[fromageGB]

I wonder what others do in this circumstance.
For us, 1♠ 1NT, 2♥ is 12-16. Responder with 11/12 will rebid 2NT, but a non-fitting balanced 9/10 count will just convert to 2♠ and we miss the 3NT.
So the problem is can you distinguish between 54xx and 12-14, and 54xx and 15/16?

OK, you may play 1NT can include a 5 card major, but does that include 5422? Does it include 5431 or 5440 ?

So far I haven't been able to come up with an answer. Other systems may cope, but please consider the 2/1 situation.
I don't like the idea of forgetting the hearts if 15/16 and lumping in with a "balanced" rebid, where we can distinguish between 12-14 and 15/16. But would that be better, with 1♠ 1NT, 2♥ being just 12-14 ?

[mtvesuvius]

There really is no good answer here, usually 2♥ is even like 11-17 or so, and the 11-14 hands would pass the false preference, 15 point hands usually pass as well. 16-17 can take another call to further describe their hand. The 15 point hands are borderline, you have to use judgement on when to bid on. In general I'd pass with almost all 11-15 5422s and bid 2N with most 16 5422s, and all 17 5422s. Strongly dislike opening 1N on the 5422 unless there is a lot of values in the doubletons.

[awm]

Assuming fairly standard agreements, I'd just adjust your point ranges a little bit. I'd go with something like:

(1) Make the 2NT rebid something like good 10 to bad 12, rather than 11-12. Usually 12 opposite 12 games play pretty well. This handles the 15/16 opposite 10 problem.
(2) There is some range of strength where opener is expected to bid on after 1♠-1N-2♥-2♠. Suppose this starts around 16, which handles the 16 opposite 9 problem.

The downside is that you occasionally play 2NT instead of 2♠ with 11+ opposite 10+, or with 16 opposite 6. You still "miss" the 15 opposite 9 game but I don't think that's a huge problem on misfit hands (in fact it might be for the best).

Of course there are more drastic "fixes" like some version of Gazzilli or Riton 2♣ rebids, a strong club system, or playing at least some non-GF 2/1 bids.

[MickyB]

Playing Gazzilli doesn't solve this problem IMO, isn't it usually played as clubs or 17+?

I play a 2/1 response as either 9-10 with a doubleton in partner's suit or a GF hand, this works very well.

[awm]

 MickyB, on 2010-December-12, 13:35, said:

Playing Gazzilli doesn't solve this problem IMO, isn't it usually played as clubs or 17+?

I play a 2/1 response as either 9-10 with a doubleton in partner's suit or a GF hand, this works very well.

I've seen Gazzilli played as either 17+ or 15+ for the strong option. Elianna and I play 17+ because our 1NT response range is about 5-10 (so playing 15+ would be silly, we would almost never GF opposite that). But if you play 1NT forcing with most hands up to 12 hcp, playing 15+ makes quite a bit of sense.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I think there is a solution for this problem.

Suppose that you start with the principle that you often will rebid 2♣, perhaps as Gazilli, such that 2♦ always promises a real suit. If you are willing to take this leap, then lets leap further.

Suppose, then, that you played this structure:

1♠-P-1NT-P-2♥ = values rebid. Typically 15-ish. Might be slightly lighter if 5-5.

1♠-P-1NT-P-2♦ = what I call "Opener's Bart," in a sense. This shows:

1) weak majors, or
2) spades+diamonds

The simple follow-up idea is that Responder is expected to pick a major if he wants to play 2M. If he picks hearts, Opener can correct to 2♠ to show spades+diamonds.

I wrote up a series of posts on this topic (also adding in a 2♦ opening for spades+diamonds+light to take off some pressure and to add some other benefits) on my blog. In my posts, I also described some other unwinds.

I think there is something to this approach, but I have not tried it as I have no one interested in experimenting who does not already play reverse Flannery (which also works to solve the problem but does not seem as effective in other areas as the 2♦ opening for diamonds+spades, for reasons explained in my blog posts).

