What unusual agreement do you and partner have..........

[fromageGB]

Yeah, I use it for diamonds, and 1NT is to play opposite a weak NT.

If you have another bid for weak long clubs, think about trying 1♣ 1♠(relay) 1NT(12-14) 2♣ as transfer to ♦ either to play, or follow with another bid if invitational+. Obviously transferring the NT is better than responder playing NT. This frees up 1♣ 1NT for whatever you can't normally show. For me, that is {54} both majors less than invitational.

 

Of course if opener has a 6+ card club suit rather than the normal (semi)balanced hand, then it starts 1♣ 1♠ 2♣, and then you don't need to show a weak diamond hand. And 1♣ 1♠ 2NT is stronger than your opening 1NT, anything else a normal reverse.

[Lord Molyb]

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?

1. Do you even bother looking for a 4-card major suit fit? If yes, then what route do you follow?

2. Any 2-level bid by responder is to play? Or is it forcing for 1-round?

3. Does the 10-12 HCP range forbid the possession of a 5-card suit?

 

Maybe I'll give this a try as well?

I use this:

http://www.bridgebum.com/1nt_ultimate_preempt.php

[aguahombre]

After Opening 1NT with 10-12, our bidding structure would be the same as the continations to a strong NT; and then afterward I would apologize for miscounting by hand by 5.

[rhm]

 

2C overcall of 1NT showing 3+spades,4+hearts [never 3433 or 3424]. Gets all three suits into play on 34(15), 35(14) and 4441, even 3442 when the conditions are right. Oppo seem to struggle to cope with it too.

This sounds interesting.

Can you elaborate a little bit about continuations

My guess is responses below 2NT are not forcing, but under what conditions does overcaller pass 2♦.

I guess overcaller continues with shortage in diamonds but does he pass with 3 diamonds and shortage in clubs?

 

Also where do you draw the line between overcalling 2♣ and showing a one-suiter?

I guess you bid 2♣ with 5 hearts and 3 spades. What about 6 hearts and 3 spades?

What about 6 spades and 4 hearts?

 

Thanks

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Can you elaborate a little bit about continuations

Some discussion of the defence was made in this thread, although probably not in as much detail as you would like.

[rhm]

Some discussion of the defence was made in this thread, although probably not in as much detail as you would like.

Thanks

Rainer Herrmann

[32519]

Can 4♠ make on this hand? Or was 5♦X a phantom save?

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9765haqt62d63ct&w=shk94dakq9874cq76&n=sqt43h75d2caj9432&e=skj82hj83djt5ck85&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2n(5/5%20majors%2C%208-12%20hcp)3d4spp5ddppp]399|300[/hv]

This was a totally random deal from our local club last night. E/W are ok players but far from great. Sitting North I took a stab at 4♠ hoping for 1 of the following -

1. Something extra from partner (a good ♠/♥ holding), and/or

2. For E/W to botch the defence.

 

Even looking at the hands double dummy, can 4♠ make? Anyway we still scored a top on this board when E/W were allowed to play in 4♦. One East player was allowed to play in 3NT which easily made after a ♣ lead.

[32519]

This gem was also a completely random deal from our local club last night. Playing double dummy, is there any way that the contract can make?

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhtdkqt653cqj954&w=sakt5hq5432d97c32&n=sq7643hkj986dac76&e=s982ha7dj842cakt8&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2n(5/5%20majors%2C%208-12%20hcp)pp(Classic%20misfit)p]399|300[/hv]

East led the ♣K and then switched to a small ♠. West won with the ♠K and returned a small ♥ to East's Ace. East player her last ♥, low by West, won with the ♥8. What now?

 

All played either in 2NT or 3NT.

[manudude03]

On the first one, I think it can be made, 2 rounds of diamonds, ruffed in dummy, queen of spades to the K,A,diamond. Ace and another heart. Club switch, win the ace, lead a low spade, win cheaply. Ruff a heart high and another spade off the table. Defense only wins 1 diamond, 1 spade and 1 heart. Maybe the defense giving a ruff and discard leaves you with too much work. You should get to 4S (or defend 5D) anyway via 1S-(2D)-4S.

