[Little Kid]

Playing 2M as 10-13 with 6M in 1st and 2nd seat, does anyone have suggestions for follow-up bids? The overall system is 2/1 based. Any comments on how you have found this treatment to work if you have played it would be very welcome too!

Thanks!


EDIT: Structure currently being tested:

2♠
.....2NT Asking shape
........ 3♣ No shortage
............ 3♦ Asking more
................ 3♥ Min
.................... 3NT To play, P/C
................ 3♠ Max Bad ♠ suit
................ 3NT Max Good ♠ suit
................ 4♠ Max 7♠
........ 3♦ Low shortage
........ 3♥ Middle shortage
........ 3♠ High Shortage

.... 3♣ Ogust
........ 3♦ Bad hand bad suit
........ 3♥ Bad hand, good suit
........ 3♠ Good hand, bad suit
........ 3NT Good hand, good suit

.... 3♦ Inv+ 5+♥s
........ 3♥ Min: P/C with 2♥
............ 3♠ To play
............ 3NT To play
........ 3♠ Min: ♥ shortage
........ 3NT Max: ♥ shortage
........ 4♥ 3♥s
........ 4♠ To Play: Long good ♠s
Note: The idea is that you punt game as opener over 3 with all hands that have 3♥, which should be a good contract most of the time anyway. That makes it easier for a responder with a ♥ slam try to determine degree of fit but also shape. This also takes pressure off responder regarding bidding over 3 with inv/GF borderline hands.

.... 3♥ GF+ 6♥ and 1♠
........ 3♠ 0-1 ♥s, suggests responder bids 3NT
........ 3NT Agrees ♥s

.... 3♠ Preemptive, to play

.... 3NT To play

.... 4♣/♦/♥ Fit, secondary good 5+ suit 2/3 top honours

[straube]

For 2S...

2N-GF relay or invitational with hearts
.....3C-higher shortness
..........3H-GI hearts
.....3D-bal
.....3H-middle shortness
.....3S-lower shortness
.....3N-lower shortness, 7
.....4C-5 clubs
.....4D-5 diamonds
3C-forces 3D for p/c
3D-GI+, short spades
3H-GI+, spade fit
3S-weak

For 2H

2S-GF relay or invitational with spades
2N-forces 3C for p/c
3C-GI+, short hearts
3D-GI+, heart fit
3H-weak

[dake50]

Expect continuations/development efficiency depend on which of 6322,6331,6421,6430,and more rare extreme distributions are allowed in 2M.
May 2M have other Major 4,5,6? Or can responder know no oM explore needed?
Suit quality good enough for slam with M-Qx? Or need much better/ask and find M-2xtops?

Or purely to win on best-guess by responder? No blab leaves defensive error likely.

Summarize: 1. decide intent strategic/tactic, 2. decide constraints matching that intent

[awm]

Cheapest call = shortness ask; at least invitational with 2+ fit
.... first three steps show shortness (hi/mid/low)
.... fourth step (rebid of suit) is balanced minimum
.... fifth step is balanced with extras
---------> Rebidding opener's suit is non-forcing (invite if at 3-level)
---------> New suit bid is cuebid agreeing the suit
---------> 3NT suggests to play there (wastage opposite shortage, or very flat hand vs 6322)

Other non-jump suit bids = natural and forcing to game
2♥-2NT = 5+♠ GF
Raise of suit = to play
3NT = to play
Jump in new suit = splinter

[straube]

Maybe...

2S

.....2N-asks
..........3C-min
...............3D-GF ask
....................3H-higher or mid
....................3S-lower
....................3N-bal
..........3D-max, higher
..........3H-max, middle
..........3S-max, lower
..........3N-max
.....3C-forces 3D for p/c
.....3D-GI+ hearts
.....3H-GI-short spades
.....3S-to play

[the hog]

Little Kid, on Mar 28 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

Playing 2M as 10-13 with 6M in 1st and 2nd seat, does anyone have suggestions for follow-up bids? The overall system is 2/1 based. Any comments on how you have found this treatment to work if you have played it would be very welcome too!

Thanks!

Why do you want to play this? What advantages will accrue from it? How will you replace your standard weak 2 openings? How does it fit in with the rest of your system eg what does 1M 1nt/2c/2d 2M now mean; what does 3M now mean?

[ulven]

This opening has been popular in the south of Sweden for almost 30 years. Gained a more widespread popularity the last decade and is currently used by Swedish Open Team pairs Fredin-Fallenius, de Knijff-Wrang and Cullin-Upmark (last pair didn't get selected for this European, first two went down in Vandy semi last weekend).

