[shugart24]

Partner opens 1C (precision) : AQ, AQJ5, A9842, J7. I respond 1D: 953, 876, K75, A10 9 6 Partner bids 2D and I bid 3D all pass. Would it make sense if bidding goes 1C-1D-2m that advancer shows a stop with 5-7 or would that create other difficulties - e.g missing an 8 card Major fit

[steve2005]

I give a positive response with an Ace and a King
so would respond 1N (or whatever response you have if playing transfers) and end up in 3N good or bad

[steve2005]

If it goes 1♣-1♦ i would rebid 1NT
or 1♥ with a possible 4H 5+ minor that way all your minor bids 2♣/2♦/3♣/3♦ deny a 4-card major

[shugart24]

steve2005, on 2025-February-21, 09:30, said:

I give a positive response with an Ace and a King
so would respond 1N (or whatever response you have if playing transfers) and end up in 3N good or bad

fair enough (we jump to 2S to show balanced 8-11 : 1C-2S)...so change the King to a Queen removing the 1NT response...(how many points is your 1c opening?)

[DavidKok]

My strong club is 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced, though upgrades (and downgrades, notably with 4441-distribution) are permitted.

Over 1♣-1♦ I like a particular variant of the Cambridge Heart Complex, or a more intuitive option, Meckwell Lite. Both systems are MAFIA: opener's 1M rebids are (primarily) unbalanced with 4(+)M and possibly a longer minor suit. This way the 2m rebids deny a 4cM.

I think this makes sense on a number of counts: majors are more important, and we want the 1M rebids to be more frequent on account of being cheaper. I've played other structures (e.g. TOSR, KK Relay and other relay-based continuations) but found them less effective than sticking with MAFIA.

[Shugart23]

I don’t think we can use that. We use 1c-1d-1h as forcing to 1s and then opener will either show a real heart suit ( by bidding hearts ir a side suit) or by bidding 1,2 or 3NT depending upon point count. The problem we had with these cards is im not showing the club stop

[DavidKok]

Sorry, I'll elaborate on your original question.
I think showing stoppers is bad. Your start to the auction has taken up a relatively large amount of bidding space to say comparatively little. Personally I recommend restructuring a little, and the forced 1♥ relay seems bad to me but is likely saved by its low frequency.
Independently, I would stay away from stopper showing. You've used several bids to say only a limited amount about shape, and I would allocate almost all remaining bidding space to catch up on this aspect.

[mycroft]

I'm learning Meckwell Lite, and yes, the response to 1♣-1♦ (*) is either 1NT (NF 17-19) or 1♥ (16-strong 2, F1). I think DJNeill (the author of SMP we're learning this from) would tend to 1NT (I'm still getting used to "if it looks balanced in a mirror, it is").

1NT will get either 2NT (if we're chicken) or 3NT (if we're not), and a good 18...

1♥ gets 2♦ "max, 3-card support", and that probably leads to 3NT (likely immediately).

Traditional, where my option is 2♦, I *hate* 2♦ (for exactly the reason I hate 2♣-2♦; 3♦). So if I have another reasonable choice, I'll take it. Here, I do (with the joy that Stayman might get us to our 4-4 heart fit a lot easier than when I show primary diamonds and partner can't bid 2♥ with only 4. And if partner's major is spades, *they're* playing 3NT.

(*) I should say that I am also used to "3 controls is a GF". My partner is more conservative than I, and wants AK-suited. Because (under the caveats of "all this d- system we have to remember") I have more brainspace to be flexible than partner, I do it his way so that he can judge correctly *and* get the system right.

[mycroft]

Re: club stopper. 1st, where is the "OMG they might cash 5 tricks in a suit into 3NT" epidemic coming from? It happens; experience is saying it's a loser to not pay off to it. Especially when your other choice is wrong-sided 3♦ or wrong-sided 2NT vs 2NT rebid by opener. And here, unlike the other case, 5♦ isn't even a dream of an alternative, on the times they are right and 3NT fails.
2nd: 1♣-1♦; 2♦-2NT; 3NT. Even if they *can* cash 5 clubs, what's the chance they lead one? This auction screams for a major suit lead. 1♣-1♦; 1NT-3NT even more so, no? Sure, if OL has the 5 clubs, maybe. But, as was said in the other thread:

• The clubs could be 4-4.
  
