rbforster

Of course there's no normal reason not to open 7NT with 13 top tricks, so if you open 7♠ you must have lots of solid (enough) spades and a void. You might have a side suit you think will come in too, like 8 solid + AKQTx or something. The problem with the 7NT sac is that almost all hands opening a reasonable 7♠ will have ~2 outside suits controlled too (double voids are quite rare). So the defense, even when the 7♠ bidder isn't on lead, only has to hit one of his outside A's to clobber 7N. Sadly, you can't afford to use the X of 7NT by slam bidder to direct lead since if you were making 7♠, you can't afford to defend 7N undoubled even at favorable.

Against mtvesuvius or JLOL and their takeout doubles, I think I open 7♠, against everyone else 7N. 7♠ gives up a little upside at MPs, but wins when instead you defend 7NX-13 for +3500.

9-11 NV? Goes well with a 15+ strong club (and 1♦ 12-14).

Since I was expecting 1♠ to show 5 from partner, I wasn't tempted to try to "cash" a spade. From the bidding, I expected at least 5♥/5♣ together with a spade void for declarer, suggested partner might be able to get a club ruff. Sure if partner had a singleton (club) he might have lead it over the T♦ apparently from QT9xx(x), but it might be a club honor or he might not have any. I confess West's "help suit" bid in clubs with a stiff tricked me. As we can see, Kxxx opposite certainly wasn't useful help double dummy.

Am I reading this correctly that you can't stop in 3♠ with a weak hand and 6+ spades? It seems like opener is going to reject our transfer and bid 3N at least some of the time :).

1♣-1M-2♦ This is often an "overloaded" reverse in that it can contain some difficult hands as well as just ~17+ 4+♦/5+♣. Especially in that case, it might be worth having responder relay shape with GF values (starting with either 2M F1 ambiguous or 2N+(over ♥)/3♣+(over ♠) assuming you use the cheapest non-M bid as your weakness bid). P-1M-2♣* Drury. Seems like 2♦ would make for a good start to a relay sequence when opener has slam interest. Although 2♦ probably wants to include invitational hands too, responder might want to start zooming into shape relays with an acceptance using 2M+1 or higher responses. 1m-1M-1N Here it seems like both sides know something and there will be some hands by responder that want to ask rather than tell. Not sure how you want to sort out allocating bids between these (together with all the 2-way NMF style signoffs and invites), but certainly 2-way NMF has tons of ways to bid different things and I'm sure you could put to use 2♣->2♦...3X or some of the other high jumps. That said, 2-way NMF is pretty good as is, so you might gain more by putting effort elsewhere.

Thanks for the comments. I had considered transfers, but think they might be less relevant in my system (in particular, I'd be using the sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥*-1♠*-2♣ instead of the normal 1♣-1♦-2♣ sequence to show natural clubs so there aren't right-siding issues in the majors). In general, I'd like to find my 4-4 major fits, especially since these are pretty easy in standard methods. I admit I'm a little bias against the major responses which are 4-5 cards just because the ambiguity makes it's hard to know what to do as opener and can lead to lost/poor fits. A couple of questions for you - - if by your "2C module" you mean the same as over a precision 2♣ opener, how do you hand the additional xx45 shape with clubs and diamonds (since that's not usually an allowed shape in a precision 2♣)? I like the option (but not requirement) to treat these hands as balanced , so I still want to bid something with those shapes. - what are your continuations after your transfers? Thanks.

I have been working on the precision auction where opener has a strong hand and then bids clubs naturally such as 1♣-1♦ 16+; 0-7 2♣-? 5+♣ unbalanced, less than a GF The idea here was that since 2♣ was a pretty cheap bid, we could overload it a little with a wider range of club hands/shapes and hopefully things would still work out. 2♣ unbalanced with primary clubs - 5+♣ 16-21. Most but not all hand types, specifically: 5♣/4♦ 16-19 6+♣ 16-19, including 6/4's or just clubs 5♣/4X 20-21 (missing are 5C/4M and 6C/5X on the low end, while the max hands have only 5/4 shape) Range descriptions for opener are approximately min/inv/max corresponding to 16-17/18-19/20-21. For responder, sound invites are ~6-7 and weakish bids are ~4-5. 2♦ asking, semipositive values (5-7 or maybe a little less with a known fit) ....2♥ 16-19 6/4M with either major ..........2♠ asks for major ..................2N hearts .........................P sound values with 4S/5+D and short clubs (misfit) .........................3C 2+C signoff (had 4S) .........................3D good raise to 3H .........................3H signoff with fit ..................3C min 4S .........................3D good raise to 3S .........................3S signoff with fit ..................3D max 4S ...........2N sound invite with 4H/5+D and short clubs ...........3C 2+C sound invite, could have 4H (now 3H accepts with 4H) ...2♠ 16-19 5C/4♦ (not suited to appropriate NT bid) ...........2N lebensohl =>3C (weak with minor fit – will pass or correct to 3D) ...........3m good invite with fit ....2N 6+C inv, no major ...........P/3♣ to play ...........3D+ stoppers for NT .....3♣ 6+C min, no major .....3♦ 5C/4D max .....3M 5C/4M max .....3N good hand with running clubs 2M 5+ cards, typically ~5-7 2N inv with 44 majors, typically 4432 exactly 3♣ 3+♣ courtesy raise, ~4-5 pts (better raises go through 2D asking) Any suggestions or obvious omissions? I couldn't think of a good use for some of the jumps past 3♣ by responder, but those are probably going to be pretty rare anyway (I think I'll be bidding 1-suited hands by responder differently so these aren't really a concern).

