[keylime]

I was thinking something after 1H - ?:

1S - forcing NT
1NT - four spades not forcing, lacking 3 hearts
2C - one or both minors (2D - asks if it's diamonds, 2H = no, it's clubs)
2D - forces 2H, either to play, or to set a G/F
2H - 4-3-x-x
2S - Hamman-style jump shift
2NT - natural and forcing

[Echognome]

keylime, on Nov 7 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

I was thinking something after 1H - ?:

1S - forcing NT
1NT - four spades not forcing, lacking 3 hearts

I think you need to go back and read the OP my friend. The big binding constraint to the problem is 1NT = ART GF. Take it from there...

[awm]

jdonn, on Nov 7 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

I read the others and I still like mine. Maybe discussion will open my eyes and maybe small changes could be beneficial, but what don't you like exactly?

Here was what struck me as problems.

1♥ - 2♣ = fairly weak, 5+♠

Now what does opener bid with 5♥ and 4+♣ (i.e. 1534, 1525)? It seems like your chances of getting to a reasonable spot are not necessarily very good here.

1♥ - 2♦ = invitational, 5+♠

What does opener do with hearts and a minor? It seems like it will be hard to find a 4-4 minor suit fit (maybe even hard to find a 5-4 minor suit fit with opener having five).

Also, it is not clear where (if anywhere) this method wins over standard bidding other than on the relay hands. It seems like:

(1) If responder has a normal forcing notrump, you are break even, although standard bidding will occasionally get you to a 4-3 spade fit (which could be good, could be bad) that this method misses.

(2) If responder has 5+♠ and weak, you have a much easier time getting out low in a minor suit (esp. 2♣) playing standard methods while still finding all the fits. You might "miss" a 5-2 spade fit to play a 5-2 heart fit (or 4-4 minor fit); not clear if this is bad though.

(3) If responder has 5+♠ and invitational, you will do better playing standard methods because you can find all your minor fits. Depending on what exactly you play, you might be able to get to 2♥ on a 5-2 more easily in standard methods also (i.e. 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦ INV+ checkback 2♥ = MIN - Pass).

So it seems like you have some small losses (mostly on hands where responder has 5♠ and your best fit is in a minor suit) in exchange for not much advantage other than whatever 1♥-1NT brings you.

[jdonn]

awm, on Nov 7 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

1♥ - 2♣ = fairly weak, 5+♠

Now what does opener bid with 5♥ and 4+♣ (i.e. 1534, 1525)? It seems like your chances of getting to a reasonable spot are not necessarily very good here.

I admit this was a problem. The other option was to have opener rebid 2♥ on these hands, which works well when responer has a doubleton heart but works badly when opener has six hearts and responder has a singleton but can't pass. However the only alternative seems to be including both spades and non-spade hands in 1♠, which I find unbearable (even if you could work it out in the limited space, which I doubt, you are beyond screwed in interference). So you get to 2NT instead of 2♥ with opener approximately 1534 and responder 5242 or 5233. Not desirable, but not awful and it's the only loss I can see over standard bidding.

I don't see why you believe it loses minor suit fits. What would be the auction and shapes? I specifically designed it to not lose minor suit fits.

Quote

1♥ - 2♦ = invitational, 5+♠

What does opener do with hearts and a minor? It seems like it will be hard to find a 4-4 minor suit fit (maybe even hard to find a 5-4 minor suit fit with opener having five).

Again I don't see why you believe this loses minor suit fits. 4-4 minor suit fits would easily be found, I don't believe you read (or understood) my followups. Opener bids an artificial 2♥, then responder bids
2♠ = 4 clubs
2NT = 4 diamonds
3♣ = 5 clubs
3♦ = 5 diamonds
wtp?

Your (1) (2) at the end aren't losses, and your (3) is not the most common standard method in your counter example, nor clearly a loss either.

If you want to bidding practice it sometime I would be curious to try it out.

[Tcyk]

awm, on Nov 6 2008, 12:52 AM, said:

I've looked at Viking Club, and also Symmetric Relay.

Both of these methods seem to essentially give up on effective partscore or invite bidding. They force you to pass the opening with something like 0-8 hcp and doubleton support (even though most modern precision players will not do this). They tend to multiplex invites into one call: "do you have minimum or maximum" which is a total disaster at finding side suit fits and possible light games.

