olien

Based on mycroft’s interpretation of: “If an agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific HCP or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer HCP or a different shape.” to mean that I cannot open a hand that would qualify as a psych on the current charts means that, on the Open chart, one cannot psych a (quasi)-natural opening in any seat as you must have at least “near average” strength to do so. Please note that they do not explicitly state an exception for psyching, nor that you can only psych natural opening bids.

I say it is based on my personal recollection. Things like when it goes 1D - (p) - 2R transfer. Now when your arrive in 2M, the opps have no idea what kind of fit you have. It basically has all of the upside of opening 1NT and very little of the risk/randomness (unless you are as “good” as Fantoni-Nunes) that is often associated with weak 1NT ranges, This is because the opps can’t really double you, and even if they can you can now bail in any strain at the 1 level (except clubs) still giving responder all of the benefits of knowing that you have no trump distribution. Ulf has the data to back up my recollection.

The only objection that I have with this statement is the wording. I believe it should read: Technically, the ACBL is no longer a Regulating Authority as defined in Law 80 of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. In practice, the ACBL is an 800 pound gorilla, and does whatever it damn well believes the “average” player wants*. *While relying on pro/client patronage to pay for it

Not sure if you’re aware of how the ACBL directing staff is interpreting the latest bidding regulations, but it is being done in a way to regulate the psyching of natural bids. On the open chart one is allowed to make a natural, one-level opening bid with near-average strength (I believe on open+ this rule is only applied to 1st/2nd seat openings). The charts also define a psych (which they have not done before) as being off by at least an ace (4 HCP) or 2 cards in length. That means to qualify as a psych, one cannot open with 5-7 HCP unless it also meets the rule of 17. I tried the argument that hands in that range could still be a psych if off by at least 4 HCP from the partnership agreement and was quickly told “no, it isn’t based on the partnership agreements, it is based on what is permitted. As 8 HCP is permitted, and we assume a vast majority already play light openings in 3rd seat, then they have the implied agreement to open with as few as 8 HCP in that seat, and cannot accept the argument that they’ve never done it before with this partner.” I was blown away because I thought the laws still prohibited RA’s from regulating natural bids, but I guess they have decided that these qualify as being SPU’s and are cracking down on it by implementing a specific definition of how far off one must be to be considered a psych.

I came across a pair that basically played this opening structure at a regional in London, ON just before the 2016 Summer Nationals in DC. I had no issues with the system, and did not call for a director, but, remembering the debate on here about its legality, and then whether or not one could claim it was “catch-all” in good faith since it showed length in a specific suit. I only recognized one director there, and asked him and was told it was legal. IIRC, the exact wording of my question was: “If a pair plays a system with a catch-all 1♦ opening, but has defined the rest of the opening bids such that it shows exactly 4♠, is it still legal? Or would it be considered a transfer opening, and thus illegal?” In London, I was told yes, its legal. At the DC nationals, I posed the same question to 2 national TDs, Gary Zeiger (RIP) and Mike Roberts, but not at the same time. Both answers were very clear, and along the lines of “the definition of catch-all means that it shows whichever hand types are not covered by the other opening bids. That this one also happens to show exactly 4♠ does not change the fact that it is still a catch-all opening bid.”

I suggested something along these lines to increase the utility of the bid, and to help tighten up the balanced ranges when opening 1♣. Suggested both making it a spit range NT, and also suggested having it as a wide-ranging (i.e. 12-16) NT. The latter idea was to enable an artificial 1NT opening to help sort out our minor-oriented hands. Ulf rejected both proposals; the first because it would mean we couldn’t just blast to game since partner wouldn’t always have the weak range. One nice thing about 1NT openings is one almost always knows exactly what our target level is almost immediately, but if you widen the range or add a 2nd range, that becomes much less likely. One final reason he liked keeping it as always being a weak range is that he didn’t have to be so concerned about siding in determining best meanings for responder’s initial bids, and thereby keeping it simpler.

