QP/strength ask without scanning?

[awm]

My view is that there are basically four weak hand types without fit:

 

1. (Semi-)balanced with doubleton in openers suit. While 2M rates to play fine, we want to check for a big fit somewhere else and also distinguish from the 3-fit hand that raises directly.

2. Three suiter short in openers suit. Includes 1(543) patterns as well as 1444 and 0(544). Basically wants to hear openers second suit and play there.

3. 5/5 hand, looking for the better fit usually in one of responders suits.

4. One suiter 6+ cards (and short opener suit). Pretty much knows where we want to play!

 

The standard approach of responding 1nt on weak hands is great on 1 and 2, and works okay on 4 (although sometimes you wind up at the three level especially holding a minor suit) but it’s pretty bad on 3.

 

The approach outlined by Zel seems a lot better on 3, but it seems worse on the other types. Straube’s approach seemed a bit better until he started bidding 2c on doubleton and having openers pass with four, which helps him a bit on type 4 hands but seems disastrous on some of the others.

 

I think I’d accept getting to the three level on many of the type 4 hands (and maybe get there fast via 1M-3x) in exchange for better results everywhere else. This seems pretty doable with a bit of tinkering with the standard approach — if 1nt is always less than inv you can use 1S-1N-2x-2 new suit as 5-card suit in a flexible hand and 1S-1N-2H-2N as both minors. Not sure how to do as well with natural NF bids, assuming I prefer to play 5-2 major fits over 4-3 minor fits.

[straube]

I would also recommend looking at 5D3C hands because they might do better responding 2C as well.

 

Well 2542 is a problem and I can easily construct other difficult combinations of hands.

 

Any suggestion for the 2542? Raise spades with constructive values and pass otherwise? I think that's where I'm at.

 

In any case, Zel very much likes his 1N GI+ response and I thought only to improve the handling of the less than GI hands. I.e. I like what I'm playing with 1N as semiforcing but I wouldn't claim it's better without studying it more.

 

Btw, I left unexplored what happens when responder has a light GI hand and I suspect that my suggestion would help a lot here, too. Just as an example, if you have 1S-3H as 6-cd less than GI then you can't have 1S-2H, 3H-4H. I think one can see at a glance that my way is less preemptory and tends to give both partners more chances to raise on average.

[Zelandakh]

I was going to go through some of the hands from straube but this seems more to the point somehow:

 

My view is that there are basically four weak hand types without fit:

 

1. (Semi-)balanced with doubleton in openers suit. While 2M rates to play fine, we want to check for a big fit somewhere else and also distinguish from the 3-fit hand that raises directly.

2. Three suiter short in openers suit. Includes 1(543) patterns as well as 1444 and 0(544). Basically wants to hear openers second suit and play there.

3. 5/5 hand, looking for the better fit usually in one of responders suits.

4. One suiter 6+ cards (and short opener suit). Pretty much knows where we want to play!

If this is the criteria to cover, it seems fairly easy:-

 

2♣ = 3+ clubs (covers 1C, 2 and 4C)

2♦ = 4+ diamonds (covers 1D, 3DC and 4D)

2♥ = 5+ hearts (covers 1H, 3HD, 3HC and 4H)

 

This combines ideas some of the ideas from all of us, essentially moving the 1(54)3 hands down from 2♦ to 2♣ and keeping everything else the same. I need to have a think about the repercussions here but on the surface it seems to be an improvement, which would be great!

[awm]

I was going to go through some of the hands from straube but this seems more to the point somehow:

 

 

If this is the criteria to cover, it seems fairly easy:-

 

2♣ = 3+ clubs (covers 1C, 2 and 4C)

2♦ = 4+ diamonds (covers 1D, 3DC and 4D)

2♥ = 5+ hearts (covers 1H, 3HD, 3HC and 4H)

 

This combines ideas some of the ideas from all of us, essentially moving the 1(54)3 hands down from 2♦ to 2♣ and keeping everything else the same. I need to have a think about the repercussions here but on the surface it seems to be an improvement, which would be great!

 

I do think this is an improvement, but there are still some annoying features:

 

If opener has 5224, there is no good rebid to 1♠-2♦.

