mikestar

3♣ is perfectly reasonable, but I like 3NT as well: you will make it if partner can stop hearts when led through or if they don't lead them. 2♦ has some merit as well--it might make partner declare NT with a positional stopper like Kx.

Agree with both passes. Assuming that 2♦ is available as a weak 2, I hate this hand for it: ♠K is pretty worthless on offense but will be a defensive trick almost as often as ♠Kx would be.

Asking for ♦K, with the provision that if partner lacks that card, he should show ♥K in case either king would do.

On the minimum side but clear double at all colors. I would still double if the ♠Q were the J, but not if it were the 10.

The partner with the shortness needs to be aggressive. Clearly the doubler is short so may well be minimum or a bit subminimum. I love pass. They aren't making, and +300 is fine when we have no game--which will be a substantial fraction of the time. Also on many of the hands where we do have a making game, there will be a chance for +800. I give pass a strong 8 at these colors--at any other colors, I would give it a least a 12 on a scale of 10.

If you play fairly sound limited openings, 2/1 is pretty playable, but if your idea of a Precision 1♠ opener is ♠AQxxx ♥KTxx ♦x ♣xxx you will get to a lot of hopeless games if you use 2/1 liberally, and will overload 1NT forcing if you use 2/1 conservatively.

I think I'll go ahead and detail some of my preferred methods for other openings, though you can certainly play what you like independently of using the above framework. Responses to 1♣ 1♦=0-7, any shape. 1♥=8+, balanced, may have 5 card major. 1♠/2♣/2♦=8+, 5+ suit. 1NT=8+, 5+♥. 2♥/2♠=4-7, fair to good 6 card suit. Opener's 2NT=Ogust. 2NT=8+, 4-4-4-1 with any stiff. 3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠=4-7, good 7 card suit but not AKxxxxx (make a positive response with that suit). 2NT is a usable place to put the rare 4-4-4-1 positives that went through the "Impossible Negative" in classic Precision. The inversion of 1♥ and 1NT is suggested by Marshal Miles and I find it quite useful. While it wrongsides 4♥, it rightsides 3NT, which is more likely to be important. Opener's Rebids After 1♦: 1♥/1♠=4+ suit, unbalanced, may have longer minor. Forcing 1 round. 1NT=18-20 balanced, may have 5 card major. Responder uses Puppet Stayman and transfers. 2♣/2♦=5+ suit, unbalanced, denies 4 card major. 2♥=Kokish. Unbalanced ♥ GF (denies 4♠) or 25+ balanced, may have 5 card major. 2♠=Unbalanced ♠ GF, denies 4♥. 2NT=23-24 balanced, may have 5 card major. 3♣/3♦=Unbalanced GF, denies 4 card major. After 1♥: 1♠/2♣/2♦/2♥=5+ suit, unbalanced. 1NT=18+ balanced. Responder uses Puppet Stayman and transfers. 2♠/3♣/3♦/3♥=good 6+ suit, slam interest, sets trumps. Responder shows key cards. 2NT=4-4-4-1 with any stiff. After 1♠: 1NT=18+ balanced. 2♣/2♦/2♥=5+ suit, unbalanced. 2♠=agrees spades. 2NT=4-4-4-1 with stiff ♠. 3♣/3♦/3♥=good 7+ suit, slam interest, sets trumps. Responder shows key cards. 3♠=RKCB for ♠. After 1NT: 2♣/2♦/2♠=5+ suit, unbalanced. 2♥=agrees ♥. 2NT=18+ balanced or 4=1=4=4. 3♣/3♦/3♠=good 7+ suit, slam interest, sets trumps. Responder shows key cards. 3♥=RKCB for ♥. After 2♣: 2♦/2♥/2♠=5+ suit, unbalanced. 2NT=18+ balanced or 4=4=4=1. 3♣=agrees ♣. 3♦/3♥/3♠=good 7+ suit, slam interest, sets trumps. Responder shows key cards. 4♣=RKCB for ♣. After 2♦: 2♥/2♠/3♣=5+ suit, unbalanced. 2NT=18+ balanced or 4=4=4=1. 3♦=agrees ♦. 3♥/3♠/4♣=good 7+ suit, slam interest, sets trumps. Responder shows key cards. 4♦=RKCB for ♦. After 2NT: 3♣=asks stiff. 3♦/3♥/3♠/4♣=good 6+ suit. Agrees trumps opposite a stiff, slam interest opposite a fit. 3NT=good 6+ ♣. Responder passes with a stiff. After 2 of a major or 3 of a suit, opener usually passes with a misfit. With a fit, opener raises or bids 3NT. With a strong misfit, opener rebids a new suit (forcing if below game). Next Interference to 1♣.

