Input welcomed

[Winstonm]

Dissatisfied with most methods I've seen, I've looked at a possible improvement over a strong 2C opener. For the most part, 2C openers fall into 1 of three categoreies: strong nt, single suiters, or strong 2 suiters. Each type of hand needs a different input from partner. Strong NTs need to describe; 1 suiters would like to know controls and game/slam values opposite; 2 suiters need to find a fit first.

 

So I came up with this plan of responses:

 

2C-2D: virutally compelled with most hands.

 

Opener's rebids:

 

2H=22-23 NT. Pard may pass, use 2S and 2N as tranfers, and 3D, 3H as Jac.

2S=Any single suited hand.

Responder shows range/controls: 2N: 0-2 less 0-4 hcp, 3C: 0-2, 5+ hcp

game force: 3D:A and K: 3H: 4 controls; 3S=5+ controls (3N reask with

steps 4, 5, 6) 3N: 3 kings.

2N=24-25 NT.

3C - club/heart 2 suiter, game force

3D - diamond/heart 2 suiter, game force

3H - heart/spade 2 suiter, game force

3S - spade diamond 2 suiter, game force

4C - club/spade 2 suiter, game force.

 

Other bids by responder other that 2D.

2H-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and hearts

2S-weak, 0-3 (no king) and spades.

2N-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and at least 2 cards in every suit.

3C-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and clubs

3D-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and diamonds.

 

Comments? Criticisms? Ideas? Improvements?

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

Try this 2-bid structure.

 

Doesn't matter really what you play, but it looks fun.

 

Later,

Dan

[inquiry]

I will give you what i play, stolen in total from Chris Ryall (his webpage is here... Chris's Webpage

 

2♦ = semi-positive or BETTER

2♥ = SUPER NEG, no tricks for a heart contract

2♠ = super NEG, but one trick for a heart contract, no for ♠

2NT = solid suit (AKQxxx) or AKJxxxx or better

3♣ through 3♠ Six card suit KQxxxx KJ9xxx, little or nothing else

3NT = my choice, 5-5 with KJxxx or better in each suit.

 

A couple of issues... After the 2♦ bid, responders 2NT rebid is a warning bid, suggesting responder has only one trick (semi-positive), any other response is game force, showing two or more.

 

After a 2♦ response, a jump raise to 4M (2C-2D-2M-4M) is better than the 2NT bid, but not much. Say two to 2.5 tricks at very most. So 2♣-2♦-2M-3M is 2.5 tricks or more.

 

I also use, 2♣-2♦-3♥, 3♠, 4♣ and 4♦ as "Optional Roman Key Card BLACKWOOD". This sets trumps, and ask for keycards. Partner can bid first step to say, "no", I don't want to tell you my controls with horrible hands. (2C-2D-3H-3S). Opener can then signoff, or can bid the next step as MANDITORY ROMAN KEYCARD BLACKWOOD. After the first rejection, responder will not have two key cards or one plus a king, so steps are, 1ST - none, 2nt - one, 3rd one plus lower suit queen, 4th one plus middle suit queen, 5th one plus upper suit queen.

 

Of course, when I open 2♣ I will not have two suiter, and I use Ryall's 2NT rebid by opener as strong 3 suiter.

 

Ben

[han]

I have played control responses, somewhat natural bids with 2D waiting, natural with 2H as negative and 2D as semi-positive, and now I'm trying the structure that Ben posted with two partners. You are absolutely right Winston, they are all bad.

 

To be honest, your structure doesn't look any better either. What I dislike most is the follow-ups to the auction 2C-2D-2S. To tell opener about your strength without even knowing opener's suit is not a good idea. Opener should first tell responder what kind of hand (s)he has, and then should responder tell how good his/her hand is for that strain. With your method, you will often be at 3D or higher while nota single suit has been bid.

 

Anyway, that's just my first impression. Keep up the good work, and let us know if you find something good. I suspect that there is no such structure, there just isn't enough room.

[Double !]

Hi all,

Try this 2-bid structure.

 

Doesn't matter really what you play, but it looks fun.

 

Later,

Dan

Hmm

Looked at that structure.

Looks very much like it's from Ambra.

Yes? No?

[Double !]

I have a bias, more so at matchpoints where one trick can make so much difference, but

I personally don't like too many artificial responses to 2C because of chance for lead-directing dbl or, even worse, wrong-siding the contract. But to each his/her own. Just barely tolerate 2 Hts dbl neg.

