2/1 GF or SAYC-style responses to limited 1M opening?

[awm]

It is pretty clear that an artificial 1♠ response to a 1♥ opening that is not always GF would not be allowed on the general chart. This has nothing to do with relays.

 

As for whether 1♠-2♥ should be forcing it seems that there are three options:

 

2♥ is 6+ and NF. This lets you play one level lower any time opener rejects. But you have some pretty serious issues on hands where responder has five hearts, to the degree that I think this is clearly inferior to...

 

2♥ is 5+ and NF. This lets you play in 2♥ when opener has exactly doubleton and min. This is good when responder has a decent heart suit, but bad if 7 hearts (might miss game) or a better fit elsewhere (most common if responder is 5/5 or has doubleton spade). At IMPs the losses can be expensive (though rare); at MP you wind up playing 2♥ instead of 2nt a lot which can be good or bad.

 

The third possibility is 2♥ forcing which is good when opener is min with doubleton but 2♥ is not the right contract, and also allows you to add in a few GF hands.

 

My view is that if you really think you would rather relay on all GF hands then 2♥ 5+ NF vs. forcing is probablt a wash (but 6+ NF is worse); but I don't think relay is that good when relayer has certain hand types, especially since the 2♣ relay puts youa step up from symmetric.

[akhare]

Finding a 6-2 heart fit is rather difficult. Let's say 1S-2H were forcing. Then we could...

 

.....2S-0-1 heart, minimum, only 5 spades

.....2N-2 hearts, minimum, only 5 spades

.....3C-GF 6 spades?

.....3D-GF diamonds?

.....3H-minimum fit?

.....3S-GF clubs?

 

Thoughts? I don't like it.

 

If 2H is nf then we get an extra bid to "show" the doubleton which is pass. We lose out on games where responder just wants a 6-2 fit but we stay at the 2-level more often and avoid the dangerous three level.

 

I don't think your proposed continuations over an ostensibly forcing 2H are right. As Adam suggested, the 2♠ rebid by opener (not forcing) can serve multiple purposes.

 

Granted, this occasionally misses out playing in the 5-2 heart fit when opener is balanced and one can avoid committing to the 4♥ game in the 5-3 fit by making opener's 3H bid NF.

 

1♠ - 2♥:

... 2♠ = relay, min hand or fairly balanced (can be passed with spade tolerance)

-----> 2NT = flat or short spades, not 5/5

-----> 3m = 5/5 invite (NF)

-----> 3♥ = 6+♥ sound invite

-----> 3♠ = GF "picture" hand

-----> 4m = self splinter with great hearts

... Others = natural, GF

... 3H: NF?

 

As noted, the crux of issue is whether all GF hands should be processed through 2♣. IMO, 2♣ a great tool hands with *clear cut* slam potential or for GF hands that can't force using other methods. On hands on which game is the limit, conducting a less revealing auction via the forcing 2♦ / 2♥ bids might be a good tradeoff.

[straube]

Well, I think I'd like to adopt this. Wondering if...

 

1S-3C=GI and better clubs than 1S-2N

 

and keeping

 

1S-3D=LR

1S-3H=MR

 

I'd prefer 1S-2H as GI nf. The continuations are so much easier...

 

1S-2H, 2S=I'm stuck

1S-2S, 2N=6S, GF

 

Not sure if we need anything fancy after

 

1S-2D, 2S showing 4+ hearts

 

because responder is going to want to bid 2N, 3C, 3D, 3H or 4H but never 3S or 3N.

 

What would 1S-2D, 3H and 3S be? I'm thinking

 

1S-2D, 3D is a forcing raise of diamonds

1S-2D, 3C is probably forcing with clubs

 

We have to have opener be able to distinguish between minimum 5S/5H and forcing 5S/5H hands as well as minimum 6S/4H and forcing 6S/4H hands

 

So can we remember...

 

1S-2D,

.....3H-minimum 6S/4H

.....3S-maximum 5S/5H

 

now

 

1S-2D

.....2S (showing hearts)

..........2N (misfit)

...............3H-minimum 5S/5H

...............3S-maximum 6S/4H

 

Last thing is that if 1S-1N, 2H-4H shows GI with hearts and clubs then we might want to consider rebidding 2H with a hand that doesn't want that response. I.e. should have something extra in terms of shortness or hcps or fifth heart. Maybe pass with AQxxx Qxxx Kx xx.

