Antoine Fourrière

1N, which would be mandatory if I had opened 1♣ with clubs and diamonds reversed (or playing PC). What difference does it make that they run their hearts now against zero guard or later against one guard? We probably haven't seven running tricks if partner passes. However, since 1♠ promises five spades, partner should bid 2♦ with three (two?) diamonds, allowing me to bid 2♠ with two cards. (And he should also bid 2♦ over 2♣ for the same reason.)

2♥ if it is available to show a takeout of hearts, 2N otherwise. I think it is safer to act now than later. (I would double a 2♥ opening and bid 2N over a 2♠ opening.)

3♦, or maybe 4♦ intending to double them. 5♦ needs a perfecto such as x xxx AKxxx AKxx, and the ten-card fit leaves us with a shortage of cards in the other suits for 3N.

In my view, opening a strong club is the real danger. (Even opening a Polish club isn't safe against legitimate overcalls, which is why I preach that both unbalanced minimums, somewhat like in WJ, and unbalanced game forces, somewhat like in Strefa, should find other openings.) Now, if you do open a strong club after a pass by your RHO and your LHO also remains silent, I doubt shape first makes much difference - a delayed high-level bid once you know there is no slam doesn't bode well for the defence, and a low-level bid lets opener show his hand type -, except perhaps at unfavorable vulnerability. (Of course, you might also play Moscito at favorable, PC at equal and Romex at unfavorable.)

I am all for opening a weak notrump with a five-card major, but playing Precision, I would prefer to open 2♦ with both four-card majors, balanced or not, especially at matchpoints. It would retrieve many 4-4 fits and lead to quick, unrevealing sequences.

My auction: 2♦ 2♥ 3♣ 3♦ 3N 4♥ 6♣ 2♦ either 11-15 with short diamonds or an unbalanced game force 2♥ 0-10, to play opposite the former (only 2♥ and 2♠ are available with less than 5 HCP) 3♣ game force in clubs 3♦ denies five hearts (3♥), five good diamonds (3♠), distributional club support (4♣) or a second negative (3N) 3N no four-card major, nonforcing 4♥ positive with heart internal strength, preferably the King, but maybe AQ or QJ 6♣ to play If I should decide to treat South's hand as balanced (I don't see why, because I'm not interested in responder's pattern), the auction would go 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1N 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 3N 4♥ 6♣ 1♣ 12-15 balanced or 18+ balanced or 15-21 with clubs 1♦ no five-card major, not 5-10HCP with four hearts and less than four spades 1♥ balanced, 12-15 without four spades or 22+ 1N 0-10 with four hearts, so promises four spades if 5-10 2♦ 24+ (2♣ would be 22-23 and 2♥ 12-15 with a fit) 2♥ 0-10 with both four-card majors 2♠ relay 3♦ four diamonds 3N to play 4♥ positive noise 6♣ to play

Actually, it's a personal system derived from Polish Club, which I intend to call the Frencz Club. Only a brief description is available, on my profile and on this thread.

Hand 1 is a good hand for my system: 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 1♣ 12-15 bal, 18+ bal or 15+ with clubs 1♥ 5+ cards, any strength 2♣ two-under raise shows 12-15 bal with a fit 2♦ retransfer (2♥ would be bal invitational, 2♠ some long-suit game try and 2N, 3♣ and 3♦ short-suit game tries) Hand 2 isn't such a good hand for my system: 1♥ 2♦ 3♣ 3♠ 4♥ 1♥ unbalanced, therefore a 2N rebid is artificial 3♣ 2N would be a transfer for clubs, so 3♣ is available to show a one-suiter 3♠ naturalish, since 3♦ and 3♥ would be non-forcing

1)The French, who (mistakenly in my view) seldom open 1N with a five-card major, also don't open 1N a good (bad) half of their 15-HCP, 4333 or 4432 hands. (Of course, they add one point for a five-card minor and two points for a six-card minor.) The four-point range NT rebid doesn't seem to hurt. If responder has a bad 10 HCP, he passes. Otherwise, he can checkback for size and three-card support and stop in two of his major when there is a seven-card fit. 2)As other people have remarked, you must consider the help opening 1N with a five-card major brings to the rest of your system. When you play the strong notrump, it allows you to play 1N in front of 5-8 HCP. But it also frees the 2N rebid, allowing for instance a structure such as 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ as usual 2♠ weakish without a six-card suit, but forcing one round if you have to cater to some 14-HCP hands 2N game force with clubs (3♣ by responder is noncommital) 3♣ 6 spades (3♦ and 3♠ by responder are nonforcing) 3♦ forcing if 2♠ is forcing, but nonforcing if 2♠ is nonforcing 3♥, 3♠ splinters 3N 5=2=4=2 if 2♠ is nonforcing (seems not too good)