Tough problem for North - 3N is the values bid, but questionable w/o a stopper and didn't work out. I think upon reflection I'd try 2♦ and follow up by 3♥ over whatever partner bids trying to get to NT.

I agree with those who've said weak NT makes the most sense (to me) when we're NV regardless of their colors. As for memory aspects of playing different systems when vulnerable, they aren't too bad. You were looking at the vulnerability before you bid anyway, right? :)

I agree - the conventional "short club" that might be a natural 4+ card suit or might be 44 in any suits not clubs (among the likely options) is clearly too difficult to defend and must be banned. Just like those other conventions that are just "too hard" to play against. Well, maybe if we can use BSC defenses to their evil either/or conventions, it'll be ok. Maybe at favorable I should start playing 2♥ multi overcalls of short club openers...

1. 4♥, pulling if doubled or over 4♠ to 5♦. 2. 3♣, or generally treating it as whichever of 1-suited or 2-suited lets me preempt higher

In particular, remember how much sh*t some directors give people for daring to open 1N on a singleton? Systematically opening 1N on 4441's seems like some sort of capital crime to judge by the ACBL responses we often hear about. Let's take a moment to remember how SAYC will bid this systematically after 1M-1N(non-forcing) with a singleton in the bid major. Ban it - it's clearly not GCC! (although it appears to be allowed without needing an approved defense for Midchart events). This 4441 issue is in addition to the completely off-shape hands that rebid a NF 1M-1N in standard like xx AJxxxxx Kxx x or x xx KQxxx Kxxxx "no singleton" my a$$ - you'll regularly have one and not even just in partner's major.

With less than an opening hand, add the lengths of your two longest suits to your high card points. If you've more than 10 (or 12), preempt in your longest suit. ;)

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider". Huh? I wasn't criticizing his response - Gerben offered a simple and clearly worded proposal very similar to the GCC except without the ambiguity. My last remark was pointing out some of the differences between what some people play now and what would be allowed under his simplified version. It's certainly good to have rules that are unambiguous - it avoids mistakes and misunderstandings and everyone can be clear on what they can play. That's why I was saying how the European bridge organizations have done a much better on this front than we (the US/ACBL) has with our Charts and their poor wording that makes it hard to know even if a natural 1♥ opener is allowed.

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this. What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be. Just look it up in the orange book and check, right? PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too. But it is simpler.

This is the kind of bad logic and reasoning that makes dealing with the ACBL Charts and officials so frustrating. 1. the 100K+ GCC players don't have the right not to "deal with 1C=spades" no more than they have the right not to "deal with" people playing Precision 1D, or 8-10 NT, or any number of other odd conventions that are allowed by the rules under GCC. Just because they might not like it doesn't mean it's not legal. I bet they don't like preempts either, why don't we ban those too? Better yet, why don't we say they're allowed as natural bids, but ban/sanction a non-pro whenever they bid one? That's more in the ACBL spirit I think. 2. it's not his job to "close the loophole." If a convention is allowed under the rules as written as an "all purpose" artificial opening, it's not his job go around making up subjective and arbitrary interpretations (which he does very very frequently if you look at the history of his responses to what people ask). If something "should be illegal", the laws need to be changed first and it's legal until then. 3. I'm sick and tired of selective enforcement of the laws against unknown/young players. Meckwell wanted to play 2♥ as a precision 2♦ opener, and magically it gets a defense approved for Midchart (when was the last time that happened?) and a special exception written in. I bet if they decided to play 1♣ was 16+ or 10-15 5+♦ it would be ruled an "all purpose opening," but if you're a nobody you have to play some famous person's system. Innovation is forbidden on the first 2 bids of the auction. I'm sure you think this based on what you wrote about "protecting the masses". But that's like convicting a poor black guy on trumped up charges because he was "probably guilty of something" - you know, for the general good. If the ACBL can't follow it's own laws, they should just admit they're a dictatorship where you must ask the C&C guys about every convention you want to play and they just tell you yes or no based on whim. There's no point in having laws if you don't follow them! Sure, but that's because his ridiculously inconsistent rulings are well known thanks to the internet. "No transfer opening are allowed!" is a standard response to even unrelated questions! And he's still wrong when the question is about 1m showing something artificial with 10+ points.