• Partner could have Qxx or Txxx.
  
• They have to find the lead.
  
• And even if it is "automatic", with 18 opposite 6 or 7, you'll have a lot of company in 3NT; not being there is really playing top-or-bottom. Do you think that all the above is >50% (and that 3♦ makes on the repeated taps and bad diamond break?)

[shugart24]

so how do you show the various NT ranges (ladder) over 1D response ? We use 1C-1D -1,2,or 3NT and 1C-1D-1H(forcing 1S)-1S-1,2,or 3NT ? --In your system, your 1C-1D-1H or 1S shows the 4 card Major ?

[mycroft]

By our book, 1NT is 17-19, 2NT *opening* is 20-21, 2NT is 22-24, and 3NT is 25-26 and we ignore bigger hands.

Advanced method, also in the book, uses 1♣-1♦; 2♥ as Birthright - absolutely equivalent to standard 2♣-2♦; 2♥. Probably, eventually, we'll look at that one. After everything that comes up more often than 25 HCP balanced hands is locked down.

[DavidKok]

Helene and I played:

1♣-1♦; 1NT: 17-19;
1♣-1♦; 2NT: 20-22;
1♣-1♦; 2♥-2♠; 2NT: 23+;

You can improve on this, for example playing 1♣-1♦; 2NT as 20-21, 1♣-1♦; 2♥-2♠; 2NT as 23-24, and requiring a second jump with 25+. By frequency the increased definition on the weaker ranges is superior to catering to 25+. But it is so rare that we didn't bother.

In the Cambrige Heart Complex you'd play something like:

1♣-1♦; 1NT: 17-19
1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 1NT: 20-21 (note that 1♠ is not forced, but all higher rebids are descriptive and almost all show 5(+) HCP and allow for relaying and are therefore safe opposite 20-21 balanced).
1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 2NT: 22-23
1♣-1♦; 2NT: 24+ - though optionally you can put this through 1♥ too, and also the jumps to 3NT and up are still unused.
There's room to shuffle things around here, but if your ladder up to 23 points or so is solid you're golden almost always. In particular I'm curious about making the lowest range 17-18 here.

In older Precision variants the 2NT opening was kept natural, e.g. 20-21. My personal experience is that it's much more comfortable putting this in 1♣. Not because this frees up 2NT for some other (typically preemptive) use, though that's cute when it comes up, but because big balanced hands simply do well in 1♣. Even if you 'level with the field' by bidding 1♣-1♦; 2NT to show the same hand a standard bidder would open 2NT with, you've got the extra information that responder is weak and you don't need to look for slam.

[awm]

I agree it's generally better in these auctions to show majors first (which keeps the bidding lower), but on this hand I'd ask:

1. What was the range of 2♦? I'd assume something like 16-20, with stronger hands doing something else?
2. You need a way to distinguish a "courtesy raise" of diamonds with a fit and not much vs. a serious invite with 6-7 points. Of course, possibly you can pass with the "courtesy raise" depending on what opener's upper limit for 2♦ is.

Assuming 3♦ is a real invite, I think opener should bid 3♥ over 3♦, allowing partner to try 3NT. If 3♦ could be 3-4 points and a "courtesy bid" with a fit, you need a way to distinguish (maybe 2NT or 3♣ as a good raise).

It doesn't make sense to show stoppers immediately on this auction, especially if opener can still have a four-card major (which apparently he can). Stoppers are usually not the most important thing -- even if you are off a suit there's a good chance it's breaking with opponents letting you bid 1♣-P-1♦-P and not coming in. And you can look for at least major suit stoppers after the 3♦ raise (assuming you figure out that you have game values).

[johnu]

As steve2005 posted, I would also rebid 1NT with a semi-balanced hand and wouldn't dream about rebidding 2♦ on a mediocre 5 card suit. For responder, 3 controls, an ace and a king is such a nice honor structure (not including the nice club spots) that I would have no problem making a response that showed 8+ HCP (K&R is 7.65 points). While the shape isn't great, you do have support for whatever suit(s) partner may have. Unless you have a structure to show a very maximum negative response.