[Free]

 MickyB, on 2010-December-12, 13:35, said:

Playing Gazzilli doesn't solve this problem IMO, isn't it usually played as clubs or 17+?

I play a 2/1 response as either 9-10 with a doubleton in partner's suit or a GF hand, this works very well.

 awm, on 2010-December-12, 13:42, said:

I've seen Gazzilli played as either 17+ or 15+ for the strong option. Elianna and I play 17+ because our 1NT response range is about 5-10 (so playing 15+ would be silly, we would almost never GF opposite that). But if you play 1NT forcing with most hands up to 12 hcp, playing 15+ makes quite a bit of sense.

I always play Gazzilli as 16+ and haven't had a problem with this. It splits the 12-19 range perfectly in half, and with stronger hands you'll keep on bidding anyway.

[gwnn]

I use 2♣ as a question: do you have 9+? If I want to know if my partner has 9+ I bid 2♣.

(in Iceland standard 2♣ also includes 13+ balanced, so there are 3 hand types, 13-15 ish balanced or natural with clubs or the "question", which is of course about 16+)

[lexlogan]

Missing a 25 point game is not disastrous, especially if you can stop at or below 2♠. Sure, you'd like to be there, but investigating typically risks a shaky 23 point or worse 2NT; your net gain is smaller than you might think. So the only real problem here is 16 opposite 10. You could "solve" that problem by not opening 12 point 5422 hands, or not responding 1NT with 6 points. As I think the cost of those is too high, just decide whether you prefer responder to overbid with 10 points or opener to do so with 16, or live with missing a few 16-opposite-10-with-no-fit games. I suspect mathematically opener has a higher expectation that responder is not minimum than the reverse; 1/3rd of 40 minus 16 is 8 points, so the number of times opener bids 2NT and catches responder with only 6 or 7 shouldn't be too high. On the flip side, 12 is more common than 13 which is more common than 14, etc, so I think the risk of a 22 point 2NT is higher if responder takes the push. If opener does invite with 16, he probably needs to bid game with 18 rather than have too wide a range for his game try. Bidding a 24 point 3NT isn't disastrous, either. (The stated points are for average hands, of course; no matter how fine your judgment, you'll have a range of hands equivalent to 6-10 and 12-16.)

No way do you want to open 1NT with 5422 -- the odds are better than 50% you have a fit in spades, and without crunching the numbers I would expect a heart fit at least 1/3rd of the time you don't fit spades, so there's something like a 67% chance of a major suit fit and the shape will play better in a suit.

I don't think the frequency of this situation is worth any special gadget or treatment.

[mike777]

 fromageGB, on 2010-December-12, 10:40, said:

I wonder what others do in this circumstance.
For us, 1♠ 1NT, 2♥ is 12-16. Responder with 11/12 will rebid 2NT, but a non-fitting balanced 9/10 count will just convert to 2♠ and we miss the 3NT.
So the problem is can you distinguish between 54xx and 12-14, and 54xx and 15/16?

OK, you may play 1NT can include a 5 card major, but does that include 5422? Does it include 5431 or 5440 ?

So far I haven't been able to come up with an answer. Other systems may cope, but please consider the 2/1 situation.
I don't like the idea of forgetting the hearts if 15/16 and lumping in with a "balanced" rebid, where we can distinguish between 12-14 and 15/16. But would that be better, with 1♠ 1NT, 2♥ being just 12-14 ?

unbal 14-16 pt hands can be a real headache..your example hands 5=4=2=2, 5=4=3=1, 5=4=4=0 are good examples.

Often it seems the opp will bid and that may actually help us out.

[fromageGB]

Many thanks for the inputs. I'm going to discuss this with partner and you've given me some great ideas to consider.