 

On the second it still takes further misdefense to even come to 7 tricks I think. Maybe you can force them to give you an extra spade to ensure you never get to dummy. You should be able to get into a minor if North initially passes (this is a fair bit worse than the first).

[Raff90]

My partner and i came up with a new conenvtion when we we're drinking so its not perfect yet:

 

2♣ = weak with ♥, weak 2 suiter with ♥ or semi forcing + with ♥

2♦ = weak with ♠, weak 2 suiter with ♠ or semi forcing + with ♠

2♥ = bad preempt in ♣, weak with minors or GF with clubs

2 ♠ = bad preempt in ♦, gf with ♦ or some strong NT

 

We only play this for fun and only tried it at one serious tournament.

But it got us some good scores :).

 

When we open 2♣ opps never ask what it means cause they think its semi forcing + opening.

And last time one opponent overcalled 2H with AQ109x because he didnt ask.

After i doubled and my partner converted it to a penalty double he asked what it is.

You should have seen his face :D

[MickyB]

When we open 2♣ opps never ask what it means cause they think its semi forcing + opening.

And last time one opponent overcalled 2H with AQ109x because he didnt ask.

After i doubled and my partner converted it to a penalty double he asked what it is.

You should have seen his face :D

 

It was probably the look of fear that you'd call the TD and get an adjustment to 4S X or similar.

[manudude03]

My partner and i came up with a new conenvtion when we we're drinking so its not perfect yet:

 

2♣ = weak with ♥, weak 2 suiter with ♥ or semi forcing + with ♥

2♦ = weak with ♠, weak 2 suiter with ♠ or semi forcing + with ♠

2♥ = bad preempt in ♣, weak with minors or GF with clubs

2 ♠ = bad preempt in ♦, gf with ♦ or some strong NT

 

We only play this for fun and only tried it at one serious tournament.

But it got us some good scores :).

 

When we open 2♣ opps never ask what it means cause they think its semi forcing + opening.

And last time one opponent overcalled 2H with AQ109x because he didnt ask.

After i doubled and my partner converted it to a penalty double he asked what it is.

You should have seen his face :D

 

I used to play 2♣ as either a standard strong 2C opener, or a weak 2 in diamonds. One day, I forgot about the weak option the the ops overcalled 2NT over 2C (which I did alert, but not asked), I doubled with ♦AQ9x and out. Luckily I remembered when it got passed out about the weak option, just in time to lead the diamonds from the top. It ended up going 2 off when they're cold for 4H and 4S :)

[32519]

Since starting this thread we've had at least another 4 good results using the convention in the OP, the latest one coming from the World Wide SIMS on Friday the 7th of June.

Sitting North, this was the hand and the bidding on board 1:

[hv=pc=n&s=s976hqd8763cj8765&w=skh4dakjt4cakt932&n=sqt853hkjt732d2cq&e=saj42ha9865dq95c4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2n(5/5%20majors%2C%208-12%20HCP)p(Got%20ya%21)3s4dppp]399|300[/hv]

Here is an extract from Eric Kokish's commentary on the hand:

North players who do not have a system opening for weak major two-suiters will have to choose between a disciplined pass and an atypical weak-two bid, natural or via a Multi 2♦. A few enterprising souls will take it a step further and open 3♥. West, with a wonderful hand, will face a number of scenarios that will affect his approach dramatically.

Further on he says, "....the partnership should reach at least 6♦."

 

We had our share of screw-ups in the SIMS but board 1 wasn't one of them.

