Antoine Fourrière

2♥ and 3N are understandable (under)bids, but North could have bid 5♥ over 4♣. It cannot be a splinter.

Personally, I prefer a two-point range 1N opening and a four-point range 1N rebid, because in the latter case responder has already given some distributional information and in the former case we need extra bids. But I seem to recall that someone wrote years ago in the Bridge World that over a 15-17 HCP responder should invite with 8.5-9.1 HCP. (Sorry if I'm mistaken.) So maybe we should tune an algorithm with half points for notrump evaluation, and use a 2.5 opening range for a 1N opening and a 3.5 range for a 1N rebid.

I do like multi-Landy, with 2M showing five cards and a four-card minor and Dbl showing a four-card major (or simply four spades) and a longer minor, instead of a number of points - with 20 HCP for each side, it's easier to play 1N than to defend it. It is unfortunate that burying a nine-card spade fit turns out to be good for them, and if they had known they had spades, they would have bid 4♠ anyway. However, I think that a double by overcaller at his second turn should show spades (except perhaps a double of a spade bid), and that that double should be mandatory in case advancer didn't pass (that is, overcaller's pass should in that case be forcing and show hearts) .

In my system (to be fully released this decade or the next one), it would go 1♦ 1N 2♦ 2♥ 1♦: unbalanced with diamonds (could be minimum with five clubs and four diamonds, or a 4441) 1N: 5-10 without a five-card major 2♦ 11-15 with five diamonds and four hearts (2♣ would show four spades, and you have to pass minimum nine-card two-suiters with clubs, and, more annoyingly, minimum 1=4=4=4s) 2♥: to play So I end up in the right four-three major fit on this one, but it's pure luck. In standard, 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ looks automatic. The long suits are too good for a 543Q 1N opening. (But then, they must be too good for a spade raise as well?... Still, 2♦ is unappealing.) It helps if you play Reverse Flannery over 1♦. 3N is more or less acceptable, but the ♣Q contributes more than expected, and the hearts also mesh well.

If you must bid, this hand doesn't scream diamonds, but notrump. So 2♦ is much inferior to the debatable, but not outrageous, 1N, and still would be without a spade stopper. 3♦ is correct. The best alternative is a direct 4♦, which would be right if overcaller had shown a six-card suit. Afterwards, there seems to be a mix-up. Double is understandable only in order to refrain East from bidding on, and 4♦ is understandable only if double shows extra values. (Double is better than 4♦, because 2♦ was way off the mark, while 3♦ was simply the best choice, but East is now sorry he didn't pass or bid 4♦ immediately.) 2♦ 2/10 (Pass 10/10, 1N 8/10, Double 2/10) 3♦ 10/10 (Pass 5/10, 4♦ 7/10) Double 4/10 (Pass 10/10) 4♦ 3/10 (Pass 10/10)

3♦, unless it is more important to win the post-mortem than to win the game. From a total tricks point of view, you can bid three over two with an eight-card fit, which means you need only two cards from partner, and from a practical point of view they haven't doubled you yet and probably won't because it isn't easy to pass a negative double without the ♦KQJ. Moreover, a raise to 3♥ is automatic with three hearts, and you're preempting spades quite effectively if they do not play Flannery, so there are bigger chances to send them into an inferior contract than to suffer the indignity of a magical 200. 3♦ is also more ♣Q-friendly than 2♦. Finally, 2♦ doesn't hamper their bidding a lot if your partner passes or raises to 3♦, hence its minimum should be a tad higher.

West never hinted that he had more than 11 HCP in a mundane hand when he was in a position to do so. With clubs and spades switched, every strong notrumper would have opened 1N, so a 2N rebid over 2♦ doesn't seem particularly far-fetched. (Of course, 2N can't be 5332 when you open a (strong) notrump even with KJTxx Ax Axx Axx, in which case it is semi-balanced or conventional.)