[Impact]

Control responses work well - so long as you specify that 2NT is NEVER a control response : ROMEX handled it as any 0-control hand with at least a 6 card suit headed by Q and no outside real control. Alternatively it can be more wide ranging but limited to a 6+card Major...

 

Relays may be used to show suit below length and then subsequent relays for shortage.

 

Opener may opt for natural bidding over 2NT with an appropriate hand.

 

 

Note that playing almost any strong natural structure the worst hand for standard is a strong hand based on D as it eats up the most room over the expected 2D response.

 

Sensibly that hand should be dealt with esewhere eg 2D as weak in H (or Flannery if that suits your structure) OR strong D.

 

That has added ramifications for rebids in D following a 2C opening in that they can be used to suggest the other nightmare hand for a 2C opener: long C with secondary D, thereby allowing the partnership to sensibly find NT when it is right or proceed to 5/6minor when that is right without forsaking investigation of 3NT.

 

If requested I can provide details of methods (last tweaked about 10-12 years ago).

[1eyedjack]

Here's another (old-ish) link, which itself contains one or two other relevant links

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=17831

[Chamaco]

Dissatisfied with most methods I've seen, I've looked at a possible improvement over a strong 2C opener.  For the most part, 2C openers fall into 1 of three categoreies: strong nt, single suiters, or strong 2 suiters.  Each type of hand needs a different input from partner.  Strong NTs need to describe; 1 suiters would like to know controls and game/slam values opposite; 2 suiters need to find a fit first.

 

So I came up with this plan of responses:

 

2C-2D: virutally compelled with most hands.

 

Opener's rebids:

 

2H=22-23 NT.  Pard may pass, use 2S and 2N as tranfers, and 3D, 3H as Jac.

2S=Any single suited hand. 

      Responder shows range/controls: 2N: 0-2 less 0-4 hcp, 3C: 0-2, 5+ hcp

      game force: 3D:A and K: 3H: 4 controls;  3S=5+ controls (3N reask with

      steps 4, 5, 6) 3N: 3 kings.

2N=24-25 NT.

3C - club/heart 2 suiter, game force

3D - diamond/heart 2 suiter, game force

3H - heart/spade 2 suiter, game force

3S - spade diamond 2 suiter, game force

4C - club/spade 2 suiter, game force.

 

Other bids by responder other that 2D.

2H-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and hearts

2S-weak, 0-3 (no king) and spades.

2N-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and at least 2 cards in every suit.

3C-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and clubs

3D-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and diamonds.

 

Comments?  Criticisms?  Ideas?  Improvements?

2-suiters are defined too high in the bidding, IMO.

 

I prefer something like:

 

2C:2D(forced)

 

....- 2H = either any single suiter ORstrong bal; 2S relay

..........- 2NT = 22-24 bal

..........- 3X = nat single suiter

..........- 3NT = 25+ bal

 

....- 2S = any touching 2 suiter, 2NT is relay with slam interest (higher bids are pass/correct)

..........- opener bids the suit BELOW its cheapest suit, so responder can set trumps: e.g. 3C = D+H, 3D= H+S, 3H= S+C, 3S = C+D

 

....- 2NT = any nontouching 2 suiter, 3C is relay with slam interest (higher bids are pass/correct)

..........- opener bids the suit BELOW its cheapest suit, so responder can set trumps: e.g. 3D= H+C, 3H= S+D

 

.... 3C = 4441, sing diam (3D relay for controls etc etc)

.... 3D = 4441, sing heart (3H relay for controls etc etc)

.... 3H = 4441, sing spades(3S relay for controls etc etc)

.... 3S = 4441, sing clubs (4C relay for controls etc etc)

[Winstonm]

I have played control responses, somewhat natural bids with 2D waiting, natural with 2H as negative and 2D as semi-positive, and now I'm trying the structure that Ben posted with two partners. You are absolutely right Winston, they are all bad.

 

To be honest, your structure doesn't look any better either. What I dislike most is the follow-ups to the auction 2C-2D-2S. To tell opener about your strength without even knowing opener's suit is not a good idea. Opener should first tell responder what kind of hand (s)he has, and then should responder tell how good his/her hand is for that strain. With your method, you will often be at 3D or higher while nota single suit has been bid.

 

Anyway, that's just my first impression. Keep up the good work, and let us know if you find something good. I suspect that there is no such structure, there just isn't enough room.

