bluecalm

Imo this awful. They auto lead majors after 1nt - 3nt and if hearts are running they will lead them in 90+% of cases. I would rather give up stayman than bid 3nt with this hand.

Haha, very nice problem :rolleyes:

So what do I do with: Axx x KQxxx QTxx after 1NT ?

Obviously not here: As we are at 3♠ level already. Btw, I think what Gwnn's presented is not that bad at all. Most important hand types are biddable and you have 3m bids free for use of your choice. I just don't like invitation being in stayman and his choice of 3m bids.

No strong opinion about which is better but while playing udca in every partnership I don't play reminder count in any. We always signal original number of cards so from Qxxx you play low etc. This is the same as "standard reminder count" I guess. I've never thought about as "reminder" count though.

Standard defense in Poland is: dbl = t/o of spades rest = natural Then : 2♦ pass - 2♥ dbl = t/o to one major, guess which 2♦ pass - 2♥ 2♠ dbl = penalty oriented (t/o of hearts which couldn't bid first round). This is simple and effective. Most people in Poland play multi (and 99% of people play either multi or wilkosz ) so we have experience against it :)

I don't agree with that. People who play polish/swedish club like to say that their system is less likely to be preempted because 1♣ may be weakish (12-14 or something). As someone who played polish club for most of my life I can say it's nonsense. Polish 1♣ is much worse in competition and even simple 2 level overcall may be very damaging. The reason is that if it goes: 1♣ - 2X/3X then responder is stuck holding a hand below GF strength and not perfect for negative double. For example: 1♣ - 2♠ - ??? Axx KQxxx xx xxx You have to either pass or make offshape negative double both sucks as hearts are lost forever if they go to 3♠. It's not that they will jump with every junk. They will just preempt with honest preempting hands and we are often stuck.

This is bad. The most important information if you have 5+-4+ minors is where your shortness is. How long minors are isn't tha valuable of information. The number one task is to assess if 3NT is better than 5m. There are also other hand types which should take priority like 6m, GF and major shortness. OP presented quite a decent simple structure. What you propose is complicated and has many obvious shortcomings.

Well in that case my analysis is valid again and I remind everybody that I discarded 7♣ in 3rd post of this thread :)

I don't like Gwnn's structure at all. I played this way for some time and it has following disadvantages: 1) Bidding invitations by stayman gives them all the chances in the world to double for lead and gives away too much information (you tell them about 4M's before lead while this information is not useful at all to you). 2) 3♦ is complete waste of bid. Just bid 3M indicating shortness with those hands. This is the most important information for partner when assessing combined potential of hands anyway I think structure you described is decent and much better than this. If I were to propose my pet structure it would go: 2♠ = clubs 2NT = natural 3♣ = diamonds weak or GF+ 3♦ = invite with diamonds 3♥/♠ = shortness After transferring to minor you can bid 3M indicating shortness and slam try in your minor. The structure you choose depends a lot if you open most 5M-3-3-2 hands with 1NT. This is advanced stuff though and I think you should settle for simple system (like the one you described in OP for example).

Good use of 1NT - 3M is to show shortness and 5+-4+ minors (at least GF hand) Such hands are very difficult to bid without this convention. Say if you have: Axx x KJTxx Kxxx You bid 3♥ and partner will see what to do with: KQx xxx AQx Axxx or: xxx KQx AQx Axxx If you have something like: KJxx x AQxxx Kxx You start with stayman as usual. Those bids aren't made with 4M. This is useful and "expert standard" in a sense that good partnerships have some kind of way to show those hands (not always by jumping to 3M though). As to jumps to 4♦/♥ they are often used as transfers. This gives you a way to jump fast to game and give away too much information. System you described seems to be quite good to me. It's simple and cater for all basic hand types except maybe slam tries with long minor. There are many ways to play those but I think it's not something for b/i partnership.

This is actually the most standard and natural way to play in many places. If you could often hold 5-3-3-2 and 15-17 in this auction (not everybody opens 1NT automatically) then you need to have some way to show minimum hand/hand with extras. Having this in mind 2NT shows 15+ ane 2♠ is kinda catchall bid.

In first one there is always a problem which one of the following : 1) 1M - 2c 2M - 3NT 2) 1M - 2c 2M - 2NT 3x - 3NT asks partner to not convert even if he has 6. I usually play that 1) means partner should not convert but i have idea which is better. Assuming my agreements I bid 2NT to find out about 6♠.