[manudude03]

There are 2 things about that hand:

 

1. West has an obvious 4N bid over which East is probably worth 6D.

2. East has an obvious raise over 4D.

 

It kinda reminds me of my first ever grand slam in a "serious" event. At both tables, 3H was opened with 9 hearts. At our table, we bid up to 7C making. At the other table, they overcalled 4C with a 21 count with 7 solid clubs and was about to play there when the 3H opener decided to reopen the bidding.

[32519]

Board 26 in the SIMS of 7 June gave another opportunity of using the convention in the OP, this time for E/W. Eric Kokish gives a lengthy discussion as to what could happen at the table. This is his closing sentance on board 26: "There will be venues where E/W +620 will be a near-universal result simply because of the local methods and general approach to this type of combination, but across the field we can expect quite a variety of contracts and results."

 

Using the method in the OP, the auction will be short and sweet.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8h87dt962cat764&w=s9762ht96dak873c9&n=skjhk54dqj5ckq853&e=sqt543haqj32d4cj2&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2n(5/5%20majors%2C%208-12%20HCP)p4s(The%20DAK%20hopefully%20seals%20the%20deal)ppp]399|300[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

Board 26 in the SIMS of 7 June gave another opportunity of using the convention in the OP, this time for E/W. Eric Kokish gives a lengthy discussion as to what could happen at the table. This is his closing sentance on board 26: "There will be venues where E/W +620 will be a near-universal result simply because of the local methods and general approach to this type of combination, but across the field we can expect quite a variety of contracts and results."

 

Using the method in the OP, the auction will be short and sweet.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8h87dt962cat764&w=s9762ht96dak873c9&n=skjhk54dqj5ckq853&e=sqt543haqj32d4cj2&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2n(5/5%20majors%2C%208-12%20HCP)p4s(The%20DAK%20hopefully%20seals%20the%20deal)ppp]399|300[/hv]

Don't see your point on this one, obvious 1♠ opener for me on the E hand so no prob to bid 4, not that 4 is actually that good unless you know N has a large majority of the points.

[32519]

Don't see your point on this one, obvious 1♠ opener for me on the E hand so no prob to bid 4, not that 4 is actually that good unless you know N has a large majority of the points.

The point is that out of a total of 4503 participants, of which half are obviously E/W, only 300 or so bid game. Check out the frequencies for hand 26. Hope I've read that document correctly, but no doubt someone will correct me if I got it wrong.

 

Using the convention in the OP my point is that many more would have reached the major suit game. Knowing that opener only has 3-cards in the minors makes the jump to game easy when you have AK in the one minor and a singleton in the other.

[Vampyr]

Knowing that opener only has 3-cards in the minors makes the jump to game easy when you have AK in the one minor and a singleton in the other.

 

Wouldn't you downgrade the duplication?

[32519]

Wouldn't you downgrade the duplication?

If 7 out of opener's maximum 12 HCP consists of the ♣AK then that is a serious misrepresentation of the hand. Pre-empting 2NT this way with 8-12 HCP, responder has every reason to expect the majority of those HCP to be in the majors. E/W have a known 9-card fit in the one major and a known 8-card fit in the other. Even missing the top honours in the ♠ suit they can be expected to fall on each other.

[Cyberyeti]

The point is that out of a total of 4503 participants, of which half are obviously E/W, only 300 or so bid game. Check out the frequencies for hand 26. Hope I've read that document correctly, but no doubt someone will correct me if I got it wrong.

 

Using the convention in the OP my point is that many more would have reached the major suit game. Knowing that opener only has 3-cards in the minors makes the jump to game easy when you have AK in the one minor and a singleton in the other.

It's a sub 50% game at pairs, you have 3 top losers and need the heart finesse and not 3 spade losers so you really don't want to be in it, note that you still go off with everything right when a stiff heart is led and the other hand has ♠ AK double.

[Gerben42]

2♥ opening showing a weak hand with both majors has been great for us! :)

Unfortunately most people in the club play this (sometimes 2♦) so it usually doesn't pay off that well in the club but only outside.

