fromageGB

It certainly is playable, but you may wait a lifetime for it to happen ! And on all the other hands you can regret the lost opportunities.

Yes, this is true, which is why most people I know use a 10+ or 11+ minimum strength for a 2 over 1, which means a 2NT rebid on a 12 count is acceptable, and a 14 count should rebid 3NT. They bid 1NT if they do not have the strength to bid at the 2 level. Playing 5 card majors you could play that rebidding the major does not guarantee a 6 card suit, but that loses out in definition. Just accept that acol is not designed to be a system that gets you to the best contracts, but is based on the normal British concept of "why do something the easy or logical way, when you can make life more awkward for yourself?".

Or maybe you can't. Partner (in normal acol use) can only use stayman if he is strong enough to invite a game. This means a weaker partner will miss the major fit. If you use stayman with weaker hands then you cannot invite a game if opener is top end. You would have to make a unilateral decision. Everyone I know that plays acol with weak NT opens the major and uses a wide range 1NT rebid with artificial 2♣ inquiry after it. See threads quoted above. You can do this playing either 4 or 5 card majors. Correction, some play 1NT rebid is 15+ but I don't know the details of how they handle the weaker hands. I think they normally just forget 4 card majors and open 1NT

I agree, there is perhaps no point in the 3-bids unless they mean something different to double, and different to "transfer to something" and then bid diamonds. The 2♠ bid is also redundant as it is covered by 2♥, and I prefer transferring to NT with the 2♠ bid, which has the advantage of making the overcaller on lead. If you are going to make use of the 3-bids then how about X = inititally weakish transfer to diamonds to play, but if followed by a major it shows a 4 card major and may be invitational or has a sensible escape to 3♦. It is less than a GF hand and the major rebid may be passed with a fit. 2♦ = transfer to hearts, 5 cards or more, either NFB or stronger if followed by a rebid, rebidding clubs is GF. 2♥ = transfer to spades, ditto 2♠ = transfer to NT, invitational or better 2NT = transfer to clubs, GF of some sort, a major rebid being 4 card 3♣ = asking opener to bid 3NT with a club stop 3♦ = preempt I used to play something like this when I played a natural 1♦ and it seemed OK. Of course you can have meanings attached to opener's transfer breaks. Including 4 card majors in the transfer to diamonds may seem unusual, and you may argue that opener will not know if you have a major if next opponent bids 3♣. But then, you don't need to know. You will not have better than a 4-4 fit, and you have more than half the points, so double is probably better than 3M. With 4 of a major and diamond support, you can rebid 3♦ over 3♣, and forget about a possible major. This does have the "downside" that you can't do this on a 7 count without diamonds, but then with any other method I would not be bidding a 4 card major at the 2 level if I had nowhere to go when partner had no fit. And vitally important in my view - you can play in 2♦ !

A cool structure? Partner will get pretty heated when he has to play at the 3 level in a mediocre diamond fit, over 2 clubs intervention. :D Not really "lawful", but not "awful" either.

Very much dependent on the nature of the 1♦. For me, that 1♦ is either (1) a single suiter in diamonds, (2) a minor 2 suiter, or (3) a 3 suiter with a shortage somewhere. So X shows "values", ie "we have more than half the pack", and opener is requested to (1) bid 2♦, (2) pass, (3) pass with a major shortage, or bid hearts with a club shortage. If I was playing a better minor 1♦ it would be values including an unspecified 4 card major. [edit] - sorry, values = "we have more than half the pack", not "enough for 2NT", as I wrote originally.

So why not use the 2♦ and 2♥ responses to the checkback as both weak? (Assuming 5 card majors, natural spade response, 1NT rebid = 12-16 denying 6 hearts) 2♦ = 12/13 without 3 spades 2♥ = 12/13 with 3 spades 2♠ = 14/15 with 3 spades 2NT = 14/15 without 3 spades 3 any = 16 and a 3 card fragment

I remember years ago when I would class myself a B/I I really ejoyed learning new ways of doing things, got a kick out of trying them out with a regular partner, and had a lot of fun. It is by discussing and trying different approaches that you get a better feel of the game - and you are better placed when you come across those ideas played by others. As an example, I remember with my partner we learned and played a multi 2♦ simply because we didn't know what to do when we came across it. Having tried it for years, we have now abandoned it and moved on to other things. Any keen B/I should be encouraged to do learn and develop new ideas (in regular partnership), though perhaps more I than B, of course.