Ulf and I first played together at the 2019 Summer NABC in Las Vegas, and the opening structure was different, with both 1♣ / 1♦ openings being artificial and showing 15+ HCP: 1♣ showing one of: balanced / any 4441 / unbalanced, primary minor 1♦ showing unbalanced hand, 5+ major 1NT opening was 11+-14, and other openings are as described upthread. This 1♣ opening did not offer as much insulation against interference as we were often in a gray zone with high variance potential when responder had 6-8 HCP and opener was 17-20. It also sucked when opener held a balanced hand of 15-17 or 20-21 with our auctions beginning 1♣ - (P) 1♦ - (overcall) when other table possibly bidding 1/2NT - 3NT and opps now getting off to best lead of partner's suit rather than having a blind lead. I do recall one, random pickup against Nickell in R32 of the 2019 Spingold. Nickell - Katz agreed to play a natural 1NT overcall against our 1m openings since they might only be 15. RHO texas transferred to a major over this and now my partner was on lead and knew to lead the other major. LHO would have never overcalled 1NT if my partner had been known given no stopper (dummy had Kx) and the 1♦ opening resulted in them wrong-siding a game for +12 IMPs.

Ulf keeps accurate record of the results and IMP swings of such hands where he can't open a weak 2M vs the hands where we are able to open the canapé 2M openings. I do not, and our last tournament as partners was the 2019 fall NABC in San Francisco. However, I only recall one significant, adverse swing that could be directly attributed to not being able to open 2M weak. Of note is that we have the explicit principle that we do not open 3M with a normal, weak 2M opening, nor do we stretch to do it. If we open 3M with only 6, it is supposed to be such a hand that we would choose to do so even if we could open 2M instead. I do have a recollection of several positive swings resulting from the canapé 2M openers, but I may be victim to selection bias on the net IMPs swung resulting from not having weak two bids available.

Does the structure require a 1NT or 2♥ response when responder has a balanced hand with 11+ HCP and 4+♠ (and not 4♥)?

As Ulf's current, regular partner at NABC's, I have to say that, when he first presented this opening structure to me, that I had a virtually identical reaction to yours. I was very concerned about the 4441s being included in the unbal 1M openers because when I was certain that there was no chance of recovery when competitive auctions caused us to end up in the 4-3. My concern was based upon my experience with a specific opening bid in standard, natural systems: 1♦ showing 4+ unless 4=4=3=2 with both majors. Practically speaking, responder assumes that opener has 4+♦, but when that 4% chance of 4=4=3=2 arises, it has nearly always been a very poor result for us. That being said, the one hand that was going to be an outright disaster for us arose on the final day of the 3-day Swiss at the 2019 Las Vegas NABC. Keep in mind that we were behind screens and I was with "E" (my RHO). My hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=sk62h742d8cat9432]133|100[/hv] and the auction had gone (I do not recall the exact vulnerability other than knowing we were not unfavorable, and spots are approximate): [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2h(ART%2C%20const%20raise)3hp4h4sdpp]133|100[/hv] I had bid 4S based on a combination of the opponent's table action and bidding logic: i) LHO almost certainly has 5+♥ given 3♥ bid rather than X of 2♥, and ii) RHO raised to 4♥ with almost no pause for thought, so I was certain he had 4+♥ As I was virtually certain Ulf had 0-1♥, I did not need much for 4♠ to be a desirable bid. After I made that bid, my LHO doubled, which came back around to me. What happened next was based mostly upon knowledge of my partner's style to compete to 3♠ with either a 5/5 hand or any hand with 6♠, and a little help with both opponent's pace as well. Given partner's tendency, I could reduce his distribution to one of 5=1=(43) or 4=1=4=4. With that knowledge, I was now confident that it was very unlikely to be worse than break-even to run to 5♣, and was certain that it was when I tell you my perception of the timing of my LHO's subsequent X of it was one of the fastest X's I've ever seen - with or without screens (and he was on the other side). It truly felt like he had doubled before I had bid 4♠ and, that my RHO passed, again without thought. So, I ran to 5♣ and the opponents now successfully judged to sacrifice. LHO had doubled my 4♠ bid with 5-5 in the majors including QJTxx of spades, and my partner's hand was: [hv=pc=n&n=sa852h8da962ck852]133|100[/hv] I don't find fault with my LHO's X of 4♠ - I don't recall having ever seen an opponent run from on an auction like ours (and no, I did not have a C transfer available the first time meaning I would not be guaranteed of being able to show a spade fit). I had suggested if were going to include 4441's in the 1M opening, that perhaps we should play 2M as showing 5*M-4+m and 1M as either: 6+M, 5+/4+ majors, or 4*M-5+m so that we could basically assume it was 4, but Ulf declined. He stressed the practical success of the canapé 2M openers. I would say they work so well in practice because: i) Given that we have to go to the 3-level if we prefer to play partner's minor, its nice that it will also be opener's longer suit, and ii) Gives you the benefit of the canapé 1M opener, but without the drawback of not knowing if partner's 1M is "normal" or canapé. I think my favorite hand was when he opened 2♥ at favorable vulnerability, and I held ♥AKQxx and no other HCP. Was an easy 4♥ bid and we froze them out of 4♠ by preventing RHO's normal 1♠ overcall. I was also worried that the 1♦ opening was not being adequately utilized since it was defined as specifically 11-13/14 BAL. In one of the earlier iterations, our opening structure included a 2♣ opening showing 10-14 and 6+ cards in EITHER minor, and 2♦ showing 5+/4+ either way in the minors. I was not comfortable with this approach, and suggested keeping 1♦ as balanced but expanding the range, and playing an artifical 1NT, possibly as being the bid to show both minors. Really, I wanted to get rid of the multi 2♣ opener. However, I have to agree with Ulf's opinion on the value of this definition for the 1♦ opening. We all love opening 1NT, and that's what this is: a surrogate for a weak 1NT opening. I have now come to find it somewhat amusing that I criticized this "under-utilization" of 1♦ when I also agreed with the generally-agreed-upon position that the nebulous 1♦ opening is one of the worst aspects of the most commonly used strong 1♣ systems. Not only does the use of 1♦ as a weak NT lead to many brief auctions, but also puts responder in excellent position on many competitive hands.