As long as it is tempered by common sense, striving for consistency in system design is a great virtue IMHO.

I think if we're going to narrow it down to one "key point," it's the formalization of which suit is designated the obvious shift suit, and the minimum strength required for tolerance. In every case, no matter how apparently vague or ambiguous (i.e. "unobvious") it may be, both partners know exactly what the obvious shift suit is; they also know what the minimum requirement is to suggest that shift. You are correct about the great value of formalizing the signal to trick one. My reference was to the entirety of the Granovetters' methods advocated in A Switch In Time--in which they present obvious shift at trick one as an integral part of the frequent suit preference signaling on subsequent tricks. It is perfectly possible to disregard the suit preference signals (instead giving frequent count, for example) while still using obvious shift at trick one. This might even be superior to the book method--it's certainly worth exploring. It's rather similar to the case of Journalist Leads--it is perfectly possible to play Journalist opening leads while not using Journalist later leads, even though Rubens and company aren't keen on doing so.

I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. I think the implication was there are no awkward strong notrump hands here since if they don't have a stopper they are good enough to cuebid. Totally correct and it bears mentioning that weak NT hands are far more frequent than strong NT hands, so weak NT is likely to be a winner even if the problems for a 15-17 hand are equally difficult in competition after opening a suit.

Partner's actual hand was an obscenity, but it still makes with luck. Opposite a normal double I like direct 6NT. It guarantees I declare and might make if either spades or partner's longer minor break. 4-1 spades may set 6♠ when 6NT makes and I believe that this is more likely than the contrary case.

100% with Frances on this one. Keep it natural. If not superior to more complex schemes, it is at least competitive with them and has much less memory load. I like to to go one better on opener's redouble after responder passes. It is SOS looking for an escape to a 4-3 or better fit. With a five card suit opener just bids it.

The key point about the Granovetters' method is not the obvious shift a trick one--this is just formalizing some common sense. For example if partner leads a diamond and he will shift to a heart if I discourage, it may be better to encourage with nothing in diamonds if the heart shift would be harmful. The crux of the matter is the very frequent use of suit preference from trick 2 onward. This a mixed bag--sometimes works well, sometimes sucks. It does require a lot of work on partnership defense.

Reminds me of one of my all time favorite hands some 20 years ago. Holding ♠void ♥KQxxx♦AKQxx♣KQx I heard partner open 1♥ and next hand overcall 1♠. I bid a calm, confident 6♥ and all passed. We were cold for 7 and partner (more experienced than I) reamed me a new one for missing the grand. Then we looked at the recap and found we had an icy cold top . . . everyone else was defending a spade sacrifice: 7♠ only went for 800. Yes the other opponent should have bid 6♠ over my 6♥ but he was on a guess and guessed wrong. Going slowly could have only helped his judgment.

Agreed with an important caveat as players advance--it is essential to count winners in a suit contract when dealing with a possible cross ruff.

4♠ over X is a good tactical bid. I would invite over a pass. Direct game bids on good invites are often winners in competition as there is an extra way to win: if they sacrifice, it may be a phantom.

