Flameous

Bidding has many conflicting goals. First we can split it to constructive bidding and destructive bidding. Here I mean most one level openings to be constructive and all pre-empts destructive although that's a bit too black and white. For some little extra goals we have lead directing bids and such, but I don't consider them now. Then we have couple of goals in constructive bidding that conflict. One is to conserve room to exchange more information with partner, other is to bid to the right spot asap to tell opps the least information. Now I'd say that best bidding system is the one that optimizes the harmony of these two goals, but I doubt there's any easy/good way to measure it. For some systematic things I happen to like very much and seems to follow the harmonizing idea: Relay (precision) with some transfer scheme, meaning that when opponents don't go around making our life ridiculously difficult, we can make most of the bidding room and give one sided information so that opponents know the dummy even before it hits the table but have little idea what declarer holds. The principle of fast arrival. Having many forcing sequences, often initiated by one bid (GF relay/puppet) because having more forcing sequences gives you more bidding space to exchange information, on the other hand having them go through minimum number of bids means that you can more often bid things to play. (For example XYZ/NT) Then there is probably the most important factor that is even harder to measure. How well does your system handle opposing pre-emption, mainly meaning that how informative your opening bids are. Usually making more informative opening bids means you are not making optimal use of the bidding room, on the other hand if you were going to get pre-empted, it's better to give more accurate description of your hand with the one bid you get. Some smarter people have written about one bid and two bid hands which reflects this situation pretty well. /wall of text ends/

I play 10-13NT, 1♣ being 14-19 bal or nat (without diamonds). I accept the transfer with all balanced 14-16 and any unbalanced hand with 3M and less than GF. This means that acceptance is pretty much forcing but I think it should be or you are wasting a lot of good sequences. I also start GF major hands with transfer to hearts and use 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ as natural or (any) GF. Really cheap and good GF sequence that comes up quite often. So I wouldn't pick either one of those but sort of a mix :unsure: Of course this route requires more agreements on continuations.

I'm quite interested if you manage a good sim of the number 1. Initially I'd say no blame, tight double and 2♠ seems like the norm. 2nd: Only other bid I can think of is 4NT as 3 suited T/O which I think some play. No thx. 3rd: I guess this was pretty much handled already. For Michael's, I prefer two alternative styles. Either constructive+ (You don't want to be showing exact shape with weak hands for declarer to play the hand correctly) or really destructive/strong. Destructive means often (54) shape and very few values. Partner isn't supposed to pre-empt much. This style doesn't help declarer nearly as much so it's actually quite playable. Of course not Vul. 4th: I say bad luck even though I probably wouldn't have done the same myself. I like to open 65 hands 2M and bid 4 if partner raises. I guess you could take the same approach with this but if partner puts you to 4S with Hx and plenty of red values, I don't think you are feeling good at all. Of course if your style is to often pre-empt 5 card suits, this is automatic but then you wouldn't be asking.

Over 14-19 bal or nat clubs I'm playing just outright transfer lebensohl with X for T/O. So: 2M = Nat, NF but constructive 2NT = Transfer to C, inv+ in C or competitive in a lower suit than opps' 3x = inv+ transfers 3NT = To play Transfer to opponent's suit is asking for stopper/4 card majors (Technically you could just double with all these) Over 2♠ I use a little twist that direct 3♥ is competitive to get long hearts to the action. I used the same after 15+ club but with very limited experience. I feel quite strongly that 2M NF is good thing. After assuming that, the rest of it seems quite optimized for handling the hand types.