Also, I want to apologize to all who I offended in this thread. Clearly, I was an arrogant s**t head and deserved every smart-a** response I got. I have no excuse for my behavior at the time other than I was just a 21-year old kid who was still green behind the ears. I definitely agree that calling this MOSCITO was wrong - guess I just had an infatuation with the idea of MOSCITO

So, I came up against this opening structure at the regional in London, Ontario not that long ago with the only difference being that they opened 1!D with 5!S-6!H. I was unsure as to the legality of this and ran it past Mike Roberts and Gary Zeiger (both national-level TD's) at the next nationals and they were both explicit that this structure is GCC legal. I asked "but is the 1!D really 'catch-all?'" and they both replied "yes" that catch-all can mean whatever the user wants.

1NT - 3♣ - GF with 4=4=1=4 or 1=4=4=4 Opener responds like Stayman for hearts: 1NT - 3♣: 3♦ - denies 4♥, asks hand type ---> 3♥ - 4=4=4=1 --> Natural continuations ---> 3♠ - 1=4=4=4, mild+ S/I ---> 3NT - 1=4=4=4, choice of games 3♥ - shows 4+♥, asks hand type ---> 3♠ - 4=4=4=1, mild+ S/I --> 3N=♠ cue; 4♣=serious S/I ---> 3NT/4m - 1=4=4=4, serious 3NT, cues ---> 4♥ - To Play, shortness is ambiguous ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1NT - 3♦ - GF 6+♦ <4♥ 0-1♠ 3♥ - 5-card ♥ ---> 3♠ - Artificial, Strong ♥ Raise ---> 4♥ - To Play ---> Else - Natural w/o ♥ Fit 3♠ - Last Train for ♦