You make a good point, Hannie. Perhaps a better structure would be to puppet again with the 1 suited hands instead of responding controls.

 

2C-2D

2S-2N*

This would allow opener to at least show his suit at the 3 level and use 3N as a control ask if that is all he needs to know and it would allow natural semipositve bidding over 2S with other hands.

 

It does seem to make sense to strip out as many bad hands as possible in the initial responses - 2H, 2S, 2N, 3C, 3D - odd as it may seem it is probably best to use all these bids to show bad hands as then what's left has more precision and room.

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

Dissatisfied with most methods I've seen, I've looked at a possible improvement over a strong 2C opener.  For the most part, 2C openers fall into 1 of three categoreies: strong nt, single suiters, or strong 2 suiters.  Each type of hand needs a different input from partner.  Strong NTs need to describe; 1 suiters would like to know controls and game/slam values opposite; 2 suiters need to find a fit first.

 

So I came up with this plan of responses:

 

2C-2D: virutally compelled with most hands.

 

Opener's rebids:

 

2H=22-23 NT.  Pard may pass, use 2S and 2N as tranfers, and 3D, 3H as Jac.

2S=Any single suited hand. 

      Responder shows range/controls: 2N: 0-2 less 0-4 hcp, 3C: 0-2, 5+ hcp

      game force: 3D:A and K: 3H: 4 controls;  3S=5+ controls (3N reask with

      steps 4, 5, 6) 3N: 3 kings.

2N=24-25 NT.

3C - club/heart 2 suiter, game force

3D - diamond/heart 2 suiter, game force

3H - heart/spade 2 suiter, game force

3S - spade diamond 2 suiter, game force

4C - club/spade 2 suiter, game force.

 

Other bids by responder other that 2D.

2H-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and hearts

2S-weak, 0-3 (no king) and spades.

2N-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and at least 2 cards in every suit.

3C-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and clubs

3D-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and diamonds.

 

Comments?  Criticisms?  Ideas?  Improvements?

2-suiters are defined too high in the bidding, IMO.

 

I prefer something like:

 

2C:2D(forced)

 

....- 2H = either any single suiter ORstrong bal; 2S relay

..........- 2NT = 22-24 bal

..........- 3X = nat single suiter

..........- 3NT = 25+ bal

 

....- 2S = any touching 2 suiter, 2NT is relay with slam interest (higher bids are pass/correct)

..........- opener bids the suit BELOW its cheapest suit, so responder can set trumps: e.g. 3C = D+H, 3D= H+S, 3H= S+C, 3S = C+D

 

....- 2NT = any nontouching 2 suiter, 3C is relay with slam interest (higher bids are pass/correct)

..........- opener bids the suit BELOW its cheapest suit, so responder can set trumps: e.g. 3D= H+C, 3H= S+D

 

.... 3C = 4441, sing diam (3D relay for controls etc etc)

.... 3D = 4441, sing heart (3H relay for controls etc etc)

.... 3H = 4441, sing spades(3S relay for controls etc etc)

.... 3S = 4441, sing clubs (4C relay for controls etc etc)

This certainly looks like a playable method but I think it gives too much priority to the 2 suiters.

 

With so little room to use, to me it makes sense to be the most precise with the most likely opened hands and then the next most likely as so on....at some point all you can do is show a certain hand and let partner take over.

 

Example:

2C-2D

4C

 

If you decide to use this as a 4441 hand that may be alright as this type of strong hand seems to occur less frequently than balanced, 1 suiters, or 2 suiters.

 

You are right that the 2-suiters eat a lot of room - hence they must be defined as game forcing hands with a simple correct/1 under method to show some type of definition of strength.

 

However, I like in my conceptualization of being able to show the 3 (IMO) most common opening 2C all at the 2 level.

 

Winston

[Chamaco]

This certainly looks like a playable method but I think it gives too much priority to the 2 suiters.

The 2 suiters are currently the main problem in handling strong 2C sequences, in many many methods.

 

This is the main reason why you'll often hear many experts say that with a GF 2-suiter they prefer to open at the 1 level, risking a pass by pard, rather than opening 2C.

 

Strong balanced AND single suiters are usually handled reasonably without many weird gadgets.

 

So, if had to come up with a non-standard method, that would be to solve what does not work in the other methods, e.g. it would be to be able to bid well the 2suiters without losing accuracy in the other more ordinary handtypes.