With a real 2 major-minor suiter, I would rebid 1 of the major which makes it a lot easier to find a major suit fit and keeps the bidding at a manageable level.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-21, 12:22, said:

Helene and I played:

1♣-1♦; 1NT: 17-19;
1♣-1♦; 2NT: 20-22;
1♣-1♦; 2♥-2♠; 2NT: 23+;

Is the 2S a forced bid, and if you have a huge heart hand does it go 1C-1D-2H-2S-3H? Is your 2NT opening showing the minors ?

[DavidKok]

Our 2NT opening was the minors yeah, 4-10 (ish) points with at least 5-5 in the minors.

On 1♣ (16+ unbal or 17+ bal)-1♦ (0-7 any) we play:

• 1♥: 4(+)♥, unbal, F.
  
• 1♠: 4(+)♠, unbal, F.
  
• 1NT: 17-19 bal.
  
• 2♣: 16-21 5(+)♣, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♣ with x=y=4=5.
  
• 2♦: 16-21 5(+)♦, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♦ with x=y=5=4.
  
• 2♥: Kokish - GF 5(+)♥ unbal or 23+ bal.
  
• 2♠: Both minors, at least 55.
  
• 2NT: 20-22 bal.
  
• 3♣: GF 5(+)♣, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♣ with x=y=4=5.
  
• 3♦: GF 5(+)♦, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♦ with x=y=5=4.
  
• 3♥: GF SI, (6)7(+)♥, sets trumps.
  
• 3♠: GF SI, (6)7(+)♠, sets trumps.
  
• 3NT: To play, usually a running long suit.
  
• 4♣: -
  
• 4♦: -
  
• 4♥: To play, usually a minimum 1♣ opening with a 7(+)cM and no slam interest opposite a negative.
  
• 4♠: To play, usually a minimum 1♣ opening with a 7(+)cM and no slam interest opposite a negative.

There's room to improve this system, some of the hand types can be shuffled around a little or compressed by using more artificiality. But it worked well enough, and didn't come up often, so there's also merit in not overcomplicating things. This was quite enough already, for the moment.

On 1♣-1♦; 2♥ the 2♠ was forced, and now:

• 2NT: 23+ bal, GF.
  
• 3♣: 5(+)♥4(+)♣, GF.
  
• 3♦: 5(+)♥4(+)♦, GF.
  
• 3♥: 6(+)♥, GF. Does not set trumps.
  
• 3♠: -

The GF canapé hands 4M5(+)m, as well as the GF reverse with 5♥4♠, go through the 1M-rebids by opener.

Note that we have a system gap with 5(+)♠ GF by using 1♣-1♦; 2♠ as minors. We have to bid 1♠ and then relay after that, losing the option of dialogue bidding. It did not come up, but you could well swap this around. The strength of this system lies almost entirely in the bids up to 2♦, the higher stuff is rare and doesn't gain much when it comes up.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-23, 05:19, said:

Our 2NT opening was the minors yeah, 4-10 (ish) points with at least 5-5 in the minors.

On 1♣ (16+ unbal or 17+ bal)-1♦ (0-7 any) we play:

• 1♥: 4(+)♥, unbal, F.
  
• 1♠: 4(+)♠, unbal, F.
  
• 1NT: 17-19 bal.
  
• 2♣: 16-21 5(+)♣, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♣ with x=y=4=5.
  
• 2♦: 16-21 5(+)♦, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♦ with x=y=5=4.
  
• 2♥: Kokish - GF 5(+)♥ unbal or 23+ bal.
  
• 2♠: Both minors, at least 55.
  
• 2NT: 20-22 bal.
  
• 3♣: GF 5(+)♣, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♣ with x=y=4=5.
  
• 3♦: GF 5(+)♦, no 4(+)cM, unbal, NF. Only 5♦ with x=y=5=4.
  
• 3♥: GF SI, (6)7(+)♥, sets trumps.
  
• 3♠: GF SI, (6)7(+)♠, sets trumps.
  