1NT - 2NT GF Puppet Stayman - includes: a) (31)(54); b) 4=4=4=1; c) 4=1=4=4 Note: Respond 2NT with 4♠-3♥ GF, but respond 2♣ with 3♠-4♥ Opener's re-bids: 3♣ - no 5-card major 3♦ - 5-card ♠ 3♥ - 5-card ♥ 1NT-2NT // 3♣: 3♦ - 4♠ BAL or 4=4=4=1, opener responds like stayman for ♠ ---> 3♥ - denies 4♠, asks hand type --------> 3♠ - 4=4=4=1, GF --> 4♣=Stronger 4♥ bid; 4♦=Nat; 4♥=Nat, weaker --------> 3NT+ - 4♠ BAL, natural ---> 3♠ - shows 4♠, asks hand type --------> 3NT - 4=4=4=1, mild+ S/I --> 4♣=Serious --------> 4x - 4♠ BAL, cues, S/I --------> 4♠ - To Play, hand type ambiguous 3♥ - 3=1=(5/4) or 4=1=4=4 ---> 3♠ - 4-card ♠ --------> 4♥ - S/I with 4=1=4=4 --------> 4♠ - To play with 4=1=4=4 --------> Else - Natural with 3=1=(5/4) (4m=5-card minor, slam interest ---> Else - Natural 3♠ - 1=3=(5/4) 4m - 5m(332), rarely (32)(62), Quant+ 1NT-2NT // 3♦: 3♥ - transfer agreeing ♠ ---> 3♠ (forced) --------> 3NT - no SPL, S/I --------> 4♣ - ♣ SPL, S/I --------> 4♦/♥ - cues, ♥ SPL, S/I --------> 4♠ - To Play 4m - 5+m, no ♠ fit, Quant+ 1NT-2NT // 3♥: 3♠ - artificial, strong ♥ raise 4m - 5+m, no ♥ fit, Quant+ 4♥ - To Play

1NT - 2♠ Size Ask, includes most ♣ transfers (except GF 6+♣ 0-1♦) Subsequent Auctions: 1NT - 2♠: 2NT - minimum 3♣ - maximum ---> 3♦ - 6+♣ <4♥ 0-1♠, GF (6+♣ 0-1♦ GF would have responded Stayman) --------> 3♥ - 5-card ♥ --> 3♠=ART strong ♥ Raise; 4♥=to play; else=Nat w/o ♥ Fit --------> 3♠ - Last train for ♣ ---> 3♥ - 6+♣ <4♠ 0-1♥, GF ---> 3♠ - 6+♣, no SPL, mild+ S/I ---> 3NT - To Play ---> 4m - 2=2=45m, Quant+

