[straube]

Thanks for bidding the hands. My concern is still the 2-way diamond bid because opener can't react to it. However, I agree with your tally and I like how on board 10 you get to find the heart fit before committing to diamonds. Good job.

[awm]

Here's the hands based on what Sam and I actually play:

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52

1S-1N-2C-2S-3C-3H-5C-Pass.

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942

1S-1N-2S-Pass. Better partial than 2H.

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532

1S-Pass. Win I guess.

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732

1S-1N-2C-Pass; push.

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54

1S-1N-2S-3S-4S? Seems like an okay game

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5

1S-1N-2D-Pass.

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95

1S-1N-2D-3C-3N, or 1S-1N-2D-3C-3H-5C perhaps. Another good game.

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632

1S-1N-2C-3C-Pass? I don't mind the three level.

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42

1S-Pass for the win?

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8

1S-1N-2H-Pass

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92

1S-1N-2D-2S-4S and another good game.

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 X

1S-2C-2H-3H-4H (or 3H, opener has a tough choice). Not a bad game though.

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82

1S-1N-2C-2S seems better than 2D.

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84

1S-1N-2H-2S-Pass

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8

1S-1N-2S-Pass.

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974

1S-1N-2S-Pass.

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7

1S-1N-2C-2H-2S-Pass.

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7

1S-3D-Pass.

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3

1S-1N-2C-2H-Pass.

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96

1S-1N-2N-3C-Pass.

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9

1S-1N-2H-3H-Pass?

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942

1S-1N-2H-2S-2N-3N

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53

1S-1N-2C-2D-2S-3D-4D-5D? Seems possible to stop in a lower number of diamonds too.

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83

1S-Pass. Is this better or worse than 2D? Hard to say.

Anyway the theme is that we are basically always in the right partial. We sometimes get a level higher looking for game, but we also bid quite a few good games this way! This seems AT LEAST as good as any of the methods with non-forcing 2/1 bids. I'm just not buying that such a structure does "better on the weak hands."

[nullve]

straube, on 2017-October-10, 19:53, said:

I ran 24 hands on BBO. Opener is 10-15 and 5-7 spades and responder 6-11 with 0-2 spades.

I bid hands according to both sets of rules and I pretended that neither hand would invite. I.e. the exercise is about finding the best part score at the lowest level.

The scheme I proposed has a bad result board 19 but good results on boards 1, 8, 12, 17, 20, 23 and possibly 2, 4, and 13. This is a small number of hands, but it bears out what I'd found concerning staying out of opener's way.

I'll try to bid the same hands using what I posted above and my limited knowledge of the Welland-Auken system.

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52 1♠(!?)-1N etc. (your system) [They would have opened 1♣.]
2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P
3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P
4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2N; 3♣-P [I've seen them play 2N as "pick a minor" here.]
5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54 1♠-1N etc. (your system)
6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P [downgrading Responder's quacky hand to "8"]
7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95 1♠-1N etc. (your system)
8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632 1♠-2♣; 2♠-2N; 3♣; P [assuming 2N is an INV+ relay (with "9-10", 1- S).]
9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P [or just 1♠-P?]
10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P
11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92 1♠-2♦; 4♠-P or some more exploratary route to 4♠
12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V 1♠-1N etc. (your system)
13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P
14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P
15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P
16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P
17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7 1♠-1N etc. (your system)
18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7 1♠-2♣; 2♦-3♦; P
19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3 1♠-1N etc. (your system)
20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96 1♠(!?)-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P [They would have opened 1♣. You would have opened 2♣, right?]
21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P
22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942 1♠-1N etc. (your system)
23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53 1♠-2♣; 2♥-3♦; P
24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P

I guess part of the exercise was to bid as if Responder has < INV values, so I'll modify Responder's hand on boards 1, 5, 7, 12, 17 and 22 and bid again:

1'. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 852 1♠(!?)-2♦; 2N-...game [I think they play 2N as a 1-under transfer here.]
1''. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 J975 Q52 Either 1♠(!?)-2♣; 2♠-P or 1♠(!?)-2♣; 2N-...game [I think they play 2N as a 1-under transfer here as well. But again, they would have opened 1♣ on this hand.]
5'. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 754 1♠-2♦; 4♠ or some more exploratory route to 4♠
5''. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 A9864 K62 J54 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P
7'. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQ975 1♠-2♣; 2♠-2N; ...game [again assuming 2N is an INV+ relay (with "9-10", 1- S)]
7''. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AQJ975 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♣; 3♦-P [assuming 3♣ is P/C with "5-8"]
12'. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 A987632 A84 V 1♠-2♦; 2♥-3♥; P [upgrading Responder's hand to "9"]
12''. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 QT4 V 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♥; P
17'. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......J2 A76543 AT32 7 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P
17''. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 T76543 AT32 7 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P
19'. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 A9853 A853 J3 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P
19''. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 Q9853 A853 J3 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P
22'. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 K9842 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P [They play 2♠ as MIN, 4+ H.]
22''. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 Q9742 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P