• 3NT: To play, usually a running long suit.
  
• 4♣: -
  
• 4♦: -
  
• 4♥: To play, usually a minimum 1♣ opening with a 7(+)cM and no slam interest opposite a negative.
  
• 4♠: To play, usually a minimum 1♣ opening with a 7(+)cM and no slam interest opposite a negative.

There's room to improve this system, some of the hand types can be shuffled around a little or compressed by using more artificiality. But it worked well enough, and didn't come up often, so there's also merit in not overcomplicating things. This was quite enough already, for the moment.

On 1♣-1♦; 2♥ the 2♠ was forced, and now:

• 2NT: 23+ bal, GF.
  
• 3♣: 5(+)♥4(+)♣, GF.
  
• 3♦: 5(+)♥4(+)♦, GF.
  
• 3♥: 6(+)♥, GF. Does not set trumps.
  
• 3♠: -

The GF canapé hands 4M5(+)m, as well as the GF reverse with 5♥4♠, go through the 1M-rebids by opener.

Note that we have a system gap with 5(+)♠ GF by using 1♣-1♦; 2♠ as minors. We have to bid 1♠ and then relay after that, losing the option of dialogue bidding. It did not come up, but you could well swap this around. The strength of this system lies almost entirely in the bids up to 2♦, the higher stuff is rare and doesn't gain much when it comes up.

your bids after 1C-1D-2H-2S -? are very similar to ours except we are at the 2 level and not game forced.eg 1C-1D-1H-1S-2C shows a 5 card heart suit and clubs.

We have a couple bids with show 4 card Major and 5 card minor. We open 11-15 hands 2H and 2S and have great success with this bid . The biggest problem we seem to run into is misfits (and its not really big problem) and the bid seems to be very irksome for the opponents. We get many good boards

Second, with a positive response to 1C with 4 card Major and 5 card minor, bidding goes 1C-2H (4 hearts and undisclosed minor) and 1C-2NT (4 Spades and an undisclosed minor) and 1C-2S shows balanced 8-11 HCP. For us then, 1C-2m denies 4 card major and denies balanced hand

I think everyone's comments here that our 1C-1D-2m is flawed because the 1C opener may have a 4 card Major are correct and we need to change. I'm going to lean toward staying at the one level as in 1C-1D-1M which may or may not have a longer minor. Another possibility might be a jump to 2M to show the 4 card Major with a longer minor (1C-1D-2M), but I'd need to think more on this

But on your system, 1C-1D-1H is forced ? For us, Advancer makes a bid with 5-7 HCP, but has the option to pass with 4 or less

Thank you

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry, I don't see much similarity. I understand that you bid hearts-then-a-second-suit to show hearts and a second suit. However, everything that I actually care about is different. Notably, the frequencies of the bids, the safety level of the hands, and the amount of communication are all different. I think having 1♥ force 1♠ is very bad, and I'd branch out to allow other responses rapidly.
To me it is sensible and valuable to have forcing 1M rebids by opener, and to make those the most flexible. Being able to play in 1M is less important than the ability to show more hand types as both opener and responder. I think you may have missed the last sentence of my previous comment: "The strength of this system lies almost entirely in the bids up to 2♦, the higher stuff is rare and doesn't gain much when it comes up." Comparing some of my 2♥+ structure with your 1♥ structure misses the point, in my opinion.

On 1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠ we play a Mecklite structure. Choosing 1♥ for illustration, the bids are:

• 1♠: 4(+)♠, [5-7 with 2(-)♥] or [0-4 with 3(-)♥).
  
• 1NT: 0-4, at most 3♠3♥.
  
• 2♣: 5-7, at most 3♠2♥.
  
• 2♦: 5-7, 3♥. Has priority over other bids containing or showing 5-7.
  
• 2♥: 0-4, 4(+)♥.
  
• 2♠: 5-7, 4(+)♥, 0-1 spades.
  
• 2NT: 5-7, 4(+)♥, no shortage
  
• 3♣: 5-7, 4(+)♥, 0-1 clubs.
  
• 3♦: 5-7, 4(+)♥, 0-1 diamonds.
  
• 3♥: 0-4, 5(+)♥.
  
