is this playable?

[luke warm]

i doubt this is original, but you all can tell me whether it is or not and whether it's even playable.... after a 1M opening, can 2NT be either

 

1- jacoby, or

2- weak without the major, or

3- gf 2 suiter without the major

 

1S : 2NT

3C (forced) : 3S=jacoby

 

1H : 2NT

3C : pass or 3D or 3S=to play

 

1H : 2NT

3C : 3NT=minors; 4C=clubs/spades; 4D=diamonds/spades

 

the definition for 'strong 2 suiter' can be whatever seems best... 4 losers or less (as in misiry) might work

 

the definition of 'weak' should be a long suit that has no chance for game opposite a non-2C opening

 

edited: changed to show "major" rather than "spades" in first part

Edited November 13, 2005 by luke warm

[TheoKole]

If you play this system, it seems to me that you lose the responses to Jacoby 2NT for the opener.

 

Or do you have other system bids for this situation?

 

Theo

[luke warm]

that's true, so responder's 3S bid would have to ask something... it could be RKC, it could ask for controls, it could start a relay asking for shortage, etc...

 

i'm trying to see whether or not the plusses (preemptive bids, big 2 suiters) outweigh the minuses ("standardish" rebids to 2nt)

[awm]

It seems like you lose a lot on the slammish raise hands (opener can't describe anything before the level of 3M), and I'm not sure you're actually gaining on the strong two suiters (you are so high by the time the hand is described, it might be easier to just make a 2/1 in one suit then bid the other).

 

Sam and I play a vaguely similar 2-way 2NT response to our 1♦ opening (which shows 11-13 balanced or 11-15 with any three suiter sans 5cM):

 

2NT = either 14+ balanced GF with no 4cM, or a weak (but constructive) 3-bid in either minor. Opener now bids 3♣ with a balanced hand, or otherwise bids the singleton/void in a three-suiter. Responder can pass opener's 3m bid if in his six-card suit, or bid 3♦ (NF) over 3♣. This means we're forced to the four-level or above when opener is short in a suit other than responder's weak 3-bid suit, but we always have at least a 9-card fit (often ten) and opener has a ruffing value.

 

Perhaps you could implement something similar, where opener bids the short suit and responder passes if that's the weak jump shift suit.

[Blofeld]

My instinctive reaction is that you're going to have difficulty distinguishing the hand types if the opponents intervene. But possibly this will be a relatively low-frequency occurrence.

 

And as TheoKole points out, you certainly have less room available to investigate slam when you have a major fit.

[hrothgar]

The scheme strikes me as badly flawed:

 

1. At the moment, your 2NT response is a puppet to 3C. Presumably, responder will pass this bid holding a weak hand with clubs. What happens if Opener has a hand worth advancing over a 3♣ bid? Fits are really wonderful things... At the very least, you probably need some kind of complex paradox advance scheme over 2NT

 

2. Quite frankly, this strikes me as a solution in search of a problem: Are "big" 2 suited hands that problematic over a 1♠ opening? How often do these come up? What's wrong with making a simple 2/1 and then showing your second suit at the three level?

 

3. When you pattern out your big 2 suiter, will you be forced past 3NT (this is often a bad thing). For that matter, are you saving any bidding space in doing so...

 

4. How many of responder's rebids are going to be wasted showing weak single suited suit hands or bid 2 suited hands following opener's rebid? Mcuh bidding space will be left below 4♠ to explore slam before bypassing the safety level?

 

5. I can easily come up with points 5-10, but lets start with answering the first 4

[Winstonm]

My thinking on this is that a totally artifial bid an be used to show 2 different hands but the responses are altered.

 

1S-2N: Obviously, opener cannot resond standardly to Jacoby; hence, the 2N becomes actually a Puppet to something.

 

1S-2N

3C This makes most sense for the Puppet as it saves the most room but should deny a singleton.

3D/3H/3S/3N could then be Jacoby responses and singletons or suits.

 

 

1S-2N

3C-3D/3H/3S/3N

Assign meanings.

 

1S-2N

3C-4C Forcing minors.

 

I advise no more than 2 meanings instead of the proposed three.

 

Winston

[luke warm]

The scheme strikes me as badly flawed:

 

1.  At the moment, your 2NT response is a puppet to 3C.  Presumably, responder will pass this bid holding a weak hand with clubs.  What happens if Opener has a hand worth  advancing over a 3♣ bid?  Fits are really wonderful things... At the very least, you probably need some kind of complex paradox advance scheme over 2NT

 

2.  Quite frankly, this strikes me as a solution in search of a problem:  Are "big" 2 suited hands that problematic over a 1♠ opening?  How often do these come up?  What's wrong with making a simple 2/1 and then showing your second suit at the three level?

