rbforster

Weak two bids that may be on fewer than 5 cards suits are alertable as they are unusual, not because they're illegal (or what, the alert would be "this bid is illegal, call the director"?). Yes, you can open 3♣ on a 3 card suit, just like you can open 1♣ or 1♦ naturally (noting that these don't require the 10 point "all purpose" opening clause to be legal; you can open a natural 1m on 8 HCPs if you want). If you want to understand why natural bids are allowed and why it's important that GCC defines what natural means for openings and overalls, ask yourself whether you're allowed to open 4 card majors 1M, and if so, where is it allowed on the GCC. As for strong, weak, etc, "strong" is referenced several times together with the requirement of 15+ HCPs, even though it's not explictly defined that way. Recalling that 10 hcp is average, you would think that a 9-11 range for example would be a hand of average strength, not "weak", since it's almost as likely to be stronger than weaker than 10 HCPs. Normal weak twos typically have a 5-11 range as played in standard, so something with 8-11 is a lot closer to "average" strength than weak. Not as issue we can resolve since they don't define "weak", but it sounds like Anthony's ruling referenced this issue referring to his opening as semi-constructive rather than weak.

Natural bids are allowed and for minor suits that's showing 3+ cards. this covers both his 2♣ opening and the natural 2♦ response. Artificial responses aren't allowed when a natural two level bid is weak and doesn't promise 5+ cards, but natural responses are fine. However, it's not clear to me that an 8-11 range for 2♣ counts as "weak two bid" (a term not defined by the GCC), and if it were viewed as constructive rather than weak, the restriction on responses wouldn't apply at all.

1m - if you upped these to 10 hcp, they would have a chance. However, transfer openings are hated by the ACBL committee in charge of this, so it wouldn't fly even if it ought to under the "all purpose" clause on the GCC ("all purpose" is what we say, not what you say). If you included a few 31(54) shapes in 1m, perhaps awkward ones, then it would not promise 4M although it would have them most of the time. If you're playing 1m as forcing (I expect you are), you could add a few very strong hands that don't have a 4M and then you should be good on the all-purpose front. For example, you don't have bids listed for 21+ NT hands with 4m333 or (32)44 shapes, so maybe these hands open their better 4 card minor 1m? 1M - should be fine, even if there is a negative inference that it's unbalanced. 1N - contrary to Helene's comment, any range with 8+ is allowed for 1N as long as it's generally balanced (no voids or singletons, usually). 13-17 balanced no major is fine and doesn't run into the conventional continuation restrictions either (since it's 10+ and the full range is 5 or less hcp) 2m - if these are natural (3+ in the bid suit), then they are completely legal. I believe that was what was meant 2M - these are strong, but that's not enough. However, if you ask partner for trump support (or A/K points or something similar), then these would be fine. It probably wouldn't be too hard to cast your responses in terms of support for openers minor in these sequences. 2N - this is fine if balanced or semi balanced.

Here's another symmetric relay approach for this hand as an example: 1♣-1♠ strong; ♣ or bal 1N-2♦ relay; 4♥ bal GF 2♥-2N relays; 44 majors 3♣-3♠ relay; 4432 shape exactly, 7 SP (3♦ would have been 4423, 3♥ 4432 with <=6 SP) 4♣-4♥ DCB ask; 1-2♠, 0/3♥ (at this point opener knows he's just missing one black queen, eliminating the KQ♥) 4♠-5♦ DCB ask; 1-2♦, 1-2♣, only 1♠ 6♦-P It too hard to get to jacks to find J♣ for 6N vs 6♦ in the space we have.

Interesting comparison of the different ranges. Obviously it's a toy model, but one thing to consider if you wanted to refine it would be the relative likelihoods of the different HCP splits as they are not all equally likely (so counting a 11-12 loss vs a 21-5 win shoudd be a net loss since even splits of HCPs are more likely all else being equal). I imagine this changes the boundaries in some edge cases, but not the qualitative picture you've outlined.