[akhare]

Well, I think I'd like to adopt this. Wondering if...

 

1S-3C=GI and better clubs than 1S-2N

 

and keeping

 

1S-3D=LR

1S-3H=MR

 

If the intent is to use 3♣ as natural GI, then 2N can potentially be used as a 2-way bid that combines LR OR mixed raise. This might have some advantage since it frees up 3♦ for WJS and 3♥ as a good invite with a suit that can play opposite a stiff (and might cover some losses in marginal hands in the 2♥ NF).

[straube]

I'd rather not combine the mixed and limit raise. We have the opponents to think of and there's a big enough difference that I'd like to know right away. Also feel the WJS in diamonds is less important. We can often get there after 1S-1N, 2C-2D

 

We could go with

 

2N-GI clubs

3C-limit

3D-mixed

3H-GI hearts, better

 

I suppose we'd have some clarity now if opener rebids 3S over that since it promises extra and should be forcing. Perhaps we'd get to the 6-2 spade fit when it's right.

 

What do others think? Do we need this 3H GI? And is 1S-2N a command to bid 3C or not? Thinking it's only a suggestion.

[rbforster]

I'm a bit late to this, but I worked on a similar system at one point over 1M. My broad conclusions were that

 

1. Having two invites is good, and allows light openers to clearly have more advantages than disadvantages

 

2. Having the cheapest responses to 1M be forcing helps A LOT. This probably means giving up the semi forcing NT i know you wanted to keep, but at least give it some thought. Similar thoughts apply to the forcing 2♦ vs NF one.

 

My approach was to having a natural Inv+ 2C showing 4+ cards (possibly GF canapé), while other GFs without clubs went through either 1N(f) or 2♦♥. Ask me sometime if you want more details.

[straube]

I'm a bit late to this, but I worked on a similar system at one point over 1M. My broad conclusions were that

 

1. Having two invites is good, and allows light openers to clearly have more advantages than disadvantages

 

2. Having the cheapest responses to 1M be forcing helps A LOT. This probably means giving up the semi forcing NT i know you wanted to keep, but at least give it some thought. Similar thoughts apply to the forcing 2♦ vs NF one.

 

My approach was to having a natural Inv+ 2C showing 4+ cards (possibly GF canapé), while other GFs without clubs went through either 1N(f) or 2♦♥. Ask me sometime if you want more details.

 

I really like a semiforcing NT, but I'm curious what you came up with if you'd like to share.

[rbforster]

I really like a semiforcing NT, but I'm curious what you came up with if you'd like to share.

I was never entirely happy with the followups, but the basic idea was to have a dialogue-style bidding similar to 2/1 after 1M-2♣, with some relays after 1M-1N(f) starting with "third suit GF" by responder (I.e. 1M-1N-2♣-2♦ was an artificial GF). This worked well with 1M-2♦♥ as weakish NF to handle the 2 level sign offs that normally go through 1N(f) in 2/1.

 

Let me ask you this - exactly what are your shapes and strengths that are allowed to pass the SF NT? Just 5332 min, or some 5422s with weak side suits, etc? Adam's suggestion of putting weak invites into the NT response might accomplish both goals. I still think making it forcing can help a lot, since it frees up some jump rebids by responder that are otherwise certainly lost (perhaps for rare GF hands that don't want to relay?). Also, you say you want to be able to stop in 1M-2♦, but are coming around to having that be forcing. I agree stopping at a low minor like that is a super narrow target, especially on the first round of bidding with so little described, and with all the hands in 1N(sf) I think a similar argument might apply. Certainly 1N scores better than 2♦ and also is a lot more likely to win the bidding, but you gain so many more sequences that it seems worthwhile (weak sign offs could free the direct WJS bids for custom major raises, etc).

[straube]

On the point of 1S-3H as GI 6 hearts...presumably a suit willing to play opposite shortness...

 

Is this really what is needed? If we have a suit willing to play opposite shortness then whether pd has doubleton support by definition is not key.