 

3. When you pattern out your big 2 suiter, will you be forced past 3NT (this is often a bad thing).  For that matter, are you saving any bidding space in doing so...

 

4.  How many of responder's rebids are going to be wasted showing weak single suited suit hands or big 2 suited hands following opener's rebid?  Mcuh bidding space will be left below 4♠ to explore slam before bypassing the safety level?

 

5.  I can easily come up with points 5-10, but lets start with answering the first 4

first of all, i'm not advocating anything, i was just asking... i've never seen anything like this and was wondering why... i guess now i know :)

 

the reason i was wondering is, i use jump shifts for 8/9-11/12 splinters, for 13+ splinters, and for bergen-type raises... whether or not losing a weak jump shift is important is something everyone has to decide for himself... probably it isn't

 

1- it's true, responder will pass 3C with a preemptive club suit that would otherwise have passed 1M, say up to 5 points or so... is the p'ship worse off at 3c than it would have been at 1M? who knows?

 

2a- probably they aren't, though they can be subject to more preemption than a 2nt bid

2b- i have no idea... i expect about as much as a misiry opening occurs, whatever that is.. no, it would probably be less since the misiry opener isn't likely to find an opening hand opposite (i don't think)

2c- nothing's wrong with it... except for the preemption mentioned above, i'm sure that works just fine...

 

3- sometimes you will go past 3nt, and sometimes that will be wrong... as for bidding space, i guess it depends on what opener's rebids mean.... for example

1H : 2nt

3c : 4c

and now 4d can be kickback for clubs?

1M : 2nt

3c : 3nt

and now 4m can be kickback (minorwood)

 

4- with the weak hand, responder just passes or corrects 3c... as far as the strong hands go, it depends on what opener's rebids mean

 

as i said above, i'm just thinking out loud.. if it isn't playable, it isn't playable

 

It seems like you lose a lot on the slammish raise hands (opener can't describe anything before the level of 3M)

that's true, but the same is true in other sequences... imagine

1H : 2C

2H : 3H

playing serious 3nt and fred's cuebidding style...

 

I advise no more than 2 meanings instead of the proposed three

which 2?

 

And as TheoKole points out, you certainly have less room available to investigate slam when you have a major fit.

maybe, but no less than in the example above

 

in any case, 2nt is now used in different ways over 1M by different people... invitational only (wj05), limit+ (several 2/1s, ben's among them), 13-15 balanced (fred)...

[Double !]

Jimmy:

 

I don't know the answer regarding the playability of your suggested innovation,

 

However, I suggest that you might wish to look at the impact that interference/ competitive bidding, especially some pre-emptive or jump bidding by the opps might have on your structure, and look at how you might be able to handle it. So many little innovations that I have come up with over time have seemed good until I looked at the impact that the opps bidding would have on them.

 

Good luck. Hope you ideas work. Try them. Go for it. What do you have to lose?

 

DHL

[Winstonm]

I really can't say which two - it depends on how this affects the other hands in your system. I have just found that trying to assign more than 2 meanings to an artificial bid clouds the issue too much.

 

Here's something I developed to show you an idea of what I call "the ripple affect" that occurs when a bid is changed.

 

In Bergen raises, we play that 1 major-3C is one of two hand types: either the limit raise with 4-card support or a forcing raise with 3-card support. Opener responds as if up against the limit raise with this exception: if he would normally bid game he bids instead 3D to ask clarification, allowing responder to show a limited hand or a stong balanced hand with 3 trump. If he would try for slam opposite a limit raise, he bids the "other" major and responder shows a game forcing hand then with 3N - direct cue bids show limit raises. This is the sequence where a hand like: Kxx, xx, AKxx, Kxxx falls, hence removing this hand from other sequences. The ripple is that now: 1S-2C-2D-2S is not this hand and shows a goodish club suit along with the 3-card or 4 card support. Another ripple is that hands with goodish suits and 4-card support do not have to use Jacoby, so Jacoby shows a forcing balanced hand with 4 card support. And so on and so on.

 

It's not enough to address a need; the entire scheme of bidding is altered and must be addressed.

 

But to answer your question, if I were to look for an improvement in Jacoby (which I'm thinking about as well), then I'd lean first to 2N as a puppet to 3C (which opener only accepts with a balanced hand) with say 2-3 card support or standard 4 card support, thus allowing opener to bypass the puppet with unbalanced hands and bid 3d, 3H, 3S, 3N as the singleton bids while allowing responder to bid 3N with 2/3 card support if up against a balanced hand. So in this sense 2N could be natural with 13-15 or Jacoby.

Something like that, anyway.

 

Winston