Fits well with Gazzilli-variant where 2C after 1M-1S/1NT shows 14+. 6+M or any 16+. In Sweden most play that 1M-1NT; 2M shows 11-15, 4+C.

The common responding structure is to use 2NT as Jacoby-variant with assumed support, invitational or better (i.e. same scheme as 1M - 2NT).

[Little Kid]

First of all thanks for the responses! Having said that I'll try to give some more information on why I'd like to try this bid, as suggested already the intent of the bid will affect its responses:

The idea is to put pressure on the opponents to decide whether or not to compete for the partscore after we have reached what is likely to be our PAR contract immediately. It should be harder for them to compete when it is right because we have more strength than over the traditional weak 2 and their hands may just be unsuitable to make a bid. It will also be more dangerous for them to bid if it is wrong because we may well have hands suitable to find a penalty double when they are too high.

With that purpose in mind, suit quality will not really be a big criterion for bidding 2M and hopefully the edge in hcps vs. weak 2s will make penalty doubles here quite rare. To answer The Hog's question, weak 2s now go via a weak variant only of multi. Admittedly this means they will lose a lot of their potency because the only times I've seen weak 2s get good results against good opponents recently is if it goes 2M-(?)-3M. The Gazzilli variant Ulven mentioned looks very interesting and is something I will check out

So to summarise, 2M includes all (9)10-13 hands with 6(7)M where you expect 2M to be the final contract opposite a weak responder in your regular 2/1 auction (don't want to lose accuracy vs std. bidding). Probably something like 7222, 7321, 6322, 6331 and 6421 (not 4oM) shapes. Any ideas on other shapes to include/exclude in order not to lose much accuracy in exploring strains?


Combining the suggestions from the post, maybe something like this:

2♠
.... 2NT Asking shape
........ 3♣ No shortage
............ 3♦ Asking more
................ 3♥ Min
................ 3♠ Max 7222
................ 3NT Max 6332
........ 3♦ Low shortage
........ 3♥ Middle shortage
........ 3♠ High Shortage

.... 3♣ GF 5+♥s
........ 3♦ 1♥
........ 3♥ 2♥s
........ 3♠ 3♥s

.... 3♦ GF 5+♣s
........ 3♥ Don't like ♣s
........ 3♠ Like ♣s

.... 3♥ GF 5+♦s
........ 3♠ Don't like ♦s
........ 3NT Like ♦s

.... 3♠ Preemptive, to play

.... 3NT To play

.... 4♣/♦/♥ Splinter

[straube]

Little Kid, on Mar 29 2010, 08:02 AM, said:

First of all thanks for the responses! Having said that I'll try to give some more information on why I'd like to try this bid, as suggested already the intent of the bid will affect its responses:

The idea is to put pressure on the opponents to decide whether or not to compete for the partscore after we have reached what is likely to be our PAR contract immediately. It should be harder for them to compete when it is right because we have more strength than over the traditional weak 2 and their hands may just be unsuitable to make a bid. It will also be more dangerous for them to bid if it is wrong because we may well have hands suitable to find a penalty double when they are too high.

With that purpose in mind, suit quality will not really be a big criterion for bidding 2M and hopefully the edge in hcps vs. weak 2s will make penalty doubles here quite rare. To answer The Hog's question, weak 2s now go via a weak variant only of multi. Admittedly this means they will lose a lot of their potency because the only times I've seen weak 2s get good results against good opponents recently is if it goes 2M-(?)-3M. The Gazzilli variant Ulven mentioned looks very interesting and is something I will check out

So to summarise, 2M includes all (9)10-13 hands with 6(7)M where you expect 2M to be the final contract opposite a weak responder in your regular 2/1 auction (don't want to lose accuracy vs std. bidding). Probably something like 7222, 7321, 6322, 6331 and 6421 (not 4oM) shapes. Any ideas on other shapes to include/exclude in order not to lose much accuracy in exploring strains?


Combining the suggestions from the post, maybe something like this:

2♠
.... 2NT Asking shape
........ 3♣ No shortage
............ 3♦ Asking more
................ 3♥ Min
................ 3♠ Max 7222
................ 3NT Max 6332
........ 3♦ Low shortage
........ 3♥ Middle shortage
........ 3♠ High Shortage

.... 3♣ GF 5+♥s
........ 3♦ 1♥
........ 3♥ 2♥s
........ 3♠ 3♥s

.... 3♦ GF 5+♣s
........ 3♥ Don't like ♣s
........ 3♠ Like ♣s

.... 3♥ GF 5+♦s
........ 3♠ Don't like ♦s
........ 3NT Like ♦s

.... 3♠ Preemptive, to play

.... 3NT To play

.... 4♣/♦/♥ Splinter

I like my structure better.