I disagree. A notrump opening should be more narrowly defined than a notrump rebid IMO. In the former case, responder may have everything. In the latter case, responder has already shown a four-card major, and has a lot of calls to differentiate his remaining possible hands. This is not the same situation.

1N 2♣ 2♦ 2N 3♦ 3♥ 4♣ 4♦ 5♣ 5♦ 5♠ 5N 6♦ 7♥ 1N: 16-17 NT, so there is no need for game invitations 2♣: puppet denying a five-card major or a six-card minor (unless 6322/7222 or 6430) 2♦: relay, even with a five-card major (usually responder shows his pattern and opener places the contract) 2N: balanced slam relay, forces to 4N (2♥ would show some shortness, 2♠ would be balanced without slam ambitions and higher bids would be semi-balanced) 3♦: four hearts without four diamonds (3♣ four diamonds, 3♥ four spades without four diamonds or four hearts, 3♠ four clubs without another four-card suit, higher bids are 5422 or 6322) 3♥: relay 4♣: 3=5=3=2, so only 15-16 HCP 4♦: RKCB 5♣: two keys and the ♥Q, but no ♦K 5♦: king ask 5♠: ♠K, no ♣K 5N: forcing because of the king ask 6♦: ♦Q 7♥: better than 7♦ if opener hasn't the ♦J

Your idea of having 2♣ show a six-card suit is shared by no less than Rodwell (see his interview on BridgeMatters), Sontag (see Power Precision) or Marston (see Moscito). But I do disagree. The higher a bid, the lower its frequency IMO, and I don't like the six-card 2♣ opening much more than the strong 2♣. Opening 2♣ to show a six-card suit is also different from opening 2♠ to show a six-card suit from a total trick point of view. You need 14 total tricks to be (theoretically) safe at 2♣, 15 total tricks to be safe at 2♠, and 16 total tricks to be safe at 3♣. So, I am much more prone to open 3♣ with six cards than to open two of a major with five cards (unless I have a second five-card suit, or unless I know a second four-card suit). That sixth club already gives you one more trick, but it may also give your opponents one less honor trick in clubs and/or one more trick in their best suit. It is true you may burrow your major fit, but you may also burrow their major fit, and the odds should be definitely in favor of that strategy if you have a major singleton or a seventh card. Hence, in a Precision frame, I would suggest to use 2♣ to show five clubs and a four-card major without three cards in the other major, 2♦ to cover the short diamond types (including 3=3=1=6, since you can rebid 3♣) and 2N and 3♣ to show 9-11 or 12-14 HCP with six cards and a major shortness or seven cards. It should be also possible to open 1N with 3=3=1=6 with about 10-13 HCP, since in this case you won't lose a major fit. If you don't include the 3=3=1=6 in the takeout of diamonds type, 2♥ might be a better opening than 2♦. If you also open 2♣ with five clubs and a four-card major regardless of whether you hold three cards in the other major, you can have 2♦ multi and 2♥ as simply showing 12-15 with exactly four cards in both majors (and at least two clubs), which retrieves many partials and may not be easy to defend. I also find 2♥ and 2♠ showing four cards and a five card club suit reasonable, but I don't like 2♥ and 2♠ showing four cards and an undisclosed five-card minor. It crosses the delicate balance between wimpiness and savagery to the latter direction. (One five-four type is fine for 2♥ or 2♠, two are fine for 2♣, and presumably neither choice would really fit 2♦.) I don't think the main flaw with canapé is the 2♥ and 2♠ openings. What I find really bothering is its vulnerability to high preempts. And maybe standard is good at narrowing your hand in two bids (true, there are variations, but 1♣ 1♥ 1♠, 1♣ 1♠ 2♣, 1♦ 1♠ 2♣, 1♦ 1♠ 2♠, 1♦ 2♣ 2N, 1♥ 1♠ 2♣, 1♠ 1N 2♣, 1♠ 2♦ 2♠..., while 1♦ 1♥ 1N is too good), but it is often the first round of bidding which makes the difference.

