Antoine Fourrière

I pass Hand 1, but I would open ATx AQTxx xxx xx, according to the rules of thumb that a decent five-card suit is worth 1 HCP, and that four aces and tens are worth another HCP. (and that zero ace or ten is worth minus 1 HCP). I open Hand 2 with 1♦ if it shows a real suit, but not if 1♦ covers all diamond-oriented weak notrumps, or if 1♦ is Precision. I always open Hand 3. However, if I play a specialized opening which covers the 5/5s with both majors and perhaps some other hands with respectable patterns, such as 2♦ Wilkosz or 2♠ Tutti Frutti or 2N simply showing both 5-card majors, I use that opening. Still, if I have only an amorphous Ekren opening in my bag, I choose to open 1♠. (But if hearts were replaced by a minor, and I had no specialized opening, I would open a weak 2♠. I mind a pass, but I don't mind a raise.)

Pass, followed by 3♦ over a reopening double.

It seems to me that there are as many chances to draw eight of your previous thirteen cards as there are to draw eight of any thirteen cards, such as eight of the thirteen spades, eight of the thirteen hearts, eight of the thirteen diamonds or eight of the thirteen clubs...

Don't like the "OR 14-17 any single or 2 suiter" part of 1♣. These hands need a somewhat more precise first move (and so do the weak notrumps and the strong hands). Wouldn't like the six-card 2♣ on grounds of frequency if there weren't a second hypothesis. Would prefer something like 1♣ 11-14 balanced or 17+ 1♦ 10-14 unbalanced with 4+ hearts 1♥ 10-14 unbalanced with 4+ spades 1♠ 10-14 unbalanced with 4+ diamonds 1N 15-16, no void, no second five-card suit (and perhaps no six-card suit as well) 2♣ 10-14 with 6 clubs or weak with 4+ spades and 4+ hearts 2♦ 14-16 with diamonds (6, 5/5 with clubs or 5440 with clubs) or weak with 6 hearts or 5 spades and a 5-card minor 2♥ 14-16 with hearts (6, 5/5m or 5=0=4=4) or weak with 6 spades 2♠ 14-16 with spades (6, 5/5m or 0=5=4=4) or weak with 5 hearts and 5 clubs 2N 14-16 with both majors (5/5 or 5440 - even 5m -) or weak with 6 clubs 3♣ 14-16 with 6 clubs or weak with 5 hearts and 5 diamonds After 1N 2♣, 2♦ is balanced and relays back, and the other bids show a shortness, which admittedly wrongsides 3N on occasion.

Over the 2N relay I would suggest a distributional scheme 3♣ some singleton in a mundane 6331 (3♦ asks for ♣♦♥ step responses, 3♥ asks for ♥♣♦ step responses) 3♦, 3♥ unusual hands, this depends on your style when it comes to opening with a five-card suit (maybe 3♦ some minor, 6/4 or 5/5 or good5/good4, (3♥ asks the minor, 3♠ simply asks for a six-card suit) , 3♥ five good spades without a minor worth mentioning) 3♠ real minimum 3N mundane 6322 4♣, 4♦ voids 4♥ six spades and four hearts 4♠ heart void I don't think showing AKQxxx is worth consuming a step below 3N, but I would go back to spades with a suit which plays for one loser opposite a void (and I would pass a 4N continuation). Outside aces are nearly always useful, outside kings will have to be shown at a higher level. You can permutate the void-showing responses to prevent a double, but you can also use pass, redouble and 4N by responder to show 2,3 or 4 key cards. Maybe playing three-level transfer responses (3♥ showing clubs) would be a good idea. It allows finding a 5-3 heart fit.

3♥ looks pretty obvious to me. Do you want to hear 4/5♣ from South if you double and East raises to 3/4♠?

3♣ followed by 3N or 5♣. Diamonds? Which diamonds? Oh now I see, you mean the diamonds my partner might solidify with his own high honor if only I asked him. Game is not good. I need an ace and some help in the minors, and I would pass at MPs. There may be some stealing to perform. If I get in with the ♥K at 3N at trick one, I want to score one or two club tricks peacefully. If I play 5♣ with a known spade singleton, I may also score that ♥K if RHO holds the ♥A.