I was looking for something a bit more constructive, hopefully not losing a lot (or even winning) when compared to natural/standard bidding on the non-GF hands.

Revision passes 1H or 1S with doubleton support and as much as 9 HCP.

[Tcyk]

wclass___, on Nov 6 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

Imo 1♥ -  1N GF is ok only if the opening is limited.
I played 1♠ nat, 2♣ invitational hands; 2♦ = good heart raise
But, now i belive in catchall 1♠ and 2♣ showing spades...
1M-1N should be forcing in all natural systems, but 1♥-1♠-1N allows to get to 1N safelf
1♠ 3+ is another possibilitie, but i dount know....


Hate Me

It seems like Edgar Kaplan recommended responding 1S to 1H with a good 3-card spade suit. This is a good method for those that don't play some form of Flannery because it enables finding the Moysian fit when other fits fail. I once (and only once) played in a 3-3 spade fit for an absolute top; making 3. My hand:
♠Axx ♥x ♦AKxxx ♣xxxx
Partner had:
♠xxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣AKxx
The auction:
1H - 1S, 2S all pass
It's easy to see that nine tricks are there for the taking if suits split as normally expected. Not even a trump lead can prevent taking nine tricks.

[rbforster]

awm, on Nov 6 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

(2) Rob Forster's version will miss some 5-3 spade fits, especially when responder is less than game invitational. This includes opener's 35(14) hands where standard auction would be 1♥-1♠-2♠. There are also some issues after 1♥-2♠ (WJS) when opener has singleton spade (should he pass hoping responder has six, or look for responder's minor suit where a huge fit could exist).

...

Here's an idea I came up with:

1♠ = any non-fitting weak or invitational hand except weak with 6+♣ and 0-1♥, invite with a 6m, or invite with 5+/5+ in the minors
3♣ = weak with 6+♣, 0-1♥

I did a fit analysis of the final contracts across all the more common shapes for both opener and responder (basically max 6 card 1 suiters and 9 card 2-suiters, no heart fit, for a total 504 shape pairings) under both my methods and Adam's (as I understand his). I didn't bother with the full conditional joint distributions to see which misfits were relatively more likely than others, but this should give you a feel for the methods.


Here's a summary of the number of cases (out of 504) where we each missed the best fit, as a function of the best suit and the fit missed.

Rob: 8    9    10
S    12     0    0
H    4     0    0
D    17    9    0
C    22     0    0

AWM: 8     9     10
S     8     9     0
H     0     0     0
D     25     12     0
C     21     12     0

and here are the relative gains for my methods, by suit:

Net: 8     9     10     total
S    -4     9     0     5
H    -4     0     0     -4
D    8     3     0     11
C    -1     12     0     11

I think my methods are considerably better on weak auctions than Adam's, although perhaps I don't fully understand your followups (like if 1♥-1♠*-2♥-2♠ is weak with 5-6 or invitational with 5, but either way you miss something).

In terms of missed spade fits, my methods will miss out on the "standard" 3 card raise auctions 1♥-1♠-2♠ with 35(41) opposite 5xxx (but gaining on some better minor fits in place of the 4-3 spade ones), and I will also miss some 5-3 fits when opener rebids 2♥ with 36xx opposite 5xxx. Adam's methods will miss some 8 and 9 card spade fits after 1♥-1♠-2♥ with 36xx opposite 5xxx or 6xxx if I'm correct in assuming 2♠ is invitational with 5 in those methods (it doesn't have another bid given except maybe 2N). You can see these in the above charts as the 12 cases where I miss an 8 card fit vs the 8 and 9 cases where Adam misses an 8 and 9 card fit respectively.

There are some gains in my methods for getting out in responder's long minor - 2♦ after 1♥-1♠-2♣ (x5x4 vs xx6x, something he can't do since 2♦ is a relay for him), or stopping in a weak NF 2♣ lower than 3♣ in his methods. I didn't model continuations after the NF 2♣, but surely there's more room for opener to pull to 2♦ or 2♥ with a minimum distributional hand than over 3♣.

I know there are some other gains in his methods, particularly for fit-oriented bids, but it does seem like missing your best fit in an extra 25 cases is kind of a lot (91 for him, 66 for me, out of 504 total). I like the cheap limit raise, but I'm not as sure what I think about the 1♥-2♣ ambiguous minor(s) bid.