The pro's bidding looks simply right. When you open this kind of hand with 1N, which I think is far from stupid, it becomes much less risky to answer 2♦ to Stayman, unless you're playing Puppet. It will hurt only if responder has four hearts, and the odds are he doesn't have them.

I prefer the very European multi (preferably without the strong option, although it is quite playable that way) to the very American weak two in diamonds. Of course, like others said, the acid test is how you play 2♥ and 2♠. (It may be of interest that Zia and Rosenberg, who have a long bridge playing experience on both sides of the Atlantic, have decided to retain both the multi (as a weaker option) and the natural weak two.) IMO, the multi loses big to the natural weak two with spades (I completely agree with Garozzo's comment, and I think that even the Poles would benefit from opening 2♠ indifferently with AQ9542 632 K7 98 and with KJ652 4 87 KJT74), but gains (not as much) with hearts, and there is something to be said for playing 2♠ as weak, but 2♦ as either a weak two in hearts or one or two bothering hand types. I also find interesting the 2♦ weak in diamonds or hearts played by Liggins and Fawcett as described in this month's Challenge the Champs, but I have no definitive opinion about it. It nevertheless seems wiser than the 2♥ weak in hearts or spades which is played (usually NV) by some European pairs. (True, a 2♥ which would be weak in hearts or weaker in spades may offer some protection when responder has to pass with a misfit for hearts and opener has in fact spades, and doesn't prevent you from opening 2♠ with a respectable hand.) As for the 2♦ Precision opening, I'm sure it should cover other hand types, but I'm much less sure which.

Pass. But I do agree with Double! and other weak notrumpers that you should separate at once minimum unbalanced hands with 5+ clubs and minimum balanced hands, which is the greatest advantage of WJ2000 in my view.

4♣, false splinter, to be followed by RKCB. With a semisolid side suit, a singleton and a doubleton, the proposed hand doesn't scream for evaluation (unless you lack two key cards) but for concealment, and I would have preferred a dull Jacoby 2N (which opening leader would have no reason to suspect), followed by 4N. If you manage to avoid the club lead, there are enough chances you will be able to play the heart suit for no loser.

3♠ for me. 4♠ seems a long way off if partner has less than two spades and may not be so good if partner has exactly two spades (unless it is QJ).

My system might bid: 1♥ 2♣ 2N 3♣ 3♦ 3♥ 4♦ 4♠ 5♦ 5♠ 6♣ 7♥ 1♥: normal, but never 5332, hence a 2N rebid is free 2♣: clubs or balanced, but not invitational with long clubs (would bid 3♣), hence a 3♣ rebid is free 2N: one-suiter 3♣: balanced GF relay (3♥ would be NF, usually balanced but sometimes with a singleton and five good clubs (otherwise answer 1N), and other bids would suggest real clubs) 3♦: no shortness (won't be able to know whether opener has three clubs) 3♥: forcing, and a bit lazy, since 3♠ could be defined as showing good clubs 4♦: positive with internal strength in diamonds, usually the King (K>AQ>QJ), since clubs haven't been emphasized enough; denies both the ♠K and the ♣K 4♠: BW 5♦: two keys without the ♥Q, which is why an unsupported ace shouldn't be cue-bid IMO (the ♠A was bound to be useful anyway and is now known, and a slam which has twelve tricks if the opponents fail to cash their AK is about average) 5♠: GSF 6♣: can't show the King For those who play strong jump shifts, the auction could start 1♥ 3♣ 4♣...

I would certainly open this hand with some number of clubs, perhaps a Precision/Polish 2♣ if I have that bid in my bag (I'm not sure it would be superior here), but certainly a natural 3♣ or 4♣ otherwise, although I would prefer a flatter hand for 3♣ and a weaker hand for 4♣. Hearts will play better than clubs only if partner has five of them, and if it is clearly your hand, so I think that you should forget about both the void and the four-card heart fit. (If I had four spades, I would feel more at risk, but a heart fit increases the chances they have a spade fit, so it isn't really the same situation that Winstonm's hand, which I would nevertheless open 2♥, because the hearts are good.) I do not like Pass at all. The call is as artificial as a strong 1♣ and strong 2♣, and seems misguided when you have something useful to say. I view passing as refusing to take the blame for a possible accident. 1♣ is somewhat better, but also doesn't do justice to this hand.