I agree with the consensus here: legal but in general not a good idea, especially on two suiters. Shading a bit on a hand with a good 7 card suit seems to work fairly well--I'm told Meckwell do this quite a bit. In any case, I would tend to insist on two things for a <16 HCP 1♣: (1) at least 14 HCP; (2) good defense for my HCP. Examples: ♠AKxxxx ♥AKxxx ♦x ♣x is reasonable; ♠KQJxx ♥KQJxx ♦Kxx ♣void is more doubtful though an HCP stronger.

I don't particularly care for the stopper ask style. Strong NT hand is a priori the most common big club hand but high level preemption warps the odds. The stopper ask style is terrible when opener is unbalanced, and has problems when responder is unbalanced. It works when opener has exactly the right hand: balanced with a stop. Also nothing keeps opener from bidding 3NT on this hand over a takeout double.

Point taken. However, it's necessary to remember the different conditions in online play and look at the intent of the Laws. Self alerting is not viable in f2f play--it is viable online as partner does not hear our alerts: only the opponents do. Now forget the letter of the law and consider its purpose: the alert procedure exists to keep the opponents accurately informed as to your side's agreements so they are not damaged by the lack of this knowledge. Now there are two questions to consider: 1) Which procedure is more likely to produce a correct explanation of agreements? This is debatable, but my partnership experience is that the bidder is less likely to have forgotten than the partner. 2) If a wrong explanation is nevertheless given, under which procedure are the opponents less likely to be damaged? Clearly in the self alert case. Yes, this is because they have a more accurate description of the bidder's cards--but why is this a problem? They also have a more accurate description of the bidder's cards when they alert is explained correctly than when it isn't.

If you can pass this hand twice, you can pass it three times. 1♦ vs. 1♠ on the first round is the only decision--both have their good and bad points, but you must pick one or the other, passing 1♣ can't be right. You must intervene at the one level where it is safe, not the three level where you are taking your life in your hands. Opponents may well have only 8 ♣ between them. If so, bidding is right only if you find a 9 card ♦ fit and then only some of the time. What are the chances of that?

2♥ in Precision--♦QJx is rather worse than worthless on this bidding. You certainly don't want to encourage partner to bid 4♥ with support and an extra queen. You won't do it, of course, but it might even be the winning action to leave the double in.

The 2♦ Opening Yes, the F-word (Flannery). Fills an important system gap and allows us to avoid canape with both majors. Shows exactly 4♠ and 5♥, denies reversing values and denies a void. This last is contrary to the usual practice, but makes the bid more playable by narrowing the possible playing strength range. Doesn't reduce frequency that much, as 5-4-4-0 is a rare shape. Responses 2♥/2♠=signoff. 2NT=artificial asking bid. 3♣=6+♣ signoff. 3♦=6+♦ invitational. 3♥/3♠=invites 4M. 3NT/4♥/4♠=to play. 4♣/4♦=transfer to 4♥/4♠ respectively. Opener's Rebid After 2NT: 3♣/3♦=3 cards, stiff in other minor. 3♥=no stiff, minimum. 3♠=no stiff, maximum. 3NT=no stiff, maximum, strong minors.

