[steve2005]

I am looking for system of responses to
1♥-2NT and
1♠-2NT
Currently 2NT is defined as 13+ hcp no biddable 5-card suit, may have 3-cards in opened major.
1M is defined as 5+ cards 11-15 hcp but would be fine if this wasn't required as can adjust.

I know this is not mainstream but am trying to implement this.

Googling I could only find 10-12 hcp bids.
<edit>2N denies 4♠ and 4♥ over 1♥ for that matter.Can have 3-card support for the major.</edit>

[spotlight7]

 steve2005, on 2018-August-24, 16:35, said:

I am looking for system of responses to
1♥-2NT and
1♠-2NT
Currently 2NT is defined as 13+ hcp no biddable 5-card suit, may have 3-cards in opened major.
1M is defined as 5+ cards 11-15 hcp but would be fine if this wasn't required as can adjust.

I know this is not mainstream but am trying to implement this.
Googling I could only find 10-12 hcp bids.

What do you do with 4+ trumps 13+ here?


I like 1M-2C* as 3 card limit raise or Cs GF or NT GF.


What is the problem with 1M-2N 13+?

Opener rebids 3M with 6+ or signs off with 4M if weak.

3m seeks best game.

[steve2005]

Trying to implement Gitleman's suggestion
1♥-2♠ and
1♠-3♣
as 4 card support.
His article suggests having 2N balanced will improve 2/1 bidding by taking balanced hand out of 2/1

[nullve]

 steve2005, on 2018-August-24, 17:18, said:

His article suggests having 2N balanced will improve 2/1 bidding by taking balanced hand out of 2/1

Quote

Since a 2/1 response to a major suit opening is a game force, many pairs use a 2/1 simply to establish a force without regard to the fact that they may be misdescribing their hands. They assume that all of the room that they save will allow them to "catch up later". They are wrong. Imagine, for example, that you hold:

---

You open 1♠ and your partner bids 2♣, forcing to game. You rebid 2♠ and partner raises to 3♠. Do you like your hand? You should. Despite your minimum point count you have good trumps, good controls and a good fit for partner's suit. Unfortunately, partner's "suit" may not really be a suit. Partner could have:

---

where even the five level is not safe. On the other hand, if you reverse partner's Hearts and Clubs slam is laydown. If you reverse your Hearts and clubs, slam is also laydown. Would you like yourhand as much if you had a singleton in your partner's suit? You shouldn't, but when a 2/1 can show just about any balanced hand with game forcing values you are asking for trouble like this.

The whole argument assumes that continuations after 1♠-2♣ are natural, unlike in newer 2/1-based systems with a nebulous (essentially NAT, BAL or SUPP) 2♣ response like Ambra and Big Bang.

[pescetom]

 nullve, on 2018-August-25, 03:22, said:

The whole argument assumes that continuations after 1♠-2♣ are natural, unlike in newer 2/1-based systems with a nebulous (essentially NAT, BAL or SUPP) 2♣ response like Ambra and Big Bang.

I've played this nebulous response for years and rarely had problems, even when 2C is game forcing over 1C and neither has promised clubs. Even in the example cited, the problem hand proposed is really no problem at all: after 3S South will bid 4D and North will stop safely in 4S, knowing that we have 2 losers in clubs.

[steve2005]

 pescetom, on 2018-August-25, 07:00, said:

I've played this nebulous response for years and rarely had problems, even when 2C is game forcing over 1C and neither has promised clubs. Even in the example cited, the problem hand proposed is really no problem at all: after 3S South will bid 4D and North will stop safely in 4S, knowing that we have 2 losers in clubs.

True, but in MP (or imps on other hands if there is some unusual way to get an extra trick) you have told opponents what to lead.

