N show 4+ spades and a limited hand. This might go well with a direct 2♠ jump-shift to show 6+ and a specific range (constructive or inv?).

The point of my P/2m/3m responses were that 1M could promise 4. With (32)44, 33(43), (332)5, etc, you bid 2♣ with a weak-but-not-broke hand. With a better hand, bid 2♦, 2N, or 3m as appropriate. With the weaker hands and no diamond tolerance and no 4cM, just pass (i.e. 3316). I think this structure would be particularly good if you were dropping the weak balanced hands from 1♦, say when Vul. You're bypassing 1N a lot with my 2♣ catchall-no-major response, but you very likely have a minor fit instead so that's fine.

Here's a GCC version for responses based around 1♦-1N as GF relay: 1♦*-? (2+ diamonds) P all normal bad hands -------also includes hands with 5+ diamonds and constructive or weaker values (~0-8) -------also includes hands with long clubs, short diamonds (<2), and only constructive values (5-10ish) 1M natural (optionally limited to less than a GF) 1N GFR 2♣ 3+♣, 2+♦ and constructive values (p/c for opener's better minor) 2♦ 4+♦, decent but not strongly invitational (~9-13). Non-forcing opposite min opener. 2N sound bal invitation, tends to deny diamond length (else 2♦ above) 3m long suit invitational (11-13 with a good suit)

Right now your 1♦ is 2+ but doesn't have to have diamonds, say 4135 or 2425, correct? So it seems like you've still got problems in your current structure though trying to use 1N as GF relay... what do you bid with the hands that used to respond 1N, i.e. no 4 card major and less than a game force? Say 3325 wtih 6-11ish? Do you just pass and hope not to play the 2-2 fit, or do you have a special meaning for 1♦-2♣ that is more like a non-forcing version of a "forcing NT" type hand? If your answer is that it's ok to fudge a 3 card major, maybe you should start doing that on good hands too and see how much mileage you can get along the lines of Viking's 1♥ = natural or GF relay.

Well given I was willing to 2/1 GF with this, I guess I bid 4♥. If you mean I'm forced to treat this as an invitational hand and not upgrade for the 8+ fit, I guess 3♥ is normal (unless you have special methods for the "impossible" 2♠).

So 2D then instead of 2C, assuming partner opens reasonably soundly? In NT, I want them to lead clubs rather than diamonds too. (and with so few agreements on 2/1, surely 2D only promises 4 with 3343 for example.

I doubt it. From the ACBL:

It is, and per Akare's comment, it was certainly a headache for us but we didn't try it out that long. In the ACBL, only encrypted carding is disallowed. Bidding is legal or not subject to whether the bids are legal per the relevant chart. To the extent they are artificial, they need to be allowed for that use (such as being game forcing, or starting with opener's rebid for example on GCC), but the possible encrypted meaning doesn't have any additional restriction.

Overcalls must be pretty heavy in Iceland / Romania to come back in at the five level without a raise. lol

Easier to defend 1♦ showing hearts. Just suppose 1♦ was 100% forcing - now it's clearly easier to defend since you get to arrange both direct bids and delayed bids to show extra hand types. Now 1♦ showing hearts isn't 100% forcing, but passing 1♦ when it shows hearts and nothing about diamonds will often lead to a silly contract (and a poor score for them) so it's very close to forcing. On the other hand, 1♥ showing hearts is an easy pass with most weak hands, not just weak hands with long diamonds.

Actually it is inherently easier to defend because there is more space to show more hand types, so any well constructed defense will be better over this 1♦ than over a normal 1♥. In Akare's example, you get both X and 1♥ to show different strength of takeout bids (say 1♥ with 9-14 and X with 15+), which is clearly a very valuable thing to add in competitive auctions so partner will know not to hang you. It's true that there's not an obvious way to way always be better off, under all possible distributions. That's not to say that you aren't better off however, because of the relative likelihoods of the hand types catered to in the defense. Which is more likely for you to have when they open showing 4+ hearts? 1) a strong unbalanced hand with hearts (unsuitable for NT), or 2) a marginal takeout double of hearts Obviously the 1st one is much less likely, while the second is probably the "prototypical" hand to hold given their opening. So while it's true that the first one will lose out if, after passing, they pass 1♦ and further partner is unable to balance. But the second one loses out in standard when they open 1♥, you pass (being too weak to X), and then your side gets shut out of the auction. I strongly believe that it is definitely easier to defend, and furthermore that you would wish for them to open 1♦ transfer whenever they would have opened a "normal" 1♥ and expect to do considerably better on expectation in those auctions. Of course when they open 1♠ it will be harder, but it's harder when they open 1♠ regardless of what it means just because there's less space for the other side. Furthermore openings that tend to deny the suit bid (1♠ showing diamonds has <4 spades playing canape) are "almost forcing" and as such are easier to defend if you design your defense to give useful meanings to both initial and delayed actions (in the same way we ridicule transfer preempts). Just because you can't "ignore the transfer" and get a defense that is in all ways better than the normal defense doesn't mean your defense isn't better.

Having set up the spade loser, at this point we basically have to play diamonds for 3 tricks barring RHO being unable to win any trick to cash his Q♠. I'd run the 9♦ hoping for Jx or AJx/Jxx onside. I think playing on spades the way you did was ok, but I'm less sure what you'll do about an honor hopping or whether playing on spades at all is best.

But if it was allowed, in time people would adapt and the advantage of opponents unpreparedness would evaporate, leaving the operators with nothing but the bad scores they deserve. Exactly. I'm sure all the same arguments were made against "weak twos" back in the day when everyone played strong twos - destructive (clearly), ill-prepared opponents (since it's new), "rolling the dice and randomizing" (preempts work), etc. 30+ years later everyone plays it and it's an accepted part of the game. Honestly I think just playing penalty doubles against weird weak openings is probably a pretty decent start.

3♣ - going plus :D

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules. I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo. It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

Neither of you promised 4H at this point. With 2344, partner will bid 2H when he can't sit for the X, for example

Right, and you can get both benefits, limited openings and 2-under transfers, by playing P=strong and 1H=fert.

Not sure I'd open 5D at these colors but it seems easy to bid it now. Partner rates to have his share of points so might make or go down only 2 vs their game. Plus theymight guess wrong over 5D a lot moreso than only 4D.

Agreed. Me and my partner played something like this in Bart situations, i.e. 1♠-1N(f)-2♣ 2♠ weaker 3 card limit raise 3♠ stronger 3 card limit raise 2♦ artificial...2♠ weak preference 2N stronger non-fitting invite Certainly one could prioritize the 2 different preference ranges instead of keeping more of limit raises low.

I'm pretty sure this got discussed in some detail here before, but I can't find the thread. The short version was that he pointed out various facts, but his conclusions weren't always supported by them and seemed to be more his opinions. [which I tend to agree with, but not always for those reasons]