 

1S-2H,

2S-3H (5S/1H), self-sufficient suit

 

accomplishes this already, right?

 

The more important problem is when responder has a suit like KJxxxx and needs to know about doubleton support. He occasionally would be disappointed to hear partner pass 2H with a doubleton. In fact this is a problem hand for other folks, too. Does responder brave the 3H level to invite?

 

I'd been thinking that 1S-2H, 2N as a spade rebid and thus game forcing should be replaced with...

 

1S-2H, 2N as an artificial GF. There's time enough to check back for spades. So that's one idea for 1S-2H, 2N.

 

The other idea is

 

1S-2H as any GI with hearts but

 

1S-2H

.....P-minimum, 2-fit

.....2S-stuck, 5S,0-1H, minimum

.....2N-medium, 2-fit

.....3C-artificial GF

..........3D-4 diamonds

..........3H-6 hearts

..........3S-2 spades

..........3N-4 clubs

.....3D-medium raise of hearts

.....3H-minimum raise of hearts

.....3S-6 spades, nf (12-13) allowing for a misfit

 

 

or something like that. The basic idea is using the 2S and 2N rebids to distinguish between doubleton and short hearts

[akhare]

On the point of 1S-3H as GI 6 hearts...presumably a suit willing to play opposite shortness...

 

Is this really what is needed? If we have a suit willing to play opposite shortness then whether pd has doubleton support by definition is not key.

 

1S-2H,

2S-3H (5S/1H), self-sufficient suit

 

accomplishes this already, right?

 

The more important problem is when responder has a suit like KJxxxx and needs to know about doubleton support. He occasionally would be disappointed to hear partner pass 2H with a doubleton. In fact this is a problem hand for other folks, too. Does responder brave the 3H level to invite?

 

I'd been thinking that 1S-2H, 2N as a spade rebid and thus game forcing should be replaced with...

 

1S-2H, 2N as an artificial GF. There's time enough to check back for spades. So that's one idea for 1S-2H, 2N.

 

The other idea is

 

1S-2H as any GI with hearts but

 

1S-2H

.....P-minimum, 2-fit

.....2S-stuck, 5S,0-1H, minimum

.....2N-medium, 2-fit

.....3C-artificial GF

..........3D-4 diamonds

..........3H-6 hearts

..........3S-2 spades

..........3N-4 clubs

.....3D-medium raise of hearts

.....3H-minimum raise of hearts

.....3S-6 spades, nf (12-13) allowing for a misfit

 

 

or something like that. The basic idea is using the 2S and 2N rebids to distinguish between doubleton and short hearts

 

How about something simpler?

 

P: Min hand with 2+ ♥

2S: NF, min hands that don't want to pass 2♥

2N: GF, other hands, including 6♠ without 2+♥

3m: GF, 4+m

3H: NF, 3+♥ raise

3S: GF, 6S with 2♥

3N: To play (rare)

4M: To play

[rhm]

How about something simpler?

 

P: Min hand with 2+ ♥

2S: NF, min hands that don't want to pass 2♥

2N: GF, other hands, including 6♠ without 2+♥

3m: GF, 4+m

3H: NF, 3+♥ raise

3S: GF, 6S with 2♥

3N: To play (rare)

4M: To play

This is difficult to discuss without the rest of your agreements.

 

My major suit openings are limited to 17 HCP points and 1NT (15-17) is the standard opening with a balanced hand and a 5 card major.

If 1♠-2♥ is non forcing, 2♥ does not promise 6, but if only 5 cards, suit must be good. Respond 1NT (semi-forcing) with ♥Axxxx, but 2♥ with ♥KJTxx

 

P: Min hand with 2+ ♥ or singleton heart honor

2♠: NF, min hands with 2-- ♥ and 6+ ♠

2N: 5 spades only: 5♠=0♥=4♦=4♣ or 5♠=1♥=4♦=3♣ or 5♠=1♥=3♦=4♣.

3m: 5+m, non forcing

3♥: NF, normally 3+♥ raise, but could be 5♠=2♥=4♦=2♣ or 5♠=2♥=2♦=4♣ with 15-17 HCP

3♠: GI, 6+ spades, better than minimum, usually 15-17

3N: To play, 6 good spades, 15-17, suitable for notrump, stoppers in minors

4m: Splinter, 4+hearts

4M: To play

 

Responders rebids are all natural, non forcing and self explanatory and normally a suggestion to play.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

How about something simpler?