In his latest(?) version of the Majeure d'Abord, LAW discoverer Jean-René Vernes has to find an opening for minimum hands with six hearts, five hearts and a five-card minor or five hearts and zero or one spade. Therefore he argues, not unreasonably in my view, that a weak two is not nearly as effective in hearts as it is in spades, and chooses to open a Trent 2♥ with all three hand types. (He also opens 2♠ with six spades, five spades and a five-card minor or five spades and zero or one heart, but within the normal weak range.) That ineffectiveness of 2♥ as a preempt may also have decided Sontag-Weichsel to play 2♥ as either Flannery or a three-suiter short in diamonds and 2♦ as either a weak two in hearts or a few rare strong hands. So maybe 2♥ and 2♠ should be opened differently. How about 2♠ 8-12 with spades and 2♥ 9-12 with hearts or 4-7 with spades? (Maybe 1♥ and 1♠ should be opened differently too. The 5332 hand type hurts more the 1♠ opening than the 1♥ opening. But it is another matter, unless you play 2♦ as either a strong hand or a weak two in hearts, 2♥ as a weak notrump with five spades and 2♠ as a regular weak two.)

Agree with 1N (why should I be more afraid to promise a doubleton diamond than to show support for diamonds?), although 1♥ is acceptable (since I would probably get away with opening 1♥ if I had 3 more HCP).

6♦, although it is a toss-up. Partner probably has ten cards in spades and diamonds and (I hope) a doubleton club with nothing lost in hearts, something like AKxxxx x Axxx xx. My bid is bad if he has useless heart values, namely Kx.

I may have a sequence in my system: 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ 3♣ 3♠ 4N 5♥ 5N 6♦ 7♠. 3♣ retransfers in diamonds with a one-suiter (but a forcing 3♦ would have the same effect), 3♠ suggests six cards but seems better than a nonforcing 3♦ or 3N, 4N and 5N are RKCBs. Still, although the retransfer helps South treat his five-bagger as a six-card suit, the sequence seems to fare well rather to be well thought out. What I don't like in all the proposed sequences (including Moscito's, I think) is that they rigidly have the player with the singleton ♦K and the all-important ♠QJ telling rather than asking.

Ben's sequence (West should bid 5♣) is reasonable, but so is a 6♠ opening, because: You're afraid of a sacrifice. (Here, you'll enjoy it if West takes the bash.) 4♠ looks wronger than 6♠. 5♠ should be a preempt and wouldn't show what you have anyway. The heart singleton and club void suggest that there may be no true right or wrong contract (like another thread's 3N which requires losing no more than four spades with Qx in front of xxx). If you really wish to use an artificial game force, an option might be a 3N opening showing a freak and asking for shortness (the most useful information, if you have a nonsolid seven-card suit or a six-five with a good five-card suit). If they have nothing to say: 3N 4♥ (spade shortness) 5♦ (4♠ to play, 4N to demand specific aces) 6♦ (6♣ with another cover card) On West's actual hand: 3N (5/6♣) X But if North has another cover card 3N (5♣) _ X (two-suiter) 5♦ 6♦ 3N (6♣) _ X (two-suiter) 6♦. (That treatment is inspired from LAW discoverer Jean-René Vernes' idea of a 2N opening showing either a seven-card suit or a six-five, and three losers, and which is more economical, but it seems to me that 2N is better used for other purposes and will catch an overcall anyway. )

If partner has only five hearts, he has an opening bid (unless he is five-five). Since with 1=5=3=4 or 1=5=4=3 and an opening bid he should double (hearts become a minor when the opponents have spades), he has real pattern, either a six-bagger or a five-five. Ergo 3♥, and pass over 3♠.

Are strong jump shifts still useful in today's forcing style? I suspect playing a direct jump to 3♣ as natural and forcing and 2♣ followed by 3♣ as nonforcing (or a direct jump to 3♣ as invitational and 2♣ followed by 3♣ as natural and forcing) is still a good idea, although there is no need to do so with diamonds, since responder can always rebid 3♣ as a retransfer and 3♦ as a fourth suit. But should a 3♥ rebid by opener over 2♣ be natural, since 2♥ would be forcing? I think it should be a splinter, and 3♣ show a flatter hand. Anyway, I would answer a void-showing 4♥ over 1♠.