The 2♣ Opening 2♣ shows 6+♣ and may have a 4 card side suit. Responses 2♦=relay 2♥/2♠=5+ cards, invitational or better. 2NT=puppet to 3♣, various hands. 3♣=puppet to 3♦, various hands. 3♦/3♥/3♠, 6+ suit, invitational. 3NT=to play. 4♣/5♣=preemptive. Opener's Rebid After 2♦: 2♥=a 4 card major. 2♠=no 4 card major, minimum. 2NT=no 4 card major, maximum, two side suits stopped. Responder's 3♦ asks for unstopped suit (3NT=♦). 3♣=no 4 card major, maximum, one side suit stopped. Responder's 3♦ asks for stopper (3NT=♦). 3♦=4♥, very strong. 3♥=4♠, very strong. After 2♥: 2♠=4♠, 0-2♥. 2NT=0-3♠, 0-2♥, maximum. 3♣=0-3♠, 0-2♥, minimum. 3♦=0-3♠, 0-2♥, 4 good ♦, maximum. 3♥=3+♥, minimum. 3♠/4♦=splinter. 3NT=to play. 4♣=3♥, maximum, no stiff, very good ♣. 4♥=3♥, maximum, no stiff. After 2♠: 2NT=0-2♠, maximum. 3♣=0-2♠, minimum. 3♦/3♥=0-2♠, good 4 card suit, maximum. 3♠=3+♠, minimum. 3NT=to play. 4♣=3♠, maximum, no stiff, very good ♣. 3♦/4♥=splinter. 4♠=3♠, maximum, no stiff. Subsequent bidding After 2♦-2♥: 2♠=relay. Opener bids 2NT (=♥) or 3♣ (=♠) with a minimum; 3♦ (=♥) or 3♥ (=♠) with a a maximum. After 2♦-2♠: 2NT=invites 3NT. 3♣=signoff. 3♦/3♥/3♠=stopper showing. 3NT=to play. After 2NT-3♣: Pass=weak raise. 3♦=5-5 ♦+♥ GF. 3♥=5-5 ♦+♠ GF. 3♠=5-5 ♥+♠ GF. After 3♣-3♦: Pass=signoff. 3♥/3♠=natural slam try. 3NT or higher=♦ slam try.

The 1♠ Opening Notice that this is extremely similar to the 1♥ opening. 1♠ denies a balanced hand (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2). Responses 1NT=6+ value, forcing. 2♣/2♦/2♥=5+ suit, GF unless suit rebid. 2♠=6-9 value, 4 card support or 3 card support with a stiff. 2NT=Jacoby (GF ♠ raise). 3♣/3♦/3♥=weak jump shift. 3♠=10-11, 4 card support. 3NT=Balanced minimum GF with 4 card support. Choice of games. 4♣/4♦/4♥=splinter. 4♠=preemptive or minimum game vales, no slam interest. Opener's Rebid After 1NT: 2♣/2♦=5-4 or better either way in ♠ and minor. 2♥=5+♠ and 4+♥. 2♠=6+♠. 2NT=4♠ and 5 card minor. 3♣/3♦=5-5 or better in ♠ and minor, strong. 3♥=5+♠ and 4+♥, strong. 3♠=6+ good ♠, strong. After 2♣: 2♦/2♥=5+♠ and 4+ red suit; may pass 3♣. 2♠=5+♠, minimum or no convenient bid; may pass 3♣. 2NT=4♠, minimum; may pass 3♣. 3♣=♣ support, GF. 3♦/3♥=splinter. 3♠=solid 6+♠, GF. 3NT=to play. 4♣=good ♣ support, strong, no stiff. After 2♦: 2♥=5+♠ and 4+♥ suit; may pass 3♦. 2♠=5+♠, minimum or no convenient bid; may pass 3♦. 2NT=4♠, minimum; may pass 3♦. 3♣=5-5 or better in ♠ and ♣, GF. 3♦=♦ support, GF. 3♥/4♣=splinter. 3♠=solid 6+♠, GF. 3NT=to play. 4♦=good ♦ support, strong, no stiff. After 2♥: 2♠=5+♠, minimum or no convenient bid; may pass 3♥. 2NT=4♠, minimum; may pass 3♥. 3♣/3♦=5-5 or better in ♠ and minor, GF. 3♥=♥ support, GF. 3♠=solid 6+♠, GF. 3NT=to play. 4♣/4♦=splinter. 4♥=good ♥ support, strong, no stiff. Standard methods may be used after raises. After a WJS, usually pass but raise or bid no trump with an appropriate hand. Next The 2♣ opening.

Partner's pull to 2♦ will be about the same hand whether the double is one-suited or balance of power: a hand too shapely to play for penalties. The only question is how many diamonds to bid.