 

P: Min hand with 2+ ♥

2S: NF, min hands that don't want to pass 2♥

2N: GF, other hands, including 6♠ without 2+♥

3m: GF, 4+m

3H: NF, 3+♥ raise

3S: GF, 6S with 2♥

3N: To play (rare)

4M: To play

 

I'd like 1S-2H, 3S to show a possible misfit minimum hand. Like AKxxxx x Axx xxx. Even playing weak twos of

(6)7-11 I doubt that either one of us wants to preempt this hand, but do we really want to GF in a possible misfit situation?

 

The other thing is that

 

1S-2H, 3m needs to promise 5. Even after 1S-2H, 2N-3m should promise 5. It's too hard to locate 4-4 minor suit fits here and we mostly want to pick up our 9-cd minor suit fits.

 

In fact, I'd like to have a partnership agreement that we never introduce 4-cd minor suit fits at the 3-level (excluding obviously when responding to takeout doubles) unless it is crystal clear to partner and that is likely only when this is the third suit being shown (a 5440).

 

Say it goes 1S (2H) P P 2S (3C) has got to promise 5. If we only have a 5/4 we need to pass or double. If we have a 6/4m we can rebid 2N (this is NOT good bad 2N).

 

Pretty much feel the same way about 4-cd majors at the 3-level. 1S (2C ) P (3C) 3H should be 5/5 and not 5/4 or 6/4.

 

Different topic, but I think we should play

 

1S-2D

.....2H-artificial, minimum, could have 5m

.....2S-4+ hearts, forcing though (not necessarily minimum)

..........2N-no fit

...............3m-a 5440 :) and should be forcing or just pass 2N

...............3H-5/5 minimum

...............3S-6/4 minimum

.....2N-artificial GF

.....3C-5C, GF

.....3D-5D, GF

.....3H-5H, GF

.....3S-6S/4H, GF

[straube]

I was never entirely happy with the followups, but the basic idea was to have a dialogue-style bidding similar to 2/1 after 1M-2♣, with some relays after 1M-1N(f) starting with "third suit GF" by responder (I.e. 1M-1N-2♣-2♦ was an artificial GF). This worked well with 1M-2♦♥ as weakish NF to handle the 2 level sign offs that normally go through 1N(f) in 2/1.

 

Let me ask you this - exactly what are your shapes and strengths that are allowed to pass the SF NT? Just 5332 min, or some 5422s with weak side suits, etc? Adam's suggestion of putting weak invites into the NT response might accomplish both goals. I still think making it forcing can help a lot, since it frees up some jump rebids by responder that are otherwise certainly lost (perhaps for rare GF hands that don't want to relay?). Also, you say you want to be able to stop in 1M-2♦, but are coming around to having that be forcing. I agree stopping at a low minor like that is a super narrow target, especially on the first round of bidding with so little described, and with all the hands in 1N(sf) I think a similar argument might apply. Certainly 1N scores better than 2♦ and also is a lot more likely to win the bidding, but you gain so many more sequences that it seems worthwhile (weak sign offs could free the direct WJS bids for custom major raises, etc).

 

Not sure that we have firm agreements about when to pass. For me it's a judgment call as to whether we're likely to improve the contract or not by bidding. In this latest structure, I think I'd have a better chance of improving with clubs as opposed to diamonds. I'm thinking of passing 5422 minimums because 2H is so preemptive (for when pd has a long minor) and the upside is smaller. I think I lot of people might disagree, but looking at our starting conditions...responder doesn't have 3 spades ever and responder doesn't have GI 5+ hearts.

[rbforster]

Not sure that we have firm agreements about when to pass. For me it's a judgment call as to whether we're likely to improve the contract or not by bidding. In this latest structure, I think I'd have a better chance of improving with clubs as opposed to diamonds. I'm thinking of passing 5422 minimums because 2H is so preemptive (for when pd has a long minor) and the upside is smaller. I think I lot of people might disagree, but looking at our starting conditions...responder doesn't have 3 spades ever and responder doesn't have GI 5+ hearts.