[perko90]

I used to play 1M-2NT as a natural GF a while back. We were usually the only ones in the room not playing Jac2NT. Fred G. brings up some good points in his article on the weaknesses of trying to play just natural 2/1 bids. But as nullve points out, Nebulous 2♣ really does address all of Fred's concerns in a better manner. I'm now playing and loving it. I've found that you get to have your cake and eat it, too. Even your natural club hands seem to have more description by starting with a nebulous 2♣ than just natural.
Give it a try. Here's a great place to start:
http://bridgewinners...ebulous-2c-bid/

[rhm]

 nullve, on 2018-August-25, 03:22, said:

The whole argument assumes that continuations after 1♠-2♣ are natural, unlike in newer 2/1-based systems with a nebulous (essentially NAT, BAL or SUPP) 2♣ response like Ambra and Big Bang.

I do not know Ambra or Big Bang, but I do know that if 1♠-2♣ is game forcing, then natural repsonses are inefficient.
The reason is simple that in game forcing auction bids, which require little bidding space should cover a wide range of hands and bids, which consume bidding space should be specific.
If for example 1♠-2♣ a 2 ♦ rebid by opener shows a diamond suit while 2NT shows a balanced hand you are violating this principle, because opener can have many more and many more frequent hands where he is balanced than holding at least 5-4 in spades and diamonds.
Simply switching the meaning of 2♦ and 2NT would make your system more efficient.

For example you could agree that opener will bid 2♦ after 1♠-2♣ or 1♥-2♣ with any balanced or semi-balanced hand (no singleton or void) and if opener bids 2NT he shows a diamond suit in an unbalanced hand.

In this context if opener now rebids spades he does not only promise 6 cards but also an unbalanced hand
If the bidding goes 1♠-2♣ (clubs or balanced, game forcing)-2♠-3♠ responder agrees spades and opener will show where his shortage is.

If the bidding goes 1♠-2♣-2♦ responder can bid the other major at the 2-level to show clubs. (An idea which I think is originally from Eddy Wold).
So if responder bids 2♥ after 1♠-2♣-2♦ he shows clubs and other bids show a balanced hand.

This is only a rough outline of course.

Rainer Herrmann

[steve2005]

 rhm, on 2018-August-26, 09:53, said:

This is only a rough outline of course.
Rainer Herrmann

Nice but post wants methods over a natural 2NT GF response to 1M.

[pescetom]

 rhm, on 2018-August-26, 09:53, said:

I do not know Ambra or Big Bang, but I do know that if 1♠-2♣ is game forcing, then natural repsonses are inefficient.
The reason is simple that in game forcing auction bids, which require little bidding space should cover a wide range of hands and bids, which consume bidding space should be specific.
If for example 1♠-2♣ a 2 ♦ rebid by opener shows a diamond suit while 2NT shows a balanced hand you are violating this principle, because opener can have many more and many more frequent hands where he is balanced than holding at least 5-4 in spades and diamonds.
Simply switching the meaning of 2♦ and 2NT would make your system more efficient.

For example you could agree that opener will bid 2♦ after 1♠-2♣ or 1♥-2♣ with any balanced or semi-balanced hand (no singleton or void) and if opener bids 2NT he shows a diamond suit in an unbalanced hand.

In this context if opener now rebids spades he does not only promise 6 cards but also an unbalanced hand
If the bidding goes 1♠-2♣ (clubs or balanced, game forcing)-2♠-3♠ responder agrees spades and opener will show where his shortage is.

If the bidding goes 1♠-2♣-2♦ responder can bid the other major at the 2-level to show clubs. (An idea which I think is originally from Eddy Wold).
So if responder bids 2♥ after 1♠-2♣-2♦ he shows clubs and other bids show a balanced hand.

This is only a rough outline of course.

It's an interesting scheme, but I don't think it belongs in "Natural Bidding Discussion"
And at least for me, one of the many advantages of 2/1 GF is that the successive bids can be relatively natural. Rarely if ever have we run out of bidding space.