At first glance, I like the idea of saying that responder, if he hears 1♠ 1NT 2♥ will bid 2NT with 10-12 rather than the normal 11-12, and couple with the idea of opener using Gazilli on 16 if he has 54xx, instead of the otherwise 17+. (2♣ would normally be balanced, or 4+ clubs, or any 17+, and the unwinds after 2♦ if responder has 8+ are easy.) This will put us into the rare 2NT on a 22 count, or a rare 3NT on a 24 count, but these will be playable given there is a 5 card suit to establish in the stronger hand. And it does solve the "missing 3NT" problem.

I'm going to do some thinking into Ken's "any red suit" 2♦ rebid, as this may be OK, but maybe not if responder has hearts and diamonds, but no spades. You are at the 3 level.

Using the 2♦ open is something to think about. Currently we are getting used to, and getting to like, 2♦ = 6-11 and 4+4+ both majors.

Thanks all.

[kenrexford]

 fromageGB, on 2010-December-14, 12:08, said:

Many thanks for the inputs. I'm going to discuss this with partner and you've given me some great ideas to consider.

At first glance, I like the idea of saying that responder, if he hears 1♠ 1NT 2♥ will bid 2NT with 10-12 rather than the normal 11-12, and couple with the idea of opener using Gazilli on 16 if he has 54xx, instead of the otherwise 17+. (2♣ would normally be balanced, or 4+ clubs, or any 17+, and the unwinds after 2♦ if responder has 8+ are easy.) This will put us into the rare 2NT on a 22 count, or a rare 3NT on a 24 count, but these will be playable given there is a 5 card suit to establish in the stronger hand. And it does solve the "missing 3NT" problem.

I'm going to do some thinking into Ken's "any red suit" 2♦ rebid, as this may be OK, but maybe not if responder has hearts and diamonds, but no spades. You are at the 3 level.

Using the 2♦ open is something to think about. Currently we are getting used to, and getting to like, 2♦ = 6-11 and 4+4+ both majors.

Thanks all.

These are the discussions that most intrigue me in the results. I mean, the whole idea of opening 2♦ for diamonds+spades as a better way to handle both majors (and other benefits) is alone odd to the casual observer. But, imagine even further. One could imagine the discussion including a point where you decide that a 2NT response to a 1♠ opening should show whatever the problem hand is if partner would have rebid 2♦ and spades+red. That convention would sound insane to the opponents (out of context of theory and solely in context of the auction), which is fun.

[MickyB]

 kenrexford, on 2010-December-14, 13:36, said:

These are the discussions that most intrigue me in the results. I mean, the whole idea of opening 2♦ for diamonds+spades as a better way to handle both majors (and other benefits) is alone odd to the casual observer. But, imagine even further. One could imagine the discussion including a point where you decide that a 2NT response to a 1♠ opening should show whatever the problem hand is if partner would have rebid 2♦ and spades+red. That convention would sound insane to the opponents (out of context of theory and solely in context of the auction), which is fun.

I was considering a system where 1M was either five cards or a minimum with 4M5D. I already play 1M:3D as a three-card limit raise, but playing that system it would become non-forcing. It's almost worth playing the system just to have that come up on vugraph

[JLOGIC]

A lot depends also on how light you open, and how light you can respond.

If you open a modern lightish (for instance, a huge amount of 54xx 11 counts, and a huge amount of 55xx 10 counts), and respond normal (most 5+ counts), then personally I think it is right to:

-Pass with all 15s and many 16s with 54xx after 1S 1N 2H 2S
-Preference with 10 after 1S 1N 2H if you have 2 spades. With a stiff spade you are endplayed into 2N, unfortunately.
-Miss 15 opposite 10 games routinely, as well as some 16 opp 10/9.
-Consider form of scoring/vulnerability carefully. At imps red you can be more aggressive with both the 10s and the 16s. At MP being conservative will be a huge winner long term imo.

You are just way more likely to be near the bottom or middle of your range than the top (especially when it's 15/16 vs a lighter opener), and getting to 2N is pretty much a disaster in my eyes on a majority of these deals. -200 instead of +110 is a big swing too. The fact is, you will experience losses when both hands have such a wide range regardless of what you do. You cannot just miss one game and decide you must start being more aggressive, then get too high a couple times in a row and switch back, etc etc. Somethings gotta give.