Certainly after 1M-1N, one should be more willing to bid 2♣ (whatever it means), since the extra space gives you the most chances for improving the contact (via BART or whatever). My point about your opener's rebidding style was that if you are often bidding over 1N, then making it forcing doesn't change too many sequences and potentially adds a fair number of good ones too.

 

Another observation from my earlier explorations was this - its better to put red suit hands into 1N than similar club ones if you have a choice. This is because of the above fact, combined with openers' likelihood to rebid 2♣ when responder is unbalanced with short clubs. So in Adam's methods (at least without worrying about the GCC), you might consider making 1N be any light invite or a sound invite with diamonds (rather than sound with clubs). Then make the direct bid of 1M-2♦ show a sound invite with clubs instead of natural.

[straube]

So in Adam's methods (at least without worrying about the GCC), you might consider making 1N be any light invite or a sound invite with diamonds (rather than sound with clubs). Then make the direct bid of 1M-2♦ show a sound invite with clubs instead of natural.

 

That makes sense and is a good point, but we're preparing for GCC...and if we could find something good for GCC it would be nice to use it for Midchart as well.

[straube]

This is based on awm's suggestion of responding 1N with most of the heavy invites. A recurring idea is for responder to rebid 2S after opener's rebid to show a light invite of opener's last bid suit with a 2-fit for hearts. There isn't a need to show a 2-fit for a heavy invite with clubs because if opener has six hearts, he will have enough strength to rebid hearts naturally and force game.

 

1H-

.....1N-semiforcing or heavy club invite

..........2C-4 clubs or 3 if accepting game invitation

...............2D-diamonds

...............2H-preference

...............2S-2 hearts, club fit, light invite

...............2N-0-1 hearts, club fit, light invite

...............3C-0-2 hearts, club fit, heavy invite

....................3H-6H, GF

..........2D-4 diamonds

...............2H-preference

...............2S-2 hearts, diamond fit, light invite

...............2N-clubs, heavy invite

....................3H-6H, GF

...............3C-clubs

...............3D-0-1 hearts, light invite

..........2H-6 hearts or 45(31) max

...............2S-2-fit, light invite

...............2N-clubs, heavy invite

..........2S-6 hearts, max

..........2N-4S/6H, max

..........3C-6C, max

..........3D-6D, max

..........3H-5S/6H, not minimum

..........3S-5S/6H, maximum

.....2C-GF relay

.....2D-GI, 4+ diamonds, f

..........2H-5 hearts, minimum

...............2S-2-fit and wants to show alternatives

....................2N-relays

.........................3C-5D/5C

.........................3D-6D

....................3C-5C

...............2N-0-1 hearts, misfit

...............3C-0-1 hearts, 5D/5C

...............3D-0-1 hearts, 6D

..........2S-6 hearts, not 4D, forcing

..........2N-5 hearts, artificial GF

...............3C-5D/5C

...............3D-6D

..........3C-5 clubs, GF

..........3D-4 diamonds, forcing

..........3H-5S/6H, min

..........3S-5S/6H, GF

.....2H-raise

.....2S-6S, 0-10

.....2N-GI, 6C

.....3C-LR

.....3D-MR

.....3H-WR

[akhare]

1H-

.....1N-semiforcing or heavy club invite

 

....

 

.....2S-6S, 0-10

 

As I see it, this structures forces balanced 12-13 counts to bid over 1N for the fear of missing out the heavy invite hand with clubs (which presumably includes the 12-13 counts with 4♣333, 5♣332, etc.).

 

To put it simply, I don't see how a semi-forcing 1N response that contains more than 11 HCPs is truly viable, because opener will pass balanced hands in the 10-11 HCP range (maybe some really bad 12 counts), which seems too narrow a target.

 

Also, the important 2♠ bid is used for the rare WJS in ♠. While this serves the purpose of making responder's ♠ rebid *always* forcing (even in competition), it's not a very good use of the space.

 

It seems that this structure might be better served by using the hack of hiding the ♠ WJS in the 1N response.

[straube]

As I see it, this structures forces balanced 12-13 counts to bid over 1N for the fear of missing out the heavy invite hand with clubs (which presumably includes the 12-13 counts with 4♣333, 5♣332, etc.).