Stayman Sequences Note: Respond 2♣ with 3♠ and 4♥ but 2NT with 4♠ and 3♥ Special Sequence 1: In auctions that proceed either: a) 1NT-2♣ // 2M-2NT // 3♣-3♦ (showing 5+♣ 4oM 0-1♦, GF), or b) 1NT-2♣ // 2M - 3♦ (showing 5+♦ 0-1♣, GF The continuations over 3♦ are as follows: 3♥ - 5 cards in major (regardless of suit) ---> 3♠ - artificial, strong raise of M with slam interest ---> 4M - To Play ---> Else - Natural without fit for Major 3♠ - artificial, last train for responder's minor Special Sequence #2: In auctions that proceed: a) 1NT-2♣ // 2M-2NT // 3♣ b) 1NT-2♣ // 2♥-3♣ // 3♦ responder cannot have shortness in the other major because they would either have a fit for opener or would not have responded Stayman. Therefore, responder's continuations, beginning with 3♥ are as follows: 3♥ - shortness in opener's M --> 3♠ - Last train for responder's m 3♠ - no shortness, mild+ S/I, if strong S/I then m isn't great 3NT - no shortness, xx in other minor, choice of games 4♣+ - no shortness, strong S/I, strong m (4m+1 = RKC for m) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Continuations after 1NT-2♣: 2♦ - no 4-card Major 2M - 4-5M, denies 4oM 2NT - 4♠ and 4♥ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1NT - 2♣ // 2♦: 2♥ - Majors, Weak 2♠ - INV with 5♠, may or may not have 4♥ 2NT - 5+♣, any strength, forces 3♣ ---> 3♣ (forced) --------> 3♦ - 5+♣ 0-1♦, GF --------> 3M - 5+♣ 4oM 0-1M, GF --------> 3NT - (42)=2=5, mild S/I --------> 4♣ - (42)=2=5, strong S/I --------> 4♦ - RKC for ♣ 3♣ - 5+♦, any strength, forces 3♦ ---> 3♦ (forced) --------> 3♥ - 5+♦ 0-1♥, GF (either 6+♦ or 5♦-4♠) --> 3♠ - Last Train for ♦ --------> 3♠ - 5+♦ 4♥ 0-1♠, GF --------> 3NT - 5+♦, no SPL, mild S/I --------> 4♣ - 5+♦, no SPL, cue-bid, strong S/I --------> 4♦ - 5+♦, no SPL, no ♣ cue, strong S/I --------> 4♥ - RKC for ♦ 3♦ - 5+♥ 4♠ GF 3♥ - 5+♠ 4♥ GF 3♠ - 5+♦ 0-1♣ GF 3NT - To Play 4♣ - 6+♥ 4♠, game only or strong S/I 4♦ - 6+♠ 4♥, game only or strong S/I 4M - To Play 4NT - Quant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1NT - 2♣ // 2♥: 2♠ - INV with 5♠ <4♥ 2NT - 5+♣, any strength, forces 3♣ ---> 3♣ (forced) --------> 3♦ - 5+♣ 0-1♦, GF --> Special Sequence #1 --------> 3♥+ - Special Sequence #2 3♣ - 5+♦, any strength, forces 3♦ ---> 3♦ (forced) --------> Special Sequence #2 3♦ - 5+♦ 0-1♣, GF --> Special Sequence #1 3♥ - INV Raise 3♠ - unspecified SPL raise --> 3NT asks --> LMH shortness 4m - BAL with 4♥, cue, S/I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1NT - 2♣ // 2♠: 2NT - 5+♣ any strength, forces 3♣ ---> 3♣ (forced) --------> 3♦ - 5+♣ 0-1♦ GF --> Special Sequence #1 --------> 3♥+ - Special Sequence #2 3♣ - 5+♦, any strength, forces 3♦ ---> 3♦ (forced) --------> 3♥ - 6+♦ 0-1♥, GF --> 3♠ = 5-card ♠ --> (4♥=strong Raise, 4♠=to play, else=Nat w/o fit) --------> 3♠ - 5+♦ 4♥ 0-1♠, GF --------> 3NT - 5+♦, no SPL, mild S/I --------> 4♣+ - 5+♦, no SPL, strong S/I 3♦ - 5+♦ 0-1♣, GF --> Special Sequence #1 3♥ - a) checkback for 5♠; b) BAL slam-going ♠ raise; c) 4♥-4m, Quant+ ---> 3♠ - 5-card ♠ --------> 3NT - ♠ fit, serious S/I --------> 4x - ♠ fit, non-serious S/I --------> 4NT - Quant, no ♠ fit ---> 3NT - 4-card ♠ --------> 4♣ - BAL slam going ♠ raise --------> 4♦ - 4♥-4♦, Quant+ --> 4♥ - RKC for ♦ --------> 4♥ - 4♥-4♣, Quant+ --> 4♠ - RKC for ♣ 4x - Splinters with ♠ support -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1NT - 2♣ // 2NT: 3♣ - 6+♦, any strength, forces 3♦ ---> 3♦ (forced) --------> 3♥ - 6+♦ 0-1♥, GF --> 3♠ = Last Train for ♦ --------> 3♠ - 6+♦ 0-1♣, GF (6+♦ <4♥ 0-1♠ would have responded 3♦ immediately) --------> 3NT - 6+♦, no SPL, mild S/I --------> 4♣+ - 6+♦, no SPL, Strong S/I 3♦/♥ - Transfers to 3M ---> 3M (forced) --------> NLMH SPL slam tries, 4M=to play 3♠ - 6+♣ 0-1♦, mild+ S/I, if strong S/I then ♣ aren't great 3NT - 6+♣ 0-1♦, choice of games 4♣+ - 6+♣ 0-1♦, strong S/I, strong ♣ 4M - To Play

I have recently finished developing a structure for responding to partner's 1NT opening. Our range is 14-16 HCP in most seats (15-17 otherwise). I am wondering what everyone's general thoughts are. I will break this down into several posts within the same thread. Notes: M=Major, m=minor, oM=other Major, om=other minor, SPL=splinter, BAL=balanced, Quant=Quantitative, S/I=Slam Interest Some differences with this structure include: 1) Most ♦ transfers go through Stayman 2) GF 6+♣ 0-1♦ goes through Stayman 3) 4 Responses to Stayman 4) Transfer re-bids by responder after Stayman and Jacoby Transfers Initial Responses: 2♣ - Stayman, includes: a) most ♦ transfers (see 3♦); b) 6+♣ 0-1♦ GF 2♦/♥ - Jacoby Transfers 2♠ - Size Ask, includes most ♣ transfers (except 6+♣ 0-1♦ GF) 2NT - GF Puppet Stayman, includes: a) (31)(54); b) 4=1=4=4; c) 4=4=4=1 3♣ - GF, 4=4=1=4 or 1=4=4=4 3♦ - GF, 6+♦ <4♥ 0-1♠ 3♥/♠ - GF Splinter, 5+♣ 5+♦ 3NT - To Play 4♣/♦ - 6+♥/♠, respectively 4♥/♠ - To Play 4NT - Serious Quantitative