If opener has 5134 and responder has 2443, you will play a 4-3 minor fit instead of a 5-2 spade fit. At MP this is definitely inferior.

If responder has a 6-card suit you will often end at the three-level, except on hands where you have a ten card fit (which might make a light game) where you stop at the two-level.

[yunling]

I would also recommend looking at 5D3C hands because they might do better responding 2C as well.

 

Well 2542 is a problem and I can easily construct other difficult combinations of hands.

 

Any suggestion for the 2542? Raise spades with constructive values and pass otherwise? I think that's where I'm at.

 

If you are removing so many hands out of 2♦/2♥ then I think you should seriously consider to adopt the Auken-Welland approach of 2♦=doubleton support here. It is more important than showing a diamond one-suiter, imo.

[straube]

If opener has 5224, there is no good rebid to 1♠-2♦.

 

True. 5314 is also awkward. I think opener needs to be able to treat a 2D response as a 6-cd suit even though it will occasionally be a 5-cd suit. With 5314 I think you need to be able to pass 2D. I like 1S-2D, 2S to be 6 spades (and not running) such that responder may raise spades with a 2-fit.

 

If opener has 5134 and responder has 2443, you will play a 4-3 minor fit instead of a 5-2 spade fit. At MP this is definitely inferior.

 

I'm hoping he plays IMPs more :) I always design for IMPs myself.

 

Anyway, I'm glad that Zel thinks the discussion is useful. My amended rules would be

 

2S-could be 2542 if light invitation

2H-6H

2D-5+ diamonds, 3-card preference to clubs

2C-3+ clubs

 

I think this would do better with the 24 hands I looked at, but a fair test would require a new set of hands.

[straube]

If you are removing so many hands out of 2♦/2♥ then I think you should seriously consider to adopt the Auken-Welland approach of 2♦=doubleton support here. It is more important than showing a diamond one-suiter, imo.

 

Interesting. What are their other responses?

[Zelandakh]

I do think this is an improvement, but there are still some annoying features:

 

If opener has 5224, there is no good rebid to 1♠-2♦.

If opener has 5134 and responder has 2443, you will play a 4-3 minor fit instead of a 5-2 spade fit. At MP this is definitely inferior.

If responder has a 6-card suit you will often end at the three-level, except on hands where you have a ten card fit (which might make a light game) where you stop at the two-level.

To be honest I made the last post just before leaving the office and was going through the numbers in my head a little on the 2♦ response. Of the 3 cases, obviously 4D has 6+ diamonds and 3DC is 5-5, so the only case with 4 diamonds and <3 clubs would be 2542, which can respond 2♥ given the safe haven of 2♠. So it seems that the 2♦ response can be 5+ diamonds. That means that your 5134 hand can choose between pass and 2♠. The former gains on case 4D, the latter will usually be best on 3DC and perhaps also 1D, at least at MP .

 

#2 is certainly true but I cannot see any alternative that would not involve playing at the 3 level a lot more often, which is worse.

 

I am not too worried about light 5m contracts - they are pretty rare and for many of them Opener will be able to make some sort of invite. Missing a light 4♥ contract is a bigger consideration but here I think the structure is ahead of standard rather than behind. Indeed this was one of the advantages that cropped up during the live playtesting we did a few years back.

[nullve]

Interesting. What are their other responses?

Their CC from BB 2017:

 

http://www.ecatsbridgenews.com/wbfsystems/BermudaBowl/Germany/Welland-Auken.pdf

 

See also post #15 in this thread.

[Zelandakh]

Their CC from BB 2017:

The CC shows that the range of this 2♦ response is 9-13. This is necessary for them because they play their relay as GF. It seems to sit less well into the GI+ relay methods and my instinct is that Adam and straube's idea meshes better, making this not the right approach for this family of systems.

[straube]

What are your other (2N+) responses and how does your 1S-1N relay unwind?

 

I'm wondering if you could slot a few hand patterns (e.g. lightly invitational 2542) in with your 1N response.

 

So for example 1S-1N, 2m-2S would be 9-13 doubleton spade.

[yunling]

Interesting. What are their other responses?

 

(from nullve's link)

They play 2♣=forcing NT and 2♥=good raise(which we do not need)

2♦shows 9-13 since their 1♠ is 10-20 and they need to split the range.

