trevahound

Yes to this. 2♦ for the forcing ♣ raise, and 2♠ for the forcing ♦ raise. I can't imagine wanting to play without a simple raise available (1♣-2♣ and 1♦-2♦). You win as mentioned on the hands where you don't have to wildly distort your 8 cts into LR+ or preemptive or wildly offshape/misdirected 1nt, and you win even more when your simple raise allows partner to compete effectively to 3m or 4m, where at other tables they never establish they have a fit -- or they establish it only after opps have gotten in. My partners and I have had numerous 1♦(p) 2♦ (p) 3♦ all pass auctions, where they can't have those with IM. Your preempts now become preemptive, and not just whatever 6-8 count you had to round down. Etc... For all strains, you need a simple raise, a forcing raise, and a preemptive raise available, at least as is possible. IM is one of the conventions I simply won't play unless partnering a newcomer. Brian Zaugg

I play a 10-13 nt in most seats, and any method that makes it difficult for us to stay in 1ntx is crazy, in my opinion. Frequently it's our best spot, and even when it's a bad spot, other spots might be worse (won many many imps staying in 1ntx while the other table ran, playing 2somethingX for another 300), or RHO might be about to bid. Anything that takes pressure off RHO when we suspect it's their hand is misguided, in my opinion. I strongly believe if you aren't interested in playing in 1ntx with some regularity, you oughtn't play a wk NT. I realize the OP was asking about a medium NT, though. Not sure the math would be much different. Brian Zaugg

I might have acted differently in some previous seats (passing with N seems insanely pessimistic to me), but E's final 3♦ call and S's painful 3♥ call are the truly insane calls of the auction, both in the face of what could very well be misfits. For me, E has a clear 3♣ call if taking another call (I would), to improve the chances of getting to the right strain, and S has nothing resembling a 3♥ call after N passed the first time. RHO has both minors, partner has likely just 2 hearts, so where or where might the rest of my suit lay?

My "solution" bothers everyone but me. I just play the 2nt rebid as unlimited and forcing (as a regular partner says, "because playing in 2nt on 22 opposite 0 is for suckers"), and have no need for the relays. I'd play what Jeff plays (and Jeff would lose a bet to hear me say that) if I was playing Kokish. Cheers. Brian Zaugg

I recently switched (in a kickback context) to showing our regular keycard response with a useful void in steps beginning with 5 of the kickback suit (5nt if spades are trumps). So, playing 1430, again with spades trumps, after the 4nt ask I'd respond normally without a useful void (responses through 5♠), with 5nt being 1 or 4 with a useful void, 6♣ being 0 or 3 with a useful void, 6♦ being 2 without the Q but with a useful void, etc... This allows us still to have a Q ask for those hands where the void showing preempted any Q ask. I find this useful, but am in the small sample size part of the experiment.

No good player on a bidding forum will, agreed. I'm sure I've heard once or twice about it happening in real life. :)

Chris, you can't bully me into a plus score. I refuse to be pushed around like that. I'll take my minus like a piker. Unlike everyone wiser than I above (no small subset), I expect to get a shot at 6c as often as not at these colors.

I am not a fan of inverted minors, but on my equiv auctions I'm a big fan of playing the equiv of the inverted minor raise is forcing to 3m. It's an active argument locally, but shockingly, I'm pretty sure that's right (compared with 2nt being NF). Brian Zaugg

I don't even understand it (meaning e/w's complaint -- edit). Is the claim that the experienced E/W thought N/S had a big ♣ fit? 2♣ was alerted, 4♣ on any planet I've walked on is at least sufficiently unusual as a natural ♣raise as to be worth asking about, if it mattered, and obviously a delayed alert if artificial. I would not be teammates with e/w period. :)

In as often as possible (not with X or 2d, either, I don't want to come in if I'm not using useful space). PI suction is my preference, but anything that lets you preempt at whatever level is appropriate is fine. I don't come in with good hands unless I'm planning to make it. I come in very aggressively at favorable, esp if pard is a passed hand. I only play with understanding partners and teammates. There is a risk, but it's less than I guessed before I got active, and from the opening side's POV, 2c is already a very preemptive opening with no shape info given at all; if they have to start describing at the 3 level or higher, you have created a variance that I find beneficial far more often than not. Obviously, YMMV. Know thyself (and thy partner and teammates), and act accordingly. :)

Thomas, can I ask you a question? Why do you give self selected ratings any validity?