Depending on your preempting style, you may find the structure that I played with Adam Kaplan and Marius Agica to be helpful. We played an aggressive preempting style. Our structure looked like: Initial Responses: 2♥ / ♠ = pass or correct 2NT = forcing ask 3♣ = game force, 5+♥, no interest in ♠ 3♦ = game force, 5+♠, no interest in ♥ 3♥ / ♠ = pass or correct 3NT = to play 4♣ = asks opener to transfer to their major 4♦ = asks opener to bid their major 4♥ / ♠ = natural, to play ------- 2♦ - 2♥: 2♠ = weak 2 in spades --> 2NT = game try in ♠; 3m/♥ = natural NF, own suit; 3♠ = weak raise 2♦ - 2♠: 2NT = good weak 2 in ♥ --> 3♣ = game try in ♥; 3♦ / ♠ = natural NF, own suit; 3♥ = to play 3m = 4+m, good weak 2 in ♥ 3♥ = worst ------- 2♦ - 2♠ // 2NT - 3♣ (game try in ♥) 3♦ = last train 3♥ = decline 3NT = accept, good suit, choice of games 4♣ = accept, gives either player the chance to declare (4♦ over this = transfer) ------- 2♦ - 2NT: 3♣ = absolute worst --> 3♦ = asks short major; 3♥ / ♠ = pass or correct; 4♣ / ♦ = same as direct responses 3♦ / ♥ = medium hand with ♥ / ♠ respectively 3♠ = best possible with ♥ 3NT = best possible with ♠ 4m = 6♥ - 5m 4♥ = 6♠ - 5♣ 4♠ = 6♠ - 5♦ ------- 2♦ - 3♣: 3♦ = 6+♠, 2♥ (natural continuations) 3♥ = 6+♠, 0-1♥ 3♠ = 6=3=2=2 3NT = surprise! - we have same suit 4m = 6+♠ - 3+♥, shortness 2♦ - 3♦: 3♥ = 6+♥ 2♠ (natural continuations) 3♠ = 6+♥ 0-1♠ 3NT = surprise! - we have same suit 4m = 6+♥ 3+♠, shortness 4♥ = 3=6=2=2 I think this covers most of it

A few weeks ago I was at the ACBL regional in London, Ontario and, for the first time, came up against the following opening structure which has been discussed significantly on this site. 1♣ - strong, artificial (something like 15+) 1♦ - 11-14 a) 4♠, may have longer side suit; b) 6+♠ 5+♥ 1♥ - 11-14 4+♥, denies 4♠, may have longer side suit 1♠ - 11-14, exactly 5♠ 1NT - 11-14, balanced (I assume could have a 4-card major) 2♣ - 11-14, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4♦ 2♦ - 11-14, 6+♦ or 5+♦ 4♣ 2NT - 11-14, 5+/5+ minors When we first sat down, I was told 1♦ was "catchall" but upon further inquiry it was determined that it promised 4♠. This was the first time I had seen it in action, but I was unsure of it's legality as it seemed like a transfer opening. So, when I was at the DC nationals, I asked Gary Zeiger and Mike Roberts, both national level tournament directors, and they both said it was legal. Zeiger said this pair clearly had an issue with disclosure, but other than that it was 100% legal. I hope this settles any outstanding doubt about its legality. Edit: with regards to legality, it is for the purposes of the ACBL general convention chart