"All purpose" sure sounds like all purposes to me. I don't buy the other interpretation, especially since lots of random 1m openers are already played. You'd have to claim that the 1m bid is fine for any existing system with a funky 1m opener (Polish, SAYC, short club, Swedish club, Precision 2+ diamond, Precision 0+ diamond, etc), but somehow it's not ok for the one use you want? That just sounds like bad logic, from Mr Beye or anyone else. I certainly haven't seen any interpretation that explains why all of those 1m openers are fine and why it's not if 1♣ shows 4+♥ or whatever.

Some comments and observations on system holes (suggestions to follow): 1. you don't have an obvious way to handle 5=4 and 4=5 major invites cheaply (I guess you can use 1N-2♣-2♦-2M but the same shapes and weak is more common) 2. the 2♠ GF seems a little redundant together with 2♥ and 4♠, but I guess this handles the 5♠+m 2-suiters and the 5♠ balanced invite. 3. do you really need/want 3M and 4♦ as preempts? 4. no bid for both minors invitational 5. your 5+ spade invite (2♦...2♠) is really just 5 spades right, since with 6+ you'd go through 2N...3♠ (1-suiter invite)? I might suggest a few changes. Well, it turns out to be more than a few, but I think they're good. Basically, if you think about when opener can break the transfer you can get more information in ways that don't cost much... 1. play Texas for the 4M hands that want opener to declare. This is useful even over weak NT to set trumps for RKC. For the "I want to play 4M hands", you still have a direct 4♠ and 2♥->2♠...4♥ so this is basically "free" except for the loss of the 4♦ preempt which no one else plays anyway. 2. After 1N-2N, let opener bid 3♣ with better clubs and 3♦ with better diamonds. This will help most of your responding hand types evaluate well (like the club slam tries and the diamond invites), but also means you can include the "both minors weak" option here (which just passes opener's preference, and right-sides it to boot). 3. Using #2, you can play 1N-2♦-2♥-2N as Inv+ minors (5/5+ when Inv). 3m is now a minimum preference, but 3M by opener can be good hands (either cues or showing minor preference) and 3N can accept while showing no slam interest opposite minors. 4. Using #3, note that after 1N-2♦ all of responder's hands are Inv+ except the heart signoff. This means we can have opener "superaccept" after 1N-2♦ with 4♥s and specified strength (either min or max) and have things work out. Here's a "normal" one where you accept with a ♥ maximum by bidding naturally: 1N-2♦ ......2♥ any min, or max with <4♥ ......2♠ (♠) 3-4♠, 4♥ max ......2N (♦) 2443 max ......3♣ (♣) 2434 max then play transfers at the 2-3 level by responder which should get all the right-siding including the heart signoff. You can double check whether all your continuations can handle these sorts of responses, but since you've established a GF with any rebid by responder except 3♦->3♥ it shouldn't be too hard. Here's a more creative version that superaccepts only on minimums with 4♥ and 2♠ (4 card support for the transfer suit and 2 in OM): 1N-2♦ .........2♥ all hands except mins 24xx .........2♠ min 2443 (♥+♦) .........2N min 2434 (♥+♣) and then after 2♠ or 2N by opener: .............P to play, 5♠ inv hand, no better fit .............2N to play, 5♠ inv hand, no better fit .............3♣ to play (1 suited clubs, both minors, or ♠+♣ with fit) .............3♦ to play (both minors or ♠+♦ with a fit) .............3♥ to play weak with hearts, or a rejected 5♠4♥ invite .............3♠ GF minor slam try (3N rejects) .............3N to play, could be 4♠5+♦ or diamond hand no longer interested in 5♦ .............4♥ to play, could be ♥ one suiter or 4♥5+♦ The point here is that responder with only Inv values and 5♠4♥ will now always find a major fit even opposite minimum (finding them isn't too hard opposite maxs afterall), since with opener's 3♠ min we can play 2♠ but we can still get to 3♥ when responder has 54xx. 5. Similar to #4, let opener make a relay break after 1N-2♥ to show a minimum with 4♠2♥. 1N-2♥ .........2♠ all hands except mins 42xx .........2N min 42xx and then after 2N by opener: .............P to play, 5♥ inv hand, no better fit .............3♠ to play, weak spades or a rejected 45xx invite .............other GFs as before (but giving up 3♠ as spade splinter) Again, the point here is that responder with only Inv values and 4♠5♥ will now always find a major fit even opposite minimum (finding them isn't too hard opposite maxs afterall), since with opener's 3♥ min he will correct to 3♥ over 2N but we can still get to 3♠ when responder has 45xx. I like being able to handle the Inv 5/4 majors hands this way (now you transfer to your 4cM and then bid the cheapest step unless partner breaks relay to show a fit). Obviously if opener doesn't break relay and responder shows a 5cM invite, opener will bid 3OM on the way to accepting to recover the potential 4-4 fit. This frees up the garbage stayman sequence 1N-2♣-2♦-2M as a 5M-4OM weak hand which is a nice feature too. 6. 5/5 majors - I like 3♥ as 5/5 Inv and 3♠ as 5/5 GF instead of an omnibus 3♦ for either. Splitting the Inv/GF makes continuations more clear below 3N and doesn't endplay partner when he's opened 22(54) which seems to be one of his more likely shapes when I actually have a 5/5 majors hand. (I'm not sure there are too many hands that fit the direct 3M preempt type to bother catering to these) 7. If 3♦ is free per #6, you could use it to right-side the 5M332 choice of games hands when responder wants opener to play it. Right now responder will declare 4M whenever he has this hand type (2♠...3N or 2♥...3N). You could use 1N-3♦ 5M332 GF (generally forces 3♥) ......3♠ 5♥332 choice ......3N 5♠332 choice Or you could find another use for the free 3♦ bid, although I'm not sure what you haven't covered yet. Edit: I seem to have forgotten about the 2N->3♣ signoff hand in my suggestion #2. You can probably include this without too much trouble in the initial 2♠ response for example: 1N-2♠ weak long ♣ or 5+♠ GF .........2N nothing special ..............3♣ signoff ..............3♦ ♠+♦ GF ..............3♥ ♠+♣ GF (with both majors, use a 5/5 option or Smolen with 5+/4) ..............3♠+ as before .........3♣ any superaccept for spades ...............P weak clubs ...............3♦+ GF with spades agreed

