rbforster

How would most people play 5♠ by north? If it's a strong takeout bid, I'd be happy to make it with a nice 16 count, a working void, and good shape for whatever partner might bid. It probably won't find the grand, but I'll settle for the right small slam here.

I like 3♦ first too (or pass if you're feeling more constructive). Michaels followed by bidding again shows a very strong hand the way most people play it, so 2♥ followed by ♦s seems to be out.

What about partner's 5 card major? I guess if you play this style for 1NT (might be 5M332), you probably want better ways to find the 5 card major than straight up stayman. You really can't afford to miss those 5-4 major fits.

I was actually thinking that 2NT directly over 1M was something like Jacoby, whereas 1NT...2NT was a natural invitation. Obviously there's space for lots of variety in terms of how to treat good hands with big fits since there are lots of higher bids both before and after the 1NT. Personally it seems right to make a fairly high bid immediately to show a good fit (4+ bergen, etc) since this can help shut out the opponents from finding their likely fit.

One of my motivations for 2/1 NF methods is to show common hands may not otherwise get a chance to bid under the usual 2/1 GF methods. For example 5-5 hands lacking a fit with opener may be forced to pass if they can't tolerate the worst response to 1NT forcing. Single suiters might have similar issues. Granted sometimes these hands can get out if partner bids a lower ranking suit in response to 1NT forcing, but without some tolerance for the major they can't always afford to bid in the first place. I suppose in a "standard" system where 1NT is NF many of these hands can bid 1NT, although having 6-4 or 5-5 hands bidding 1NT seems less than optimal. Since these are relatively weak hands (say 6-10 opposite a light opener), it stands to reason that higher bids are too dangerous for these hands to chance. Better hands can afford to spend more time bidding and can do so safely at a higher level, so on that front these methods seem to make sense. To make things a little more concrete, here's a proposal for the bids over 1M: 1NT forcing 1 round, containing any constructive hand willing to pass a second suit rebid or correct to 2M (with a doubleton) any invitational hand with 3 card or fewer support (to bid 2NT, 3M, raise opener's second suit, or bid 3 of a new suit with a single suiter) GF hands without 4 card support (to bid 3NT or the cheapest bid after the 1NT response) 2♣ 5+ (usually 6) constructive NF (over 1♥) 2♣ 5+ (usually 6) inv NF (over 1♠) 2♦ 5+ (usually 6) constructive NF 2♥ 5+ (usually 6) constructive NF (over 1♠) higher bids show most hands with 3+ support and single suited strong jump shifts I'm not so sure about the wider invite range. If we open only the "better" 9 counts, then effectively a 10-15 opener means an invite is 11-13 (opener accepts with top half of his range, 13-15) and 14+ is enough to force to game. Sure there will be a few misfits on margin values that might not want to be in game, but if responder starts with 1NT forcing he can listen to opener's response and gauge his hand and values and decide to only rebid 2NT instead of 3NT. You bring up a good point about the auctions 1♠-1NT-2♥ or 2♠. Over these, pass or 2♠ show minimum hands taking a preference. 3♣ is the artificial GF, and all the other hands can be naturally and invitationally as before. The invitational 3♣ hand bids 2/1 2♣ directly, either replacing or combining with the 2/1 NF constructive club hand. This issue doesn't arise after 1♥ since the 2♠ reverse shows enough extra values that the invitational club hand is now game forcing. A good suggestion, I'll look into this.

Thanks for the pointers Richard. I noticed that several places in both your Moscito notes and also in Viking Club's, the natural 2/1 NF responses both used 5+ suits rather than the 6+ that I suggested. This would probably go a long way towards making these hands more frequent. I agree with your assessment that they put a lot of pressure on the opponents, esp. relative to transfer methods like Magic Diamond. Do you have any additional standards in Moscito for these 2/1 bids? I saw your suggestions about being typically 5/4+ or 6+ in your suit(s), but wasn't sure if there were other considerations. I liked the Moscito continuations after the natural NF 2/1 (preemptive raises, 2NT a good raise, etc) and will probably make use of these. What GCC difficulties did you encounter Peter? The NF 2/1 responses are natural, so they should be fine. Using 1NT forcing (and the normal 2/1 rebids by opener) with many of the inv+ hands also seems ok, and since you can still have the weak hands that will pass or correct to 2M, this didn't violate the rule that 1NT forcing can't guarentee inv+ values. After you get to opener's rebid, pretty much anything goes under the "constructive" bidding rule. More generally, I'm hoping to include some limited relay methods after the 1NT forcing and new suit GF, although there won't be as much space available. Still, knowing opener's response to 1NT forcing helps convey a fair bit of information already. Another thing to consider is how the availability of 1NT forcing as an option by responder might change which hand types go into the 2/1 NF suit bids.