 

So reconstruct it like

2♣=4-5♣ or 2-3♣&0-1♠

...bid up the line,2NT=max 4♣

2♦=2♠ or 6+m, if 2♠ then not 4-5♣

...2♥=4+♥ any range

...2♠=no 4♥ not max

...2NT=no 4♥ max

2♥=6+♥

 

So I'll lose when you start with 1♠-2♦-P and also possibly 1♠-2♣-2♦-P but plays a lot more 5-2 major fits and will not passout a 10-card club fit at 2 level.

[straube]

Had the thought lately that Zelandakh is in a much better position than Adam and I with his 1S opening in that he doesn't have to deal with the 5332s. It's largely those patterns (maybe minimum 5422s and other minimums)that make a semiforcing NT response desirable...and then we have the problem of missing game when the 5332 is 13 hcps and responder 12 or 13.

 

So Zelandakh, you have a structure in which opener always has a comfortable rebid and the 1N response is pretty much going to be forcing whether it's GI+ or less than GF. I think your 1S opening is much more suited to 1N as less than GF and 2C as GF than what either Adam or I or doing. Curious why you're using 1N as GI+. If it's to save a step, it's pretty costly.

 

More complicated....

 

1N-forcing

.....2m-4+m

..........2D-6D

..........2H-Lebensohl

...............2S-p/c

....................weak actions

..........2S-2-fit, constructive

..........etc-invitational (e.g. you have two ways to raise opener's minor)

2C-GF (or GI with 4H/6m)

.....2D-4+C, 5440s or 5+D

.....2H-6S

.....2S-4D

.....2N-5422 or higher short

.....3C-4H, lower short

.....etc-5H

2D-5+H, GI OR 6+H

.....2H-minimum, no fit

.....2S-6S

2H-constructive or LR with 3

2S-bad raise

2N-LR+ with 4

3m-GI, not 4H

3H-GI

3S-mixed R

 

Less complicated....

 

 

1N-forcing

.....2m-4+m

..........2D-6D

..........2H-6H

..........2S-preference

2C-GF (or GI with 4H/6m)

.....2D-4+C, 5440s or 5+D

.....2H-6S

.....2S-4D

.....2N-5H

.....etc-4H

2D-5+H

2H-constructive or LR with 3

2S-bad raise

2N-LR+ with 4

3m-GI, not 4H

3H-GI

3S-mixed R

[straube]

(from nullve's link)

They play 2♣=forcing NT and 2♥=good raise(which we do not need)

2♦shows 9-13 since their 1♠ is 10-20 and they need to split the range.

 

So reconstruct it like

2♣=4-5♣ or 2-3♣&0-1♠

...bid up the line,2NT=max 4♣

2♦=2♠ or 6+m, if 2♠ then not 4-5♣

...2♥=4+♥ any range

...2♠=no 4♥ not max

...2NT=no 4♥ max

2♥=6+♥

 

So I'll lose when you start with 1♠-2♦-P and also possibly 1♠-2♣-2♦-P but plays a lot more 5-2 major fits and will not passout a 10-card club fit at 2 level.

 

So at worst 1S-2C is 1552?

 

Not sure I like the 2-way nature of the 2D response though it would frequently work out. Have you run it through the 24 hands? I'd be curious to see how it does.

[yunling]

So at worst 1S-2C is 1552?

 

Not sure I like the 2-way nature of the 2D response though it would frequently work out. Have you run it through the 24 hands? I'd be curious to see how it does.

 

Yes, 1552 is forced to bid 2♣.

 

Compare to your method this wins on 19 and possibly 1/7/13

loses on 6/24 and possibly 23

Seems that it is good for thin games?