I would try 6♣. I could have longer diamonds and less useful spades. It is true that partner may or may not have deduced my singleton heart from the bidding, but he has three hearts if he did. so I have more than I have shown for a contract in clubs. It is 7♣ which needs a magical holding.

Rosenkranz's 1985 The Bidder's Game features such a treatment. A 3♦ rebid denies a four-card major, a 3♥ rebid shows five diamonds and four hearts, a 3♠ rebid shows five diamonds, four spades and three hearts and a 3N rebid shows five diamonds, four spades and fewer than three hearts. (4♣, 4♦ and 4♥ cater to the 5440s with five diamonds.) 4♣ is natural after 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ but artificial with interest in a heart slam after 2♣ 2♦ 3♠. (Rosenkranz remains silent about 2♣ 2♦ 3N.)

South is the responsible for the actual mix-up (yes, 3♥ is forcing), but he would have had to bid 6♥ if East had bid 4♠, and that would have been North's fault.

I wouldn't use a three-suiter opening as a pure preempt because I don't object to my opponents playing the hand with bad splits. Anyway, minimum opening bids (Precision 2♣, Flannery, Roman 2M, Fantunes two-bids...) still have preemptive value. I would rather play a three-suiter 2N opening to get rid of an infrequent, though not extremely rare, problem hand within a given system, so it probably would show a minimum opening bid with a specified shortness (I'm thinking to the 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5 type in Precision, but a 3♣ opening would run less risk of a double when partner is weak without a fit) or a strongish opening with two possible shortnesses or a very strong hand with any shortness. Still, the lowest zone/ known shortness type is probably the only one which doesn't require the gun to be loaded. With a lower opening, the hand type should be more frequent. For some British pairs, 2♥ showed 11-14 HCP with a three-suiter with hearts. I have no idea how it fared (although in case they don't play it any more, that could be a hint). Nevertheless, if you play Precision with a multi 2♦, it might be a reasonable option since 1♦ is not a thing of beauty either.

In my book, a 3♠ opening is mandatory with about 5-9 HCP (not two aces) and seven cards or six cards and a five-card minor. If there are seven spades, their quality is indifferent, because the opponents should not be very long in that suit. With a six-five, KJ9xxx would certainly qualify. A six-four (even with hearts) is also permissible (except at unfavorable), but then, and only then, the spades must be very good. A void never hurts, except sometimes in the post-mortem. ($0.02) Anyway, I would bid 4♥.

Your question is excellent. A system buff should try to explain the reasons behind his choice of openings and answers, not simply jot down the sequences on a Word file. The system buff has his own prejudices, and the casual reader needs more disclosure to come to a conclusion. When it comes to general range, e.g. strong notrump vs. weak notrump, my answer is type2. The strong notrump enables you to get rid of your intermediate balanced hands, or, to put it in another way, intermediate intermediate openers. You will not need to double in competition to show a strong notrump. I guess it is the primary purpose. When it comes to width, e.g. 16-17 vs. 15-17, my answer is type1. A two-point range gives you a lot of extra bids. 1N, which anyway is kind of a relay opening, becomes much more effective. In my system, I have bids which usually disclose responder's exact pattern before 3N and let opener place the contract without revealing anything. (But it is incompatible with weak Stayman.) When it comes to pattern, my answer is type1, since relaying is all right when you don't have a singleton, I include 5422 and 6322 into my notrump openings, and so do you all, because it works. Here again, the strong notrump wins, because it is nicer to open an offshape hand when you have more undisclosed assets. Still, I also open 1N with a bare king, sometimes with a bare queen. With hands which are a real nuisance in a system, like the three-suiter short in diamonds in Precision (although I don't like it much either in WJ), I think you should refrain from opening 1N or a lower bid, because you will end up asking yourself: What if partner has that damn hand type? Playing, say, a 3♣ opening to show 12-15 with 4=4=1=4 is admittedly ludicrous. But it is not necessarily stupid. Partner may be strong, or have a fit, or the opponents might suffer too. In return, you free another two-level opening, and your mind. Now if you beef up your Precision 2♦ or (preferably!) 2♥ opening with the 4=3=1=5 and the 3=4=1=5, or with some other hands which have exactly four hearts and four spades, or with the Flannery hand type like Sontag-Weichsel's Power Precision (if you really insist on Flannery), or with some other uncommon hand type, that is another thing. But I wouldn't want to spoil a 1N opening, a five-card 1♥ opening or even a debatable either diamonds or balanced 1♦ opening with the three-suiters short in diamonds.