 

Also, the important 2♠ bid is used for the rare WJS in ♠. While this serves the purpose of making responder's ♠ rebid *always* forcing (even in competition), it's not a very good use of the space.

 

It seems that this structure might be better served by using the hack of hiding the ♠ WJS in the 1N response.

 

You'd like 1N forcing over 1H?

[akhare]

You'd like 1N forcing over 1H?

No, however, it's difficult to see semi-forcing 1N response that more than 11 HCPs can be made to work, even over 1♠. All 12+ and 13 balanced counts must rebid for the fear of missing out on the 12-13 / 13-13 games.

[straube]

So we're testing it. My original thought to use 1H-1N, 2S for a 14-15 ct with six hearts seems to be too aggressive. It needs to show a hand with 7 hearts or perhaps a 6-cd suit that is playable opposite shortness. It basically should be reserved for a hand that is trying to find game opposite maybe 10-11 with shortness ( a hand that would otherwise pass a 2H rebid).

 

The other difficulty we've had is continuations after 1H-2D. We've used...

 

2H-minimum, 5 hearts

2S-6 hearts, gf

2N-other, gf

3C-5 clubs, gf

3D-4 diamonds, gf

 

The difficulty is primarily with 2N which can be KJxx AQxxx Axx x or x AQxx Axx KJxx. I mean a huge difference.

 

I'm thinking that...

 

1H-2D,

 

2H-minimum, 5 hearts

2S-6 hearts, gf, could have side suit

2N-balanced

3C-65clubs, gf

3D-5 diamonds, gf

3H-1543 or 1534 or 0544

3S-3514 or 4513 or 4504

3N 3541 or 4531 or 4540

 

The other thing is over 1H-2D, 2S and 1H-2D, 2N it makes a lot of sense to reverse the meanings of responder's 3m bids. 3C should show 6 diamonds and 3D should show 5/5.

 

Now look what happens...

 

1H-2D, 2N-3C,

 

3D-fit

.....3H-club stopper

.....3S-spade stopper

 

Anyway, that may be a bridge too far, but I think we need the rest of it.

[awm]

A simple modification might be:

 

1♥ - 2♦...

 

2♠ = GF balanced or spades

2NT = GF six hearts

3♣ = GF clubs

3♦ = GF 2542

3♥ = 4+♦ short clubs

3♠ = 4+♦ short spades

[straube]

A simple modification might be:

 

1♥ - 2♦...

 

2♠ = GF balanced or spades

2NT = GF six hearts

3♣ = GF clubs

3♦ = GF 2542

3♥ = 4+♦ short clubs

3♠ = 4+♦ short spades

 

What would you think of switching the 2S and 2N rebids? Let's say we have 1624 opposite 3145. Now we want opener to show longer hearts and then clubs. Otherwise we probably find ourselves in 3N without ever learning of the club fit.

 

1H-2D, 2S leaves responder a temporizing rebid of 2N.

 

OTOH,

 

1H-2D, 2N showing balanced or spades doesn't really need a temporizing bid...and responder can show a distributional hand with his first two available bids.

 

Yeah, the 2542 has been a problem and I like that you give it its own rebid...

 

1H-2D

 

2S-6 hearts

2N-bal or 4 spades

3C-5 clubs

3D-2542

3H-diamonds high short

3S-diamonds, low short

 

Certainly 3N should mean something...

[straube]

1H-2D

 

.....2H-minimum, 5-cd

.....2S-6cd, GF

..........2N-relay, promises at least 2 spades

...............3m-4cd

...............3H-7H

...............3S-stopper ask

...............3N-spade stopper

.....2N-bal or short diamonds, GF

..........3C-5cd

..........3D-6cd, club stopper assumed

..........3H-2H

..........3S-stopper ask

..........3N-spade stopper or 3-cd length (opener must have at least 2 spades)

.....3C-5cd, GF

.....3D-1534 or 4531, GF

..........3H-relays

...............3S-1534

...............3N-4531

.....3H-2542

..........3S-stopper ask

.....3S-4+D, short spades

.....3N-4+D, short clubs

 

Not finding room for 5S/6H hands and not sure that this is much of a problem either. In simulations, I rarely seem to find a 5-3 spade fit and it likely plays well in 3N anyhow.