Actually it's not so much the shapes as it is that there are two possible minors which doubles the odds. A specific 5+/4+ two suiter is about the same as a 6 card weak two in terms of frequency. Playing 2♥ as 5/4+ for the majors, either longer, is just about the same likelihood as a standard weak 2♥.

As for usefulness of 2N for the minors, I normally play it as weak two strength in 1st/2nd (5-11ish), with the caveat that it can also be game or slam forcing where all opener wants is responder's minor suit preference. The range can be wider on the low end, more like OP's, in 3rd/4th.

I agree that GCC is clear that 2N for minors (5/4+) is allowed with any range. As for continuations, I don't think the "weak two bid range" rules apply to things other than natural weak twos. There is no "5 cards in the suit" of NT, so I don't think applying that makes sense. Hence any conventional responses to a legal, artificial opening of 2♣ or higher seem to be allowed. Ask the opponent what his range is for 2♣. I'm guessing it's something like 22-40, with exceptions that extend the range on the low end. That's a wider range than yours, if that's the best argument he's got.

I like the 2nd version better, although I'd like to know were the 1444 shapes go. While passing 1N could work out in the first version on a misfit, I think the non-pass continuations will be difficult - clearly you're going to want to be able to get out in 2♣ or 2♦, which leaves only 2♥ as a force(?) in any event can lose a heart suit. I much prefer being able to show hearts over clubs (which the second one does, possibly even putting 1444 into 2♦). In addition, over the 2nd version 1N rebid (which doesn't promise clubs), you have 2♣ as a cheap force. If it were me, I'd go with a 3rd version that took the clubs out of 1N altogether: 1N 6+ diamonds 2♣ minors (5/4 either way) 2♦ diamonds with 4♥ etc You can stick a few more hand types into 1N if you make it forcing, which seems like a good idea. I'm not sure where best to put the 1444 shape, so I leave that up to testing by someone who's interested. Obvious choices would be 2♣ or 2♦, not sure which would cause fewer issues.

Why help out the opponents? How about 4♣ and passing partner's expected 4♥ transfer? He's more likely in a better position to declare (our holdings don't care), and they may think we've screwed up our system and have a harder time leading.

Most precision systems bid something else, often 2♦, with 44 or (43) majors and short diamonds. Saves a lot of guessing about major fits. In particular, when opening 2♣, you only have to look for one major in openers hand.

Pass for me.

Right. However, it's possible that he bids 1N with some hands that just pass opener's rebid. It's ok to have all of responder's rebids show invitational+ as long as there are some hands that don't rebid :).

I worked for a while on a 2/1 non-forcing style over limited 1M openers that was more like a weak two bid (6+ or maybe 5 card suit if a good one or misfitting for opener enough to pull). I used higher bids as raises (2N+ ala Jacoby, etc), and 1N was forcing including GF non-fitting hands. The idea was that a new suit after opener's natural rebid (which would normally be a sign off, I.e 1H-1N-2C-2D) would be an artificial GF and not needed for the normal weak treatment since those hands would have made a weak 2/1 initially. I was never able to get it entirely sorted out however and eventually went back to 2/1 GF.

When I said opener would bid higher with significant distribution, I would assume most 7♣ hands will bid something else (say 2N with max and 3♣ with min; not sure about 7222). I agree this could be problematic if opener can be 4=6 in the minors such that he may be short in both majors and yet not have a 7th club. I don't know if OP's opening includes those shapes with both minors, but they could probably be opened 1♦ acceptably. In the example I gave: 2♣-2♦ invitational ask or long M sign off ...2♥ 2+♠, equal or shorter hearts (3136, 3226, 2236, 7222, 4xx6, 2146, 3046) ...2♠ 2+♥, shorter spades (3316, 1336, 2326, x4x6, 1246, 0346) ...2N 7♣ unbalanced max (or could use for 4♦ if desired) ...3♣ 7♣ unbalanced min After 2M, the cheapest bid in OM is to play (2♠ or 3♥, the latter will be at least a 6-3 fit if you disallow the 4/6 minors hands). This uses up some space for GFR since you lose the 2♠ ask after opener's 2♥ rebid, so you have to decide what your priorities are. The framework where I normally use this is more of a weak club preempt, so the invitational and GF responds are less important.

