fromageGB

Better than nothing, but it's only playing catchup. By the time we get there, the world will have moved on. What we need to do is to get the EBU to change its regulations and teach in the schools something like: Pass = 0-5 or 16+ with a relay structure For the 6-15 hands : 1♣ = balanced 1♦/♥ = 5 card major (we don't mind borrowing this idea from the French, most of the best things in life are French) 1♠ = a minor Of course second seat is playing the same methods, so the relays need to take into account the likely weak second seat bids, and when it starts pass pass the 4th seat relays need to be adapted to those made by third seat. When beginners come to the clubs playing like this, then perhaps we will have caught up.

From what I read of Bart, it doesn't apply to this hand because opener does not have a natural (3+) club suit. But why is Gazzilli or a roll-your-own not suitable for intermediates, let alone advanced players! The whole concept of "I/A" means you are looking to improve and extend your game. You look to do better in areas where you have found your basic methods lacking. This seems to me, a "non-native" coming belatedly to 2/1, to be a big glaring hole in the method. It needs to be fixed. A 17 count bidding 2♠ just like an 11 count is going to miss many games. I think a 12-16 rebid is foolish. An 11-17 is unplayable.

As played here, it seems that the opener suit rebids at the 2-level are 12-14, and higher bids are 15/16. Natural apart from 2♦ (delayed support = 3 cards) and strength showing : just as you said. 2♦ means 12-14 without the ability to bid a major. However, according to Bridgeguys, Crowhurst has 2♦ as max 13, and may have 3 card major support. Also, 2♥ new suit could be 16. Which is the real Crowhurst, I don't know. Maybe Bridgeguys has it wrong. Was Crowhurst the one who popularised the silly concept of a 12-16 1NT rebid? Maybe he liked going off in 2NT on a combined 21 count misfit.

I think this is a clear case of why any I/A needs to have an unspecified strong 2♣ opener rebid when it starts 1M 1NT. Whether 1NT is forcing or not. Not knowing of Bart, we just decided on a Gazzilli-like approach with 2♣ being 15+ almost any hand, unless genuine clubs. We play it as absolutely forcing, as I think it needs to be if it could be a 20 count. Just work through what you think logical from first principles. We play that a 2♦ reply is any 8+ hand, and a weaker hand makes any other bid, but you could reverse this. You could make your minimum strengths for the 2♣ and a "positive" response such that the combination is game forcing (unless opener rebids 3♣ with genuine clubs), or a positive 2♦ could be merely forcing to say 2M if the combination could be weaker. If the latter, opener can rebid a "waiting 2NT GF" with a stronger GF hand (eg 17 opposite 8 when he only needed 15 for the 2♣ bid) to allow responder to start bidding his shape. With a GF hand that is suitable for playing only in his own suits he makes a natural 3-level rebid. Any way you cut it, you end in 4♥ on these hands. I don't see how 2/1 is playable unless you have a strong artificial opener rebid. And if you are going to have one, 2♣ as the bid allows you to get out in low-level contracts when responder is dead minimum. The other advantage is that jump rebids by opener (not bidding the artificial bid) can have tightly defined meanings which are therefore excluded from continuations after the artificial bid, which aids descriptive clarity.

Around here in NE England I think Acol and Benji are the most common by a long way, with 12-14 usual but that varies between 10-16 (usually a 3 or 4 point range). I don't think there is any aspect of "Acol" that you can rely on, other than 1♦ will be a minimum 4 card suit and 2/1 is not GF. Certainly 5 card spades, or 5 card both majors, are fairly common, and while clubs is usually 4 I wouldn't bank on it. As for Benji, it means no more than Acol with weak 2s in the majors and artificial strong 2 minors. But that doesn't matter, it is sufficient description, if you want a description. I don't think you do, other than as a possible warning of unusual bids. XYZ is almost unheard of, NMF not common, and checkback is used but called "crowhurst", even though not as Crowhurst intended. A few play a strong club, reducing in numbers I feel, faster than the reduction in club membership numbers. More are playing 2/1 now, but it is not common. As for what 2/1 means, I think it is scarcely better defined than Acol. I give my methods the label "2/1", but my 2-level responses to 1♣ are not GF, and 2♣ is the only GF over 1♦. I seem to be the only one in the area playing transfer responses to 1♣ (trying hard to remedy that), but I have come across the (unnamed) montreal relay. For the 2/1ers, 1NT forcing seems more common than not forcing. The 2-level opening bids are all over the place. I don't think it matters what description you may apply to a bidding method/system. It used to matter more before the days of announcements and alerts, and I think they should be extended. I have to alert a 1♦ (eg) response, but rather than go through the motions of getting a question and giving an explanation, why can't I just announce? It's not as if I am giving partners UI, as I think they know that bid! And if they had forgotten, somehow, an alert will tell them just as much.