 

4441 hand are indeed rare ,and it is conceivable to ignore them altogether (e.g. the 3-level bids I suggested could be easuily eliminated, and used for something more useful), as the loss will occur very rarely.

[mike777]

Dissatisfied with most methods I've seen, I've looked at a possible improvement over a strong 2C opener. For the most part, 2C openers fall into 1 of three categoreies: strong nt, single suiters, or strong 2 suiters. Each type of hand needs a different input from partner. Strong NTs need to describe; 1 suiters would like to know controls and game/slam values opposite; 2 suiters need to find a fit first.

 

So I came up with this plan of responses:

 

2C-2D: virutally compelled with most hands.

 

Opener's rebids:

 

2H=22-23 NT. Pard may pass, use 2S and 2N as tranfers, and 3D, 3H as Jac.

2S=Any single suited hand.

Responder shows range/controls: 2N: 0-2 less 0-4 hcp, 3C: 0-2, 5+ hcp

game force: 3D:A and K: 3H: 4 controls; 3S=5+ controls (3N reask with

steps 4, 5, 6) 3N: 3 kings.

2N=24-25 NT.

3C - club/heart 2 suiter, game force

3D - diamond/heart 2 suiter, game force

3H - heart/spade 2 suiter, game force

3S - spade diamond 2 suiter, game force

4C - club/spade 2 suiter, game force.

 

Other bids by responder other that 2D.

2H-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and hearts

2S-weak, 0-3 (no king) and spades.

2N-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and at least 2 cards in every suit.

3C-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and clubs

3D-weak, 0-3 (no king) hcp and diamonds.

 

Comments? Criticisms? Ideas? Improvements?

Looking through years of world championship books, I see no matches lost on this issue.

 

The matches were lost on all the beginner issues.

1) Just bid game

2) play the hands well

3) Defend with some commonsense.

4) Count out basic shape and where the HCP are.

5) Bid the hard hands with some commonsense, show long suit or show balanced scattered hcp hand with NT.

6) Support partner with support, stop getting fancy.

7) Stop trying to sacrifice at the 5 or 6 level on every dist hand. They may not make 4!

[vang]

2S=Any single suited hand. 

3C - club/heart 2 suiter, game force

3D - diamond/heart 2 suiter, game force

3H - heart/spade 2 suiter, game force

3S - spade diamond 2 suiter, game force

4C - club/spade 2 suiter, game force.

how do you define 2-suiters? i s 5-4-3-1 a 2suiter? how about a 6-4, is this a 2suiter or a single suiter? if it's 2suiter, how do you show which suit is longer?

[Winstonm]

2S=Any single suited hand. 

3C - club/heart 2 suiter, game force

3D - diamond/heart 2 suiter, game force

3H - heart/spade 2 suiter, game force

3S - spade diamond 2 suiter, game force

4C - club/spade 2 suiter, game force.

how do you define 2-suiters? i s 5-4-3-1 a 2suiter? how about a 6-4, is this a 2suiter or a single suiter? if it's 2suiter, how do you show which suit is longer?

That is a good question and the only answer I can give you is that with so much room used you would want two suits that would play OK with 2-card support opposite, so by definition the suits should be 5-5 or longer. 6-4 hands would have to be treated as a 1-suiter. 5-4 hands are a nightmare and depending on the strength would have to be played as either a 1 suiter, a 2 suiter, or as not qualifying for a 2C opener; the good thing is that the more balanced the pattern the less likely it is that the hand qualifies for 2C as playing strength has to be replaced by high card strength if you use a 9 trick major hand as the cornerstone.

 

The more hands you remove from the 2C structure the more accuracy you can obtain in the 2C aparatus.

 

No matter how good the 2C structure, some hands are going to remain unbiddable and one would have to take the best guess to solve those situations.

 

Working on this headache is probably what brought the birth of relay systems, LoL.

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

This certainly looks like a playable method but I think it gives too much priority to the 2 suiters.

The 2 suiters are currently the main problem in handling strong 2C sequences, in many many methods.

 

This is the main reason why you'll often hear many experts say that with a GF 2-suiter they prefer to open at the 1 level, risking a pass by pard, rather than opening 2C.

 

Strong balanced AND single suiters are usually handled reasonably without many weird gadgets.

 

So, if had to come up with a non-standard method, that would be to solve what does not work in the other methods, e.g. it would be to be able to bid well the 2suiters without losing accuracy in the other more ordinary handtypes.

