foo

I agree with others who say it is close. How close depends on what your agreements are about how aggressive Overcaller can be with their Takeout X. If Overcaller could have an 8 loser hand for their Takeout X, a 2S Advance is quite enough. If Overcaller promises at most 7 losers, this hand is close to an invite. It depends on how sound in other ways you have agreed Overcaller should be. If Overcaller is the one expected to be "pushy", 2S is probably enough. If you are the one expected to be "pushy", and this hand fits your agreements for invites, then you can invite with this hand. But note that unless you like bad scores, only one of you should be "pushy". Which one is up to your partnership.

Welcome to partnership agreement territory. Takeout is by far the most common meaning I've seen in more modern times.

You hold a =1345 or =3145 shape and it goes 1C-1S;?? Any of 1N, 2C, or a reverse might be right. Depends on the strength and texture of the hand. Let's say the hand is x-KQx-Qxxx-AKQxx. (or x-Qxxx-KQx-AKQxx) Unless you think this hand is strong enough for a reverse, and having a stiff in partner's suit argues that you should downgrade these hands, a 2C rebid stands out as the best description of your hand's trick taking strength. Frankly, I'd probably reverse with either of these. Take away a Q, or change a Q into a J, and I'd probably rebid 2C. OTOH, just about any =3145 or =3415 with those values, KQx-Q-Qxxx-AKxxx, Qxx-x-KQxx-AKQxx, etc, =is= worth seriously considering a reverse with because the odds are good that you and partner have a ♠ fit. It's having 3 cards in Responder's suit that matters, not whether the stiff is in ♥'s or ♦'s. Now give yourself a =1345 or =1435 where most of your points are in your short suits. The extreme example is something like A-KQx-KQxx-Qxxxx. This hand has far less trick taking strength than one where the HCP are in the long suits (ie x-Qxx-KQxx-AKQxx). While I would reverse with the 2nd of these, the first of these is the classic hand you may be forced to open 1N= 15-17 with as the least lie. BTW, if you do open 1N with A-KQx-KQxx-Qxxxx, you should also treat it as a =minimum= 1N opening. Decline any invites responder makes if you hold such a hand and open 1N with it. In fact, if you have a =1345 or =1435 with 15 HCP containing a stiff honor, downgrade it to below 15 HCP and bid it like a minimum. Such hands are best described with either a 1N or 2C rebid depending on exactly where the values are. Frances' excellent post gives the practical reason why.

A1= (1N!)-X shows a Strong NT (1N!)-pa-pa-X shows a Weak NT Then pretend They did not open 1N unless they compete further (or you as Advancer are so broke that you can not stand defending 1NX. In which case, run to any spot that looks playable.) Go look up "Hello vs NT" for bidding your shapely hands vs the KNT. Do not worry about partscores unless you have a hand that is shapely and has good value placement. Remember the KNT users have sacrificed partscore accuracy in order to play their gadget. The goal when defending vs the KNT is to do everything you can not to miss games or slams and to X Them whenever it rates to be odds on for Us to collect a penalty. Capp is not the best defense vs the KNT, but it is far better than any method that does not allow for a penalty X. Oh, and you have the right to know =everything= They know about what hands are by agreement allowed or disallowed to be shown with a KNT opening. If they can not or will not give you a complete description of their agreements with regards to the KNT, get a Director over to your table pronto. Another thing. The KNT causes problems for the so called "NT ladder". For example, the "standard" ladder is open, rebid 1N => you have a Weak NT open 1N => you have a Strong NT This mean that pairs that play 1N= 10-12 (or 1N= 10-13) have to figure out a way to show all the other flat hands. So you'll see things like open 1C, rebid 1N shows one range (say 15-17) and open 1D, rebid 1N shows the other range (say 13-14) Notice that now Their 1m openings are alertable and do not say anything about the minor actually bid. ...and that means you should compete almost as aggressively against such 1m openings as you are supposed to against artificial 1C and 1D openings like those in Forcing 1C systems. If you compete properly against a KNT pair's artificial ways of showing the other NT ranges, you can maximize the price They pay in exchange for playing the KNT.

My feelings as well. I hope we do not miss 6C due to our off shape 1N opening.

♠K8xx ♥Axx ♦Ax ♣Axxx (2♠)-?? Look at all those pretty controls. Close enough to a 16 count for me. 2N. Will it always work out? No. Will you get tagged every now and then? Yes. But you are going to miss a lot of games if you pass hands like this after a Weak Two. We rate to own the hand and GOP could easily have what you need to bring 3N or 4M home.

Typo fixed.

6♣ by me. Best I can do given the hand and the space crunch. Agree that 4S! is a cue in support of ♥'s and 4N is natural.

Like Justin, I make a Neg X intending to show a weak hand with 6+H on the next round. Like Justin, I am not happy about it. The suit stinks and the hand has a ODR heavily weighted toward defense. But pass seems too deep a position.