 

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52

 

1S-2D-3C-4C-5C ? not quite sure after 3C but 3C show max 5-5 so possibly a win

 

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942

 

1S-2C-2S tie

 

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532

 

1S-2D-2H-2S Responder should have correct to 2S in other methods as well so I'll consider it a tie

 

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732

 

1S-2C-P tie

 

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54

 

1S-2D-2S tie

 

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5

 

1S-2D-2S lose

 

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95

 

1S-2D-2N-3N possible win

 

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632

 

1S-2C-P tie

 

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42

 

1S-2C-2S tie

 

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8

 

1S-2D-2H tie

 

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92

 

1S-2C-2D-2H-2S tie

 

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V

 

1S-2H tie

 

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82

 

1S-2D-2S possible win, especially at MPs

 

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84

 

1S-2C-2H-2S tie

 

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8

 

1S-2H-2S tie

 

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974

 

1S-2C-2S tie

 

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7

 

1S-2H tie

 

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7

 

1S-2D-2H-3D tie

 

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3

 

1S-2D-2S win

 

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96

 

1S-2D-3C no I'm not opening 1S here

 

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9

 

1S-2C-2H tie

 

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942

 

1S-2C-2H-2S

 

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53

 

1S-2D-2S-3D 3D on 7-2 fit, small loss but usually not matter

 

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83

 

1S-2D-2S lose

[straube]

Thanks for bidding the hands. My concern is still the 2-way diamond bid because opener can't react to it. However, I agree with your tally and I like how on board 10 you get to find the heart fit before committing to diamonds. Good job.

[awm]

Here's the hands based on what Sam and I actually play:

 

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52

 

1S-1N-2C-2S-3C-3H-5C-Pass.

 

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942

 

1S-1N-2S-Pass. Better partial than 2H.

 

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532

 

1S-Pass. Win I guess.

 

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732

 

1S-1N-2C-Pass; push.

 

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54

 

1S-1N-2S-3S-4S? Seems like an okay game

 

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5

 

1S-1N-2D-Pass.

 

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95

 

1S-1N-2D-3C-3N, or 1S-1N-2D-3C-3H-5C perhaps. Another good game.

 

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632

 

1S-1N-2C-3C-Pass? I don't mind the three level.

 

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42

 

1S-Pass for the win?

 

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8

 

1S-1N-2H-Pass

 

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92

 

1S-1N-2D-2S-4S and another good game.

 

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 X

 

1S-2C-2H-3H-4H (or 3H, opener has a tough choice). Not a bad game though.

 

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82

 

1S-1N-2C-2S seems better than 2D.

 

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84

 

1S-1N-2H-2S-Pass

 

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8

 

1S-1N-2S-Pass.

 

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974

 

1S-1N-2S-Pass.

 

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7

 

1S-1N-2C-2H-2S-Pass.

 

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7

 

1S-3D-Pass.

 

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3

 

1S-1N-2C-2H-Pass.

 

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96

 

1S-1N-2N-3C-Pass.

 

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9

 

1S-1N-2H-3H-Pass?

 

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942

 

1S-1N-2H-2S-2N-3N

 

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53

 

1S-1N-2C-2D-2S-3D-4D-5D? Seems possible to stop in a lower number of diamonds too.

 

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83

 

1S-Pass. Is this better or worse than 2D? Hard to say.

 

Anyway the theme is that we are basically always in the right partial. We sometimes get a level higher looking for game, but we also bid quite a few good games this way! This seems AT LEAST as good as any of the methods with non-forcing 2/1 bids. I'm just not buying that such a structure does "better on the weak hands."

[nullve]

I ran 24 hands on BBO. Opener is 10-15 and 5-7 spades and responder 6-11 with 0-2 spades.

 

I bid hands according to both sets of rules and I pretended that neither hand would invite. I.e. the exercise is about finding the best part score at the lowest level.

 

The scheme I proposed has a bad result board 19 but good results on boards 1, 8, 12, 17, 20, 23 and possibly 2, 4, and 13. This is a small number of hands, but it bears out what I'd found concerning staying out of opener's way.

I'll try to bid the same hands using what I posted above and my limited knowledge of the Welland-Auken system.

 

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52 1♠(!?)-1N etc. (your system) [They would have opened 1♣.]

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2N; 3♣-P [i've seen them play 2N as "pick a minor" here.]

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54 1♠-1N etc. (your system)

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P [downgrading Responder's quacky hand to "8"]

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95 1♠-1N etc. (your system)

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632 1♠-2♣; 2♠-2N; 3♣; P [assuming 2N is an INV+ relay (with "9-10", 1- S).]

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P [or just 1♠-P?]