This is analogous to another situation that comes up frequently. Say it goes:

1H 1S
2D ?

and you have a 4135 9 count. Obviously you pass, but you could easily be missing 16/17 opp 9 games, and possibly even 18 opp 9! This is because 2D has a very wide range, but partner is by far more likely to have the 10-15 part of his range than the 16-17(18). It is just about the frequency, getting too high 9 out of 10 times to find 1 game is not worth it.

Also consider that if you invite with 2N on something like a 9-12 range your range is again too wide, and partner has no chance of making good decisions frequently over it. What should he do with a random 14?

The basic fundamental problem is that your auction has reached too high of a level with the ranges still being too wide, so that you must get too high or too low sometimes.

[kenrexford]

In the early 90's, I learned a system from a Croat that was canape with an interesting twist of LTC distinction. For example, with a 50loser hand, you bid canape. With a 6-7 loser hand, you did not. This got a little difficult at times, but the premise was not bad, it seems.

This made for some interesting sequences. For example:

1♥-P-2♥-P-
3♦-P-P-P

Opener could have had 5♥/4♦ and weak for his opening, in which case he would have passed 2♥. With 4♥/5♦ and a 5-loser hand, he opened 1♥ and was raised. Responder, with perhaps 3♥/3♦, raised hearts but passed the superior diamond contract. Had Opener held 5♥/4♦ and a 5-loser hand, he would have opened 1♦, perhaps raised, perhaps rebidding 2♥, and then hearts becoming the contract.

This approach had one of the funkiest 1♣ openings (1♦ being the strong opening) for this reason. Could be either minor with a 4-card major with a weak hand, or either major with a 4-card minor and a 5-loser hand, or balanced and not the range for a 1NT opening, or one-suited in either minor. The unwind was humorous when interference hit, but I do not recall too many disasters. A lot of cross-your-fingers balancing/competitive calls.

[fromageGB]

 JLOGIC, on 2010-December-14, 19:12, said:

A lot depends also on how light you open, and how light you can respond.
...
The basic fundamental problem is that your auction has reached too high of a level with the ranges still being too wide, so that you must get too high or too low sometimes.

Actually not a problem for us as we use a weak 2 for weak hands and a 1M is 12+ except possibly 11 with 6+ card suit. So your sequences are the ones we now (thanks to this thread) avoid.
- 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ is 12-14, so the 9 or 10 point responder has no problems. {With 15/16 the opener will not show the diamonds and will bid 2♣ Gazzilli of the balanced variety. This does not stop responder escaping to 3♦ if he has a long suit}.
- 1♠ 1NT 2♥ will be a maximum of 15, and responder bids 2NT rather than 2♠ if he has 10.
- responder rebidding 2NT is always 11-12 except it may be 10 when opener rebids a major.

I agree with you that wide ranging responses can get you into trouble, so we don't do that, but I don't want to miss the 25/26 point games.

[gwnn]

anyway it's a good idea to invite a little bit more lightly when it's

1S-1N
2H

and accept a little bit more heavily. with a good 10 and 4 card heart support it's often a good idea to just bid 4H. remember that opener is still quite minimum with 13 14

edit: just to clarify, I know that this is not really what you were asking about, just thought I'd throw it out there anyway

[JLOGIC]

 gwnn, on 2010-December-17, 10:04, said:

anyway it's a good idea to invite a little bit more lightly when it's

1S-1N
2H

and accept a little bit more heavily. with a good 10 and 4 card heart support it's often a good idea to just bid 4H. remember that opener is still quite minimum with 13 14

edit: just to clarify, I know that this is not really what you were asking about, just thought I'd throw it out there anyway

Along with this it's a good idea to jumpshift more aggressively with S+H, both because partner won't be able to "keep the auction open" for your as often as over 2C or 2D, and because you have more chance for game when you have both majors.