[whereagles]

Well, I don't think my scheme goes against any bidding theory. On the contrary, it allows the stronger hand (be it opener or responder) to take charge.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

We want opener's hand described as little as possible, since opener is ALWAYS declarer.

While this is a reasonable goal to have, there are a few things working against you. One is there is a principle that it's better for the balanced hand (responder) to find out about the unbalanced hand, because it's easier for the balanced hand to determine whether his values are working in the space available. You have a head start describing opener's hand from the opening bid, it's easier to define that hand. Also, if you do get to slam, although you may have revealed more about opener's hand than you'd like, presumably you are bidding good slams and the opponents can't really make much use of the information, as they are only going to be in once or twice (opening lead & maybe their one trick). I think in general concealing opener's hand will hurt your accuracy, and revealing it won't hurt much if you are in slam.

I think the best approach is to minimize information given when you are going to stop in game (opener min, responder also min without a hand with slam interest opposite certain shapes), but not to worry about it if you are going to slam.

If you really want declarer's hand described as little as possible, you need to play a relay system with transfer openings. Either that or forget about science and just bash more. Bidding scientifically is going to be more revealing to the opponents, can't avoid it.

[pbleighton]

I agree with those who rebid 3C with any minimum.

I would also use this to extend 2NT to include invitational hands, so 3C is any hand which wouldn't accept an invitation (I think Ben plays this way). It can also be a good vehicle to handle very light openings, if you play them. Then 3C is dead minimum, 3D is more than that but still not enough to accept, and all GF hands show shape. You can thus bid 2NT on what "normal" openers would consider an invitation, without making your partner guess where you are. I have been playing this way for about 18 months, and it has worked very well.

Putting invitational hands in 2NT frees 1M-3M for a preemptive bid, without giving up jump shifts to Bergen.

Peter

[Echognome]

Keylime's discussion of Swedish 2NT made me think back to this thread. I wanted to add a small addition that I figured out from discussions with I believe it was Cherdano and/or Hannie (although if you think it's a bad idea you should credit it to me alone).

I figured out that playing 2NT with the same meaning after 1♥ and 1♠ were not equal. Namely, that little bit of extra space you have after 1♠ is quite useful.

1♠ - 2NT (inv +)
3♣ (min) - ?

Now responder can bid 3♦ as a GF (still with slam interest), 3♥ as a game try (how minimum are you?) and 3♠ as a dead signoff. He can also bid game directly of course.

After 1♥ you just don't have the room. You either make 3♦ as a game try or better (and lose a step in the relay), or you make a slight change to your structure. The proposal is simple. Just switch your meanings of 2♠ and 2NT after 1♥. Since for me 1♥ - 2♠ was a mini-splinter, changing that to 2NT meant no loss. And now 1♥ - 2♠ is an invitational plus raise and we have regained that important step.

[keylime]

Thanks for the love :-)

I use a sliding form of this that has responses which allows opener equal rights in the auction with responder. It's because partly of systemic setup (I need the 2NT for something else - so 1H-2S and 1S-3C are my moneymakers).

Furthermore my raise concepts revolves around the fact that responder's GF raise is a mild slam invite or better (15+). Realize folks, I use a forcing club, but I also think it applies to 2/1 style methods as well.

If I was building a better 2/1 system so to speak, I'd use 1M-2NT as a natural forcing call, with 1H-2S and 1S-3C as the swedish meatball (yum) raise.

[Double !]

I Hate Jacoby 2NT!!!!!
You lose more than you think by not having it available as a natural bid (even playing 2/1: you could play it as Baron 16+). Fred has some compelling recommendations and responses about this issue in his articles about improving 2/1. Worth re-reading.

[han]

I think I still remember the article fairly well Double. I think that it contains a lot of good ideas, but I still really like modified Jacoby 2NT, Swedish 2NT, Jordan 2NT, or however you want to call it. Here are my thoughts:

1) I bid 2C with almost all balanced GF hands. It is possible to build a very good structure over 1M-2C (you have much more room than over 2NT), and you can rightside most notrump contracts. Note that Jacoby 2NT does not wrongside the contract, as you will most likely play in the major. Natural 2NT GF may very well wrongside the contract as you can have xxx in a side suit.

