foobar

Agree with actions so far -- IMO, 3N is best at this point.

Sounds like Wilkowz 2♦ with the both minors variation: http://www.chrisryall.net/bridge/debates/wilkosz.htm

IMO, pass and lead a trump if 2♣ is the final contract.

Are the opps playing standard or UDCA? Regardless, I might have ducked the first ♠ to limit their communication options (more out of general principle than anything specific to this hand). Anyway, having won the first ♠, I would guess to play for a general cross ruff hoping to score the small trumps in my hand with ♥ ruffs. Accordingly, advance the T♥ and see what they do next.

2♥ with P a distant second.

Fairly straightforward using an adaptation of symmetric relays (+1) with 2♣ as artificial GF (played it with a pard and it worked well): 1♠ - 2♣ (artificial GF) 2♠ - 2N (5+♠, exactly 4♣; relay) 3♣ - 3♦ (♥ shortness; relay) 3N - ... (6=0=3=4 exactly; QP ask / DCB / RKC ♣, etc) On this hand the relay captain would likely bid 4♣ as the QP ask (alternative would be 4♠ as RKC ♣), and then it's a cinch to get to 7♣ following a DCB.

This seems very similar to (if not identical) to what Meckwell play. I too agree that in conjunction with 2♥ as Kokish relay, it's definitely of the best methods that caters to a traditional 1♦ response to 1♣.

Right...we played the same scheme over 1♦ (11-13 balanced a lot of times) - 2♣ / 1N - (3♣) as well. In another partnership, we play NFBs at the 2-level over 1M - (2♣) and I don't have a strong preference for one or the other.

I did play it in a partnership in this specific sequence and also over 1♦ - (1M). We didn't have much by way of follow-ups, except that we said it would be the same as the more common transfers over 1M - (X). We also played some transfers (switch) after 1M - (2♣) and NFBs over 1M - (2♦). I don't recollect any major triumphs or disasters, but it fit very well into the light limited opening structure (with strong ♣ opening).

Have fun and try to avoid the Moscitos with the correct spelling :D.

How do the transfer responses work? Here's what I came up with over a similar 1♦ opening (albeit weaker): 1M: Natural 1N: < 12; not suitable for any other bid 1D - 2C (12+; GF unless suit rebid): ========================= 2D: 5+ diamonds, single suited min or two-suited hands 2H: Three suited, short clubs, min 2S: Good raise with 4+ clubs; 2N asks for shortness 2N: GF, 6+ diamonds 3C: Min raise with 4+ clubs 3N: Three suited, short clubs, max 1D - 2D (12+; GF unless suit rebid): ======================== 2H: Three suited, short diamonds, min (rarely (42)=2=5) 2S: Good raise with 4+ diamonds; 2N asks for shortness 2N: GF, 6+ clubs 3C: Min, 6+ clubs 3D: Min raise 3N: Three suited, short clubs, max 1D - 2H:Reverse flannery, < invite 1D - 2S:Reverse flannery, invite 1D - 2N: Invitational

How do the transfer responses work? Here's what I came up with over a similar 1♦ opening (albeit weaker): 1M: Natural 1N: < 12; not suitable for any other bid 1D - 2C (12+; GF unless suit rebid): ========================= 2D: 5+ diamonds, single suited min or two-suited hands 2H: Three suited, short clubs, min 2S: Good raise with 4+ clubs; 2N asks for shortness 2N: GF, 6+ diamonds 3C: Min raise with 4+ clubs 3N: Three suited, short clubs, max 1D - 2D (12+; GF unless suit rebid): ======================== 2H: Three suited, short diamonds, min (rarely (42)=2=5) 2S: Good raise with 4+ diamonds; 2N asks for shortness 2N: GF, 6+ clubs 3C: Min, 6+ clubs 3D: Min raise 3N: Three suited, short clubs, max 1D - 2H:Reverse flannery, < invite 1D - 2S:Reverse flannery, invite 1D - 2N: Invitational

Second round of South bids: Hand 1 P - 1N 2C - 2♥ Hand 2 1C - 1H (4+♠) 1S - 2♣ (♠+♦) Hand 3 P - 1D 1H - 1♠ Hand 4 1H - 4S Pass - AP Hand 5 1N - 2D 2H - 2N Hand 6 2D - 2N (ask) 3D (any min) - 3♥ (ask) Hand 7 1H - 1N 2C - AP Hand 8 1C - 2N 3C - 3♠ (0=3=6=4) Hand 9 1C - 1D 1N - AP Hand 10 3S - 4S - AP Hand 11 3D - 3N - AP Hand 12 1C - 1N 2C - 2♥ (4/5♠) Hand 13 1H - 1S 1N - 2♠ Hand 14 1D - 1S 2S - AP Hand 15 1C - 1D 1N - 2♦ Hand 16 P - 1H 4H - AP Hand 17 2D - 2H P - AP Hand 18 P - P - AP Hand 19 2D - P - AP Hand 20 1C - 1D 1H - 1♠ (second negative)