1) Double is takeout, since partner didn't say anything. 2) Double, any vul, any scoring method. Responder either is weak or has no heart fit. If responder doesn't have three hearts and opener doesn't have four, we have a heart fit. (I view this as a flaw of the usual multis, though some responders may bid 2♥ with an invitational hand with six hearts. A variant including also the five-spade, five-heart two-suiters -- with or without the major-minor two-suiters -- wouldn't allow that kind of reasoning.) 3) No, unless 3N is for takeout. 4) Double, as answered above.

4♥. Either 3♠ or 4♥ rates to make on a total trick basis, and the opponents may bid one more. I'm surprised by the number of passers. I would pass 4♣.

2♣. Sometimes it more or less shows the suit. My hand is better suited to clubs than to notrump or hearts. I would bid 1N with 5422 and 2♥ with three hearts and a singleton. .

4♥. I don't think my hand warrants five opposite a 5422 or 5431 (which can't be with short spades imo), but either opener or partner is going to bid again if I do less, and I don't want opener to show a minor economically.

I doubt Precision deserves its name, which doesn't mean it is a bad system. Precision often ends up playing 3N with less information available to the opponents than from the opponents. But I don't view its slam bidding as particularly impressive. The asking bids are wonderful on occasion, and often irrelevant. (For what is worth, this comes from someone who reads a lot of World Championship books, but has never played Precision in his life.) Like Precision, 2/1 suffers first and foremost from lack of shape definition. Too many bids at the two- or three-level are undefined. Setting trumps and cue-bidding is not a panacea as long as you do not know the exact patterns. There should be a lot more game-forcing bids saying 'I'm balanced, so all your honors are more or less bound to be useful, and I will be in a decent position to place the contract if you start by showing your complete pattern and your strength and forget about your honor location', in accordance with David Morgan's balanced hand principle. So I think a well thought-out Jacoby (2♠ over 1♥, no fast arrival) should be one of the few bids capable of doing a correct job. In that respect, it would help to open all balanced hands 1♣ or 1N, and to answer more often 1♦ (whichever significance you give to it) over 1♣ than is currently fashionable. But then, a natural 2♣ opening (or an equivalent) seems necessary, to differentiate between a minimum balanced hand with five spades (with which you should ask) and a minimum hand with five clubs and four spades (with which you should tell) in case of opponent intervention, which suggests something akin to (the WJ brand of) Polish Club more than Precision. Similarly, a strong jump shift in clubs might be interesting because 2♣ is shapeless, but is useless in diamonds because you can always play that a 3♣ rebid by responder retransfers in diamonds. (By the way, it is the Poles who invented that the cheapest step after 1X 1M 3M asks for a singleton. 2/1 needs a lot of shape-asking bids like that.)

I don't view it as close between overcalling and passing. This hand is a sound minimum 1♥ overcall, with the stiff spade and the good AQ98 of diamonds. But two questions remain undecided: a) Although I do not like the five-card weak two-bid (excepted with a five-five which imo has the distributional power of a six-card suit), I'm unclear as to whether the hands with precisely five hearts and one spade could/should be treated as weak twos. (The hands with five spades and one heart probably do not qualify, because bidding 3♠ over 3♥ should require a bit more distribution than bidding 3♥ over 2♠.) So, is 2♥ a better option? b) Should I bid a preemptive 3♥ if it goes 1♠ 2♥ 2♠? They have the balance of strength, but they do not know it. (And if I do not dare, but feel I should, doesn't it simply mean that a direct 2♥ overcall would have been better?)

Double. For me, 1♠ shows five and double suggests four. I would bid 1N with three small hearts, but a spade partial looks better here.

I think both 15-17 (including good 14) and 16-18 (including good 15) are fine if you don't open all 11 counts, because these hands are often difficult to rebid, both in two-player bridge and in four-player bridge. But I do prefer 16-17 (including good 15) from a constructive point of view, since responder has MUCH more room on a one-bid followed by 1N than on a direct 1N. It has already been somewhat discussed in this thread.