I think you (and others who dislike weak minor opening) are missing the point, that it gives you one more offensive hand type you can describe with one bid. It's not a big winner when it goes 2NT (X or P) 3m (X or whatever), the real wins come when your partner is able to pre-empt further. (Same goes for all weak openings, you are essentially exchanging room opps can use during bidding to information they can use during declaring) If I had to consider in isolation whether to open (relatively high) weak minor suit hands or pass them, I wouldn't give it a seconds thought. The point is that there are many other considerations. (What am I going to do with those 20-21 balanced hands for example) For hand types 2 and 3, (I actually split ranges more like 10-14 and 15-17 but that's irrelevant) I follow your plan, though my 1♦ structure is far from natural and I doubt many can use their 3♣ rebid as limited like that. You didn't mention at all how you handle the stronger minor suit hands which natural methods bid 1D+3C and strong clubbers open 1♣. You rebid 4♣ with them or something? Your hand types 4, 5 and 6 are so rare that having specific ways to show them is quite useless. (That mentioned, I actually have them. Not that they'd ever come up) Especially type 6 is often good for specific ace ask opening. There are plenty of different NT structures, others handle minor suit hands better and others worse. I'd guess all structures strongly favor majors over minors so with minors you are always guessing a bit (more). For xx45, for ages I opened 1♣ and rebid 1NT. It is actually the beginner standard here, raising partner shows 4 cards, rebidding clubs shows 6 and you can't bid diamonds without reverse values so 1NT works as a catch all. I don't have any problems with that style, it actually shocked me when people rebid their 5 card major suits over 1NT. Now I play unbalanced ♦ and can show my relative suit lengths accurately over 1♥. Many open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ as that's what they'd do with some 1444 hands too. I'm not really fond of that style but to each his own. I don't know if this helped you a bit as I play very nonstandard methods but apparently since you asked, you too have come to the conclusion that standard methods suck :P

I'd finally like to pick up Smith echo for real and I'm somewhat in a hurry for adopting it, so I'd like to hear some basic rules when and how it applies. (If I had more time I'd go and try to figure it all out for myself :D ) I know the basic: signal given by both players in a first suit declarer plays in regards whether they liked or disliked the lead. I'd like to get some more deep stuff, ie. suit combinations where you liked or didn't like the lead. (Which aren't obvious like Qxxx vs. KQxx) Is there point playing it both in NT and suit contracts? (Especially if you don't otherwise signal in trumps) How it affects our other signaling? (I've heard many echoers show count when dummy wins the lead and show attitude later) And other things I don't know and should... (Only regarding Smith Echo please... :P )

Please explain. We continue ♥, declarer wins K, plays a diamond, we either fly the ace or declarer finesses the 10, enters hand with club ruff to discard two hearts. (We can't actually get partner on the lead so he might even play spades at this point)

Partner holding J won't help if he doesn't hold outside entry. Compared to we holding x or J and partner holding the Q. But as I mentioned, holding Q does increase our squeeze chances a bit.

Funny that ♥Q makes our hand worse. (Partner can't hold that card and we need ♦J in addition to ♥J for finesse) Only sensible opening to me is 4NT, sometimes I hit the jackpot and partner has two aces. Most of the time I won't get the ♥A and try 6. When partner holds the ♥A, it's really close between 6 and 7. I'm tempted to think that holding ♥Q and ♣T might give us enough extra squeeze chances for 7 to be good bet but that is assuming defense never leads ♥ against this sequence. Thinking of it, the heart lead seems clearly best so... One last note, even if I had some other methods for bidding the hand (strong club and relays for everything) I wouldn't do that and hope opps won't interfere. I'm really afraid of giving them any bids below 5 lvl to point towards a really good sacrifice.

In unbalanced ♦ context and transfer rebids by opener, I raise with all but 0355 but then again I have differentiated 3 and 4 card raises. With 6+♦ I have the choice of not showing support but usually do. I tend to rebid diamonds only with really minimum hands and good spots or 7+ suits obviously. I'm not too happy doing it with 4351/4360 shapes, but it makes the complete structure work quite nicely. Playing natural methods, I'd always bid spades there. (And probably agree that later heart bid doesn't show extra strength as it usually does)

straube certainly mentioned the most important point. Point of pre-empts isn't just to expect finding a fit but having some actual playing strength. This actually makes me wonder where is the line that penalty(ish) doubles start to gain more to T/Os. I think it might well be the case with "flat" pre-empts. There is one good flat pre-empt and that is 1NT ;)

To me it seems GF with 5+♠. I wouldn't double for T/O with 5♠ and bidding 4 card suit here when partner could just hold 2 is absurd. I could agree 2♦ bid to be natural competitive as (43)51 shape tends to double but would assume it too to be strong without discussion.