Have to poll with no BIT (or UI) to truly get what the LA's are. For me, with the UI present, I see no LA to pass. Not even close with what I see, and I'm known as pretty overly aggressive.

I am probably misreading this. 1m - 1M // 1nt does not equal 15-17 unbalanced in any standard methods. It's 12-14 ish, balanced. This entire chain has me thinking I'm missing something very basic. Why would an unbalanced hand want to rebid in NT given other palatable options? Where I live, in standard methods, a 2nt rebid over a 1 level response shows 18-19 (or whatever range of your NT ladder takes over just above your 1nt opener or rebid), and a jump to 3nt instead shows a running first suit and a couple of random outside cards, not a hand that should have opened 2nt in the first place.

I had this happen in a club game a few years ago. Last board of the night, some tables were already finished, and 3-4 kibbitzers gathered behind me in 6♥. The contract was purely on picking up trumps, missing Kxxx. I was 95% sure from folks continuing to watch after the auction that the heart K was singleton offsides (doubleton or more off, what's to watch? coming down -- I had all the spots -- what's to watch?). I too was very curious if this is AI or UI. I intentionally took the hook, being unsure of what was proper, and knowing I'd play it that way any earlier round, but I shopped the decision later and got mixed answers. Good question!

Hah. I was typing my post while this one crossed it in the ether. :)

Very tangentially related at best: I've had this idea that the supp X vs non-supp pass concept is perfect for str NT systems, but is exactly backwards for those playing a baby NT (10-13 or similar) range. Playing that range, when you open 1m and are next in a support double position, your most common hand type is a str NT (14+ for me, 15+ if playing 11-14, etc...). On these hands, I think double is better used for non-support (2 or fewer), and pass for 3 card support. This takes a tempo away from the opponents, as LHO no longer gets the same free pass he gets over a supp X, as now there are plenty of chances this double gets converted, while passing for support doesn't cost our side any tempos or useful space. REsponder assumes you have 14+ if balanced, and no other sensible shape bid to make, and thus you're prepared to defend if that suits partner's hand (partner still rebids normally). The argument against this is, "what if you have no fit and no other sensible bid and don't want to double, risking it might be left in?" Over the past six months or so (with three partners brave/foolish enough to play this with me), the only "disaster" this caused was a hand were we were defending 2hx on a non-supp X auction, and declarer chose to go set for no good reason. Every other time the inversion has mattered (and to be fair, it doesn't matter often), it's been a win for the method, I think. This is not a large trial base yet, so I'm looking forward to what I learn about it going forward.

For the simpler raises and the rest of the structure after 1M - (x) - ?, I prefer transfers from 1nt through 2M (1nt = clubs, etc... 2M-1 = good constructive raise, 2M = natural raise but less than const. values), and 2nt as 4+ card LR(+), and all higher bids as fit jumps. Very simple to remember, and close enough to optimal imo.

When I played Bergen raises, I played then on over X (off over any other comp.), and because of the same issue you raised, played 2nt as weak with either minor (or both minors). To the extent you're committed to Bergen raises (and I bet you can find a dozen or more different replacements with each having adherents saying theirs is best), re-purposing 2nt makes perfect sense. Alternately, if you're playing with someone who wants to keep 2nt over X as LR(+), repurpose 3m as fit jumps?

I don't know why that would be true. If opener has say 10-12, and responder has 0-12 for their 2M signoff, when opps' points are fairly evenly divided often neither can safely enter the auction. Give responder 4 like you mention, and opener 11, one opp 12 and one opp 13. Sure, either could choose to enter the auction, but if they do, they're beginning to exchange info at the 3 level with no idea what their partner has, and if they do this regularly then they'll enter on their 12 or 13 and find responder with 10-12 too, just like opener, and opening side already knows they had only a partscore at stake yet they own half or more of the deck. Doubling is easy, and it's often quite bloody. Entering the auction with a wk NT over a wk NT is a long term loser. The "system" wins for baby NT are putting an immense amount of pressure on the opps early, while still having constructive auctions when it's clearly our hand. The biggest loss is playing in the wrong strain on partscore deals. Adding transfers is an artifact of a str nt background only, imo.