I'm not sure what structure is being used after 2♣-2♦, but one method that can work well when 2♦ is generally strongish is to have opener respond 2M to show his shorter major and only bid higher with significant distribution. This allows responders with a weak long major to bid 2♦ and pass (or rarely with a big fit, play 3M when the opponents have a likely fit and half the deck also).

If your 1M-2♣ GFR is made on all non fitting game forces, and maybe some fitting balanced GFs as well, the vast majority of the time it will be the non fitting variety. Honestly I think you'd have to be pretty crazy to want to come in as 4th hand with a preempt on that auction - you may screw up their relays but you're offering up a free option to saw you off doubled when they were just going to play 3N instead. Adding a few balanced fitting hands to the 2♣ bid shouldn't change advancer's decision process much. I think you're probably more likely to get interference over 1M-2N than 1M-2♣, since when you've got a big unbalanced major fit, they can throw in a lead directing 3X bid without much risk you'll forgo your 4M game to try for a penalty.

No, I don't think you can use that approach. If the relay is GI+, you won't want to go past 3♦ without showing a max (or a fit for whatever GI hands are included). So instead of getting shape first and values second like most GFR schemes, you get a mix of shape and strength on the first ask, and then more shape on the second. It will end up being less symmetric but probably better if you're willing to put the work in to develop and remember it.

Another general thought would be not to use pure GF relays, but rather have an invitational or better relay using 2♥. If opener relayed again, it would be GF while other relay breaks would be natural. This could give meanings to more sequences and help handle more invitational and sign off hand types.

My own relay club system, based on TOSR loosely. 1♣-1♠ strong 16+; balanced or clubs, almost always GF 1N-2♣ relay; clubs one-suited 2♦-2♠ relay; short ♠, GF values 2N-3♦ relay; 2335 I think the key here is to realize that with the big diamond fit and a spade ruff, hearts are the only suit that matters and a small slam is likely even opposite most GF hands (with the K♥ protected on the lead). In this spirit, I ask for RKC in diamonds and follow it with a control ask in hearts. 4♥-4♠ RKC ♦; 1/4 5♥-5♠ heart control ask; AQ (or K only) 7♦

1. 9-15, rule of 18 for unbalanced hands. Any 10+ balanced if NV, good 12's balanced at Vul 2. Forcing NT over 1M except by PH. Non-forcing and not encouraging over 1D (pass with all balanced; better responders bid 2C or 2N) 3. We play 2/1 GF, so about 14 HCPs without a fit. 2C shows 3+, 2D 4+, 2H 5+ 4. Normal raise, 6-9ish, more often 3 card support than 4 given we bid Bergen with some 4 card raises 5. Conventional raises of opener (Bergen, mixed, preemptive, Jacoby) 6. 2M are standard 6 card preempts, somewhat weaker 4-9ish; 2m are 5+ with a side major 5-10ish (helps remove some 4H/5D min rebid problems) 7. 10-12 NV, 12+ to 15 V or 4th seat, 5M332 typically opened 1NT in range. 8. I wouldn't say it's a major concern, but we've developed conventions to help with it so it's an issue and one worth addressing.

I mean there's no reason to play "constructive" preempts (7-11 HCPs like OP), just play the same 5-11 weak two range that everyone playing standard uses. The fact that you normally open 10-15 instead of 12-22 means that you've taken off the bottom 2 HCPs off of your one level opening so you get some nice inferences when the suit is rebid. Going much below 5 HCPs for weak twos is diminishing returns, because these hands are increasingly rare on a frequency basis (never mind it gets harder to have a suit worth leading or bidding the fewer honors you can have). I do think that having two invites is valuable, especially if you can stop at 2M or 3m sometimes and not have to guess to bid more with a slightly better than average invite. One thing I found quite useful when playing a similar light opening style was ways to cater to the weaker openers without getting too high.