With regards to re-bidding a potentially 3-card major, I have a few questions: a) how does one differentiate between a weak NT type hand and possibly 11-17/18 with 5+C 4+M? b) Since the 1NT re-bid would now be free, what are some potential uses for it? I was thinking something like: --- i) minimum C re-bid (maybe 5C-4D) or --- ii) some GF This would allow 1C - 1D // 2D+ to be natural and 18-21ish and 2NT/3C could show 18-21 with 6+C with 2NT being more NT oriented I don't think we would want to include 20-21 BAL in 1C because we like playing 1x - 1M // 2NT as jacoby style (full value 3M bid or better) and a direct raise to 3M as like a 2.5 bid. With Marius Agica, we also played a precision style 2C opener as you mentioned showing 11-14 with 6+C or 5+C 4+R (not 4S and not 2=2=4=5 which was treated as balanced) 2D was our strong opener. It was nice having 1C - 1X // 2C as 15-17ish natural and 3C as natural GF. We did this for the reason you stated.

Thank You David. We are considering the change not just for the case where responder has diamonds and opener has clubs. It would also have the added benefit of tidying game-forcing sequences where opener is unbalanced with a primary minor (either one). However, these are very rare, and the probability of the disaster combination of opener clubs and responder diamonds will make it even more rare - or the added complexity of changing our 1♣ opener may very well negate any potential advantages. I agree that 2♦ - 2♥ showing 5+♠ looks/feels wrong; however, we use it this way so that we can use the same transfer/transfer scheme that occurs after 1NT-2♥ or 2♣-2♥ with only a few minor tweaks for NT siding purposes. I think it may be best to play 2♥ showing 4+♠, potentially canapé with a minor is best (à la scanian), but our methods haven't advanced to that yet and the initial responses are set up over either 2m opener so as to preempt opener's strong options as little as possible unless there will be a guaranteed fit with the exception of opener's ♣ opposite responder's ♦. Our initial responses to 2m look like: Over 2♣: 2♦ --- waiting or 5+H 2♥ --- 5+S 2♠ --- minors, can be weak 2N/3♣ --- 6+C/D, can be weak 3♦ --- 5+/5+ majors, GF 3M --- currently undefined Over 2♦: 2♥ --- 5+♠ 2♠ --- waiting or 5+♥ (over 2NT, 3♣=stayman, 3♦=transfer, 3M=4M-short OM) 2N/3♣ --- 6+C/D, can be weak 3♦ --- 5+/5+ minors, GF 3♥ --- 3=1=(5/4) 3♠ --- 1=3=(5/4) Your suggestion of changing the 2♥ response to 2♦ looks good but we would impact the structure we have set up. Do you think there's some way of putting diamonds into the 2♠ response and using a 3♣ response for something else? Maybe 3♦ (after 2♠-2NT) could be like a transfer/stayman promising 4+♥? Would have to work out the details on that. Do you think I'm investing too much time/energy in trying to solve a problem that will be extremely rare? I do that not infrequently as I seem to always be trying to find the 'ideal' solution.

2D opening is either: a) 20-21 balanced (I.e. Standard 2NT opener) or b)game forcing with a primary minor. What I'm trying to do is move the game forcing hands with primary clubs out of the 2D opener and into the 1C opener

