Wich setup do you prefer ?

[benlessard]

1D--1S

??

 

1D is unbalanced at least 4D 11-22 may be 4D+5C or 1444 but not 4D+6C

1S is NF show 5, 5-11

 

1st version

 

1NT = clubs (could have 4H, 1444,0454,0445)

2C = 6 diamonds

2D = 5D+4H 11-17

2H = weak or GF raise

2S = 15-17 raise

 

rest is jumpshift D+H

 

2nd version

 

1NT = 5D+4C or 6D

2C = 5C may have 4/5/6D

2D = 5D+4H 11-17

2H = weak or GF raise

2S = 15-17 raise

 

the pro about version 2 is knowing about the 5th clubs (good when responder is 5422,5323,5332)

The con is its tougher for responder to raise to 3C if hes short in diamonds.

We also lose some 2 card spade raise (transfer in C/D followed by 2S to show 2s and 16-17)

[straube]

I like the first version because you can presumably pass 1N in a misfit but are guaranteed to play at least 2D when opener has six diamonds. I'm not sure what happens in version 2 when responder has 5314 and opener has a long diamond suit; you might play 1N when 2D is better.

[PhilKing]

First version looks pretty tidy and powerful to me.

[Kungsgeten]

I think the first structure would work best, mainly because of the con of not being able to bid 3C after 1D-1S; 1NT. I also think it can be worth considering a Gazilli-like structure, especially in combination with your transfer scheme. Here's some ideas:

 

1NT = 6+ diamonds or some strong hands

2C = both minors, ca 11--16

2D = hearts, ca 11--14

2H = weak/GF raise

2S = 15-17 raise

Other = GF hearts

 

After the 1NT Gazilli bid:

 

2C = positive waiting bid, ca 8+

...2D = 6+ diamonds, Ca 11--15

...2H = Hearts, perhaps 15-17

...2S = Perhaps 15-17 with 3 spades and 6 diamonds?

...2N = Both minors, longer diamonds, GF

...3C = Both minors, longer clubs, GF

...3D = Natural GF

...3H = Three-suiter, short spades, GF

...3S = Slam interest

...3N = 4 spades, short hearts, slam interest

...4C = 4 spades, short clubs, slam interest

2D = negative

...pass = not enough to bid again

...2H = good 15-17 with hearts

...2S = 3 spades, 6 diamonds?

...2N = Both minors, INV with longer diamonds or GF

......3m = Preference

.........3H = GF, longer clubs

.........3S = GF, longer diamonds

......3H = Stopper?

......3S = Suggests 5-2 spade contract, GF

......3N = To play

......4m = Natural with some extras

...3C = Both minors, INV with longer clubs

...3D = INV

...3H = GF with 6+ diamonds

...3S = Slam interest, 3N asks SPL

...3N = To play

2H = natural negative

2S = depends on what 1D-2S is

Other = INV

[Zelandakh]

Other (classic) possibilities are for 1NT to show 5+ clubs, with 2♣ exactly 4 or 1NT = clubs equal or longer and 2♣ = longer diamonds, although there is essentially nothing wrong with your Version 1. You did not mention the rest of your response structure but that might be relevant - is 1♥ natural? any Reverse Flannery in play? etc.

 

In my (quite different) version of the unbalanced diamond the 1NT rebid shows hearts but that is because 1♥ is a relay and Responder could easily still have 4 hearts here (and indeed 4♠5♥). That is just one example showing how the response structure affects the design choice for the rebids.

[rbforster]

I like the 2nd version better, although I'd like to know were the 1444 shapes go. While passing 1N could work out in the first version on a misfit, I think the non-pass continuations will be difficult - clearly you're going to want to be able to get out in 2♣ or 2♦, which leaves only 2♥ as a force(?) in any event can lose a heart suit. I much prefer being able to show hearts over clubs (which the second one does, possibly even putting 1444 into 2♦). In addition, over the 2nd version 1N rebid (which doesn't promise clubs), you have 2♣ as a cheap force. If it were me, I'd go with a 3rd version that took the clubs out of 1N altogether:

 

1N 6+ diamonds

2♣ minors (5/4 either way)

2♦ diamonds with 4♥

etc

 

You can stick a few more hand types into 1N if you make it forcing, which seems like a good idea. I'm not sure where best to put the 1444 shape, so I leave that up to testing by someone who's interested. Obvious choices would be 2♣ or 2♦, not sure which would cause fewer issues.