[straube]

time to revisit this. Spade auctions will be harder because we have to look for heart fits as well. Another way of saying this is that both partners have a much wider range of patterns...

 

The old...

 

1S-2D

.....2H-artificial, minimum, could have 5m

.....2S-4+ hearts, forcing though (not necessarily minimum)

..........2N-no fit

...............3m-a 5440 :) and should be forcing or just pass 2N

...............3H-5/5 minimum

...............3S-6/4 minimum

.....2N-artificial GF

.....3C-5C, GF

.....3D-5D, GF

.....3H-5H, GF

.....3S-6S/4H, GF

 

The new...

 

1S-2D

.....2H-artificial, minimum, could have 5m

..........2S-4 hearts

..........2N-other

...............3C-5C

...............3D-4D

...............3H-5H

.....2S-6 spades, GF

..........2N-other

...............3C-4C

...............3D-4D

...............3H-4H

.....2N-bal or hearts, GF

..........3C-5D/5C

...............3H-5H

..........3D-6D

...............3H-5H

..........3H-2H

..........3S-3H

..........3N-4H

.....3C-5 clubs

.....3D-5134 or 5431

..........3H-relays

.....3H-5242

.....3S-4+ diamonds, higher short

.....3N-4+ diamonds, lower short

[straube]

So what I've found for both hearts and spades is that when responder is showing 5D/5C or 6D in a non-forcing way, then he needs to rebid the suits naturally. When instead we've entered a game force, it's much better to invert the meanings. The 5/5 hand is much better defined and should use more space. At the least, the 6D hand needs to know if partner has a fit or not for diamonds.

 

1H-2D

 

2H-minimum, may have a diamond fit, could be some minimum 4+S/6H but otherwise denies 6H), nf

.....P-minimum, 2-fit

.....2S-2-fit with something else to show

..........2N-relay

...............3C-5D/5C

...............3D-6D

..........3H-6H very minimum with side spades

.....2N-short heart (should be 3154 or 3145)

..........place contract?

.....3C-short heart-5D/5C

.....3D-short heart-6D

2S-6H, GF

.....2N-other (3154 or 3145)

..........place contract?

.....3C-6D

..........3D-fit

..........3H-twice rebiddable

..........3S-5S

.....3D-5D/5C

..........3H-twice rebiddable

..........3S-5S/6H

2N-bal or short diamonds, GF

.....3C-6D

.....3D-5D/5C

.....3H-2 or fewer spades

.....3S-3 spades

3C-5C

3D-1534 or 4531

.....3H-relays

3H-2542

3S-4+ diamonds, short spade

3N-4+ diamonds, short heart

 

1S-2D

 

2H-minimum, could have diamond raise or side suit

.....2S-2 spades, nf

..........2N-4 hearts, too

..........3C-5 clubs

..........3D-4 diamonds

..........3H-5 hearts

.....2N-short spade, 3-suited

..........3C-5 clubs

..........3D-4 diamonds

..........3H-5 hearts

.....3C-5D/5C

.....3D-6D

2S-6S, GF, all rebids are natural, we can frequently find 6S/5Hs

.....2N-other (e.g. 1453 or 1444 or 1354)

..........3C-4 clubs

..........3D-3 diamonds

..........3H-4 hearts

..........3S-twice rebiddable spades

..........4H-5H

.....3C-6D

..........3D-fit

...............3H-4H

..........3H-5H

.....3D-5D/5C

..........3H-5H

2N-bal or short diamonds, GF, could have 4+ hearts

.....3C-6D

..........3D-fit

...............3H-4H

..........3H-5H

.....3D-5D/5C

.....3H-2 or fewer hearts

.....3S-3 hearts

.....3N-4 hearts

3C-5 clubs, GF

3D-5134 or 5431

.....3H-relays

3H-5242

3S-4+ diamonds, short hearts

3S-4+ diamods, short clubs

 

Things become a little cloudy after 1S-2D, 2S when partner shows minor suit holdings. Probably bidding should be natural and there shouldn't be a stopper ask.