bluecalm

Sensible style weak twos; always 6cards. What's your favorite system after it ? I saw : a)singleton ask, new suits forcing b)transfer responses inv+ (with 2♠ non forcing) c)ogust etc etc. What do you prefer and why ? I am switching to playing weak twos with most partners and I need to choose one as I was playing multi my whole life.

Intuitively ? Duck, ruff in hand. AKQ♥ if the split or 4 are with LHO I've already won. If 4 are with RHO I have additional chance of Q♣ being there too (or stiff ♣ or stiff♣ with LHO).

Those are all from Spingold finals/semi finals. First hand Rodwell bid 2♥. I really like it. I am also quite sure it's not one time action from him. I saw many wc players doing that on regular basis. I guess it's more safe in precision though than in standard system (because risk of partner going to 3level is minimal). While I agree that we probably won't make and if we do we will often set 1NT I think that taking their space is worthwhile because it's easier to misjudge for them. Second hand was played in truly elite environment (Meckwell on one table, Fantunes on the other). Meckstroth faced 4♥ and bid 5♥. Nunes faced 4♠ and also went to 5♥. Partner had : xx JTxxxxx - A9x. I would consider it's pretty minimal in the style I prefer. In the third hand no surprise. Rodwell chose 2♥. It was duplicated by Fantoni in the other room. Those hands are another example of what I noticed. Elite players bid more aggressively than most "experts". Most of my friends would consider bidding on 1st and 2nd hand as simply "crazy bad" while at 3rd as "borderline at best".

Looks very bad. Opponents may jump and your partner will be clueless about your length in major suits.

Because partner will (correctly I believe) think you are showing 5-5.

Sounds good to me. EDIT: Scratch that I thought we are talking about 2♦ opener.

LTC is the last thing I would ever base my decision on. Especially when it comes to opening hands.

I don't think 1NT should promise a stopper here. We are rightsiding it almost regardless of what we have and we really want to play it from our hand holding Qx/Jx/Tx and the like. I think it should be the case even after "real" 5+opening (like 1H/1S) let alone nebulous 1♣ where opener doesn't even promise clubs.

What are the constraints you give for defender's hands ? Is it possible to define that they don't have 7 card major for example ? And that they would lead stiff ♦ if they had it?

Interesting, can you say more about how such analysis works ? I may consider buying the program :) Finessing is better considering ♠ alone for sure. Relevant layouts are: Qxx to xx (6 cases) xxx to Qx (4 cases) xxxx to Q (1case) Qxxx to x (4cases) QT9xx to void (1case) In remaining 16 (all 2-3 breaks, 1-4 breaks and 0-5 breaks) it doesn't matter) You gain a trick by finessing in 11 of those while you gain a tricks by playing on top in only 5 of those.

I don't see any problems with this hand. Responder sets hearts whatever his method opposite strong 2NT is (opener or rebid or w/e) then asks for aces then asks for kings and bid 7NT. It has nothing to do with initial choice of openers/rebids imo. I am pretty sure 2 lols at my club would bid this grand without any problems (but again, lols at my club would be in GF auction way below 2NT).

Those are all from high level competition playing imps. We have a disagreement with my friends about correct actions. I think those hands may contribute to discussion about style. You are vulnerable in all hands. First 2 are r/r. Last one is r/w. All auctions are comp. 1. ♠K92 ♥852 ♦T874 ♣K65 Pass - Pass - 1♥ - 1NT ???? 2. ♠873 ♥AQ5 ♦KJ5 ♣7542 1♠ - Pass - 1NT (f1) - 3♥ 4♥ - ???? What if opener bids 4♠ instead of 4♥ ? 3. ♠Q ♥KQ8643 ♦Q3 ♣QT92 1♠ - ???? Thoughts ?

It's good idea to have some fit bids here to show mixed raises and invites so partner basically never go to 5♥ himself after starting with 2♥. In my very simple meta agreements dbl is for penalty (because we have found a fit), 3NT is to play. With given hand I bid 4♥ and double them in 4♠.

♠43 ♥AKJ4 ♦943 ♣AQ75 Non vul vs vul. Partner opens 3♠ in 1st seat. It goes: 3♠ - pass - ??? your turn !

Or in multi landy you can play that 2♦ is either 6M or strong 5M-5m (again it's from top Italians' system) . I play that way but I can't remember it ever coming up.