 

4441 hand are indeed rare ,and it is conceivable to ignore them altogether (e.g. the 3-level bids I suggested could be easuily eliminated, and used for something more useful), as the loss will occur very rarely.

I agree completely that 2 suiters are a horror in most current structures; however, doesn't it get down to frequency? If the structure is reworked to provide for the less frequent 2-suiters, don't you then lose the accuracy of the 1-suiters and the balanced hands to cause a whole new set of problems?

 

Maybe the only solution is to take one entire set of hands out of the mix and use either 2D, 2H, or 2S to show this exact hand type?

 

Winston

[Fluffy]

I open no 2-suiter with 2♣. With 2 suiters you have to bid 1 suit before getting preempted.

[Winstonm]

I open no 2-suiter with 2♣. With 2 suiters you have to bid 1 suit before getting preempted.

Certainly a valid reason, Fluffy. That is why in the original structure these are deemd game forcing - hopefully the overwhelming high card would hold down some of the obstruction.

 

Winston

[1eyedjack]

I open no 2-suiter with 2♣. With 2 suiters you have to bid 1 suit before getting preempted.

Certainly a valid reason, Fluffy. That is why in the original structure these are deemd game forcing - hopefully the overwhelming high card would hold down some of the obstruction.

 

Winston

In many cases it is the announced demonstration of the possession of a GF hand that is the cause of the opposition's preemptive action. You may find that they will preempt over the 2C opener when they might not have preempted with the same hand over a 1-suit opener. If you think that the fact that opener is strong enough to GF is sufficient to overcome that preemption then that is a separate matter, but I would not bank on it inhibiting the preemption.

[POJC]

I have played both natural responses (2D negative) and control and definately like control responses the most.

Two things which control responses do good

1.U can almost at once know if the hands are game or slam potential. After a possible preempt it's easy to know if u won't to double them or do your own game/slam.

2. Also playing control responses cut down on what u have to remember (VERY IMPORTANT IMO)

Playing control responses it's very important that responder has a relay bid avaible after opener shows a suit to show biding space. Also only the strong hand should bid any kind of RKC/Blackwood.

 

I've had no difficulty with the 2NT bid (showing 4 controls), for once it's very rare and secondly when a 4 control hand is opposite a correct 2C hand it's not important who get's to be declarer.

 

Typical 2C 2-suiter:

EKDxx

Ex

Kxxx

Ex

 

Not too much trouble if P bids 2NT...

[inquiry]

Winston,

 

I have taken a closer look (well first look) at your proposed structure...

 

I appreciate your concerns over BIG BALANCED hands, with two suiters, with three suiters, and with big one suiters. This is a lot of stress on 2♣ auctions that start you off at a high level, and on partner who can have a variety of hand types (especially if he can respond 2♦ on virtually all hands.

 

I suspect if the opponents cooperate, and pass through out, all will be well. They very well may when you have 23+ BAL. I doubt this is the case when you are two suited. In fact, when you are strong two suited, that is just WHEN THEY ARE most likely to enter the fray. They will be two suited themselves or have a long suit (one of your short ones) a lot of the time. After you open 2♣ and they butt into your auction, maybe with a raise by their partner, you are back to trying to describe strong two suited versus strong one suited (or even strong 3 suited) hands at a high level. This gets, as you are aware messy. Your hope that your extra hcp for your strong two suiter will keep them out of the auction. It might, but that means you maybe left holding the bag on strong two suiters at the one level... and they will still enter the auction ESPECIALLY NOT VUL a lot when you have the strong 2 suiter.

 

My solution to this delemia is to remove teh "baby" strong NT from 2♣, my 23-24 BAL hands are stuffed into 2♦. So the weakest BAL hand I can have is 25+ if I open 2♣. I don't open strong 2 suiters with two clubs (using MisIry, don't you know)... so if I don't have strong BAL, I have either three suiter, or I have Strong one suiter. This simpifies my auction. I open 2♣, if they interfer and I bid a suit, I don't have another one. If I double, I am three suited, if I pass, I am BAL or weakish one suiter (for the strong opening 2 bid). Also,I open 2♦ with monster minor one suiters that are not game force. This is very useful, as over competition, I can bid a minor even at three or four level, it is absolutely forcing, I will never have a second suit (5+ longer), and I will not be balanced or semi-balanced.