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92 1♠-2♦; 4♠-P or some more exploratary route to 4♠

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V 1♠-1N etc. (your system)

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7 1♠-1N etc. (your system)

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7 1♠-2♣; 2♦-3♦; P

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3 1♠-1N etc. (your system)

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96 1♠(!?)-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P [They would have opened 1♣. You would have opened 2♣, right?]

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942 1♠-1N etc. (your system)

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53 1♠-2♣; 2♥-3♦; P

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P

 

I guess part of the exercise was to bid as if Responder has < INV values, so I'll modify Responder's hand on boards 1, 5, 7, 12, 17 and 22 and bid again:

 

1'. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 852 1♠(!?)-2♦; 2N-...game [i think they play 2N as a 1-under transfer here.]

1''. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 J975 Q52 Either 1♠(!?)-2♣; 2♠-P or 1♠(!?)-2♣; 2N-...game [i think they play 2N as a 1-under transfer here as well. But again, they would have opened 1♣ on this hand.]

5'. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 754 1♠-2♦; 4♠ or some more exploratory route to 4♠

5''. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 A9864 K62 J54 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P

7'. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQ975 1♠-2♣; 2♠-2N; ...game [again assuming 2N is an INV+ relay (with "9-10", 1- S)]

7''. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AQJ975 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♣; 3♦-P :( [assuming 3♣ is P/C with "5-8"]

12'. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 A987632 A84 V 1♠-2♦; 2♥-3♥; P [upgrading Responder's hand to "9"]

12''. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 QT4 V 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♥; P

17'. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......J2 A76543 AT32 7 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P

17''. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 T76543 AT32 7 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P

19'. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 A9853 A853 J3 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P

19''. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 Q9853 A853 J3 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P

22'. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 K9842 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P [They play 2♠ as MIN, 4+ H.]

22''. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 Q9742 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P

[straube]

Anyway the theme is that we are basically always in the right partial. We sometimes get a level higher looking for game, but we also bid quite a few good games this way! This seems AT LEAST as good as any of the methods with non-forcing 2/1 bids. I'm just not buying that such a structure does "better on the weak hands."

 

I think so, too. The GF hands save a relay step but the weak and invitational hands are disadvantaged quite a lot. What do you think, Zelandakh?

[Zelandakh]

I think so, too. The GF hands save a relay step but the weak and invitational hands are disadvantaged quite a lot. What do you think, Zelandakh?

I do not want to be put into the position of being an advocate or defender of the idea but the truth is that I believe that the overall structure is simply more efficient than most of the alternatives. I do agree that invitational hands are more difficult than in methods such as SA, SEF, Forum D or Acol but that is also true of 2/1. For the weak hands, I am unconvinced. So here are my thoughts on your 24 hands given your rules. In several cases, those rules do not match to the actual hands of course, which makes some auctions a little tricky to give:-

 

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52 (as nullve points out, both of these hands are too strong and reaching game is simple (West would show a max with 5 spades and 6+ clubs). Taking the hands as per straube's instructions (neither should invite) gives)

Old (544): 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P

New (553): 1♠-2♣; P

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942

Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (I would expect the former))

New: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532

Both: either 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-P (I prefer the pass with East having no realistic game interest))

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732

Both: 1♠-2♣; P (alt: 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P or 1♠-2♦; 2♥-3♣; P (there is no need to show the 5-5 here with 2 spades))

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54 (again too strong so game will be reached but under straube's rules)

Old: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

New: either 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (which probably depends on whether East has any game interest opposite a heart fit but I will need to gather some data points)

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5

Old: 1♠-2♦; P

New: 1♠-2♣; 2♦-P

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95 (straube's rules):

Both: either 1♠-2♣; 2♦-P or 1♠-2♣; 2♦-3♣

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632

Both: 1♠-2♣; P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♣; P (responding in clubs looks best with this heart suit))

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42

Old: 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; P or 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P (pass is clearly best))

New: 1♠-P /alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P (again passing is clearly better))

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8

Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♥-P (assuming East does not invite)

New: 1♠-2♦; P or 1♠-2♦; 2♥-P

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92 (straube's rules so no invites)

Old: either 1♠-2♣; P or 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (no preference as this deals with completely different hands)

New: either 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V (East has only 12 cards and is still far too strong. Assuming East is weaker with a small club):