I don't think it's a problem hand really. Make it xx Ax AKQxxx KQx and we are talking but probably still 2NT due to lack of something else. "Standard" is full of holes and this is one of them.

I think right siding in constructive bidding is overrated. It's much more important in comp though as usually you want defender who bid suit to be on lead.

Yeah, I was tweaking it so many times and forgot about this basic hand type (6+diamonds without shortness) probably because it doesn't come up too often in generated hands. I will have to improve it. I am not sure. After GF is established we can just bid 3rd suit and avoid 3nt having xxx to x etc. I wasn't sure what is more important (GF/SI with 6m-4M or splinter from responder hand). I wouldn't be surprised at all if you are right that splinter are more important. Yes, I agree that those are problems. Meckwell uses 1♦ - 2♦ - 3♣ as (14)35 but I find it difficult to bid without known range. Thanks for comments. I see this sequence needs more work from me. Once I come up with something which seems to work and don't have above mentioned problems I will post here :( Btw, it seems that in most precision writeups authors take simplistic view in 1♦ - 2♣ and 1♦-2♦ sequences (like 2♥/2♠/2NT being natural etc.). Do you know of any other structure which is playable here besides Meckwell ?

Why are people happy to bid 3NT on 2nd one but not 2NT. Isn't 2NT invitational there which is what we have ? (at least strengthwise)

At MP's vs weak opps I think 2♣ makes some sense. There aren't many hands which are not 6-5 for 2NT vul overcall imo (if it's weak).

It's important that they play that with 5m-4M they respond 1M so they don't need to worry about those hands after 1♦ - 2♣/♦. After 1♦ - 2♦ Opener has following hands to worry about: -11-13balanced -splinter in diamonds (weak or strong) -6m-4M -(4-1)-3-5 (weak or strong) -2-2-(4-5) (weak or strong) They way Meckwell handle this is described by Straube. I don't like that range for splinters are not split (so we can't stop in 3m comfortably) also I don't like that range is not split for (4-1)-3-5 hands. This is the structure I came up with: 1♦ - 2♦ 2♥ = 11-13 bal 2♠ = minimum with 4+♦ unbal (M shortness or 2-2-(4-5)) 2NT = (4-1)-3-5 then relay asks and answers are min/min/max/max 3♣ = ♣ shortness, min 3♥/3♠ = splinters, max 3♦ = 2-2-4-5/2-2-5-4 max 3NT = club shortness, max after 2♥: 2♠ = pupper to 2NT -> 3♣ = GF+ with 5♦-4+♣; 3♦ = signoff; 3♥/3♠ = SI with 6m-4M; 3NT = to play 2NT = GF with ♦ follow ups natural 3♣ = GI with 5♦-4+♣ passable 3♦ = invite; 6+♦ 3♥/3♠ = GF (but not SI) with 6m-4M after 2♠: 2NT = ask; ...3♣/3♦ = 2-2-4-5/2-2-5-4; 3♥/3♠ = splinters min 3♣/3♦ = to play 3♥/3♠ = whatever you want, 6-4 SI or splinter In this structure you have fast min/max information which I like. You can introduce auto splinters by responder after 2♥ at the cost of not differing between 6m-4M GF and SI. If you open 1NT with every 2-2-(4-5) 14-16 you can change direct 3♦ response to 5♦ bal, 11-13.

I think most people who play NFB's don't play them on 3 level anyway, at least this is the case in Poland where 2level NFB's are standard (which means lols play them) but nobody ever heard of NFB''s at 3level.

Why useless ? You may want to play in 3♠ and don't allow them to play in 3♥ which is what will often happen if you pass.

Yeah and that's probably quite a good option anyway (for sure much better than DONT, Capp and other crap around).

Are hands with stiff A♦ possible ? Kxxxx Axxx A Kxxx ? If not I will run a simul with opener being 11-14 5-6♠-4♥; Unfortunately it's not the whole story because the preffered bid here is 5♥ (I didn't think of it but now I am 5♥ bidder after seeing Mikeh's explanation) and we would need to run 2 simuls: a)how often is 5♥ safe b)how often 6♥ is making opposite hand which accepts invite; b)is kinda difficult to set good constraints to; I am the last person to say that but I also think that when in slam zone dd simuls give too much to declarer; Other way would be to generate say 50 hands and see what would happen. I am afraid this is work a person may only do at home alone as I can't imagine posting 50 generated hands here and having anything resembling good debate on "what would happen".