I couldn't do it without relays. It's one thing to upgrade from 14 to 15 but upgrading to 16 is something I wouldn't really ever do. Not to mention that south hand is actually pretty crappy for quantitative with his 4333 shape. I think I wouldn't even bid a quant opposite 14-16NT with that. To show how it can "easily" be done with relays: 1♣ - 1♦ (Nat or 14-19 bal/ Transfer walsh) 1♥ - 1♠ (14-16 bal or 3♥ / Nat or GF relay) 1NT - 2♣ (14-16 bal without 4♠ / relay) 2♦ - 2♥ (5♣ / relay for rel points, not interested about doubleton) 2♠ - 2NT (8 AKQ pts / relay) 3♦ - 3♥ (0/2 Kings and 0/2 of top 3 in clubs /relay) 4♣ - 4♦ (1/3 in hearts and spades, 0/2 in ♦ / relay) 4NT - 6NT (♣J and ♥J / just what I needed) Just a note that if north's other J was in spades, I'd end up in 5NT, nice to have those T9 of clubs so there's no risks :rolleyes:

I have been using 1♥ as nat or GF relay and have yet to see any problems with that. We bid it with about 15+ bal, GF clubs and other hands that aren't likely to give problems if opps interfere. (All heart hands obviously) Mainly you should avoid relay with a heart shortness cause it's likely partner will raise you. It gives you two extra steps (not exactly cause you can't always use 1st step as relay later) and your NT bid. I'd prefer keeping some way to show distributional GF hands.

I don't know, am I missing something or do you have a mistake in the diagram. If you make the correct choice in clubs, you are making 5♥ and it's not a sacrifice at all. If it's IMPs your expected score is easily highest with taking percentage play in clubs and finessing. At MP, if you are making the wrong choice, you are losing to all who get to play 4♥ and to those who take other line in 5♥. I don't see here how it makes a difference whether 4♠ makes or not, your only chance to break even with those in 4♥ is to take the best chance in clubs meaning finessing. If we adjusted the hand so that your spades were 2-2 and clubs 3-6 for example, ie. your 5♥ is always -1, then I can see reason to take a finesse you wouldn't otherwise take because you need opps suit to be 3-1. You wouldn't try for the situation where 4♠ and 5♥ are both down. I don't think the situation could be such you would refuse finesse indicated by restricted choice, on the contrary there may be an additional reason for the finesse.

I'm fairly certain partner holds at most three black cards, whether he is 64 or 55 doesn't really matter. So seven seems to depend just on whether partner holds ♣K. I'm bidding 5♠ and hope partner can do something helpful. Of course we also have laydown 7 opposite solid hearts, I hope with those partner finds 6♥ call.

Without any more specific agreements, doubles of artificial calls are penalty. That should be enough. Sure there are many places for double where some other use might be better, but there are much more important things to consider for B/I partnership. Some stuff that needs to be agreed upon though is whether you play support doubles and mainly if not, what does the double mean in those places. (We just had a thread about this) Lightner double is a rare tool and you shouldn't really worry about it too much. It comes logical once you realize that doubling freely bid slams is stupid and thus the double works as a wakeup call. Some doubles B/I can definitely live without: Snapdragon, stolen bid, relay answer doubles (DOPI/DEPO included, although it's simple, the frequency for need is minimal), maximal (overcall) doubles, lightner doubles of 3NT contract. There is probably more which I haven't played :P

Agree with Bills (second) analysis. Only other situation we could/should worry about is declarer with AQJxx Jxx Qxx Ax Here declarer is of course cold by playing diamonds from the top but if we had the way to suggest finessing... I don't really see anything cunning enough here to convince declarer though, besides it wouldn't be B/I problem :rolleyes:

Agree with straube. I play essentially the same, (10-13NT, so 14+♣ if bal) and this one of the sequences that I have really tried to figure out. First note is that you can, and maybe should (I do), include competitive hands with long red suits in 2NT bid, at least for hearts. You want to be able to bid hand like xx KQxxxxx xxx x, opposite strong NT you won't mind taking your chances in 4♥ but when partner holds some nonfitting unbalanced hand, 3♥ is the limit, or even too much. I actually advocate a switch, with direct 3♥ for such competitive hand and 2NT+ cue for stopper ask. (So doesn't have club support) Other thing I've given a lot of thought is playing 2NT competitive/GF instead of inv+. That is still mainly thought it progress, but if you happen to test the other one, I might pick the other method to give it a test run.

Having first taken this idea up in the table, I guess I should expand a bit on my thoughts. Even though I haven't agreed this to be GB2NT with anyone, I think I actually should but that is because I play negative freebids in all my partnerships. This leads me to double with all hands with 4♥ here even though GF and even with longer diamonds. Under these assumptions GB2NT is much more useful. 2NT = Competitive raise in clubs or Competitive with 4♥ and 5+♦ (Or some undefined GF hand that bids 3♥ or higher next) 3C = Distributional inv with clubs (Balancedish hands just double) 3D = Nat, GF 3H = Nat (5♥), GF 3S = GF with club support (Could actually reassign some sequences to also fit inv hands with ♦s here) Of course I'm losing natural 2NT as do those playing scramble here. But I think this is one of the sequences where I don't even feel too bad doubling with all those hands. Without NFBs, you don't need to show GFs with diamonds so only separation you might want to make would be between competitive and invitational. I'm not sure if it's worth it since with most inv hands you can just double quite happily.

2M bids NF but constructive. Could be weaker with support for partners suit. To force must bid on the 3 lvl. Standard is that all new suits are forcing.

Assuming you don't dedicate any of the three lvl bids for weak or slammish minor hands: (I still play 3m as invitational, I think most don't) You have 2♠ and 2NT bids to handle whole lot of minor suit hands and in addition natural invite. (Although you can survive without it if you so choose) I think there are two ok methods, which both have been mentioned. Other being 2♠ a range ask, including SO with long minor or SI with long minor. 2NT then is both minors, weak or slammish. (This is a bit simpler but gives opps a chance to double 2♠ n all your inv auctions) Other which I tend to play is 2NT natural and 2♠ as minor suit stayman, which I can bid with all minor oriented hands. (But I wouldn't cramp slam invitational (54) minor hands here, that's too much) Mainly my point is that using 2♠ simply as transfer to clubs, even perhaps including single suited slam invites, you can't bid it with 55 minor hands, which you could easily do if just playing MSS. Space for slam hands is awfully tight after MSS, so if someone has a good structure for continuations, I'd like a look. My current version: http://toohighagain.blogspot.com/2011/05/mss-continuations.html I guess playing "real MSS" where 3m is 4 cards and 2NT none would be much better for slam exploration and could handle more hand types easily. I actually never really realized that all you have to give up is weak club hands. Though which bid to dedicate for them then...

I'd open 1♦ but that's not in a really natural set up. (Unbal ♦, 1♣ doesn't hold 4♦ unless bal) I'd bid it 1♦ - 1♠ 1NT - 3♣ (Transfer, nat inv) 4♦ - 4NT (Kickback) 7♣ After 3♣ I'd count partner to have 5th ♣ or something else useful to provide the 13th trick. Practically only bad hand that is worth an invite is AQJx xxx xx Axxx, I'll gladly take my chances.

I don't think it's that straight forward. We might not hold GF opposite some unbalanced minimum opening. (Ie. many hands with 6♦) But balanced hands we open might be sound enough, always 12 or so that we want to GF now. That said, I'd invite but with better spots I would start with 1♠ but bid 3NT now.

Indeed Ken, as Ben aready mentioned, what you are referring is usually known as minor suit stayman. Cool resemblance to your story though :D For what it's worth, I tought this "3-suit" transfer method for beginners. It's at the very least simple enough, even though not very good. Anyone who has any idea of how NT structure works shouldn't use it.