Hi all, I apologise in advance for the length of this post. It's been a while since I've posted on here; however, I've been a frequent reader and the recent post regarding TWalsh/Switch over a 1♣ opener which is very similar to one I play with a partner piqued my interests. Our current opening bids which are relevant to this post are as follows: 1♣ - a) 11+-14 Balanced (may have 5♦, but not 5 Major) or b) 11 - <GF, natural 1NT - 14+-17 Balanced - may have 5M 2♣ - a) 18-19 or 24/25+ Balanced (may have 5 Major) or b) Game Force, Primary (5+) major, unbalanced 2♦ - a) 20-21 Balanced (may have 5 Major) or b) Game Force, Primary (5+) minor, unbalanced 2NT - 22-23/24 balanced, may have 5 Major This structure has been working well for us except for the combination of: a) opening 2♦ bid when strong with clubs coupled with b) a 3♣ response showing 6+♦, may be weak --For reference below, 2M responses to 2♦ are: --2♥ = 5+♠, any strength ---> 2♠=20-21 BAL -2NT=?? -3♣=natural strong, may have side ♦ or ♥ -3♦=natural strong, may have side ♣ -3♥=strong with 5+♦ 4+♥ -3♠=20-21 BAL, super accept -3NT+ = strong, unbal hands with ♠ fit --2♠ = waiting or 5+♥ For example, an auction such as 2♦ - 3♣ // 3NT is unclear as to whether opener is strong with clubs or has a super accept of diamonds (i.e. Kxx AQx AKxx Axx). Also, 2♦ - 2M // 3♣ showing strong with ♣, may have a second suit isn't great. Based on this, we want to shift our openers a little bit around and have: 1♣ - as above, but may be unlimited with primary clubs (therefore forcing) 2♦ - as above, but strong unbalanced option is just with primary diamonds This should make bidding strong hands with primary minors easier - i.e. 2♦ - 2M // 3♣ would now show 5+♦ 4+♣, etc. However, we're unsure of how to adjust responses to our 1♣ opener. We are in ACBL-land - and worse, our district does not allow mid-chart at any level (except district GNT finals) preventing our use of transfer responses. So, I'm wondering if we should go: a) polish style; b) reduce minimum HCP responses to 0 or c) something else (other than move to somewhere more civlised). If we go the polish route, what should opener's re-bids over a 1♦ response be? Should 1M possibly be 3 cards in a weak NT? If so, what should opener's 1NT and 2NT re-bids be? If we go option b), how does responder show a super-weak (0-5ish) hand with 5+♣ - preferably without modifying our current response structure too much, which looks like: 1♦ - 4(3)+♦, no 4M unless GF (only 3 if 3=3=3=4) 1M - 4+M, F1, may have longer ♦ if <GF 1NT - 10-12 BAL, may have one or both 4-card majors 2♣ - 5+-9 HCP, 5+♣ 2♦ - GF 5+♣ (one-suiter without shortness or any side 4+ card suit, clubs are primary) 2♥ - 5♠ 4-5♥, 5-9 HCP 2♠ - a) INV ♣ raise or b) any splinter raise, 6+♣ 1-suiter 2NT - both minors: a) weak or b) 5+/5+ game force 3♣ - mixed raise 3♦/M - Natural, weakish - typically 7+ suit, 4-7ish HCP I welcome ideas and opinions - not just on the responses to 1♣ but on the limited overview of the system as presented. Thank You Owen Lien

Hi all. I apologize in advance if this should be in the natural bidding forum. I am trying to develop sensible continuations after 1♠ - 2♥. Our 1♠ opener denies 5(332) shape and the range is 11-21 and the 2♥ response is natural and game forcing. I would like to differentiate between min and extra value heart raises as well as between strength when opener has a secondary minor (i.e. if natural, I would like 1♠ - 2♥ // 3m to show extra values). The structure that I have come up with so far looks something like this: 1♠ - 2♥: 2♠ = 6+♠ or minimum 5+♠ 4+♣ 2NT = 5+♠ 4+♦ any strength 3♣ = 5+♠ 4+♣ extras 3♦ = minimum hand, 3+♥ with shortness 3♥ = 3+♥, no shortness (then serious 3NT applies, etc.) 3♠ = solid suit 3NT = extra values, exactly 3♥, some shortness 4m = extra values, 4+♥, shortness After 1♠ - 2♥ // 2♠: 2NT = waiting, <4♣ 3♣ = 4+♣ else = Natural After 1♠ - 2♥ // 2♠ - 2NT: 3♣ = 6+♠ (then 3♦ = waiting with natural continuations) 3♦ = 5+♠ 5+♣ 3♥ = Hx in ♥, 5♠ - 4♣ 3♠ = 6+♠ 4♣ 3NT = 5♠ 4♣, natural After 1♠ - 2♥ // 2♠ - 3♣: 3♦ = 5+♠ 4+♣ Else = 6+♠ After 1♠ - 2♥ // 2NT: 3♣ = waiting, natural continuations Else = Natural After 1♠ - 2♥ // 3♦: 3♥ = relay 3♠ = double fit 1♠ - 2♥ // 3♦ - 3♥ (relay): 3♠ = 3♥ only (3NT asks LH splinter) 3NT = ♣ splinter 4♣+ = ♦ splinter, and cuebidding Input would be much appreciated. Thank You Owen

The simplest suggestion I've heard of that mostly uses systems on is that a transfer to their major shows 5+ of the other major and exactly invitational. I believe this is what Kit Woolsey plays and/or suggests. I don't know what is best, but it makes sense to me.