• 3♠: 5-7, 5(+)♥, spade void.
  
• 3NT: -
  
• 4♣: 5-7, 5(+)♥, club void.
  
• 4♦: 5-7, 5(+)♥, diamond void.
  
• 4♥: either does not exist, or use as a pure picture bid (e.g. KQ-sixth of hearts and out, without outside shortage).

This gives opener a lot of information to evaluate their hand, and the misfits are all low enough that we can ask for more information and/or scramble to a partscore. The 1♣-1♦; 1M-2♣; 2♦-system is particularly easy and effective. To me this kind of dialogue bidding is very different to a style where a bid is forced and the other hand can show more.

You also mentioned your positive system to 1♣. Personally I'm hesitant to comment on that. Everybody has their own favourite hill to die on when it comes to positive 1♣ systems, and by frequency they matter very very little. At any rate, I thought the discussion was on rebid systems on 1♣-1♦?

You've mentioned your 2M openings before - we'll have to agree to disagree there. They scored poorly in my simulations, my bidding practice and my club practice, but if you like them I don't think we'll be able to close that gap.

[mycroft]

When I play Birthright, 2♠ is "forced unless". If partner has specifically a 6+card suit with KJ, QJ, or QT *and out*, they can bid 3 of that suit, as it might be better as a trump suit than "playing it out of my hand".

Happened once, though.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-23, 11:13, said:

I'm sorry, I don't see much similarity. I understand that you bid hearts-then-a-second-suit to show hearts and a second suit. However, everything that I actually care about is different. Notably, the frequencies of the bids, the safety level of the hands, and the amount of communication are all different. I think having 1♥ force 1♠ is very bad, and I'd branch out to allow other responses rapidly.
To me it is sensible and valuable to have forcing 1M rebids by opener, and to make those the most flexible. Being able to play in 1M is less important than the ability to show more hand types as both opener and responder. I think you may have missed the last sentence of my previous comment: "The strength of this system lies almost entirely in the bids up to 2♦, the higher stuff is rare and doesn't gain much when it comes up." Comparing some of my 2♥+ structure with your 1♥ structure misses the point, in my opinion.

On 1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠ we play a Mecklite structure. Choosing 1♥ for illustration, the bids are:

• 1♠: 4(+)♠, [5-7 with 2(-)♥] or [0-4 with 3(-)♥).
  
• 1NT: 0-4, at most 3♠3♥.
  
• 2♣: 5-7, at most 3♠2♥.
  
• 2♦: 5-7, 3♥. Has priority over other bids containing or showing 5-7.
  
• 2♥: 0-4, 4(+)♥.
  
• 2♠: 5-7, 4(+)♥, 0-1 spades.
  
• 2NT: 5-7, 4(+)♥, no shortage
  
• 3♣: 5-7, 4(+)♥, 0-1 clubs.
  
• 3♦: 5-7, 4(+)♥, 0-1 diamonds.
  
• 3♥: 0-4, 5(+)♥.
  
• 3♠: 5-7, 5(+)♥, spade void.
  
• 3NT: -
  
• 4♣: 5-7, 5(+)♥, club void.
  
• 4♦: 5-7, 5(+)♥, diamond void.
  
• 4♥: either does not exist, or use as a pure picture bid (e.g. KQ-sixth of hearts and out, without outside shortage).

This gives opener a lot of information to evaluate their hand, and the misfits are all low enough that we can ask for more information and/or scramble to a partscore. The 1♣-1♦; 1M-2♣; 2♦-system is particularly easy and effective. To me this kind of dialogue bidding is very different to a style where a bid is forced and the other hand can show more.

You also mentioned your positive system to 1♣. Personally I'm hesitant to comment on that. Everybody has their own favourite hill to die on when it comes to positive 1♣ systems, and by frequency they matter very very little. At any rate, I thought the discussion was on rebid systems on 1♣-1♦?

You've mentioned your 2M openings before - we'll have to agree to disagree there. They scored poorly in my simulations, my bidding practice and my club practice, but if you like them I don't think we'll be able to close that gap.

Thanks David. This is helpful; we will likely be mirroring some of this or version thereof.