2) Fred uses at least 3 jump shifts for 4-card support raises. I like to play 1M-1NT non-forcing in a 2/1 GF system, so I prefer to have these jump shifts available to unload 1NT.

3) I find that for me, playing 2NT as the raise, instead of 2S or 3C depending on the opening bid, is much easier. I will make less mistakes in the heat of battle if I think about 1M-2NT-3H instead of 1M-Raise-3rd step. I just find this easier to remember, but I can imagine that this would get easier if I played Fred structure for a longer time. I only played it for a couple of months, just to try it.

Am I correct in remembering that Fred recommended 1M-3NT as 16-18 balanced? This seems really wrong to me!

It feels strange to write negative comments about an article by someone who takes bridge so much more serious than I do, and who probably has thought about this much much more than I did. However, I think that it is very important for this forum that the far-from-worldclass players like myself should write down their thoughts not worrying too much about these things, so I try not to.

[keylime]

Han-ster,

If it wasn't for what I have now, I'd probably use something similar to what you have. I think 1M-2C allows for some nice structures.

If memory serves, Rubin-Ekeblad uses 1M-2C as any G/F (relay).

[coyot]

Double !, on Jul 26 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

I Hate Jacoby 2NT!!!!!
You lose more than you think by not having it available as a natural bid (even playing 2/1: you could play it as Baron 16+). Fred has some compelling recommendations and responses about this issue in his articles about improving 2/1. Worth re-reading.

I think it was some other thread where I showed that the occurence of a 2NT hand after 1M opening is approx 1% or less.

So, I lose on 1% of hands (where I have exactly 11-12 count AND no fit)
and I gain on x% of hands (where I have any 12+ hand with support.).

[david_c]

Hannie, on Jul 27 2005, 06:36 AM, said:

1) I bid 2C with almost all balanced GF hands. It is possible to build a very good structure over 1M-2C

Yes! I am a big fan of the artificial 2♣ response. However, it doesn't work efficiently unless you're prepared to play a load of artificial methods over it. For example, say your bidding starts 1♠:2♣,2♥:2NT. OK, this is all fine, opener has the majors and responder has shown a balanced hand. But now how do you continue? Natural bidding here doesn't really make much sense - you're virtually forced to play some sort of relay system.

So, wonderful as an artificial 2♣ is, it's only suitable for system freaks in regular partnerships. For the rest of the world, Fred's natural 2NT bid is still much better than standard 2/1.

[han]

I don't play relays over 1M-2C, something much more simple like this:

2D: any minimum, higher bids show extras.
2M: extras, no 5-card minor, 6+ major or 5-4 in the majors.
2oM: natural, extras.
2NT: extras, 6+ major.
minor at 3-level: 5-5, extras.
3M: extras, semi-solid major.
3oM: pure 5-5 or better, extras.

Follow-ups are basically natural.

The 2C call can be made with any balanced GF, any natural GF with 5+ clubs, or a 3-card limit raise. Notice that the auction 1M-2C-2D-2NT is generally better than 1M-2NT, as opener has shown a minimum so the only goal is to find the best game (unless responder is huge).

[Fluffy]

Nobody has to take control after this sequence, one has shown a balanced hand, the other a singleton, responder is the only one who has a tiny bit of extrainfo, since he knows he doesn't need third round control on itws doubleton, appart from that, all aces, kings and queens are key.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Jul 31 2005, 01:52 PM, said:

I don't play relays over 1M-2C, something much more simple like this:

2D: any minimum, higher bids show extras.
2M: extras, no 5-card minor, 6+ major or 5-4 in the majors.
2oM: natural, extras.
2NT: extras, 6+ major.
minor at 3-level: 5-5, extras.
3M: extras, semi-solid major.
3oM: pure 5-5 or better, extras.

Follow-ups are basically natural.

The 2C call can be made with any balanced GF, any natural GF with 5+ clubs, or a 3-card limit raise. Notice that the auction 1M-2C-2D-2NT is generally better than 1M-2NT, as opener has shown a minimum so the only goal is to find the best game (unless responder is huge).

This structure looks very interesting to me. I have been trying to think of a way to include that 3 card limit major raise into the 2C bid. This leads to a question, please: Can opener pass after the following sequence: 1M-2C-2D-2M?
And, with a 3-card spade support, 5+ hearts (or any other suit for that matter), and invitational values, what is the correct response to 1S opening? TYIA