[rhm]

 pescetom, on 2018-August-26, 15:17, said:

It's an interesting scheme, but I don't think it belongs in "Natural Bidding Discussion"

In a sense you are of course correct.
But "Natural Bidding Discussion" is a fuzzy concept.
Almost nobody plays natural responses over a strong 1NT any more, simply because they are inefficient.
Would then any discussion about sequences after 1NT be out of place in "Natural Bidding Discussion" ?

Quote

And at least for me, one of the many advantages of 2/1 GF is that the successive bids can be relatively natural. Rarely if ever have we run out of bidding space.

Well running out of space is a relative matter. In the end we often have to guess on strain and level.
For example good minor suits slams are often played in 3NT - 2/1 game forcing or not. Most players shrug their shoulders when most of the room misses the slam too, but it is still a missed opportunity.
Guessing does not mean all outcomes are equally likely and we often guess right, but constructive bidding tries to reduce this guess by exchanging information.
Like after 1NT you want to be able to exchange as much information as possible in constructive sequences before making a decision about strain and level.
What I wanted to allude to is that packing balanced game forcing hands into a 2♣ response after one of a major is not a serious problem.
Gitelman was wrong. What creates the issues he discusses is playing natural responses over them.
In fact jumping to 2NT over one of a major with game forcing balanced hands creates problems of its own (when opener is unbalanced), because you do not enough room between 2NT and 3NT to exchange enough information to decide on strain and level.

Rainer Herrmann

[pescetom]

 rhm, on 2018-August-27, 03:14, said:

In a sense you are of course correct.
But "Natural Bidding Discussion" is a fuzzy concept.
Almost nobody plays natural responses over a strong 1NT any more, simply because they are inefficient.
Would then any discussion about sequences after 1NT be out of place in "Natural Bidding Discussion" ?

The sequences most people play after Jacoby transfer/Stayman conventions are fairly natural, so I don't see that as much different from sequences over 2/1 GF convention, or the sequences over 1/1/1 conventions come to that.
But yes, there has to be somewhere to discuss the mainstream natural-based systems most of us play and without undue focus on the natural aspects.
Maybe "Natural-Based Bidding Systems Discussion" would be a better name, at least.

 rhm, on 2018-August-27, 03:14, said:

In fact jumping to 2NT over one of a major with game forcing balanced hands creates problems of its own (when opener is unbalanced), because you do not enough room between 2NT and 3NT to exchange enough information to decide on strain and level.

We certainly agree here. The jump to 2NT is also invaluable as some kind of invitational raise.

[rhm]

 pescetom, on 2018-August-27, 07:16, said:

The sequences most people play after Jacoby transfer/Stayman conventions are fairly natural, so I don't see that as much different from sequences over 2/1 GF convention, or the sequences over 1/1/1 conventions come to that.

Jacoby or transfers is not a natural concept , nor is Stayman, not even "fairly natural" whatever that means.
Natural means if you bid spades you have spades and if you bid diamonds you have diamonds.
When you bid Stayman there is no implication about responder holding clubs.
Therefor it is artificial.
If opener responds to Stayman in a major you could call this "fairly" natural, but 2 diamonds in response to Stayman has little to do with diamonds.
When you transfer you may show length in the suit immediately above, therefor it is not a natural bid. When opener accepts the transfer he does not say he himself has length in the suit bid.

Just because we are used to this artificiality does not make it natural, only standard.

As far as I know originally the famous Portland club in England prohibited all these conventions
Natural would mean after a 1NT opening responder bids his suit at the two level if weak and at the 3 level if strong.
Finding a 4-4 major suit fit would be difficult.