Ok, I guess you think playing the semi forcing NT is important enough that's fine. I've played forcing for most of the time and found the extra sequences (for example various ways to 3m, Bart or similar over 2C rebid, efc) to be nice to have. It's hard to say it's "better" because of all the murky competitive issues, but from a constructive standpoint it allows more responding hands to be shown. I wouldn't worry about the ethics of the constructive or invite 2H raise as a reason to reject an improved method. I actually wasn't thinking of using 2N as a Jacoby alternative - Jacoby is basically an asking relay anyway, so that's be covered pretty well by your 2C GFR already. But it can be useful for finding light slams if you can show fits and good side suits, shortness, etc, and do so at a level that leaves room for exploration below game (unlike most splinters). As an aside, how much of this approach is transferable to methods after a 1H opener vs 1S? Do you still do overlapping weak two ranges and semi forcing NT, or do you play Kaplan...?

On the topic of pure spade raises, I think you could improve things somewhat. For example, even in precision there are going to be some opening hands that will want to bid 1♠-2♠-4♠, at least when responder promised the normal 6-9 raise. Combining that normal 2♠ raise with the junk raise might make this more difficult, with 2♠ now being something like 0-7. In spades, I'm not sure how much benefit there is to blocking right away vs blocking either slowly (via say a forcing NT, preference sequence on 0-5 with 3 spades), or by passing and then balancing with 2♠. It's be a lot more useful in hearts, but here you can force them to the 3 level or buy the contract cheaply and giving them more chances to act doesn't seem like it'd help that much. As for invites, I think you could combine the 2N raise with your present constructive raise pretty easily, since the 2H transfer raise is forcing already: 2H 3-4 card raise with constructive or invitational values, not 4H ....2S no interest opposite constructive raise .........2N balanced 3 card invite .........3X HSGT, invite values with unbalanced 3 card raise or 4 card raise ....2N something, maybe trump length ask? ....3X HSGT Anyway, my point is there's plenty of space to ask and counter-ask after the 2H raise so you can compress more hand types in there with little loss (only a tiny bit more ambiguity in competition). This frees up the direct 2N to be something else, a GF hand that wants to show for example rather than relay (you can fit a lot in there with relays, slam try one suiters, raises with good side suits, etc). Sure it might be nice to invite and stop at the 2 level, but your present structure doesn't allow that anyway using 2N to cover most invites. With a forcing NT and two direct raises, you'd have more options and could do some interesting stuff since you get lots of extra sequences. For example, maybe 1N(f) includes the bust raise (preference) and the 4 card invites, while 2H and 2S cover the 3 card invites and normal raises respectively. Stopping at 2S opposite a 3 card invite seems pretty good, and is something 2/1 doesn't get either putting there hands into a delayed 3S.

Right, so basically it's the weak 5♠332 shapes that are causing the "problems" - either in terms of requiring a lot of convoluted and somewhat less precise structure to allow a semi forcing NT (which takes them out of the rest of the follow up sequences), or in terms of causing trouble for responder's secondary suit raises if they might have been a fake side suit when you play a forcing NT. One way to mitigate the strangeness of passing these hands is to lower the min range for your strong club. It sounds like right now you play 16+ unbal, 17+ bal with and a 14-16 NT. I know it's probably better to require slightly stronger balanced hands for a strong club than unbalanced ones (since the idea should really be some minimum playing strength, not HCPs), but a fixed range is simple and I don't think it matters too much. so for example, you could play a straight 16+ club and a 13-15 NT (5M possible) and now you're only passing balanced 11-12 counts which isn't unreasonable. When Vul, I normally play a single NT range with a 12(+)-15 range and a 16+ club. You could even go down to a 15+ club and a single 12-14 NT range, which again makes the balanced hands you're passing a lot more in line with the field. If you want to test out some full hands passing the balanced 5♠ ones to see how that goes, I'd be up for bidding them with you some time. I guess I'd think about what extra gains you might get from a forcing NT over what you have now and see if you think that might help some of your problem hands, give you more raises, etc.