PS These were the shapes I considered, taking all pairs.

Responder Opener
4234 2533
4243 3523
3244 3532
5233 2524
3235 2542
3253 4522
4144 1534
5242 1543
5224 3514
4252 3541
4225 4513
2245 4531
2254 2623
5134 2632
5143 3622
4153 1633
4135 3613
3145 3631
3154
6232
6223
3226
3262
2236
2263
6133
3136
3163

[awm]

In my suggested methods:

Direct 1♥-2♠ is invitational with 6+♠.

The specific sequence 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ is weak with 6+♠.

The sequence 1♥-1♠-2♥-2NT is a natural invite. It is possible to miss a 5-3 spade fit here, and it is also possible to miss a 5-3 spade fit on the auction 1♥-1♠-2♥-PASS. Both of these are because opener will conceal a three-card spade holding to rebid 2♥ with six. This is occasionally a problem in standard bidding too of course (not obvious to raise spades with 36xx although for most it will depend on suit quality).

Counter to your table, there is no sequence where I will miss a nine-card spade fit.

[awm]

Here's what I get doing the same calculation. Suppose we are focused on weak hands for responder.

(1) Responder has 6♠. In Rob's method, the auction is 1♥-2♠ WJS, and with the opener shapes he listed will always end in spades. This potentially misses a superior 6-2 heart fit if responder has 62(23) and opener has 1633 (2 cases).

In my method, the auction is 1♥-1♠-rebid-Pass/2♠ where responder with doubleton heart can pass opener's heart rebid. This always finds the best fit on these hands.

(2) Responder has 5♠. In both methods the auction starts 1♥-1♠. If opener has 4♠ we both find the big fit easily. If opener has three spades and balanced we both find the fit. If opener has three spades and a four-card minor then my method finds the spade fit whereas Rob's method misses it. This is opener with 35(14) and responder with five patterns including five spades (ten cases). If opener has three spades and six hearts then we both have issues finding the fit (this is fifteen cases, although in nine of them hearts is a 6-2 fit also so it really only counts six). If there is no spade fit, then both methods have opener immediately showing longer minor (or rebidding hearts). If there is a four-four minor fit, it should be found (1♥-1♠-2m-Pass in Rob's method or 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥-3♣/1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-Pass in mine). In a few cases I do get a level higher by checking back for the spade fit. If there is no four-four minor fit, we are both pretty likely to find a seven-card fit somewhere.

(3) Responder has 4♠ with 4144 or 42(34). In both methods we will find all 4-4 spade fits. In both methods, opener will normally rebid to show longer minor (although the rebids on balanced hands are slightly different). In both cases we should reach a 4-4 minor fit if one exists, or play in some seven card fit otherwise (which seven card fit may differ).

(4) Responder has 4♠ and 5♦. Both auctions start 1♥-1♠. If opener has four spades or four diamonds or six hearts or a balanced hand we are basically in the same boat. If opener has 5♥/4♣ then Rob's method can find a 5-3 diamond fit if it exists, whereas my method will normally play in a seven card fit (5-2 hearts or 4-3 clubs depending on responder shape). This picks up two cases for Rob (4153/4252 opposite 1534).

(5) Responder has 4♠ and 5♣. I'm not actually sure what Rob's auction is on this hand, since bidding 2♣ (weak NF) could easily miss a 4-4 spade fit and bidding 1♠ (forcing) could miss clubs after 1♥-1♠-2♦. Assuming that finding a possible 4-4 spade fit is given top priority here I think our methods will be equal.

(6) Responder has some hand without four spades or a six-card minor. We both find all the nine card minor fits pretty easily (1♥-1♠ and opener shows length in a minor where we also have length). Rob's method is better at finding 5-3 minor fits (1♥-2♣-Pass or 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦). The cases are responder 22(45) and opener 45(13) with the three-card minor matching the five card minor (two cases) or responder 32(35) and opener 45(13) or 15(43) with the three card minor matching the five card minor (four cases) or responder 31(45) and opener 45(13) with a minor fit (two cases) or responder with 3145 and opener with 2623 or 1633 (two cases). These are ten situations where Rob's method finds the 5-3 minor fit and my method will play in a seven card fit in a major. There is also a situation where opener has precisely 2533 and responder 3145 or 2245 or 3235 where Rob's method finds clubs and my method reaches a seven-card heart or diamond fit (because opener's priority is to show 3+♦ rather than 3+♣). So 13 cases total.

