[Hyperon]

Imagine you are in an auction where the enemy has bid (and perhaps supported) a suit (say ♠) and your partner makes a cuebid (say 3♠) to ask for a stopper in light of 3NT. Your RHO now makes a lead directing double. Since you will for sure get a spade lead against 3NT now, you should be well positioned. Because it matters from hand to hand, you would like to be able to deny a stopper, show half a stopper, show a single stopper and show a double stopper. This could be achieved with the bidding space over the double in the following way:

• Pass: shows half a stopper or a double stopper
  
• Rdbl: denies a stopper
  
• 3NT: shows a single stopper
  
• 4z: denies a stopper, but a better hand than rdbl (z could show extra shape)

Over pass, responder bids 3NT with half a stopper or rdbl without a stopper (over which 3NT by opener is a double stop and 4y is a sign off with half a stopper).

Do you think this approach is good or is someone familiar with something better?

[Vampyr]

This sounds pretty good to me.

[nullve]

Hyperon, on 2016-June-02, 20:10, said:

• Pass: shows half a stopper or a double stopper
  
• Rdbl: denies a stopper
  
• 3NT: shows a single stopper
  
• 4z: denies a stopper, but a better hand than rdbl (z could show extra shape)

Similar to Manco / Mancoff:

http://www.syskon.nu..._mancoff_01.pdf

(in Swedish, unfortunately)

[Hyperon]

nullve, on 2016-June-03, 08:00, said:

Similar to Manco / Mancoff:

http://www.syskon.nu..._mancoff_01.pdf

(in Swedish, unfortunately)

Could you translate a bit? I would like to know the exact meaning of pass/rdbl/3NT. I chose them in a way that it's possible to rightside in case of a single and double stopper. For example, rdbl should never mean a single stopper/double stopper. The only variation I can think of is a no stopper/half a stopper inversion.

[nullve]

Hyperon, on 2016-June-03, 10:10, said:

Could you translate a bit? I would like to know the exact meaning of pass/rdbl/3NT. I chose them in a way that it's possible to rightside in case of a single and double stopper. For example, rdbl should never mean a single stopper/double stopper. The only variation I can think of is a no stopper/half a stopper inversion.

A very literal translation:

"Offensive convention: Mancoff (Manco)

Origin: Manco was created in the late 60s by Mats Nilsland and Dag Hermelin, and has after minor changes and a suggestion by Göran Ofsén been improved to the more modern variation, Mancoff.

Created date: Approximately 1973

Purpose: The purpose of Manco and Mancoff is to exploit the opponents's double of a stopper ask and cuebid.

Description
Manco applies when the bidding is at the 2- or 3-level and the opponents make a double of a stopper ask (often a cuebid or fourth suit). For example,

[auction1]

or

[auction2]

Responses
In this type of situations a number of rules apply for what the different calls show:

• Notrump bids show a double stopper (or sufficiently solid stopper under the circumstances)
  
• RD shows xx/xxx (two or three spot cards in the doubled suit)
  
• An active call shows a singleton in the doubled suit
  
• Pass shows a single stopper or a half stopper in the suit
  
• Cuebid (raise) shows a void in the suit

After the pass, which can be a single stopper or a double stopper (Qx, Jxx), partner can often decide what shall be played. If he wants to know more exactly, for example whether he is missing a half stopper himself, he can call RD, which asks for 3NT with a half stopper.

Variations: Manco is an earlier variant, where the meaning of RD and active calls were interchanged. (RD showed singleton.)

Links:
Version & date: 1 - 2001-12-16
Described by: Mats Nilsland"