Both: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♥; P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (rebidding hearts being presumably better with a good 7 card suit)

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82

Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P

New: 1♠-2♦; P

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84

Both: either 1♠-2♣; 2♥-P or 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8

Both: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974

Both: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♣; P (tis looks right as the main benefits of responding are finding a big heart fit and preempting diamonds, while Opener should prefer their solid spades to the 5-2 hearts)

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7 (again East is too strong so straube's rules)

Old: either 1♠-2♦; P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

New: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7

Both: 1♠-2♦; 2♥-3♦; P

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3 (straube's rules apply)

Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P

New: 1♠-2♥; P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P)

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96

Old: either1♠-2♦; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

New: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9 (straube's rules, this East must surely raise)

Both: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-P

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942 (straube's rules again)

Both: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53

Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♦; P

New: either 1♠-2♦; P or 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♦; P

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83

Old: 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♦; P (passing looks clearly better))

New: 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♦-P (again the pass looks like the way to go))

 

"Old" here refers to the original scheme; "new" to the one that we discussed a few posts above. The differences are small between them. One thing I have noted here is that the max 6(13)3 hand could be a problem over a 2♣ response. That previously rebid 2NT but with 2♣ being possibly only 3 that should probably show a 4 card raise now. Maybe 2NT will have to cover both hands - not sure.

 

In general though, my feeling is that natural bidding on weak hands works just fine in finding a playable spot at a low level and the lack of forcing calls in these auctions works to our advantage.

 

Finally, the positive on GF hands is that all of the hands with 4 hearts have been removed and the range halved. In a limited (max 15) opening system the benefits would be less but for semi-limited openings the range reduction is important, particularly when not using QPs.

 

Perhaps it is just a case of seeing what I want to see but I guess I do not see the disadvantages as being so problematic as you do. At the same time I trust writers such as fred who point out how difficult the F1NT response is to handle and that even very strong players sometimes get into silly contracts with it. That Adam says the F1NT always reaches the best partial flies in the face of everything else I have read but as I very rarely play 2/1, that is not something I can easily comment on. At the moment, I remain doubtful that the weaknesses in the NF 2/1 responses are greater than those of the F1NT (even without using the 3m responses, which for me are raises). I do think there are some further optimisations to be found though and I appreciate very much the ideas that you have brought up.

[awm]

It's just on Straube's hands that the 1NT response always reaches the best partial. Here's a summary of the situation:

 

1. 1NT response is very good on hands with doubleton in partner's major. You get to hear more about opener's hand and you can always revert to 2M if that seems best. The NF 2/1 structure sometimes has problems on such hands, where partner might pass 2♣ on a 4-3 fit or 2-red on a 5-2 fit despite 2♠ (opener's suit) being the best partial. These hands are also quite common! Obviously this is most expensive at MP (total disaster) but even at IMPs you get an extra IMP for making the same number of tricks, and usually 5-2 fits play better than 4-3 especially when the 3-card hand has no singleton.

 

2. 1NT response is good at finding out when opener has a six-card suit, and playing 2♠ (opener's suit) on a 6-1 fit but not on a 5-1 fit. You've given some sequences where opener removes 2♥ or 2♦ response to 2♠ on only five (the most extreme being the Axxxx - x KQJxxxxx hand rebidding 2♠ after a 2♥ response); this obviously works great when responder has doubleton spade but seems risky if responder has singleton spade? Of course responder could always remove 2♠ with singleton but then we can't play 2♠ with a good six card suit opposite singleton? I guess in the new style 2♥ pretty much promises doubleton spade or 6+ hearts (or 5/5? or does that bid lower suit), but even so, you might want to get out in 2♠ with your mediocre six card heart suit (or your 5/5 hand) if opener has six.

 

3. One problem in partscore bidding with the 1NT response is responder's single-suiter. With a minor you often have to go to the three-level (1♠-1NT-2♥-3m). When responder's suit is clubs this applies to the new NF 2/1 style too (opener can only pass 2♣ with FOUR, which is really unlikely and anyway misses games like Axxxx AQx x Kxxx opposite x xxx xxx AQxxxx). When responder's suit is diamonds, you can sometimes get out in 2♦ (when opener has two-plus diamonds) but there are some problems (like whether opener is supposed to bid 2♥ with 5422 or 5431, whether to pass opener's 2♠ which might be 5314 where diamonds is better or might be a 6-card suit where spades is probably better). It seems like the differences are that the 1NT response reaches the three-level when we have a good diamond fit (instead of staying in 2♦ in our nine card fits) which is a small loss (but with a big fit we are usually okay and opponents might balance over 2♦ anyway), whereas the 1NT response does a bit better when opener has singleton in the minor (can play 2♠ if opener has six for example).