(7) Responder has some hand with a six-card minor. My method generally has responder insisting on the minor at the three-level, whereas Rob's method lets you get to hearts in the situation where responder has 3226 or 2236 opposite 3631 precisely. This wins him two cases in terms of finding the best fit, but it's arguable that preempting 3♣ directly over 1♥ can win in many other situations (i.e. where opener has 2+♣) whereas bidding only 2♣ (NF) does not create nearly so much pressure.

So my total comes to 12 cases for me and 17 for Rob on the same set of patterns, a difference of only five cases. None of these involved missing a nine-card or longer fit. This is a small difference, and my wins generally involve finding major suit fits whereas his mostly focus on finding minor suit fits. At matchpoint scoring, my seven-card major fits will actually outscore his eight-card minor fits a fairly substantial percentage of the time!

It's worth mentioning that:

(1) There are a number of occasions where more than one eight-card fit exists. In some of these cases I will find a 5-3 spade fit whereas Rob will find a 4-4 minor fit. I have counted this as a win for my approach. There are also cases where my method finds a 4-4 minor fit and Rob's finds a 5-3 minor fit. I have counted these as a push.

(2) There are some occasions where both methods find a spade fit but my method clarifies whether this fit is eight or nine cards and Rob's does not. This has been counted as a push, but is generally an advantage (in bidding light major suit games) for my approach.

(3) There are some cases where one approach preempts the auction more than the other (either I bid 1♥-3♣ WJS and Rob bids 1♥-2♣, or Rob bids 1♥-2♠ WJS and I bid 1♥-1♠, or Rob bids 1♥-2♣ on five and I bid 1♥-1♠). This obviously has some effects but I have ignored it.

(4) There are many cases on invitational or better hands where my methods win (especially the 1♥-2♦ sequence wins, but there are also auctions where Rob bids 1♥-1♠-2♦ with a club invite and cannot now distinguish strength). There are also some cases where Rob's method wins (usually when responder has an invite with 5♠-1♥ and opener has 6♥). This has not been included in the evaluation.

[rbforster]

awm, on Nov 20 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

(1) Responder has 6♠. In Rob's method, the auction is 1♥-2♠ WJS, and with the opener shapes he listed will always end in spades. This potentially misses a superior 6-2 heart fit if responder has 62(23) and opener has 1633 (2 cases).

In my method, the auction is 1♥-1♠-rebid-Pass/2♠ where responder with doubleton heart can pass opener's heart rebid. This always finds the best fit on these hands.

Yeah, your stuff certainly does better on the spade fits if you play 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ as weak 6+ (I had it coded as invitational in my post above). However, you will still miss some 9 card spade fits when opener is 36xx vs 62xx after 1♥-1♠-2♥-P since you'll stop in the known heart fit.

I also wasn't sure what your sequences were with long weak diamonds, if any. I guess you can pass the 2♦ (flannery) rebid. After 1♥-1♠-2♣ I wasn't sure if you just had to preference with long diamonds, or if you could bid 2♦(relay)-?-3♦ as a signoff. Likewise, I wasn't sure if 1♥-1♠-2♥-3m would be weak or invitational.

I was thinking about whether it'd be possible to pick up more of the major suit fits by doing something like rebidding 1N on most hands with 3-4♠, including those with 36xx or 35(41), but I'll have to think about whether you lose too many minor suit fits trying for that (or alternatively, have to devote too many sequences to NF scrambles to have cheap invitational options too).

[Syl20]

Hi,
There is also Ghestem's way using 1NT forcing to game and transfers (either weak or invitationnal).
In his version, 1NT included control of all suits by honour (K or A) which may not be what you look for...

Cut'n paste from my posts #130754 and #131161 (after 1♠ opening but it's the same), 1♠=4+♠.