[awm]

I'd give a pretty high priority to finding 4-4 heart fits when opener has 1444/04(45) type hands and neither of these structures seems very good for that. Also not clear to me how to continue after the 2D bid with such a wide range, esp. if no obvious fit.

 

Suspect I'd go with 1nt=4h or some strong hands and 2c/2d natural and limited.

[Zelandakh]

Suspect I'd go with 1nt=4h or some strong hands and 2c/2d natural and limited.

Would you prefer this structure to Version 1 with RF though, Adam?

[awm]

Would you prefer this structure to Version 1 with RF though, Adam?

 

I am very much not a fan of Reverse Flannery.

 

Assuming you are playing it for some reason, I think the priorities would be handling opener's hands with extras and getting to the best partial when opener has both minors. I'd try something like:

 

1NT = either 5♣/4♦, or extras

2♣ = 5+♦/4+♣ not extras

2♦ = either 5♦/4♥ or 6+♦, not extras

 

Over 1NT, responder would usually bid 2♣ unless having two more diamonds than clubs or a real invite. Opener passes 2♣ with 5♣/4♦ min and otherwise bids naturally to show extras (note we can still get out in 2♦ with 16-17 opposite 5-6 on some hands which is nice). If responder bids 2♦ over 1NT, opener can pass (usually) or bid anything naturally (extras) including bidding 3♦ sometimes since 2♦ basically promises 3+ cards.

 

I still do not understand the continuations that get us to game after the 2♦ rebid in the original post when we have 8-9 opposite 16-17.

[kenrexford]

Natural has been my choice for years. That means 2C is both minors, 2D is long diamonds, and per force 1NT promises four hearts. I understand that transfers allow control, and that might be better, but all seems fine so far from experience.

[benlessard]

1D-1H would be relay, 10+ or at least 3H.

 

 

We have played system 1 for quite a long time and it worked well, the huge winner was transfering and returning to 2S to show 16-17 with 2 cards, getting to some good 4M that werent bid at the other table. The other is the many minor slams (jump shift with both minors).

 

In competition we use system 2, our 1H is 3H or relay 10+

 

A) 1D-1H-(1S)-??

B) 1D-(1S)-X-(P)-?? (could be only 3H)

C) 1D-(1H)-X showing S

D) 1D-(1H)-1S denying S

 

1S/X = 3S in C support X in A

1NT= 4C or 6D (never natural)

2C = 5C

2D = Always 4M (could be opps suit)

2H = always a raise

 

Its making life simpler for my partners to keep X as support X, that 2C is always 5C, that 2D always show a 4M and that we always have 2 raises (almost) so that why I think to play system 2 even in no-comp. In short everytime opps or responder bid 1S its almost the same scheme.

 

Of course this is for Imps only since not being able to playing 1NT in MP is atrocious.

[Zelandakh]

In that case the easy solution is to use 1NT as a surrogate for the heart suit from either hand. It works better when the range is more restricted than 5-11 but should still be ok. I guess that means I am agreeing with Adam (again).

[yunling]

I'll also use 1NT rebid for hearts.

 

For simplicity, since 1♠ shows 5, just pass with some minimum misfit hands

 

1NT = 11-17 4+♥

.....2♣ = forces 2♦, then show a preference with 5-7

.....2♦/2♥ = preference with 8-10

2♣ = 13-17,at least 9 cards in minors

2♦ = natural

2♥/♠ = ♠ raise

2NT = inv+ 6+♦

3♣ = 4+♣ 18+

3♦+ = 4+♥ 18+

 

Not ideal, but quite natural and all ranges are managable.