 

4. Another problem in partscore bidding for the 1NT response is responder's 5/5 hand. These are rare and there were only three examples in Straube's twenty-four hands. If the 5/5 hand includes doubleton spade there's not really a problem, and if opener has four cards in one of the five-card suits there's not really a problem (there go Straube's examples). With five hearts you can rebid 2♥, but you have to agree about what this means (some people play it as six-card suit; if you play it can be 5/5 opener may remove with singleton and you get to the three-level when you do have six hearts). The worst case is 1255 where opener has 54xx, but if you're responding in clubs on such hands (as you did on #4) you've got the same problem! If you respond in the higher suit you've always got a rebid at the three-level, but this causes other problems -- one big downside is that you may want to play 2♠ if opener has six, but by responding 2♥ (or even 2♦) you can never really be certain.

 

5. The problems people really complain about with responding 1NT are around 5332 hands (if these can pass it causes problems with responder's shapely hands, if they can't pass you get into some fuzzy situations because you can't raise on four or pass on three any more which makes the right partial harder to find). I've excluded those here since your 1M openings don't have them.

 

6. There are also problems with responding 1NT because of the INV hands. For example, you can't play 2M on a declined invite (because reverting to 2M shows less-than-inv), you can't distinguish invitational and weak one-suiters a lot of the time (unless you devote your direct jumps to fixing this problem), you can't find 5-3 heart fits on invites (because 1♠-1N-2m-2♥ is a weak hand, so you have to bid 1♠-1N-2m-2NT with five hearts some of the time), and even raising opener's rebid suit is awkward if it could be three (1♠-1NT-2♣ and you have 1444 INV). These INV hands were not really considered in the discussion! My methods solve a lot of these by using 2♦ as artificial invite (removes some hands from 1NT), passing some weak hands with doubleton spade (so 1♠-1N-2x-2♠ shows constructive values), and using "less than INV" jump shifts (so 1♠-1N-2♦-3♣ shows constructive values). But again, we weren't really discussing these.

[straube]

I bid these with my own system. Hard to do it double dummy but......

 

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52

 

.....1S-1N, 2N*-3D*, 3H*-? opener shows a giant 5S/6m hand and 3H shows clubs. 5C? 3N?

 

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942

 

.....1S-1N, 2S

 

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532

 

.....1S-P

 

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732

 

.....1S-1N, 2C

 

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54

 

.....1S-1N, 2S-3S, 4S

 

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5

 

.....1S-2D, P...........1S-2D, P

 

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95

 

.....1S-3C, 3N.........3C is invitational

 

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632

 

.....1S-2H, 2S, 3C......1S-2C, P

 

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42

 

.....1S-2C, 2S..........1S-2C, 2S

 

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8

 

.....1S-1N, 2H

 

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92

 

.....1S-1N, 2D-2S*, 4S................2S showed light invitational values since 2H Lebensohl was available

 

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V

 

.....1S-3H, P..........should the hand even be opened, should responder insist on game? too hard double dummy

 

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82

 

.....1S-1N, 2C-2H*-2S.........2H is Lebensohl

 

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84

 

.....1S-P..........arguable but I can't see any opener rebid that will make responder happy

 

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8

 

.....1S-2D*, 2S........2D shows 5H invitational or 6H constructive, 2S promises 6

 

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974

 

.....1S-1N, 2S

 

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7

 

.....1S-2D*, 2H-2S......2D shows hearts, 2H says meh, 2S shows invitational with 2 spades

 

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7

 

.....1S-1N, 2H-3D......3D shows less than invitational (else 1S-3D)

 

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3

 

.....1S-2D*, 2H-2S, 2N........different ways this could go but I have responder showing 5 hearts and invitational values with 2 spades and opener counter-inviting.