I agree - relays are often memory intensive, but that's usually because they weren't designed well (or at least with simplicity as a goal). Specifically over strong openings (1♣, pass, whatever), it's pretty easy to design symmetric transfer relays that are both easy to remember and get the strong hand to declare. I design these for fun, and it doesn't usually take more than 5-10 minutes to get a basic response structure figured out to fit whatever goals you might have. PM me if you like this kind of stuff <_<

I agree it seems like a very comprehensive system in terms of constructive bidding. Depending on how weak your NT is, a competing goal might be to make immediate non-forcing bids to make it hard for the opponents to compete. For example, 1N(10-13)-(P)-2♠(to play) - (?) vs 1N - (P) - 2♥(->2♠) - (?) gives both a direct double and a delayed double to show different hands, as well as a direct 2♠ bid as some sort of two-suited takeout.

Non-forcing 1NT is a natural bid, not a convention, so it's not regulated by the GCC. The section you refer to is saying that a forcing 1NT opening is also allowed. I'm not sure if the GCC gets to regulate what the ACBL calls natural since natural bids aren't supposed to be regulated, but that issue aside... if you're opening 1NT with a balanced hand (which GCC says is generally no singleton, void, or >2 doubletons), you can do it by agreement on any hands with at least 8 points. The point of the "forcing NT opening" is to allow you to open 1NT on unbalanced hands as a strong artificial opening similar to the strong 1♣ or 2♣ openings used in more standard systems.

To be precise, forcing pass systems are not allowed in the ACBL. If you open all your 0-7 hands with a 2 level preempt, you could conceivably play a "constructive pass" which showed 8-11 for example if you really wanted (and open your 12+ hands normally). You could even pass with stronger hands if you want, but it can't be forcing (and partner will have a hard time since most ferts are not allowed, only natural weak preempts basically).

Thanks for the explanation. So we are to assume that non-conventional bids are allowed unless specifically disallowed by the Regulating Authority? Which/whose definition of conventional should we use - can you point me to where to look for this? Much appreciated.

I can't speak to the details of WJ05, but I ran into similar issues in precision after 1C-1D-1N where responder is limited but most people just play "strong NT systems on". If you want a simple suggestion, play what you usually play but let responder bid a second suit as invitational (rather than GF). For example, 1♣-1♦ negative 1N-2♦ transfer 2♥-3♣ 5/5 hearts and clubs invitational This caters to the more common invitational hands.