[mgoetze]

So for some reason I don't yet have a thread about this in my systems index, and besides I want to share my newest structure with you guys.

Over a 1M opening, I play 2♣ as showing (a) gameforce with 5+ clubs, (b) balanced gameforce or © invitational with 3-card support. This allows me to have my 2♦ response promise 5 diamonds and facilitates making 1NT nonforcing while still letting me use 1M-3M as a mixed or preemptive raise.

Over 2♣, opener will usually bid 2♦. Opener only breaks from this relay if he (a) has significant extra shape (i.e. not 5-4) and (b) is willing to accept the invitation. 1M-2♣-2NT shows 6-4 with a minor, and 1M-2♣-3m shows a 5-card minor. Over these relay breaks, 4M by responder shows the merely invitational hand, with GF hands bid naturally.

Here are the continuations over the relay. (Note: M is the major we opened and oM is the other major)

1M-2♣-2♦-...

...-2M Invite, 3-card fit, nonforcing
...-2oM GF, 2-4 clubs, 3-card fit
...-2oM-3x Natural, 4+ suit
...-2oM-3M+1 No slam interest
...-2NT GF, 2-4 clubs, 2-card fit, 12-14 or 18+
...-2NT-3x Natural, 4+ suit
...-2NT-3M Sets trump (after this 12-14 hands should generally bid frivolous 3M+1/3NT)
...-3♣ 5+ clubs, no 3-card fit
...-3♣-3♦ 4+ cards in other major
...-3♣-3M 6+ card suit
...-3♣-3oM club fit
...-3♣-4♣ 4+ diamonds
...-3♦ 5+ clubs, 3-card fit, short diamonds
...-3M 5-6 clubs, 3-card fit, no shortness
...-3oM 5+ clubs, 3-card fit, short in other major
...-3NT Balanced, 2-card fit, 15-17
...-3NT-4x Cuebid setting opener's major as trumps
...-3NT-4NT Quantitative
...-3NT-5m To play

[cherdano]

Oh dear. I hate this structure so much.

[mgoetze]

cherdano, on 2015-February-14, 20:35, said:

Oh dear. I hate this structure so much.

Well, I guess it is kind of late at night for constructive criticism.

[cherdano]

Sorry, I just have nothing constructive to say.

mgoetze, on 2015-February-14, 19:30, said:

...-3♣ 5+ clubs, no 3-card fit

So you are at the level of 3♣, and you still have no idea whether responder has club one-suited hand, or a 64 or 54 hand, or a balanced 2=3=3=5. At least you don't have to worry about finding a side fit, since opener has denied a 4-card suit in the reds - oh wait! Well, at least opener can't have a big support, since he would have raised with 4-card support - oh wait!

Bidding is easier with a fit, and more difficult without a fit.
Corollary: Using many low level bids to differentiate various hands with a fit, and cramping many hands without a fit into a higher-level bid, is, well, not optimal.

[mgoetze]

cherdano, on 2015-February-14, 21:07, said:

So you are at the level of 3♣, and you still have no idea whether responder has club one-suited hand, or a 64 or 54 hand, or a balanced 2=3=3=5. At least you don't have to worry about finding a side fit, since opener has denied a 4-card suit in the reds - oh wait! Well, at least opener can't have a big support, since he would have raised with 4-card support - oh wait!

Well, it's easy enough to push the 2=3=3=5 hand over to 2NT. It might well be an improvement.

The most important 4 card side suit anyone could possibly have is of course the other major. After 1M-2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦-3oM I'm ahead of anyone who bid 1M-2♣-2oM-3oM (because I know that responder actually has 5 clubs, not 4 or less, and I know there's no double fit). Yes, 1M-2♣-2♦-3♣-3oM is slightly worse than 1M-2♣-3♣. Well, unless your 2♣ bid can be on 2 cards and you need to sort out whether you've found a 9-card fit or a 6-card fit.

I will concede that this system is terrible for finding 4-4 diamond fits.

[Vampyr]

cherdano, on 2015-February-14, 20:35, said:

Oh dear. I hate this structure so much.

The 2♣ bid itself is pretty cool, though. You just lose a non-GF 2♣ response, LOL lots of people didn't have that available to begin with!

Nice to avoid 4-card 2/1 responses with balanced GF hands. How are you showing balanced invitational hands?

[rhm]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-14, 19:30, said:

Over a 1M opening, I play 2♣ as showing (a) gameforce with 5+ clubs, (b) balanced gameforce or © invitational with 3-card support. This allows me to have my 2♦ response promise 5 diamonds and facilitates making 1NT nonforcing while still letting me use 1M-3M as a mixed or preemptive raise.

So responder is 1♠=4♥=4♦=4♣ and strong and bids what over 1♠ or is 4441 balanced for you?

I would change the responses to 2♣:

2♦ either balanced or semi-balanced or 5-4 with a 4 card minor.
2M six card suit and unbalanced
2oM could be only 4 card suit but unbalanced
2NT 5 card diamond suit
3♣ 5 card club suit.

Unbalanced means a singleton or void somewhere.
Hands with 6M and a 4 card minor first bid 2M and over 2NT their minor suit.
I play a similar concept in a slightly different structure.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

deleted

[rhm]

dwleted

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-14, 21:28, said:

Well, it's easy enough to push the 2=3=3=5 hand over to 2NT. It might well be an improvement.