This is normal. When the bidding goes 1♥ 1♠ 1NT, opener is not denying having 3 spades, he is just saying he does not have 6 hearts, he does not have a 4+ second suit, and that he is balanced with a hcp count of 12-16. 2♣ checkback inquires about the strength, but also about possible spade support. The normal replies would be 12-14, 3 spades = 2♠ 12-14, <3 spades = 2NT 15/16, 3 spades = 3♠ 15/16, <3 spades = 3NT This is playing 5 card majors (many acol players do). If you were playing 4 card majors, add to the above the rebids of 2 and 3♥ if opener has 5.

Dear Hog, I think you are missing the point. The 1NT rebid is ostensibly 12-16. There is no implication at all that it is 12-14. Different methods to your usual, of course.

VM - No, not exactly. Both the hands you give are outside the range I would use for 1♥ 1♠ 1NT. The first is almost subminimum for a 1♥ open, and we like to have 12 hcp. On this, I would stretch it, but if playing 8/9-11 5 card 2♥ open (as I used to), I would prefer that. However when it is a choice between a 6-10 weak 2♥ which can be 5 card, or a 1♥, I think 1♥ is more descriptive. BUT , the 1NT rebid is 12-16 and I would not rebid 1NT on this hand. 2♠ would be my preference rebid after a natural 1♠ (though personally I play KI inversion). The second is too good for 1NT, and I would bid 2♣ gazzilli, or if not playing that, 2NT natural (17-18) as most round here would. 12-16 is a common NT rebid range here, and we split the range into 12-14 and 15/16 after the subsequent 2♣ checkback. This is easily handled, as a hand that wanted to invite if opener had 14 or a good 13 would not bid 2♣ but a natural 2NT. Opener would pass this if minimum, but if going to game would bid 3♠ with 3 of them. Really this treatment is just normal acol with 5 card majors, as anyone would play. The strength of the 1NT open is not relevant if you open a major. I play 2/1 in the same way. So, to continue to your last question, there is never a need for a 1♥-1♠ 1NT-4NT quantitive invitation. A hand that wanted to do that would bid (as Semeai says) 2♣, and over the 3 point range reply make a slam suggestion. The 1♥-1♠ 1NT-4NT sequnce can't exist in a partnership that would not bid 1♠ with very strong hands, but in a scratch partnership I would take it as ace asking in spades.

Of course I would rebid 1NT, and with a 9+ count my partner would bid 2♣ inquiry. With this hand, the reply is a GF 3♠. No problem. Have a wide-ranging 1NT rebid - why restrict to 12-14? Edit: I can see why you would restrict to 12-14 if a 1NT open included all shapes of 15-17, but if it doesn't, for example if it does not usually include a 5 card major, then I see no reason for a restriction. (By the way, "9+" in this context of this checkback means 9 with some useful shape, but 10 in a flat hand.)

I suppose it is more of a problem if you play a non-forcing NT. With a forcing NT, and a 2♣ rebid definition that is "4+ clubs or balanced", with 2♦ then available to discover which, the problem of opening a major disappears. And if a reply of 2♥ over 1♠ is a GF you have no problem of course. Naturally one of the costs of a forcing NT is that you cannot play in 1NT, or 2♦ if you have this continuation, but it is remarkable how small a downside this is. I hadn't thought about this before, but maybe the argument as to whether a hand should open 1NT or 1M is strongly influenced by whether you play a forcing NT.

As you asked for continuations, I should add that over 2♠, a 2NT from responder would ask for the shortage. This can lead to low point count games. [[ response to 2NT over 2M agreement : 3♣ = shortage, 3♦ = shortage in other major (cannot be short in diamonds)]]

I play strong NT but the implications of this sequence for me are different, as I play a balanced 1♣ and an unbalanced 1♦, the latter having a singleton or void outside diamonds, or has 6 diamonds. So with the given 14 hcp hand I open 1♦, and when I raise 1♠ to 2♠ I am already defining a pretty good hand. I am guaranteeing a shortage and ruffing values. Responder will only pass out if minimum. For me this marks the boundary of the single raise. Turn one of the little clubs into a Jack and I jump to 3.

I played this until quite recently. The method was 2♣ forces 2♦ (except for a hand that would take a weak 2 in diamonds on to game), and if opener bid again it was whatever you used a 2♣ opener for normally. Your strong 2-bids are as you wish. I played 2♣ when strong as a trick weaker than 2♦ which was any GF. Our NT ranges were 2NT open = 20/21, 2♣ then 2NT = 22/23, 2♦ then 2NT = 24/25, 2♣ then 3NT = 26/27, 2♦ then 3NT = wishful thinking. :rolleyes: Our 1M open was kept up to strength by the other two-bids, so that 1M guaranteed a 5 card major and a rule of 17 (length in that suit + hcp) so that it was 12 with a 5 card suit, 11 with a 6 card suit. We played that the multi 2♦ included a 6 card major and 6-10 points, and the 2M open was specifically a 5 card major and 8 or 9-11 (with different partners). The 2M showed nothing about the other suits. Unfortunately we now play in clubs that adhere to EBU level 3 restrictions, which for reasons unknown prohibit that weak 2 in diamonds, so have abandoned it. I found anyway that I was growing disenchanted with the multi, as sometimes you need to raise a major preemptively when you would pass a weak 2 in the other. However, the benefit of having 2 definitions of weak 2 in the majors, one being preemptive 6 card and one a constructive 5, was definite.