I can find out maximum vs minimum for all hand types.
I can use the asking bid for most GF hands. For instance if I have GF clubs and partner shows shortness diamonds max, then I can presume club tolerance/fit and max. The relay bid in other words doesn't confirm spade fit at all.

You have no place for an invitational hand short in spades. I think it's important to get this message across as it will come up frequently. Playing 3S ought to be playable, but sometimes partner will have 7 spades or good 6 spades with a max and be able to bid 4S. Other times he'll have a crappy suit with a good hand and be able to rebid 3N.

You also have no way of signing off in a better suit. Btw, using a bid like
2H-2N (forcing 3C for p/c) can also take on new meanings if responder rebids 3H or higher.

The only really important bid to be able to show is GI with the other major and you haven't a way of doing that either.

[helene_t]

With Csaba I play transfer responses.

[Little Kid]

Inviting in oM will be quite important, totally forgot about it. Will definitely need to revise the responses I wrote again because I agree with all the points you make. If only there was room for more bidding!

The problems I have with the min-max relay structure is that it takes up more room and that the High-Middle shortages are in the same bid. Maybe I could have a hand where I want to know about partner's shortage holding xxxx in a suit, but still want to sign off in 3♠ if the hands don't fit. Alternatively holding soft values like QJ/KJ opposite shortage may really be a reason not to go over 3♠. It is only a 3 hcp range so the extent to which a hand is min or max will depend largely on how well they fit. The advantage of your structure is that you can go through the relay with an inv hand and short spades, then make an educated guess after the response. I might change my mind on this once I start testing out some of the sequences with actual hands.

Signing off in a better suit may be an issue but I'm less worried about that because the bid already does show 6-7M, which unlike the Fantunes 2-bids will usually be the best partscore to play in opposite a weak hand.

I should probably use the 3♣ bid to cater for some of those holdings. Maybe using the inv+ oM is best bescause you need most room for that?

2♠
.... 2NT Asking shape
........ 3♣ No shortage
............ 3♦ Asking more
................ 3♥ Min
................ 3♠ Max 7222
................ 3NT Max 6332
........ 3♦ High shortage
........ 3♥ Middle shortage
........ 3♠ Low Shortage

.... 3♣ Inv+ 5+♥
........ 3♦ Min
............ 3♥ GF asking ♥ fit
................ 3♠ Singleton
................ 3NT 2♥
................ 4♣/♦ Shortage and 3♥
................ 4♥ 3♥
............ 3♠ To Play
........ 3♥ Max 2♥
............ 3♠ Sets ♥s
............ 3NT To play
........ 3♠ Max 3♥
........ 3NT Max 1♥

.... 3♦ GF 6+♣
........ 3♥ 3+♣
........ 3♠ Hx in ♣
........ 3NT x or xx in ♣

.... 3♥ GF 6+♦
........ 3+ or Hx ♦
........ 3NT x or xx♦

[straube]

Something I like to do is to separate hands that are GF/slamming hands from GI/marginal GF hands.

For instance, over an opening 2C bid (showing clubs), 2D can be a GF relay bid asking partner's exact shape, then controls/points, etc. At the same time, 2H can be an asking bid for approximate shapes/range/stoppers, etc. Amongst other things, it lets opener know whether we're in a GF immediately or not which is helpful in competition.

I don't know the restrictions on your 2M opening. Does it allow for a side 4-cd suit? If so, you have too many hand patterns to relay successfully. If OTOH it's truly single-suited, then you can easily relay.

So...
2S-2N can be a strong GF/relay bid which allows partner to go past 3N with certain shapes (for instance, those with 7 spades).

3C-probably is a GI ask (like OGUST)
3D-GI+ hearts
3H-maybe a GI raise
3S-a blocking bid

[Echognome]

When I played these we played next step ask with responses:

Min
No Shortage
Low Short
Middle Short
High Short
Low 2nd suit
Middle 2nd suit
High 2nd suit

Other than the min, the responses are No LMH LMH, so easy enough to remember.

After the min response, responder could relay asking for the same steps. Perhaps this doesn't optimally solve all the questions you may have, but we liked that it was easy to remember.

We played other bids were natural and forced through 3M.

[straube]

What did you do with singleton support and invitational values?

I think that's part of what OGUST solves. Good suit vs bad suit and min vs max.
If 3C asks OGUST then you'll only spill over to 3N with good suit and max.