 

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96

 

.....1S-1N, 2C-2H*, 3C........2H is Lebensohl and opener rejects the 2S request. Should opener bid more aggressively? He needs a big club fit to get rid of spades though

 

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9

 

.....1S-1N, 2H

 

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942

 

.....1S-1N, 2H-2N, 3N......responder has to invite aggressively after a 2H rebid because we don't have Lebensohl available

 

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53

 

.....1S-1N, 2C-2H*, 2S-3D.....I have too many ways of showing diamonds here. 1S-3D....1S-1N, 2C-2D, 1S-1N, 2C-3D. Obviously this makes 3N if the diamonds run.

 

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83

 

.....1S-1N, 2D....There's no harm bidding here. We can pass a diamond, spade, or heart rebid and we have Lebensohl for clubs

[straube]

5. The problems people really complain about with responding 1NT are around 5332 hands (if these can pass it causes problems with responder's shapely hands, if they can't pass you get into some fuzzy situations because you can't raise on four or pass on three any more which makes the right partial harder to find). I've excluded those here since your 1M openings don't have them.

 

Had the thought lately that Zelandakh is in a much better position than Adam and I with his 1S opening in that he doesn't have to deal with the 5332s. It's largely those patterns (maybe minimum 5422s and other minimums)that make a semiforcing NT response desirable...and then we have the problem of missing game when the 5332 is 13 hcps and responder 12 or 13.

 

I hadn't included responder's shapely hands as a reason, but I think his exclusion of 5332s should be a big win for his 1S opening and also the adoption of forcing NT response.

 

6. There are also problems with responding 1NT because of the INV hands. For example, you can't play 2M on a declined invite (because reverting to 2M shows less-than-inv), you can't distinguish invitational and weak one-suiters a lot of the time (unless you devote your direct jumps to fixing this problem), you can't find 5-3 heart fits on invites (because 1♠-1N-2m-2♥ is a weak hand, so you have to bid 1♠-1N-2m-2NT with five hearts some of the time), and even raising opener's rebid suit is awkward if it could be three (1♠-1NT-2♣ and you have 1444 INV). These INV hands were not really considered in the discussion! My methods solve a lot of these by using 2♦ as artificial invite (removes some hands from 1NT), passing some weak hands with doubleton spade (so 1♠-1N-2x-2♠ shows constructive values), and using "less than INV" jump shifts (so 1♠-1N-2♦-3♣ shows constructive values). But again, we weren't really discussing these.

 

I think direct jumps is the answer. The obvious reason I can see to exclude them are missing out on 4/4 heart fits (which is solved if you can respond 2C and then relay break to your minor with a 4/6 hand) or if you want 1S-3L to be some sort of fit bid.

 

Btw, I think both awm and I have done our bidding without using 1S-2H since that for us is a good raise. That's worth an awful lot if we can at least have parity on the other hands.

 

Zel, this has been an interesting discussion and I don't know whether it continues or not, but it sounds like you're pretty satisfied with your structure as is and I get that. Thanks for letting us discuss it.

[foobar]

This is a little bit of an aside, but it's good to see a spirited discussion on the forum after a series of "thou shalt follow my system without question" posts :D.

 

For those following from the sidelines, is the summary of methods that were discussed the following?

 

 

1) 1♠ - 1N (semi-forcing, but shows 8-11ish with possibly doubleton ♠). Opener may pass with 5M332 hands (not relevant to zel's system)

........awm: 1♠ - 1N - 2x...2♠ (doubleton spade with 8-11)

........straube: 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ / 2♦...2♥* (*:puppet to 2♠)

 

2) 1♠ - 2♣

.........awm: 12+ including 5+ ♥; relay sequence

.........straube: 12+, excluding 12-13 5♥ (?); relay sequence

 

3) 1♠ - 2♦

.........awm: 12-13ish with 0-4 ♥

.........straube: weak 6+ ♥ OR invite 5+♥

 

4) 1♠ - 2♥ (LR+)

[straube]

That's essentially right for me. I use 2C as GF with the exception of certain strongly invitational hands with 4 hearts (specifically those are 4H/6m or 4H/4+D but I'd only suggested the 4H/6m variety here). I use 1S-2H as constructive or GI with exactly 3 hearts.