If 2♦ is the system reply, then 3NT is the only bid. But that would be 5 card diamonds for us, so I start 2♣(may not be club suit) intending to rebid 2NT(13+). Partner makes the relay 2♦ as he does not have a strong 5-5, so I do bid 2NT. Then 3♣ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ seems ordained, and partner won't stop there. If in your methods you have to bid 2♦ then your partner must surely bid 4NT over your 3NT.

I thought this was a pretty standard top end value for those not playing a Gazzilli type artificial rebid. How strong do you need to be to jump to 3♥? Any weaker than 17/18 and it makes contracts very flaky opposite a minimum non-fitting partner - like this one without the Ace of clubs.

If partner had available a bid to show strength, such as 2♣ with almost any 15+hcp, then pass. If partner's 2♥ could be a 17 count, then 2NT. Such imprecise methods need flexibility.

If your partner wants to play normal Bergen bids of 3♣/♦ then it depends on how strong the 3rd/4th seat open is. If it can be a couple of points lighter than normal then I certainly don't agree, as you are too high when he is light. But if your opening 1M is full strength in all seats, then certainly keep Bergen. I have played that quite happily. What we did was extend the weak 2 open so that it could be a 5 card suit (different responses) and when we open 1M it is full strength. Any lighter and you have a 2M open. No reason then not to play Bergen if that is your normal method. Alternatively, perhaps he means a possibly light open with the meanings of the Bergen 3m bids moved down to the 2m bids. This would be better, as you don't need 2/1 GF (if that is your system), but it leaves a problem for the invitational 3 card support unless you play a forcing 1NT here. With possibly light opens my preference was for a simple non-forcing 1NT, 2♣ = 8hcp+ 4 card support or 11 with no support (can rebid 2NT if opener shows full strength), 2♦ = 10+ 3 card support, 2M = any weaker support. But I prefer a full blooded 1M and 5/6 card weak 2s. If you want the third seat to have pre-emptive value, then 2M is better than 1M.

Incidentally, if you moved the ladder down a point the 3NT rebid would be 27/28, and then you may wonder with a possible 32 count that 2 aces were missing. Use 4♣ Gerber to find out, then if OK bid 6NT.

Yes, if you play the 2NT rebid as unlimited. However, as Cyberyeti has implied, it is more normal to have a restricted strength range. When opener has these huge hands, responder normally has next to nothing, so I am in favour of opener's rebid showing just a 2-point range. This makes it simpler for responder to decide whether to bid game. When I played Benji many years ago, I also used 2♣ followed by a rebid of NT as a different range to starting with 2♦. From your statement that it is 25+, I assume you also do. My assumption is that you play 2NT = 20/21 (maybe 19-21) 2♣ then 2NT = 22-24 2♦ then 2NT = 25+ You could think about changing this to 2-point ranges and include rebidding in a greater number of NT. For example if you open 2NT on 20, it could be 2NT = 20/21 2♣ then 2NT = 22/23 2♦ then 2NT = 24/25 2♣ then 3NT = 26/27 2♦ then 3NT = 28/29 2♣ then 4NT = 30/31 2♦ then 4NT = 32/33 The top end bids never happen, of course, but you don't have to remember them because it is a simple 2-point ladder starting with 2NT that you work out when you need to. Calculators are probably out, but there is no rule against putting your hands under the table and using your fingers. With a 2-point range you wouldn't usually bother with invitational 4NT/5NT bids, but look at the quality of your hand to bid the best slam. Your bidding using this ladder would have been 2♣ 2♦ 3NT 6NT. If you open 2NT on 19, move the ladder down a point. You can still keep transfers on over a 3NT rebid.

While with a very poor hand I have transferred to a 4 card major in response to a weak NT, I never have done so since playing strong NT, and I don't think I ever would except as a rescue to a double. I am amused by the idea of a weak 2 open on a 4-card suit. Even if the card explicitly says "may be variable in third seat", or something similar, I would hope this was treated as a psyche. Or does the card say "may be 4-card"?

There are plenty of really good declarative hands that do not have the defensive strength I choose to assign to a 2♣ open. If I open 2♣ and in the course of the bidding the opposition make a high level bid, I like partner to be in a position to make a judgement as to the efficacy of a penalty double. If there are potentially much fewer than 20 then he is not in that position. You could substitute a "defensive tricks" number for the hcp number if you wish, but it amounts to much the same thing and hcp are easier. The magic number is a guide, but the principle is that if you need partner to have the values to respond to a 1-level open in order for you to expect to make game, then you can open at the 1-level. If you are going to miss a making game when he passes a 1-level open, then you need to open 2♣. That boundary is at about 20 hcp in general. Another factor is the information you can convey in the bidding; a 1-level bid gives more opportunity than a 2♣ bid. Sometimes this information is critical, as in this hand.