Yeah, that's right that you would double on many of those hands first time. I wasn't sure if you wanto double with majors 2-5, 3-5. There are also hands with 4-4, 4-5 majors, like: AQ9x KJ9x Kxx xx I think this is a pass first time around ?

I think it should be penalty double with ♥♥♥♥(♥). Something like: xx AQTxx Axx Kxx. Same as: 2♦ pass 2♥ pass 2♠ dbl = penalty, because with t/o of spades you dbl round before.

Damn, I somehow though declarer has 5♦. My previous post doesn't make sense at then.

The whole concept of promising another bid is foreign to me. Where I live we play that bids are either forcing one round, forcing to game or not forcing. That makes sense because how forcing a bid is is direct consequence of how strong it could be. For example if you forget about all artificial conventions and have to decide how forcing is: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ You see that you can't pass (because opener could be 21 and you are supposedly 5+) but combined strength doesn't guarantee game yet so it's forcing one round etc. If you were to construct natural follow ups then naturally 3♦ would be the weakest bid and could not be forcing. Same goes for 2♠. It's amazing how differently bidding theory and bidding understanding works in different parts of the world.

I think the reason is that auction: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ Is quite rare. My very quick simul shows it arises once in every 1100 hands and that's not counting opponents/partner starting the bidding, overcalling or partner being 5♣-4♠ 12+ (so he starts with 2♣). Probably once in every 1500 hands is closer to real frequency which makes it one in every 50 matchpoint sessions. On many of those hands you have easy rebid too.

I don't want to start with clubs but I think this hand may be worth 3♠ after a double. That would make bidding kinda difficult. Thoughts ?

The layout when it matters is Q♣ of clubs in partner hands and KJT in declarer's. In such case he will hava to guess clubs. If I discard a club now he may believe I am : x KT9xxx xx Qxxx Because from this hand I couldn't afford to discard 2 hearts. If I go ♣/♥/♠ to diamonds he may play me this hand (club length so finesse queen in my hand). I can't spot any other chance.

We play this way: 1NT - 2♣ 2♦ - ??? 3♣ = artificial ask 3♦ = ask about 3 card majors (like smolen, but you can stop in 3NT having 2-2 majors) 3♥/3♠ = shortness after: 1NT - 2♣ 2♦ - 3♣ You bid: 3♦ = 5 card minor (then 3♥ ask and then 3♠/3NT = 5♣/♦) 3♥ = 2-3-4-4 3♠ = 3-2-4-4 3NT = any 4-3-3-3 Probably not optimal or anything but simple and sometimes useful. EDIT: Just read the replies and I see that Mohitz describes the same system (at least after 2♦). We play that 3♦ is just 5-4+ majors and GF (thi is superior to smolen because a)you can show major shortness ;) you are able to stop in 3NT opposite 2-2-(4-5)) Sorry for repeating.

I would never bid 1♥ but I think it's not completely stupid and maybe even worth consideration. One would need to make analysis but I think in general if you have 12-15hcp and say: 2-4-3-4 overcalling 1♥ is often good and I saw such plays made by good players (Meck) even withotu super strong hearts. I guess pass is "book" bid but nobody ever wins by passing in this game so...

I forgot. I am pretty sure he would play "standard: though. I have some opinions but let's stop hijacking this thread. I think basic precision (without any asking bids, transfers, relays etc.) is one good choice as well as the most natural. For one I am not the only one with this opinion. For example Larry Cohen wrote about it too.

Ok i undertand now that standard suppose to be "strong reverse". If you play that and you play weak jumps as responder then I can see that forcing 2♠ might be playable. Thanks for explaining it to me. I promise to stop posting in any thread where NA standard appears to be main problem. This system is so complicated and bad that it's just impossible for me to contribute anything constructive anyway. Every time when I try to apply basic bidding principles like: -old suit = weakness -show suits naturally I am quickly brought down to earth by "standard" telling me to play old suit at the lowest level as forcing relay, jump with 3 cards or other stuff like that. Ok I am done with this. If you people want to play it and teach this to beginners then I am no part of it :)

Ok, so I open 1NT with every 2-4-5-2 15-16. Rebid 2♣ with 1-4-5-3 15-16 and happily reverse with 3-4-5-1 as my hand is supposedly stronger having support for partner suit. Is that right ?