There is also the old version of the Majeure d'Abord, which strives to mix both canapé and five-card major. 1♣ four spades 12+ or five spades 18+ 1♦ usually no four-card major, 12-21 1♥ four hearts 12-19 or five hearts 18-19. Denies four spades 1♠ five spades 12-17 1N five hearts 12-17. Denies four spades 2♣ four or five hearts 20+ 2♦ usually no four-card major 22+ 2♥ six hearts 12-15 2♠ six spades 12-15 2N balanced with four hearts and less than four spades, 20-21 (These point counts include distribution.) When you've shown a four-card major, a new suit (including hearts after 1♣) shows five cards. When you've shown a five-card major, a new suit (including hearts after 1♠) shows four cards. It is also a relay method. The first-step (Exception: 2♣ over 1♠) is the relay. (It helps that 1♦ usually denies four hearts and 1♥ denies four spades). 1N over 1♣, 1♦ and 1♥ shows 8-11 HCP. 1♥ over 1♣ is limited with four hearts 1♠ over 1♦ shows five spades and is non-forcing

In my view, their 2♣ opening has the advantage of showing real clubs as opposed to 1♣, and their 2♥ and 2♠ openings often find a playable contract without much description. But I don't see the point of opening 2♦ instead of 1♦ with 10-13. There is no economical relay, 1♦ already shows a real suit, and you can always devise something for the diamond powerhouses, such as 2♦ weak in a major or strong in diamonds, or 1♦ forcing one round with a 2♦ response for the 0-4 HCP hands.

In my opinion, the less described is more important, especially in a partial, or when the distributions are not wild. It is certainly possible to conceal declarer's strength if you accept to lose the major-suit partials, provided it is always the balanced hand which asks about pattern when slam is out of the question. It would be a kind of Polish Club wherein all balanced hands are opened 1♣ and vice versa. Something like: 1♣ balanced, 12+, may have a five-card major or a six-card minor or a bare K (or Q ? (or A?))) 1♦ unbalanced with five diamonds, four diamonds and five clubs (even 15+), or three-suiter with diamonds (one-round force if need be, since you can always answer 2♦ with any 0-4) 1♥ unbalanced with five hearts 1♠ unbalanced with five spades 1N 15-21 with clubs or a 4=4=1=4 (pass with 0-3, answer 2♣ with 4-6) 2♣ 11-14 with clubs (including the hands with five clubs and a four-card major, and either the 4=4=1=4s or the hands with six clubs and no four-card major, but presumably not both) (or 1N 11-17 with clubs (pass 0-7, 2♣ 7-10, 2♦ 10+) 2♣ 17-21) 2♦ and above would cover the preempts, the unbalanced game forces (at least outside diamonds), and a few problem hands. Over 1♣ 1♦ 0-6 or 13+, forces 1♥ 1♥ 7-8 without a five-card major (1♠ and 1N 12-17, 2♣ 18+) 1♠ 9-10 without a five-card major (1N 12-15, 2♣ 16+) 1N 7-10 with a five-card major (2♣ 12-15 or 18+, 2♦ 16-17) 2♣ 11-12 without a five-card major (2♦ 14+, others 12-13) 2♦ 11-12 with five hearts (2♥ 12-13) 2♥ 11-12 with five spades (2♠ 12-13) 2♠ 9-11 with six clubs 2N 9-11 with five clubs and five diamonds 2♠ 9-11 with six diamonds (11-12 means : I intend to play game, unless opener has 12-13) After 1♣ 1♦ 1♥, 1♠ 0-6 without a five-card major (1N 12-19, 2♣ 20+) 1N 13+ balanced or 19+ unbalanced, asks for range, then for shape, then for high honors 2♣ 13-16 unbalanced without a five-card major (2♦? 2♥ 13-14, others 15-16) 2♦ 0-6 or 13+ with five hearts (2♥ 12-19, 2♠ 20+ both ask for range) 2♥ 0-6 or 13+ with five spades (2♠ 12-19, 2N 20+ both ask for range) 2♠ 17-18 unbalanced without a five-card major 2N 13-16 with six clubs or ten minor cards 3♣ 13-16 with six diamonds 3♦ 13-16 with six diamonds and a four-card major 3♥ 13-16 with six clubs and four hearts 3♠ 13-16 with six clubs and four spades I don't think this answer scheme risks much from preempts (although there surely are more efficient ones), since both players have already given useful information, but opener may not enjoy a direct overcall at the two-level when he has a strong NT with which he can't double for takeout (or should double simply show 16+?).