[Little Kid]

Thanks for your comments straube! I have been testing out the last structure I posted for the past hour or two and my feelings echo precisely what you have said.

The hands with invitational+ values and 5+♥s aren't at all smooth, the 3♣ bid showing inv+ 5+♥s caused some messy auctions after opener showed a minimum. There is simply not enough room to explore both the degree of ♥ fit and combined strength all whilst trying to find best partscore if opener is minimum. Ending up in a 6-1♠ fit holding a 6-2♥ fit was one of the examples. It didn't look great when the ♠ suit was headed by the J and 4♥ was pretty much cold. So this definitely needs to be changed!

Another problem hand was the (11)12-13 range hands with short ♠s. These invitational hands with short ♠s came up quite a lot and I would really like to be able to cater for them. Some form of Ogust seems ideal for this and I'll try it out. Alternatively 3♣ could be a natural feature asking bid or something with the 2NT-3♥ being the invitational raise with short ♠s.

It might be a good idea to leave out the 6421 shapes and focus on 7222, 7321, 6332 and 6331 shapes. It will should improve the responses to 2M and cause less worries about 3m being a better contract to play in. I'm not sure what kind of implications this all has on the 1M-? structure but I will check that out once the 2M responses seem to work.

6+m GF (slam interest) hands didn't come up much, quite possibly due to low frequency of such hands in general. I'm going to scrap the 3♦/3♥ bids for the minors too and use things that come up more often. Then one could simply go through some relay/feature-asking/OGUST sequence with those hands instead as you suggested. To summarise, your arguments convinced me once I actually tried out the sequences and the next thing I'll test is something like:

2♠
.....2NT Asking shape
........ 3♣ No shortage
............ 3♦ Asking more
................ 3♥ Min
................ 3♠ Max 7222
................ 3NT Max 6332
........ 3♦ Low shortage
........ 3♥ Middle shortage
........ 3♠ High Shortage

.... 3♣ Ogust
........ 3♦ Bad hand bad suit
........ 3♥ Bad hand, good suit
........ 3♠ Good hand, bad suit
........ 3NT Good hand, good suit

.... 3♦ Inv+ 5+♥s
........ 3♥ Min: P/C with 2♥
............ 3♠ To play
............ 3NT To play
........ 3♠ Min: ♥ shortage
........ 3NT Max: ♥ shortage
........ 4♥ 3♥s
Note: The idea is that you punt game as opener over 3♦ with all hands that have 3♥, which should be a good contract most of the time anyway. That makes it easier for a responder with a ♥ slam try to determine degree of fit but also shape. This also takes pressure off responder regarding bidding over 3♥ with inv/GF borderline hands.

.... 3♥ Invitational with short ♠s



Despite the epic fail of the initial 3♣/3♦/3♥ sequences, the one thing that did work alright alright were the 2NT auctions with 2+♠ support. They came up with a high frequency (>50% of the time) and went pretty smoothly, working as well as normal 2/1 auctions if not better. A nice example was:

♠ AQ8653
♥ 864
♦ AQ2
♣ 6

♠KT9
♥A3
♦KJT9
♣AK72

2♠-2N*
3♠**-4♣
4♦-4NT
5♠-6♦
7♠-7N

* Asking
** ♣ singleton


Might do some more tweaking on all this tomorrow and give the test-bidding another go. Thanks to everyone who has replied, trying to come up with a set of responses to a bid for the first time is harder than it seems! I would have probably given up in frustration on this already if it wasn't for the constructive help

[straube]

You're welcome. You might use 3H as GI with spade fit/tolerance; if next hand bids, then opener is empowered to bid 4S. If you group the short spade hands into the OGUST bid (along with other GF hands) then opener can relax after 4-level interference because responder will know whether to bid game or double.

[zenko]

Not so sure about relaxed suit quality rules, other than that seems quite nice, frankly I would ditch classic weak twos altogether (except maybe 1st seat favorable vul, and even then 2 spades is the only one that has any significant impact). Weak twos are way overrated IMO, especially vs quality opponents.

[Free]

Little Kid, on Mar 29 2010, 11:50 PM, said:

~snip~
A nice example was:

♠ AQ8653
♥ 64
♦ AQ2
♣ 6

♠KT9
♥A3
♦KJT9
♣AK2

2♠-2N*
3♠**-4♣
4♦-4NT
5♠-6♦
7♠-7N

* Asking
** ♣ singleton
~snip~

Both hands have only 12 cards, I wonder how you'll get 13 tricks out of this...

[Little Kid]

Oops, fixed it!