Think you missed post #5

I believe I have no serious problems bidding spades first, then hearts. How many hearts I bid depends on what opener rebids. If he bids 1NT(12-14) then 2♥ is 6-10 and 3♥ 11/12. (This hand 2♥) If he bids 2♣ (any 15+ or 11-14 5 clubs) I bid 2♥ with 6/7 or the 2♦ relay with 8+ and then .. ..over 2♥(weak 5-5) pass with a normal 8-10, raise to 3♥ with a normal 11/12 (with the given hand this is practically a 4♥ raise) ..over 2♠(15/16 3 card support) bid 3♥, or 4♥ with 10+ (this hand 4♥) ..over a 15/16 2NT+ bid again 3 or 4♥ (this hand 4♥) ..over a 17+ we are at least game in hearts If he bids 2♦(11-14 natural) then 2♥ is 6-10 and 3♥ 11/12. If he bids 2♥(6 card) then 3♥ or 4♥ on 11/12 If he bids n♠(4 card support) then we play in spades. Partner with no great strength and a 45xx shape will open 1♥ and pass 2♥. I would rather play in a 4-4 spade fit than a 5-3 heart fit. Bidding spades first with 4 loses nothing (other than the ability to use a 2♣ to play in 2♥ on a declined game invitation with 11/12) and it helps in allowing a spade rebid by opener to mean something special when you have denied a 4 card spade suit. 4+? I can't understand supporting hearts when you have 5 spades.

8 playing tricks? Is this a system where 2♣ is a strong open, but there is another bid which is stronger, maybe 2♦? It helps to mention the system framework when looking for help. If you specifically wanted to know about "defensive tricks" then that has been answered, but if it was intended as a more general question, then I would agree with CSGibson, that it is better to go by general hcp as the main criterion. If 2♣ is your strongest open, then 8 playing tricks is not sufficient (try 9 for a major and 10 for a minor) and about 20+ hcp. If there is a stronger opening, then of course you could go a trick fewer for 2♣.

My guideline for 2♣ is around a 20 count and no more than a trick less than game. This is low on points, but the aces almost make up for it. It sits near the cusp of 1♠ and 2♣, and I would not seriously argue against either of them. Too good for 4♠. I lean towards 1♠, and if responder can assume that Two4's self splinter is a 7 card suit (reasonable), then as this is obviously a GF opposite a weak non-fitting hand, and responder has a powerhouse in context, responder has to take over. 1♠ 1NT 4♦ 4NT(key card ask) 5♥(3 and the Q) 6♠ There is an ace missing, but surely opener must have more yet for his jump to 4♦, so I bid the slam as I have an beautifully fitting hand opposite that bid. If opener had 4 aces I would be looking for 7. You may have different ways of showing 3 key cards and the Q, but it's the same result. It just depends on opener having the judgement and faith in using the splinter, and responder recognising the implied strength and realising the power of his fitting hand.

I don't play a 2 over 1 this weak, and it seems the problem is that the system cannot cater for strong hands if the only strong bid is 15+. As it is, all you can do is 4NT and let partner choose to bid or not.

Interesting system, seems workable. Do you call it 1\2 ? :D

Not Drury, asking, but 2♣ telling, and after a 2♦ relay 2M = 11/12. That makes the 1M 2M more manageable.

I am now so confused I don't know which coast I live on any more.

I don't think it matters much what you preempt on, or refrain with, providing your partner is on your wavelength. Certainly I prefer undisciplined preempts, and have an agreement that the primary purpose is to disrupt. Partner knows not to lead the suit if it can damage his holding, and will not prefer my suit to a normal lead of his own, as he knows suit quality may be suspect. Playing sounder preempts helps with the lead and not missing better contracts, but you disrupt less often. It is a trade-off where the partnership should draw its own borders.

I much prefer 2M+1 as the game try after a normal raise, but I think the point is that a 2♠ bid with an 8 point range makes game tries unworkable. With this method you need a different set of continuations.

While this is certainly a decent hand with a void, I still don't believe it should be upgraded into a "strong" category, if your continuations are "normal or strong". If after 3♣ I can then show a void in hearts, and partner evidences no slam interest, then I am not unilaterally going beyond game. If he knows he has all the useful non-ace honours, then he can expect me to have the aces, or some of them. The version of J2N I use has 3♦ as a normal hand with void, followed by 3NT to show the heart void. Perhaps the OP does something similar with a 3♣ start. If partner bids 4♠ then why go on? He could have values in hearts, and 10 tricks could be the limit. While I have the aces, I don't have the tricks, and it is tricks that make the slam, not aces. Having tricks, you need aces to avoid two immediate losers, but tricks come first.

I am not saying it does. All I am saying is that the hand should be upgraded only to the same extent that partner will downgrade a hand without those aces. Let me as responder have Qxxx, KQxx, Jx, KQx. Do I bid 2NT or do I say that this is worth only a game invitation? If I choose 2NT, then I will get excited by an opener with extras, and the bidding is not likely to stop short of a pretty risky 5. Do I downgrade it to a mere game invitation? Bidding depends on both partners having styles that combine and complement. The worth of a deal is the sum of the two hands, and one should not be inflated without the other being correspondingly deflated. Looking at it another way, if you take the high card values of two hands and redistribute them with aces equal, then the number of tricks are the same as when all the aces are in the same hand.