Another problem is that Wilkosz may not be as effective constructively as the other permutations. For instance, it forces the responder to answer 2♠ with a moderate hand with four spades and two hearts and opener is supposed to pass without extra values. (With AQxxx Kxxxx x xx opposite KJxx xx Kxxx AQx, it goes 2♦ 2♠, while 2♥ hearts and another or 2♠ Tutti-Frutti would make it easier for responder to relay and to end up into 4♠.) On the other hand Wilkosz should do better with a maximum six-five, but these are probably too uncommon. I am also not a fan of 2N as a single hand type. Maybe 2N as either both five-card minors or both five-card majors and a maximum, so that Wilkosz still doesn't deny both majors? Or (if you play WJ) 3♣ as minors and 2N as a club preempt or a very distributional hand with clubs, such as AJ874 __ A KQT9643, which forced Balicki to rebid 5♣ instead of 4♠ in the 1994 final after he had opened a could-be-a-very-strong-hand-with-spades 1♣?

At first sight, I prefer WJ2000. I think weak notrumps with diamonds do better if they are opened 1♣. With five-four in the minors, you can now rebid 1N with five diamonds and four clubs (or a 1444) and 2♣ with five clubs and four diamonds. As for Wilkosz, I am all for opening these hands, but I think the same opening (both natural and multi have their pros and cons) should be used with a six-card major and with the Wilkosz hand type. I resent much more having to open 1♣ the rare 4=4=1=4 and the rare unbalanced game force or being unable to show at once a long club suit. Being dogmatic about quick pattern disclosure, I would prefer something like 1♣ either a weak NT or 15-21 with clubs (usually a 5431 or a 6331) or 18+ balanced 1♦ unbalanced with diamonds 1♥, 1♠ five cards, preferably unbalanced 1N strong, preferably a two-point range 2♣ 11-14 with five clubs and a four-card major 2♦ 7-10 with a six-card major or a five-card major and another five-card suit 2♥ Precision three-suiter, but also NV/V a bad three-level preempt in any suit 2♠ 11-21 with six clubs (quite unbalanced if 15-21) 2N unbalanced game force which runs the risk of a pass if you open with a one-bid Another possibility would be 1♣ either a weak NT or 15-21 with clubs (usually a 5431) or 18+ balanced 1♦ unbalanced with diamonds 1♥, 1♠ five cards, preferably unbalanced 1N strong, preferably a two-point range 2♣ 11-14 with five clubs and a four-card major 2♦ either a weak-two bid in hearts (yes, responder often can't preempt) or a Precision three-suiter (yes, opener will have to rebid 2♠) or an unbalanced game force (yes, you wreak havoc on your own system) 2♥ 11-21 with six clubs 2♠ 7-10 with six spades or five spades and a five-card minor (shuts off hearts) 2N 7-10 with five hearts and another five-card suit (shuts off their spades) Other permutations might be better, but it seems more important to convey the distributional nature of your hand when you have an opening bid than to gain some extra steps for uncommon hand types.