Rainer Herrmann

[nullve]

 steve2005, on 2018-August-24, 16:35, said:

I am looking for system of responses to
1♥-2NT and
1♠-2NT
Currently 2NT is defined as 13+ hcp no biddable 5-card suit, may have 3-cards in opened major.

 steve2005, on 2018-August-24, 17:18, said:

Trying to implement Gitleman's suggestion
1♥-2♠ and
1♠-3♣
as 4 card support.
His article suggests having 2N balanced will improve 2/1 bidding by taking balanced hand out of 2/1

But Gitelman's 2N response is more narrowly defined:

Quote

The solution that I suggest is to use a 2NT response to a major suit opening just like Goren did - as a game-forcing balanced hand with 13-15 HCP (you can play that it could also show 19+ witha 3NT response showing 16-18). The 2NT response can (and frequently does) contain 3 card support for opener's major. 2NT usually should not contain a side 5 card suit (make a 2/1 with that), but if you have a really bad five card suit (like Qxxxx) in an otherwise suitable hand, it may be best to bid 2NT rather than make a 2/1.

This could make a huge difference. For instance, if

1M-2N = 13-15 BAL, 2-3 M,

then you might be able to play similar stuff over

1M-2N

as you currently do over

1N-[2M-1]; 2M,

if 2M-1 is a Jacoby transfer. But if Responder's range is unlimited (13+), then it could be too difficult to determine the combined strength of the hands at a safe level.

[pescetom]

 rhm, on 2018-August-27, 11:58, said:

Jacoby or transfers is not a natural concept , nor is Stayman, not even "fairly natural" whatever that means.

Maybe I wasn't clear.
Jacoby Transfers, Stayman, 2/1 GF, XYZ are all commonly played low level conventions.
But the developments that most people play following these conventions are fairly natural.

[fromageGB]

Back to the original question...

You haven't said whether 1♥ 2NT denies four spades. Assuming it does, then you need opener to be able to bid a second suit (4+cards), and responder needs to be able to bid a 4 card suit of his own. Ideally, responder should should be able to show a strong hand with slam interest should opener have a minor fit, and/or, opener should be able to express a slam suitable hand (probably top end 14/15) to a discovered minor fit. 4NT would have to be the default contract to play should the other hand not accept a slam invitation, and prefer this to 5m.

A simple "natural" approach is

1♠ 2NT :
3♣ = relay, denies 5 hearts, denies 5 spades, will have a 4 card suit somewhere
3♦ = 5 card
3♥ = 5 card
3♠ = 6 card in a 6{3xx}, ie no 4 card suit
3NT = 5 card major in a 5{332}, ie no 4 card suit
As you are in a game force, all are unlimited except for 3NT, so that should be limited. 11-13 fits, while 14/15 could bid 3c initially, or perhaps some range in this shape is covered by a 1NT open.

Continuations are obvious over everything but 3♣, and to this responder could bid :
3♦ = 4 card and slam-suitable hand/strength
3♥ = 4 card
3♠ = 3 card support and a slam suggestion, serious/non-serious 3NT or cue bids can follow
3NT = 4 diamonds or clubs without 3 spades, and no slam aspirations
4♣ = 4 clubs without 3 spades, and slam aspirations - then 4NT by either would be to play, so 4♦ would be ace ask or slam move agreeing clubs
4♠ = 3 card support and no slam aspiration

Note that as opener is limited to 15 hcp, after the 3♣ rebid he has no other 5 card suit, so a "weak" responder will probably want to play in 3NT and not look for a minor fit. 3♦ or 4♣ therefore shows a strong hand.

Over 1♠ 2NT, 3♣ 3♦ :
3♥ = 4 card (responder may be x44x)
3♠ = 6 spades, no diamond fit (ie must be 6xx4)
3NT = no diamond fit, only 5 spades, not 4 hearts (ie must be 5xx4)
4♣ = 4 card (responder may be xx44)
4♦ = 4 card diamond support

With similar treatment for 1♥ 2NT.

(Edit 12:06 - commas and clarification added)

[fromageGB]

Late edit to the above : I see I have duplication in 1♠ 2NT, 3♣ 3♦ : 3NT and 4♣ meaning the same thing. Oh well.

How about 3NT = 4 card diamond support in poor hand, and 4♦ is a good hand?

[steve2005]

2N denies 4♠ and 4♥ over 1♥ for that matter.
Can have 3-card support for the major.