 

This makes interference much less likely to be effective at least from the stand point of describing my hand. And one thing is for sure, it is virtually impossible to keep me from describing my strong two suiters if I get to open.

 

But I will say this, if the opponents leave you alone, your method will clearly work. Sadly, opening 2♣ seems like a green light for opponents to stick their nose into your auction.

 

However, I am not sure you NEED so many negative bids (2H up)... Most people use one... but I have found two useful. By bidding 2♥ I promise two things, no king, no two queens, and no likelyhood to win a trick in a heart contract. (I might bid 2♥ with Qxx of hearts however, so shoot me). If I bid 2♠, I show the same kind of hand, except I think I might well win a trick if we play in hearts. I think these two bids convey the information partner needs to know to bid intellegently. Adding more negative bids to the mix hardly help.

 

Ben

[Winstonm]

Winston,

 

I have taken a closer look (well first look) at your proposed structure...

 

I appreciate your concerns over BIG BALANCED hands, with two suiters, with three suiters, and with big one suiters. This is a lot of stress on 2♣ auctions that start  you off at a high level, and on partner who can have a variety of hand types (especially if he can respond 2♦ on virtually all hands.

 

I suspect if the opponents cooperate, and pass through out, all will be well. They very well may when you have 23+ BAL. I doubt this is the case when you are two suited. In fact, when you are strong two suited, that is just WHEN THEY ARE most likely to enter the fray. They will be two suited themselves or have a long suit (one of your short ones) a lot of the time.  After you open 2♣ and they butt into your auction, maybe with a raise by their partner, you are back to trying to describe strong two suited versus strong one suited (or even strong 3 suited) hands at a high level. This gets, as you are aware messy. Your hope that your extra hcp for your strong two suiter will keep them out of the auction. It might, but that means you maybe left holding the bag on strong two suiters at the one level... and they will still enter the auction ESPECIALLY NOT VUL a lot when you have the strong 2 suiter.

 

My solution to this delemia is to remove teh "baby" strong NT from 2♣, my 23-24 BAL hands are stuffed into 2♦. So the weakest BAL hand I can have is 25+ if I open 2♣. I don't open strong 2 suiters with two clubs (using MisIry, don't you know)... so if I don't have strong BAL, I have either three suiter, or I have Strong one suiter. This simpifies my auction. I open 2♣, if they interfer and I bid a suit, I don't have another one. If I double, I am three suited, if I pass, I am BAL or weakish one suiter (for the strong opening 2 bid). Also,I open 2♦ with monster minor one suiters that are not game force. This is very useful, as over competition, I can bid a minor even at three or four level, it is absolutely forcing, I will never have a second suit (5+ longer), and I will not be balanced or semi-balanced.

 

This makes interference much less likely to be effective at least from the stand point of describing my hand.  And one thing is for sure, it is virtually impossible to keep me from describing my strong two suiters if I get to open.

 

But I will say this, if the opponents leave you alone, your method will clearly work. Sadly, opening 2♣ seems like a green light for opponents to stick their nose into your auction.

 

However, I am not sure you NEED so many negative bids (2H up)... Most people use one... but I have found two useful. By bidding 2♥ I promise two things, no king, no two queens, and no likelyhood to win a trick in a heart contract. (I might  bid 2♥ with Qxx of hearts however, so shoot me). If I bid 2♠, I show the same kind of hand, except I think I might well win a trick if we play in hearts. I think these two bids convey the information partner needs to know to bid intellegently. Adding more negative bids to the mix hardly help.

 

Ben

Ben:

 

Thanks for the great input and time to look - it is appreciated. You make a good point about interference when two-suited - if we do have a fit they likely do too and we can get preempted out of the auction. Maybe for this structure 2-suiters need to go and leave 2 hand types to bid.

 

Two clubs is certainly the albatross of standard bidding.

 

The key, I believe, is what you inferred, that eliminating certain hand types is what is necessary to increase the accuracy - then the quetion comes in where do you put those hands, what do your sacrifice to do so, ad infinitum.

 

And you are right in that equally important in a structured artificial system is a equally complex system of handling obstruction - I learned this many years ago playing Power Precision right out of Sontag's book - the system was virtually unplayabe unless you took the time to learn all the responses they had created for all types of interference.

 

It seems a lot of times that what we are trying to do is merge artificial with natural and they are different creatures indeed - like trying to take parts from a Mercedes and put them on a Model T.

 

Thanks again for the input,

 

Winston