I haven't tried this with a less than invitational hand, as I have always had the view that once there is competition you need to show support immediately, whether by a sole-support bid or a fit-jump etc. If you don't, when 4th seat raises to 3m a minimal opener is not going to bid 3M on a 6 card suit. And you can't bid 3M in case he has only 5.

I would counter-argue that in a competitive bidding situation it is a disaster to have not shown a 5 card major. The advantage of opening a 5 card major is that you can have a clear set of agreements on how high you should together bid in the major (length of support, strength, etc) and you have no problem in getting to play in NT when that is best. Conversely, once you open 1NT, you can only guess to end in the correct major contract. Perhaps the problem is a reluctance to rebid 1NT? In this neck of the woods, some Km up the river Tyne, almost everyone is happy to have a wide-ranging NT rebid, and most use 2♣ as a strength checkback.

As the author of the problem is from a partially French speaking country I took it as Jack as well. ;)

Perhaps you mean .. "if responder corrects 2NT to 3♦ he had diamonds all along OR had both minors and weak" .. because if responder corrects 2NT to 3♣, surely this has to be the hand with clubs only. If opener prefers the minor you don't have (the normal case) then responder plays the contract. {2NT corrected to 3♣ or 3♣ corrected to 3♦.} For the benefit to be worth the cost, the use of the freed-up 3♣ response must be good.

It also solves any overcall if you are prepared to give up a "takeout" double. If opponents double you can simply ignore it and bid whatever you would normally. If opponents bid a suit (no jump) or 1NT, a simple solution is that a double or bid is a transfer to the next bid, up to the level of transfer to 2 of partner's suit. So for example 1♥ (2♣) ... X = transfer to diamonds (weak or stronger) 2♦ = transfer to 2♥, ie a "good raise" 2♥ = weak raise. Normally new suit bids above 2 of partner's suit are natural and forcing by a non-passed hand, and by a passed hand either a fit-non-jump (a natural suit, together with enough support to raise to 3 - useful to opener deciding what to do over 4th seat's bid), or a weak takeout, or whatever else you may decide. An important point to get used to with transfer support is that if in an uninterrupted auction 1♥ 2♥ 2♠ is a trial bid, then you also do this in response to the transfer - you do not automatically complete the transfer raise. 1♥ (2♣) 2♦ (pass) 2♠ is a trial bid.

I think in essence it depends on what 3NT means for you. If it defines a range of points then there is an argument for it being quantitive, but opener is not likely to have a flat hand, and what he wants to know about will be best given by ace asking. I don't have a meaning for a 3NT response - just an unused potential bid looking for an owner. 6 tricks in a solid minor?

I don't understand your method here. You seem to be saying that by 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ opener is showing 3 hearts or 17/18 with 2 hearts. But you also say 12/13 with 3 hearts goes 1♣ 1♦ 1NT, which seems contradictory. Does this mean 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ has to be 17+ ?

I agree that transfers at the 1 level allow opener to easily come in with a further bid, but one advantage is that you can distinguish between 4 and 5 card majors and play at the 2 level. As for those weak 45xx or 54xx hands, we have a specific bid of 1NT that shows this. With no opposition bidding doubler bids a 4 card major if he has one, 2♣ if he hasn't, and you then transfer to the 5 card major. Of course, if opener doubles or bids 2♣ doubler passes with no 4 card major for the same result. Yes, playing transfer responses as advancer does wrong-side the contract, but better to be in the right contract the wrong way round than vice versa. However, playing the double to mean "I would have opened 1♣" does not mean the doubler is short. He probably has as many clubs as opener.

Thanks for the clarification of the one round force, I am sure you are right. I am not happy to force to 3 spades, unless partner's double is a classic 4441 with good strength. However, people these days tend to double on any sort of 12 count that doesn't have a good bid, or weaker three suiters. Having said that, it is a borderline hand, and if you do happen to play the common "transfers at/above the level of cue bid" method, then this is an ideal hand to show both the diamonds and spades to help partner into the right contract. This should be a 1 round force, and you hope partner has not warped his double too much. So double standards maybe, I admit. If I can't show my hand clearly, I don't want to force to 3 spades, but would do so if I can clearly describe the hand - or if I could rely on partner's double.