I've been reconsidering my 2/1 bids over 1M in my strong club system (1M shows 5+M and 9-15 pts). For a long time I played this as GF ala the familiar 2/1 style, but recently I've been having second thoughts. What do you think about using 2/1 as "weak 2 bid" type hands - a decent 6 card suit and constructive but not particularly forward-going in terms of values (~6-10)? In place of the strong 2/1 response, stronger hands would now either use a conventional raise (Bergen, Jacoby, etc) to show support, or bid 1NT forcing. After 1NT forcing, I found that using the cheapest new suit as an artificial GF works well for the GF hands, while invitational hands can bid naturally (2NT, raise partner, or bid their own good suit). Note that other weak hands (besides single suiters) can still bid 1NT forcing and then pass or take a preference to partner's major - this would only effect the single-suited weak hands. I tried playing this way for a while and these "weak 2" type hands didn't seem to come up much. Maybe this was just my experience, but it doesn't make sense to have lots of cheap bids used for hands that aren't that likely. Another thing which I've been told is a drawback of this method is that it's vulnerable to bidding by the 4th seat after 1M-P-1NT*-(2Y). I'm not sure this is any worse than in standard however - especially given our light openings and that 1NT could be made on many of the usual weak hands too, I would think that 2Y would need to be more sound rather than less sound relative to the same bid in a 2/1 auction. Any suggestions or experiences? I'd welcome pointers to other systems that make use of non-forcing 2/1's. Thanks!

Fewer forums rather than more seems right. As others have said, it seems like there's more forums here than real differences - the beginner/intermediate, SAYC and 2/1, and general discussion seem like they could be combined. I don't know if it's possible to tag each thread somehow ("play" vs "defend", "natural" vs "non-natural" system, or similar distinctions), but then you could put similar things in the same forum and have users search for only one if that was their preference.

I'd draw the trump, ruff out the hearts and play A♠ and another hoping to endplay someone with Hx in spades. I don't like my chances if spades are Hxx-Hxx.

So in SAYC with a good 3307 shape opposite a 1♣ opener, if you can't bid blackwood you're supposed to make up a suit? Is that suit supposed to be diamonds?

Thanks for posting! I look forward to an answer as well :).

My understanding, and I believe this is standard for those playing 2♥ immediate negative, is that a rebid of 2NT is non-forcing and new suits are forcing one round. The auction is not forced to game yet by a new suit however, so 2♣-2♥*-2♠-3♠ could be passed by opener and with a good hand/fit (in the context of 2♥) responder should jump to 4♠ on that sequence.

Put me down for 2♣. 1NT is tempting with all my K's, but I think my fit + values make this a little pessimistic.

I've been playing exactly this recently (4432 shape allowed), as described in the Moscito/Frelling writeups (pdf). I wanted to point out that as natural preempts, showing 4+ in the suit bid, these are legal everywhere. ACBL regulates conventional followups, but there's no reason you can't play them in 3rd seat where you don't need the constructive continuations. Around NYC, it seems almost all the club games could care less what conventions you play - I've been invited to play forcing pass, etc. Now I just need to learn a forcing pass system...

To those you voted for 3♣, don't 4th seat 2 and 3 level natural openings promise decent hands and playing strength (as well as length), especially for the 3 level? I would think a 4th seat 3 level opening is more likely ~13-18 pts or so and 7 decent clubs. This hand feels a lot more a like 3rd seat 3♣ to me than a 4th seat one. If I were the passed partner, I expect more I think than this 6 loser hand. Remember partner can have a decent 12 count like AKQx xxx QJxx x and you're going down in 3♣ if they don't lead a spade.

You didn't mention the version of Smith that I play (against NT only). I play Reverse Echo by opening leader but normal Smith Echo by his partner. I didn't know a good name for this convention, but I've heard it go by "Alarm Clock Smith". opening leader: low = I like my lead (typical) high = I now dislike my lead (more unusual) opening leader's partner: low = I don't like partner's lead (typical) high = I do like my partner's lead (more unusual) Just like upside count signals make sense since you can more easily afford the low card from doubletons, this version of Smith means that the most likely card to be played by either partner will be their lowest. Only when they have an unusual message to convey to their partner will they play their higher card. The idea is that your signals will be right most of the time, even when you're stuck with Qx or Jx in declarer's suit.