I don't know if 3N is gambling, but if it is, open 3N, showing a solid minor and out. If CHO has a top diamond honor, he will understand you have spades, and bid them, but if he bids diamonds, believing you have them, he lacks both the Ace and the King. If he bids clubs, you probably haven't won or lost anything. (True, that approach may backfire if he has four spades or six little clubs or diamonds, or if he throws the board at your face when you bid 6♠. )

It's debatable, but I might open 5♦. I surely would with hearts instead of spades. If I open 1♦ and East passes (I know, he wouldn't, it's just a digression), I favor five-card major answers, since, opener having already shown either five diamonds or four diamonds and five clubs (or a three-suiter with diamonds, true) doesn't have that much room for a four-card major, although he is unbalanced. (It forces opener to pass over 1N with nine minor cards and less than 16 HCP in as good or as bad a contract as any, and to rebid 2♣ with four spades (including 4=4=4=1) and 2♦ with a minimum, four hearts and five diamonds.) So, I would bid anyway 1♦ 1♠ 4♥ (void) 4♠ (?) Pass (or 5♦?).

In the final of the 1979 Bermuda Bowl (deal 29), [hv=n=st7hk984daqj2c542&s=sakj8532hdk8743cq]133|200|[/hv] Garozzo opened 4♠ third in hand and played there, while Eisenberg-Kantar bid pass 1♠ 1N 3♦ 5♦ 6♦. It cost Italy the title by 5 IMPs, but I'm sure Garozzo was right, and would have been right first in hand too.

I think 1♥ 3mixed 4♥ is the "right" sequence, but only if you open minimum 5332s with - argh - 1N or with something else - such as a slightly modified Polish Club. Otherwise there are too much chances of going down in 3♥, say opposite a mundane hand such as QJx AQxxx JTx KJx. But a rebid by opener after 1♥ 2♥ seems wrong, because opener is not a favorite to get that ninth trump, although KQT isn't so bad in front of three trumps. The weak notrump isn't all that good: it seems easier to reach 4♥ after a Landy 2♣. As for the ♣Q, it turns a supernatural contract into one which is simply difficult to reach.

5♣ and then pass, any vul, any scoring, any state of the match. Your partner doesn't know much, but no one else knows nearly as much.

Well, I've suggested it elsewhere, but how about: 2♣ always weak, 6-card major or 5-5 with at least one major 2♦ minimum three-suiter with short diamonds (maybe 5431) or unbalanced game force 2♥, 2♠ 11-15 with four cards and five clubs, seldom 3 cards in the other major 2N good club preempt, may optionally be part of a multi 3♣ 12-14 with 6 clubs? Advantages When you open a natural 2♣, you often want to know what opener really has. Here, you get that answer before the defense begins to double. Only the 2N opening is a bit dangerous. You do not spoil your 1♣ opening either with 12-15 HCP hands or with unbalanced hands. You treat one-suiters and serious two-suiters the same, and the defense has no sort it out. Besides, once you get a double major fit, say 2♣ 3♥, a one-suiter or a two-suiter offer comparable potential.

Pass, I guess, but I think I would have rebid a more precise 1N 18-19 balanced over 1♦, since it looks like I'm playing Sontag-Weichsel's Power Precision.

I don't believe in devolving bids to strong three-suiters, but I think you might do very well with strong balanced hands when responder has a major singleton because, yes, it makes much difference how you reach 2N. Responder cannot have five cards in the answered major (else bid the other major, or 3N directly, or maybe four of something). So, the transfer for the impossible major may now be used to show a singleton. 2♦ 2♥ 2N 3♦ = ♥ singleton 2♦ 2♠ 2N 3♥ = ♠ singleton 2♦ 2♠ 2N 3♦ = ♥ transfer 2♦ 2♥ 2N 3♥ = ♠ transfer Which might be reason enough to intervert 2♦ followed by 2N and a direct 2N on grounds of frequency.

I think the most productive way to treat weak major-minor two-suiters is first to pretend you have a weak major one-suiter, and to correct if need be. I would bid 2♠ with both hands 1 or 3, because that's the correct bid regarding both HCP and potential for a spade contract. However, if a double or a 3♣ bid comes back to me, I will certainly bid 3♦ with hand 1, and presumably not with hand 3. Partner should raise if and only if he has three-card support.