2♠. Partner doesn't have two more hearts than spades.

If you don't want to consume an opening for the 4=4=1=4 type, it will spoil whichever opening you tuck these hands into. Since 2♣ is the least common opening, wouldn't it be better (well, less awful) to start with 2♣ instead of 1♥? 2♣ five clubs and a four-card major, or 4=4=1=4 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ preempts 2N six clubs with a near opening 3♣ six clubs with a full opening After 2♣ 2♦? 2♥ four hearts and maybe four spades (2♠ pass or correct to 3♣) 2♠ four spades and five clubs

Personally, I dislike treating a five-five like a five-four, but in case you don't mind, I would suggest 2♣ 7-10 HCP with four spades and another five-card suit 2♦ multi 2♥ 7-10 HCP with four hearts and four or five spades (or a five-five) 2♠ 7-10 HCP with five spades and four or five cards in a minor 2N 7-10 HCP with five hearts and a five-card minor or 2♣ 7-10 HCP with four hearts and another five-card suit, or six hearts 2♦ 7-10 HCP with four spades and another five-card suit, or six spades 2♥ 7-10 HCP with five hearts and four or five cards in a minor 2♠ 7-10 HCP with five spades and four or five cards in a minor (over 2♣/2♦, 2♦/2♥ is POC and 2♥/2♠ shows at least three cards. Pass also invites a correction by Rdbl if n°4 doubles)

Thinking it all over, I prefer: 2♦ weak with either six hearts or five hearts and another five-card suit 2♥ 12-15 with both four-card majors, since when you are balanced it is a better start than 1N anyway 2♠ weak with either six spades or five spades and another five-card minor 2N either a good club preempt or a good minor two-suiter (will rebid 3♦ with the latter, unless they have started doubling) 3♣ good 11 to very bad 15 HCP, with six indifferent clubs, to relieve some pressure off the 2♣ opening In my opinion, there is quite a difference between preempting with hearts and preempting with spades. A natural 2♠ is such an effective preempt that it is worth unleashing with either a one-suiter or a real two-suiter, thereby increasing the number of sequences 2♠ 3♠ or 2♠ 4♠ (these can be rather devastating), though at the expense of precision when responder has a misfit and no one doubles. On the other hand, 2♥ isn't nearly as effective, so you may as well start with a (nevertheless nonforcing) 2♦ to allow (usually) opener to precise his hand type, especially when he has both majors.

In view of the brown sticker thing, I would suggest 2♦ weak two in hearts or spades 2♥ 11-15 with both four-card majors, since when you are balanced it is a better start than 1N anyway 2♠ weak with five spades and another five-card suit (double by opener shows hearts) 2N weak with five hearts and a five-card minor 3N weak with both five-card minors and something else (very good suits, eleventh card, favorable vulnerability, favorable opponents, state of the match...) If it were permitted, 2♦ weak two in spades, weak two in hearts or weak with five hearts and a five-card minor might be slightly better. Then I would open 2N with a club preempt or perhaps something else and 3♣ with 12-14 HCP and six cards of indifferent quality. But I'm adamant that Wilkosz hands should get the priority over bad minor preempts. Majors are more useful than minors, and 7-10 HCP is more frequent that 0-6.

1♥ 3♥ 4♥ 3♥ suggests four trumps, but 2♥ suggests more high-card strength. I prefer partner to bid game with extra distribution rather than with extra strength. And the opponents may also get overboard.

I open 2♣, but I would be much less afraid of an overcall if 2♣ contained one weak hypothesis, thereby preventing an overcall on less than 10 HCP. If I should start with a one-bid, 1♦ allows one of the other players to introduce his hearts, so maybe it is also a reasonable option (?). With a six-card weak two in a minor, systemically opening at the three level is right in my opinion. With a five-card weak two, you preempt your partner or give extra information to the opponents if it is their hand. Nunes-Fantoni don't have a strong opening. Their two-bids are 10-13 HCP and their one-bids start at 14 HCP.