1NT = forcing (as usual except GF with all suits controlled by honours if fitted, i.e, balanced)
2♣ = 6♦ weak or 5♦ unbalanced or fitted GF
2♦ = 6♥ weak or 5♥ GF
2♥ = 6♣ weak or 5♣ unbalanced or fitted GF
2♠ = 6-10S with fit
2NT = 11+S with fit and control by honours of ♦ and ♣ or ♥
3♣ = 11+S with fit and control by honours of ♣ and maybe ♥
3♦/♥ = 11+S with fit and control of honour of only ♦/♥
3♠ = preempt
3NT = 4♠ + 5X with high shortage (-> 4♣ relay)
4♣/♦/♥ = 4♠ + 5 ♣/♦/♥ and low shortage

Opener accepts the transfer with 2+ cards or
super accepts with jump with 4 cards and minimum value or
super accepts with 2SA with 3+ cards and maximum or
bids naturally if unbalanced and singleton in transfer suit.

After the transfer accepted, responder passes if weak or bids naturally at the 2 level or keeps transferring from 2NT and above (all new bid sets up GF auction):

For instance:
1♠ 2♣
2♦ ?

2♥ = 5♦+4♥
2♠ = 5♦+2♠ (with High honour) looking between 3NT and 4♠
2NT = 5♦+4♣
3♣ = 6♦
3♥ = fit transfer: 5♦ + xxx at ♠ (small fit)
3♠ = transfer to 3NT
3NT = xxx at ♠, 5♦ balanced
4♣/♦/♥ = xxx at ♠, 5♦ and singleton ♣/♦/♥

I see many advantages and not many drawbacks (that I am asking to you ):
- ability to play in responder's long suit when weak
- ability to differentiate trump support
- hides opener's hand since he will probably be declarer
- after bids of 2NT/3♣/♦/♥, responder's bid of a suit he doesn't control by honour means he's singleton or void.

An additionnal interesting point I didn't insist on is the following (still from Gesthem's ideas):

after 1♠ 2NT (fit either invitationnal 11-12S or GF with control by honours in ♦ and either ♣ or ♥ - and maybe trump).

3♠ shows minimal opening,
4♠ is concluding
3♣ shows interest with less than 3 Aces (or less than 2 Aces and a void)
3♦ shows interest with 3+ Aces or 2 Aces + a void

Therefore, after 1♠ 2NT 3♣, a strong responder without Ace concludes since two Aces are missing.
Thus, all rebids but 4♠ shows at least one ace:
3♦ = Honnor control in ♣ and ♦ (all other bids show Honour control of red suits)
3♠ = Hon reds + 2Aces (all other bids thus show 1 Ace exactly)
3NT = Hon reds + 1 Ace + nice trump suit (2 H or KJxx)
4♣ = Hon reds + 1 Ace, short ♣
4♦/♥ = Hon reds + 1 Ace, 4 nice ♦/♥ (with 5 nice ♦/♥ would begin with a transfer)

After 1♠ 2NT 3♣ 3♦, 3♥ is a relay with scheme as after direct 3♠+.

Now, after 1♠ 2NT 3♦,
3♥ shows one Ace (all other bids show 0 Ace), 3♠ relay
3♠ 0 Ace, Hon control of ♣+♦
3NT to 4♥ = 0 Ace, Hon reds such as after 1♠ 2NT 3♣

One exemple:
Axxxx
Ax
Ax
KQxx

KQJx
xx
Kxxx
Axx

1♠ 2NT
3♦ 3♥
3♠ 3NT
4♣ 4♠
6♠

3♥ confirms ♦ control and shows one Ace (minimum, responder would conclude to 4♠)
Opener therefore knows partner has ♣A with hon control of ♦ (obvioulsy the King) and nice trumps (HHx(x) or KJxx)
4♣ is a relay (hoping to hear 4♥ to show a singleton) which is not the case.
4♦ by responder would show the ♦Q in addition.

Résumé (to understand the fun)
1♠ 2NT
3♦ 3♥
3♠ 4♣ shows:

1) short ♣ with the ♥A
2) ♣K with Ace of ♦ or ♠
3) 4 nice ♣ with ♣A


I can send the files (in french) since they are no longer available through the web.
Sylvain

[mtvesuvius]