This opening is about 2HCP more conservative than jmc's who plays a 10-13 NT in 2nd seat. To compensate for that, I have made the original hand about 2 HCPs stronger to get: Qxx=AQx=AQxx=xxx (or Kxx=AJx=AQxx=xxx or Qxx=Axx=AKxx=Jxx). I would be amazed if jmc would pass in fourth seat with that hand. Rik Wow. Opening most 12 counts and some 11 counts is considered "conservative" in 2nd seat now. You do realize this is basically a Major suit biased Rule of 20? 12HCP + 44 in two longest suits => open. 11HCP + 5cM + 4card => open. Now we do not know what "most 12" and "some 11" mean, but there are notably no opening requirements regarding Controls or Quick Tricks in the OP. I also would be amazed if anyone playing a Natural system would pass a 14 count with A's in in any seat. So let's agree they are not germane to this discussion? 4333's have the lowest trick taking potential of any hand type in Bridge. This argues for caution when dealing with them. Bridge remains the game of Shape and Controls (A's and K's) regardless of whatever fad is presently in vogue. ...and when you do not have any shape, you need more hard values. Given that OP looks to rarely be passing a 12 count and only ~50% of the 11 counts, we should probably assume 1= they have 11- if flat 2= they have 10- if long in the Majors and 11- if short in the Majors. 3= they rate strongly to be short in the Majors. For all practical intent and purpose, we can stop worrying about missing a Game if holding a flat 12 or 13 count here. That leaves the partscore battle. Logic says we should not open if a= They rate to own the hand or b= They rate to be able to outcompete us on boards that are "in the LOTT zone". (boards where the HCP are split 20-20 or no worse than ~22-18) If we are holding a 4333 12 count under these circumstances, I think we rate to have less HCP than Them and to have less Major suit cards than Them. ...and that means the best chance for a good score is to pass the hand out.

The consensus of most TD's I know is that 1foo-2C! when it might be a "Short C by Responder" is GCC as long as it promises GF values and you actually have 2+C. If your GF 2C! is completely artificial and says nothing at all about the presence or absence of ♣'s in R's hand, then you have to worry about whether or not your continuations could be considered a relay structure. ...and of course, if 2C! is not GF it is not GCC.

There is a "Science" way of dealing with this that is used by Karen McCallum and others. 1M-1N;2C! or 1H-1S;2C! is artificial and may contain 6+M strong enough to JR. 1M-1foo;3M then promises a 7 card suit. Responder's continuations ...2D!= "Tell me more" usually GF unless O has the weak 5+M 4+m hand ...2H= H Preference ...2S= 2-H and 5+S ...2N= 4 ♠'s and a longer minor (and a hand not good enough to 2/1) ...3m= at least 55 in ♠'s + m ...3H= "I was going to raise ♥'s after bidding ♠'s" 3-4 ♥'s LR values. ...3S= 1-H, 6+S or even 7+S, excellent ♠'s "This is trumps pard" ...3N= To Play Opener's continuations after the 2D! relay are not germane to this post.

Josh and others advocating 8+ loser 4333 12 counts as "wtp" 3rd and 4th seat openings: How about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition? I'll even start you off. How about if a 1st oir 2nd seat opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening? Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria? ..and please feel free to note if there is a difference IYHO as to standards here @ IMPs vs @ MPs.

This I 100% believe.

...and the semi-finals of the Spingold are not typical tournament conditions. Almost no one who reads these forums has that caliber of Bridge skills, and those playing in such rarified events push bidding and card play to the absolute edge as a matter of course.

Bullshit. You called JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a reasonable opening. TBF, You also called JT=KQJxx=KJxx=xx a better opening. Both are basically Light Initial Action openings that are aggressive even by Rule of 20 standards. But nonetheless, you and others are advocating them as "normal". The above also conform to the opening standards given by the OP. Fine. A tad too rich for my taste, but style can vary. My problem is that anyone in the fan club you and others have gone out of your way to create around here is going to read =all= your posts and assume the aggregate represents your overall systemic advice. ...and openings such as above do not belong in the same style as 4th seat openings on 8+ loser 12 count 4333's. Now since you seem to think there's not enough information being posted here; how about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition? I'll even start you off. How about if an opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening? Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria?

Agreed.

So if I understand these systems,1st principle dictate something like? 1= 1M-2C!;foo-3N= 3cM min GF 4333 (w/ 4cM, you use J2N) CoG 2= 1M-1N;foo-4M= 3cM min GF 4432 3= 1M-2C!;foo-2N= Slam interested 4333's and 4432's w/ 3-M 4= 1M-2C!;foo-4M= 3cM in something like min GF 5332 5= 1M-2C!;foo-2M= shape as above, but slam interest. 6= 1M-2C!;foo-new= denies support, honest shape. Interesting.

Agree with Frances that there has to be some lower limit. Unfavorable is also not the time to mess around. Pass

Ick. Very hard to figure out what the odds on call is. Given vulnerability, Pass.

I have never played 2/1 GF with 1M-2C! artificial. If playing this system, what R hands are described by 1M-1N;foo-4M ?

Don't whether I would X or overcall 1H on 1st. Agree in all other ways.

...and playing 4cM and Strong NT, I might still open a 1H and rebid (an unhappy)2D. It works for the Acol folks...

Another hand where partnership agreements weigh heavily on what the "right" bid is. Apriori, this is a standard Weak Two. Top of range, but still a standard 2♦ bid. R is going to be expecting more for 1♦ and less for 3♦. That leaves pass and 2♦. 2♦ it is.

To a certain extent, this is another area where you should do what partner and you have agreed to do above and beyond all else. W/o discussion in a pickup playing SAYC or normal 2/1 GF, either 1D-1S;1N (you certainly have all the side suits stopped) or 1D-1S;2D (AQTxx is a better than average 5 card suit) seems fine to me 1D-1S;2C is Masterminding. If 2C! is artificial, you could make a good case for it. 1D-1S;2H is over bidding your hand. Reverses should promise hands that have 3 level safety opposite a minimum. 15+6= 21 w/o a fit does not fit the requirement. Pard is unlimited and could easily put you in a hopeless contract. Those playing Weak NT's have 2 choices. rebid the D's play 1D-1M;2C! as artificial. Kaplan Sheinwald had both options 40+ years ago.