The most important 4 card side suit anyone could possibly have is of course the other major. After 1M-2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦-3oM I'm ahead of anyone who bid 1M-2♣-2oM-3oM (because I know that responder actually has 5 clubs, not 4 or less, and I know there's no double fit). Yes, 1M-2♣-2♦-3♣-3oM is slightly worse than 1M-2♣-3♣. Well, unless your 2♣ bid can be on 2 cards and you need to sort out whether you've found a 9-card fit or a 6-card fit.

I will concede that this system is terrible for finding 4-4 diamond fits.

It's also terrible when you have a club fit, and you still have to decide between 5♣, 3N, or maybe looking for a 6-2 major suit fit. "Just bid 3N without a major suit fit" is fine when you bid 1N-3N. It doesn't work so well when you have both shown suits.

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2015-February-14, 21:07, said:

So you are at the level of 3♣, and you still have no idea whether responder has club one-suited hand, or a 64 or 54 hand, or a balanced 2=3=3=5. At least you don't have to worry about finding a side fit, since opener has denied a 4-card suit in the reds - oh wait! Well, at least opener can't have a big support, since he would have raised with 4-card support - oh wait!

And neither player has limited his strength.

[phoenix214]

Dont know if this is an improvement or not, but maybe you can rotate some of the bids around:
1M-2♣, 2♦:
2NT= 5+♣, no 3 card support -> Accepting transfer = Agrees clubs, so you can check fro club fit still on level 3
3♣=The balanced hand 12-14 or 18+, Here gets a bit ugly, but maybe can continue(3♦=Spade length, 3♥ = Heart length, 3♠ = partner play 3NT, 3NT = I want to play 3NT)

[inquiry]

Your method is close to what I played in the inquiry 2over1 method. While we have nearly identical meaning to 2♣, the response structure is quite different. Opener rebids 2D with EXTRA VALUES. That leaves room for responder to show the nature of his hand, which in my case is either:

• A hand with five or more clubs, game force (GF after 2D)
• A balanced hand of 10+ hcp or more (GF after 2D)
• A hand with three card support from good 8 hcp or more (can include hands with four card support and 7 to 10 hcp)

For more details on how I played this (not currently playing this), see inquiry 2C response to 1M

[awm]

You're pretty unlikely to have short clubs here without 3+M. Over 1♠ the only shape with less than four clubs and less than three spades would seem to be 2443. Over 1♥ there is only 4243 and even this might respond 1♠. So it is probably okay to let 2nt show 4-5 clubs (or 3 with that one specific shape). Some other comments:

1. Most people seem to pattern out over two level suit agreement, so you might be okay having responders second (GF) bid not be specific about support in all cases (and showing fit at responders third turn.
2. You may want to rebid 2♥ more freely after 1♠ openings as this may find a superior fit opposite the 3-card raise and also helps you pattern when responder is GF.

[awm]

Here's a possibility, trying to retain the patterning advantages of 2/1 GF as much as possible:

1♠-2♣:

... 2♦ = 4+♦, or minimum balanced, or minimum with 4+♣
... 2♥ = 4+♥
... 2♠ = 6+♠
... 2NT = extras, balanced
... 3♣ = extras, 5224
... 3♦/3♥ = splinters with 4+♣

1♠-2♣-2♠:
... 3♠ = limit raise
... 2NT = shortness ask, this is the normal path with balanced GF regardless of fit
... 3♣ = 6+♣
... 3-red = 4+suit with 6+♣ (natural, shapely)
... 4♣ = 3226 GF type hand
... 4-red = 3♠, shortness in this suit, 5+♣

1♠-2♣-2♥:
... 2♠ = LR
... 2NT = balanced GF, may have 3♠, asks for a pattern bid; if opener rebids 3♠/3NT then 4x is cue for spade
... 3♣ = natural 6+♣
... 3♥ = GF natural
... 4♥ = LR with 4+♥ also (double fit probably worth a game bid)

1♠-2♣-2♦:
... 2♥ = GF not 6♣ (relay)
... 2♠ = LR
... 2NT = 6♣, but not very shapely or very strong suit, GF
... 3♣ = 7+♣ or 6♣ with a strong suit
... 3-red = 6+♣ 4+ bid suit
... 3♠ = 3♠ with long/strong clubs on the side (GF)

1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥:
... 2♠ = 4+♣ (now 2NT asks pattern out, 3♣ sets clubs)
... 2NT = balanced min
... 3♣+ = patterning with 4+♦

[fromageGB]

I'm happy with the 2♣ response. I'm happy with responder's 2M and 3♣ rebids, but I am not sure the rest of if warrants the "natural bidding" forum!

If you want a reference thread for three-way 2♣ response to 1M, let's include the simple natural method anyone without an umpteen TB memory can play.

1M 2♣ = (a) natural 5+ GF, or (b) 11+ 3 card support for M, or (.c) no support, no 5 card suit 16+ if playing forcing NT {<16 starts 1NT}, or 13+ if playing non-forcing,
Opener 2oM = 5 card any strength, 3m = 5 card strong only, otherwise 2♦ relay.

1M 2♣ 2♦ :
2M = 11/12 invititational 3 card support
2oM = 4 card natural (may still have 3 card M support as well)
2NT = balanced
3♣ = natural 5+ GF
3M = 3 card support GF