After the opponents bid to a cautious 4♥ contract, I balanced at favorable vulnerability with 4NT for the minors. Partner thought for a while and eventually passed! All the while I was wondering how hard can it be for him to find his better minor? In retrospect, pass was a thoughtful call with roughly equal minors (AQx and QJ9). With our ~14 pts or so, it seems likely we will take at least a few tricks in 4NT, and, at a mere 50 a piece, the opps must set us 7+ tricks to do better than 5 of a minor, doubled and -2 for 300. When the opps balanced with double, I was able to choose my longer minor and reach a superior contract than if partner just guessed. (As it turned out his better minor was also my longer minor and the opps forgot to double and we ended up -100 vs 140 for 2♥+1 at the other table, but I digress) I have been amused of late with bidding situations where you can pass a clearly inferior contract, but that the opponents must double for sufficient compensation. Then partner can correct to a better contract in light of the information conveyed by your pass. Other examples of this include: 2♥ NF multi - a weak 2 in either major. Pass with any bad hand, letting partner correct if doubled. psycho-suction (over strong club) - showing the suit bid or next two higher suits. Again, pass until doubled lacking a fitting hand to both alternatives. These sorts of things come up when the opponents have the majority of the points but you have some compensating distribution. Any other examples I might have overlooked? Maybe some forcing pass systems have things like this come up when you pass the fert bid with a weak hand?

[hv=d=s&n=sjxxhaqdqtcajtxxx&s=skqxht9xxdaj987cq]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After the auction 1♦-2♣(GF)-2NT-3NT, you get a 4th best diamond lead. The dummy's card holds the first trick. Is there any way to guarentee the contract? What's your line of play? Assume the K♥ is offside or most paths leads to 9 tricks.

I'll be there from Wed through Sun for the GNTs. I'll probably be the only one juggling too many balls in my spare time between rounds, which should be pretty distinctive. I hope to get a chance to say hi to the West Coast folks :rolleyes:.

If 3♦ would be natural and forcing (similar to transfer to hearts, followed by 3♦), I would take 4♦ as a retransfer. I agree a Texas transfer would be a good alternative though.

If the appropriate level of clubs you judge to be 5♣, why not bid 4♠ instead of 3♠? Uses up more space and you can run just as easily to 5♣. Plus 4♠ is occasionally bid to make on this sequence so they might be more reluctant to double you (in general, not on this hand where somone has 5 spades).

Luke warm, thanks for your description although I admit I've never heard of anything like it so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "pretty standard"! An interesting idea though, which I'll consider switching to myself. I usually play 2D=K, QQ or better, most hands without a good suit (GF) 2H=negative, worse than 2D, any shape 2S=5+ ♠ suit, at least 2/3 top honors 2N=5+ ♥ suit, at least 2/3 top honors 3C=5+ ♣ suit, at least 2/3 top honors 3D=5+ ♦ suit, at least 2/3 top honors

I ran into this same issue hoping to play 1M-2NT as a club bust or various very strong hands. As described already, this isn't GCC and is Midchart assuming your club bust is somewhat "constructive". My solution was to play the strong version GCC and give up or deal with the weak club hand in other ways. I will point out that if you often play a 3♣ inquiry as semi-automatic after 1♦-2NT (forcing raise) as asking for further description of responders hand (ie shortness ask, values ask, etc), you can make a nice, very safe, and infrequent psych of 2NT with a weak club hand intending to pass partner's likely 3♣ inquiry. Psyching conventional suit responses such as this one at the level of 2NT+ are allowed GCC (see Disallow #2).

I'm playing a precision style strong club system (any 16+) and we've decided open balanced hands relatively conservatively when vulnerable (NV is another story all together, believe me :)). Our 1NT opening shows a balanced hand with a good 12-15 pts and we don't open balanced hands with weaker values. I've noticed that there isn't a natural meaning to the auction 1♦-1M-1NT since opener with any balanced hand would have started either with 1NT or 1♣. Our 1♦ opening is natural, promising limited values (8-15, rule of 18) and an unbalanced hand with 4+♦, possibly including 5♣s (our 2♣ opener shows 6+♣ or 5♣+4M). Does anyone have suggestions for a good conventional meaning for this 1NT rebid? It seems that there are lots more problem hands after 1♦-1♠ than there are when partner responds 1♥, so in principle we might want different methods for these two cases. Here are some ideas I've thought of: 1. A semibalanced hand without 3+ card support for partner's major 2. Exactly 3 card support for partner's major and a maximum 3. Over 1♠ response, shows a 4 card ♥ suit without enough values/shape to reverse 4. Shows longer clubs than diamonds (ie 5♣ 4♦) Currently we happily raise partner's major to 2M with any 3 cards and an unbalanced hand (which 1♦ here guarentees). Less happily we rebid 2♣ on 4441's and hands with both minors at least 54 (either longer). For natural rebidding, I see problem shapes as 1444, 0454 and 4♥-5+♦ weak hands (after 1♠ response), as well as (1M,3)45 hands after either major response. Any suggestions as to which of these might be worth clarifying with a conventional 1NT rebid?

I found that it's reasonably common to treat a jump to 3M by the 2C bidder as setting trumps (showing a solid and/or very long single suiter) and requesting cuebids from responder. More refined methods cue bid only A's, bidding 3NT to deny aces and show 1+ K's (4♣ relay asks for cheapest K). Here the auction might start 2♣-2♦* (positive) 3♠-4♣ ...