Here's a version with only the first round of South bidding: North dealer, playing Moscito with 1♣=15+, 12-14 NT (1st/2nd) and 1♣=16+ with 5 card majors / 14-16 NT (3rd/4th). Hand 1 South: ♠ K2 ♥ AJ953 ♦ AK63 ♣ J7 Pass - 1N (14-16) Hand 2 South: ♠ QJ63 ♥ QJ7 ♦ AJ975 ♣ J 1♣ (15+) - 1♥ (4+♠) Hand 3 South: ♠AJ76 ♥ K3 ♦ KQT83 ♣82 1♥ - 1♠ Hand 4 South: ♠ J8654 ♥ A853 ♦ 8 ♣ AJ9 1♥ (4+ ♠) - 4♠ Hand 5 South: ♠ J ♥ AJ754 ♦ J5 ♣ AJ965 1N (12-14) - 2♦ Hand 6 South: ♠ QJT3 ♥ Q6 ♦ AK2 ♣ AQJ4 2♦ (4+♦/4+ in ♥/♠) - 2N (ask) Hand 7 South: ♠ 65 ♥ KJT9 ♦ J976 ♣ QJ6 1♥ (4+♠) - 1N (natural; NF) Hand 8 ♠ AK642 ♥ KJ4 ♦ 852 ♣ AK ♠ ♥ Q97 ♦ KQJT64 ♣ QJ83 1♣ (15+ any) - 2N (5+♦, 4♣, ♠ shortness) Hand 9 South: ♠ QT4 ♥ 7542 ♦ AJ5 ♣ T85 1♣ (15+ any) - 1♦ (0-7ish) Hand 10 South: ♠ A5 ♥ K842 ♦ 973 ♣ 9632 3♠ - 4♠ Hand 11 South: ♠ Q43 ♥ K32 ♦ AJ9 ♣ AK52 3♦ - 3N Hand 12 South: ♠ AKJ75 ♥ J76 ♦ K8 ♣ 632 1♣ - 1N (balanced) Hand 13 South: ♠ J86 ♥ KT653 ♦ T7 ♣ AKT 1♥ 4+ ♠ - 1♠ ® Hand 14 South: ♠ K9865 ♥ 942 ♦ J5 ♣ 853 1♦ (4+♥) - 1♠ (natural; forcing) Hand 15 South: ♠ ♥ JT874 ♦ 8764 ♣ KQJ4 1♣ (15+ any) - 1♦ (0-7ish) Hand 16 South: ♠ K5 ♥ AQ874 ♦ 98764 ♣ 8 Pass - 1♥ (lead directing) Hand 17 South: ♠ Q964 ♥ Q93 ♦ AQ6 ♣ KJ6 2♦ (4+♦, 4+ in ♥/♠) - 2♥ (P/C) Hand 18 South: ♠ A7 ♥ K9542 ♦ 642 ♣ J64 Pass - AP Hand 19 South: ♠ 75 ♥ K2 ♦ AJ85 ♣ QT864 2♦ - AP Hand 20 South: ♠ Q632 ♥ JT42 ♦ 8 ♣ JT85 1♣ (15+ any) - 1♦ (0-7ish)

This contains the entire round of bidding by both hands-- peek only if don't want to wait for the step by step bidding:

These complement the North hands that hrothgar posted here: North hands Note that North is always the dealer and that the opponents are awestruck by our system and maintain stony silence :D. Hand #1: ♠K2 ♥AJ953 ♦AK63 ♣J7 Hand #2: ♠ QJ63 ♥ QJ7 ♦ AJ975 ♣ J Hand #3: ♠AJ76 ♥K3 ♦KQT83 ♣82 Hand #4: ♠J8654 ♥A853 ♦8 ♣AJ9 Hand #5: ♠J ♥AJ754 ♦J5 ♣AJ965 Hand #6: ♠QJT3 ♥Q6 ♦AK2 ♣AQJ4 Hand #7: ♠65 ♥KJT9 ♦J976 ♣QJ6 Hand #8: ♠ ♥Q97 ♦KQJT64 ♣QJ83 Hand #9: ♠QT4 ♥7542 ♦AJ5 ♣T85 Hand #10: ♠A5 ♥K842 ♦973 ♣9632 Hand #11: ♠Q43 ♥K32 ♦AJ9 ♣AK52 Hand #12: ♠AKJ75 ♥J76 ♦K8 ♣632 Hand #13: ♠J86 ♥KT653 ♦T7 ♣AKT Hand #14 ♠K9865 ♥942 ♦J5 ♣853 Hand #15: ♠ ♥JT874 ♦8764 ♣KQJ4 Hand #16: ♠K5 ♥AQ874 ♦98764 ♣8 Hand #17: ♠Q964 ♥Q93 ♦AQ6 ♣KJ6 Hand #18: ♠A7 ♥K9542 ♦642 ♣J64 Hand #19: ♠75 ♥K2 ♦AJ85 ♣QT864 Hand #20: ♠Q632 ♥JT42 ♦8 ♣JT85

Here's a catalog of runout methods: http://web.archive.org/web/20050307051332/http://blakjak.com/dbl_1nt0.htm

+1

2♣ on the theory that they will likely be in game after a 1N opening at the other table. If it backfires, it might be time to reevaluate the responses over 1♣, which might not be such a bad thing :).

As others on the thread have noted, the main issue is that the opening doesn't *guarantee* the sixth club, which makes it difficult to safely fish for the major fit. In addition, it makes it difficult for responder to raise opener with 2-card support (at the right vulnerability). In context of your system, you likely get a lot of mileage for the trade-off, but my guess is that most classic strong clubbers on the forum will lean towards a 6+ 2♣ opening.

There's no right or wrong answer and here are some methods that I have played over the years with some observations (preferences with *): Upside down attitude (*) with upside down or standard count: IMO, both count methods are equivalent, with UDA getting the edge by way of spot conservation Suit preference (*): Might require significant amount of partnership discussion regarding count vs. SP on declarer's leads, but trump suit preference should be fairly straightforward 3/5th / 4th best / Slawinski (F/N style) / 2/4th (Polish) / Parity (*): It's annoying to prealert the "low from doubleton" in ACBL-land. More than the leads themselves, a more relevant partnership discussion might be general lead style (aggressive vs. passive), i.e., when partner leads a spot card and third hand needs to make a decision, how likely is partner have led from Hxx(x) vs. xxxx? Journalist / Rusinow / Jack denies / Coded T/9: Another topic for a religious debate. Jack denies can be useful, though there are vociferous objectors who pose "to whom" question. Rusinow vs. notrump probably has an edge, but the advantage vs. suits is unclear. My personal preference vs. suits is use A/Q for attitude and K from stronger holdings (asking for count) and vs. notrump, K for unblock / count. Obvious shift: Yet another topic for a religious debate; requires significant amount of partnership discussion 4th best vs. low from interest (*) / Smith echo (NT*) : Coded T/9 (*) through declarer in middle of hand Lavinthal / O/E / standard / upside-down discards: My personal preference is to play a method described in Bird's book that denies interest in suit while (presumably) giving count. Remaining discards in suit are suit preference Anyway, this is just a laundry list of defensive methods, but do make sure that you have good agreements with partner regarding remaining count, returning partner's suit after winning, discards, etc.

Given that your 1♣ opening is 15+ any and primarily includes balanced hands with some strong ♣ hands, my inclination would be to cater the most likely NT range (16-18?). There are several treatments possible and my preferred scheme uses transfers after 1♠+. Over lower level interference, it should be possible to remain in your existing system. 1♣ - (1♠): Pass: 0-6 without takeout shape/suit or trap X: Takeout, 6+ points 1N: Balanced, GF, unlimited 2♣+ -> Transfers, 6+ HCPs Transfers are used over 2-level interference as well (with logical exceptions) and the cheapest NT is always the balanced GF hand. Over 3-level interference, switch over 1♣ - (3♣) makes sense, but otherwise X=balanced GF and suits = natural GF. You can even swap the the meanings of 1N/X at the right vulnerability to try and maximize the penalty potential since opener is very likely to be balanced.

The 2M preempts are covered by the 2♦ multi and the range can be adjusted. Seems like the OP's intent was to improve on the original 1♣ = 13+ forcing opening. Also, not having any other hand types in 1♣ makes sense in context of the rest of the system.

Agree -- seems like it should be possible to reduce the 1N to 12-14 and also lower the high and low limits on 2M ranges (with 15 prime going via Gazzilli).

♠8 for me.