[Finch]

The point is that out of a total of 4503 participants, of which half are obviously E/W, only 300 or so bid game. Check out the frequencies for hand 26. Hope I've read that document correctly, but no doubt someone will correct me if I got it wrong.

 

Using the convention in the OP my point is that many more would have reached the major suit game. Knowing that opener only has 3-cards in the minors makes the jump to game easy when you have AK in the one minor and a singleton in the other.

 

That looks like good bidding by the majority to me. Why do you want to be in game unless you have seen the hand records?

[cherdano]

Since starting this thread we've had at least another 4 good results using the convention in the OP, the latest one coming from the World Wide SIMS on Friday the 7th of June.

Sitting North, this was the hand and the bidding on board 1:

[hv=pc=n&s=s976hqd8763cj8765&w=skh4dakjt4cakt932&n=sqt853hkjt732d2cq&e=saj42ha9865dq95c4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2n(5/5%20majors%2C%208-12%20HCP)p(Got%20ya%21)3s4dppp]399|300[/hv]

Here is an extract from Eric Kokish's commentary on the hand:

North players who do not have a system opening for weak major two-suiters will have to choose between a disciplined pass and an atypical weak-two bid, natural or via a Multi 2♦. A few enterprising souls will take it a step further and open 3♥. West, with a wonderful hand, will face a number of scenarios that will affect his approach dramatically.

Further on he says, "....the partnership should reach at least 6♦."

 

We had our share of screw-ups in the SIMS but board 1 wasn't one of them.

 

West made a horrible bid, causing him a terrible result. Logically, this means that your 2NT opener is a GREAT CONVENTION!

[awm]

It's actually quite tricky to evaluate methods and I'd take anything posted here with a grain of salt. The fact that many of the conventions others have mentioned are ones I actually enjoy playing against (and rack up great results against) reinforces this for me. Some of the issues:

 

1. Often a good/bad result when the method occurred is not actually attributable to the method (but rather randomness or judgment by us or by the opponents).

2. There is also benefit to methods that simplify a decision even if we "should get that decision right" using more standard methods.

3. It can be difficult to quantify losses that arise from the inability to use a particular call for some other reason, or from ripple-effects of a chosen method on the rest of the system.

4. Effectiveness of a method can depend greatly on the opponents and their skill level and/or familiarity and/or defense to the method.

5. People have selective memories.

[32519]

West made a horrible bid, causing him a terrible result. Logically, this means that your 2NT opener is a GREAT CONVENTION!

A fair amount of players use a 2NT opener to show 5/5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP. Now this use for me has surely got to significantly worse than showing 5/5 in the majors. Not only have you given the opponents the hand layout and HCP distribution, defending this is simple. One method I've seen (and like) is:

1. X for takeout to the majors, majors are equal in length

2. 3♣ = both majors, ♥ longer than ♠

3. 3♦ = both majors, ♠ longer than ♥

Having tipped off the opponents as to the hand layout they are now in a position to bid and make thin games in the majors. Partner is going to be finessed for any missing high cards in the majors.

The convention in the OP has lifted the lower end requirement from 5 HCP to 8 HCP. The upper end has been lifted from 10 HCP to 12 HCP. So for starters you already have more HCP than the one used showing both minors. But the more significant issue here is that you are pushing the opponents to at least the 4-level if they want to fight for the part score. Firstly it is riskier to go to the 4-level unsure of what partner may have in support, and secondly, it is obviously easier to defeat a contract at the 4-level than what it is to defeat a contract at the 3-level when the HCP seem to be spread more or less evenly or the spread is unsure. And I think that is where we are picking up many good results in partials.

 

We have been playing the convention in the OP since early 2013. So far using it has come up 11 times or so. 10 out of 11 we got a good result. The 11th was due to idiotic declarer play by myself not thinking about the line of play to be taken. So that failure was not due to the convention. Instead it was due to human error.

 

As soon as our opponents figure out a good defence to this and our bad results start outweighing the good results, only then will we change to something else.