Here is a system that I just came up with. I have no clue how effective it is, or if it is even practical, however please let me know what you think. There are several disadvantages to playing it this way, but playing a Roman 2♥ (5+♥ + 4+m) and Multi 2♦ should be able to handle all problems here. This also requires a limited 1♥ opener, becuase opener must have a narrow, defined point range. (There is no difference between 14-16 and 14-16 HCP... I just wrote this without considering that until the last second... In addition, upgrading and downgrading is perfectly fine ) (In addition, opener can bid his hand once the system is no longer defined, unless partner's bid was to play.) I would imagine the opening bid structure like this:
1♣ = 16+ Artificial
1♦ = 11-15 Catchall
1♥ = 11-15; 5+♥, No 4+ card minor
1♠ = 11-15; 5+♠
1NT = Whatever you want (13-15 Maybe?)
2♣ = Precision 2♣; 11-15
2♦ = Multi: 19-21 Balanced OR Weak 2 in ♥ OR Unsound ♠ Pre-empt
2♥ = Roman: 5+♥ with 4+m
2♠ = Sound 2♠ Pre-empt
2NT = Weak with both Minors
3x = Weak

The only bid I will focus on will be 1♥.
1♥ - ?
Pass is advised with 0-5 and no ♥ Support
1♠ = Forcing 1NT (May have 4+♠) OR Jacoby 2NT
- 1NT = Generally Forced
--- Pass = 0-5♠; 0-2♥, 6-9
--- 2♣ = No Clear Direction; 2♥
--- 2♦ = Invitational with ♦
--- 2♥ = 9-11 HCP; 3♥
--- 2♠ = Weak with ♠
--- 2NT = Jacoby 2NT
- 2♣ = 5+♥ + 4♠; Maximum
--- 2♦ = Invitational with ♦
--- 2♥ = Preference
--- 2♠ = Preference
--- 2NT = Jacoby
--- 3♣ = 9-10 HCP; 3♥
--- 3♦ = 9-10 HCP; 4+♠
--- 3♥ = 11 HCP; 3♥
--- 3♠ = 11 HCP; 4+♠
- 2♦ = 5+♥ + 4♠; Minimum
--- Pass = Originally "Invitational" with ♦; No Major fits
--- 2♥ = Preference
--- 2♠ = Preference
--- 2NT = Jacoby
--- 3♣ = 10+-11 HCP; 4+♠
--- 3♦ = Invitational with ♦ (With A, K, or Q♦, opener bids 3NT)
--- 3♥ = 10+-11 HCP; 3♥
- 2♥ = 6+♥ + 0-3♠
1NT = Any GF or Weak with Long Minor (Relay to 2♣)
- 2♣ = Forced
--- Pass = Weak with ♣
--- 2♦ = Weak with ♦
--- 2♥ = 0-1 ♥; Relay to 2♠
----- 2♠ = Forced
-------- 2NT = 12-13 HCP or 17 HCP (Relay to 3♣)
---------- 3♣ = Forced
-------------- 3♦ = 12-13 HCP
-------------- 3♥ = 17 HCP
-------- 3♣ = Natural; 14-19 HCP
-------- 3♦ = Natural; 14-19 HCP
-------- 3♥ = Quantitative; 18 HCP
-------- 3♠ = Quantitative; 19 HCP
-------- 3NT = 14-16 HCP
--- 2♠ = Natural; GF
--- 2NT = 16-17 HCP; Balanced; 2 Card Support
--- 3♣ = Natural; GF
--- 3♦ = Natural; GF
--- 3♥ = 15-16 HCP; GF; No Shortness; 3♥
--- 3♠ = Splinter; 12+
--- 3NT = 18-19 HCP; Balanced; 2 Card Support
--- 4♣ = Splinter; 12+
--- 4♦ = Splinter; 12+
--- 4♥ =
2♣ = Invitational with ♣
2♦ = 9-11 HCP; 4+♥
2♥ = 5-8 HCP; 3+♥
2♠ = Invitational with ♠
2NT = Invitational; 10-11; <3♥
3♣ = 12+ HCP; GF; Shortness; 3♥ (3♦ Shortness Ask; 3♥ ♣ Shortness, 3♠ ♦ Shortness, 3NT ♠ Shortness)
3♦ = 12-14 HCP; GF; No Shortness; 3♥
3♥ = Pre-Emptive; Weak
3♠ = Splinter; 9-11
3NT = 12-15 Balanced; 2 Card Support
4♣ = Splinter; 9-11
4♦ = Splinter; 9-11
4♥ = Weak; Pre-Emptive

I don't know how this would work or if it has any merit at all, but I thought that I'd put it out there for anyone who is interested


Adam J. Kaplan