Hello, I play 10-13 nt in most seats (14-16 only in 3rd hot and 4th all) with many partners. I absolutely love what we play over that, which is 2way stayman with SA texas, but with the responses to the 2♦ artif GF all transfer-style (as the GF'ing hand is always better than the 1nt opener, and we want that hand declaring anytime the final contract isn't 3nt). After 1nt - 2♦^: 2♥ = 4+ ♠, less than 4 ♥ 2♠ = 4+ ♥, less than 4 ♠ 2nt = 5+ ♣, no 4cM 3♣ = 5+ ♦, no 4cM 3♦ = both 4cM 3♥ = exactly 3-2-4-4 3♠ = exactly 2-3-4-4 3nt = either 3-3-4-3 or 3-3-3-4 It's simple to remember, and we right side many contracts we didn't used to right side. I also am not a fan of pass forcing XX, for basically all the reasons listed above.

I would think if you had that agreement you'd have to disclose it if asked about your carding (any ask is the trigger, they don't have to do a root canal). Thus, seems counterproductive, vs the default which is not based upon agreement but rather general bridge knowledge (maybe an implied agreement) that the one without the A always gives honest count, and the one with the A plays either closest to his thumb, or in any other way that amuses him.

Isn't that a reason to bid 6♣, not 5♣? 5♣ to me is catering to partner having less in clubs that I would expect had the alert been proper (but I don't play transfers here, so I might be very wrong on what partner shows). I wouldn't stop short of 6♣ if I had no decent asking tools available. I won't cater to partner thinking I've already shown clubs.

XYZ and 2wNMF are very common in this area (Seattle-ish). Locally we play the second sequence as 4♠/4♥ and invitational, while the first shows 5♥/4♠ and invitational values. All GFs unsure of strain go through 2♦ (leaving plenty of room to shape out, normally), so neither is needed naturally forcing. Brian Zaugg

I try not to project ethics (or lack thereof) onto most decisions opps make. It's far to easy to genuinely fool ourselves. I'd supply lots of examples except that would stray into social commentary. I would be disappointed with teammates that did not call for a director as soon as 6s hit the table after that person had made a JS that had been alerted as weak. This is clearly at the very bare minimum a situation the director should look at, and it's hard to imagine there won't be an adjustment, and I can't think of any reasonable reason for my teammates not to draw attention to this irregularity. However, if my teammates for whatever reason decided to not call even though there was a clear irregularity, then it's not my job to worry over it later. We should avoid criticizing folks for calls we weren't willing to call a director over, in my opinion. I had a situation this reminds me of at a regional last fall. A/X swiss, our teammates are at the other table, other team averages some 7500 or so mps per player (not inexperienced), and after the match (we won handily) one of the players who had played at our table came back from comparisons furious at our teammates, for in his opinion taking advantage of a significant BIT and the UI available from it. He was at our table, not theirs, mind you, so I'm not sure how he knew how significant the BIT was (assuming even that there was one, which neither of us could know). Further, his teammates with their zillion points didn't think enough of the problem at any time to call a director -- yet this player wanted me to berate my teammates over this. Brian Zaugg

One of my least favorite calls in bridge is the immediate 2♥ as a bust. It wrongsides all heart contracts, and also is committal many times before we have any idea what our hand might be worth. Zero counts can turn into gold as the auction progresses. I have more reasons beyond those to hate that treatment... Playing cheapest minor next call as your negative (with 2♦ being semi-auto/waiting), you have to lower your standards for a direct 3♣ call, as you know you won't be able to show club values over idiot partner's 2M rebid. So, 2♣ - 3♣ becomes a hand with a bottom end right about where the hand in the OP dwells. You certainly aren't ever stopping out of game with this hand, and you avoid wrong-siding anything to boot. Brian Zaugg