[straube]

awm, on 2017-October-12, 01:42, said:

Anyway the theme is that we are basically always in the right partial. We sometimes get a level higher looking for game, but we also bid quite a few good games this way! This seems AT LEAST as good as any of the methods with non-forcing 2/1 bids. I'm just not buying that such a structure does "better on the weak hands."

I think so, too. The GF hands save a relay step but the weak and invitational hands are disadvantaged quite a lot. What do you think, Zelandakh?

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2017-October-12, 07:03, said:

I think so, too. The GF hands save a relay step but the weak and invitational hands are disadvantaged quite a lot. What do you think, Zelandakh?

I do not want to be put into the position of being an advocate or defender of the idea but the truth is that I believe that the overall structure is simply more efficient than most of the alternatives. I do agree that invitational hands are more difficult than in methods such as SA, SEF, Forum D or Acol but that is also true of 2/1. For the weak hands, I am unconvinced. So here are my thoughts on your 24 hands given your rules. In several cases, those rules do not match to the actual hands of course, which makes some auctions a little tricky to give:-

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52 (as nullve points out, both of these hands are too strong and reaching game is simple (West would show a max with 5 spades and 6+ clubs). Taking the hands as per straube's instructions (neither should invite) gives)
Old (544): 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P
New (553): 1♠-2♣; P
2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942
Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (I would expect the former))
New: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P
3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532
Both: either 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-P (I prefer the pass with East having no realistic game interest))
4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732
Both: 1♠-2♣; P (alt: 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P or 1♠-2♦; 2♥-3♣; P (there is no need to show the 5-5 here with 2 spades))
5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54 (again too strong so game will be reached but under straube's rules)
Old: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
New: either 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (which probably depends on whether East has any game interest opposite a heart fit but I will need to gather some data points)
6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5
Old: 1♠-2♦; P
New: 1♠-2♣; 2♦-P
7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95 (straube's rules):
Both: either 1♠-2♣; 2♦-P or 1♠-2♣; 2♦-3♣
8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632
Both: 1♠-2♣; P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♣; P (responding in clubs looks best with this heart suit))
9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42
Old: 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; P or 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P (pass is clearly best))
New: 1♠-P /alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P (again passing is clearly better))
10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8
Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♥-P (assuming East does not invite)
New: 1♠-2♦; P or 1♠-2♦; 2♥-P
11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92 (straube's rules so no invites)
Old: either 1♠-2♣; P or 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (no preference as this deals with completely different hands)
New: either 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V (East has only 12 cards and is still far too strong. Assuming East is weaker with a small club):
Both: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♥; P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (rebidding hearts being presumably better with a good 7 card suit)
13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82
Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P
New: 1♠-2♦; P
14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84
Both: either 1♠-2♣; 2♥-P or 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P
15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8
Both: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974
Both: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♣; P (tis looks right as the main benefits of responding are finding a big heart fit and preempting diamonds, while Opener should prefer their solid spades to the 5-2 hearts)
17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7 (again East is too strong so straube's rules)
Old: either 1♠-2♦; P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
New: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7
Both: 1♠-2♦; 2♥-3♦; P
19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3 (straube's rules apply)
Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-P
New: 1♠-2♥; P (alt: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P)
20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96
Old: either1♠-2♦; 2♠-P or 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
New: 1♠-2♥; 2♠-P
21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9 (straube's rules, this East must surely raise)
Both: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-P
22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942 (straube's rules again)
Both: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2♠; P
23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53
Old: 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♦; P
New: either 1♠-2♦; P or 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♦; P
24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83
Old: 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♦; P (passing looks clearly better))
New: 1♠-P (alt: 1♠-2♣; 2♦-P (again the pass looks like the way to go))

"Old" here refers to the original scheme; "new" to the one that we discussed a few posts above. The differences are small between them. One thing I have noted here is that the max 6(13)3 hand could be a problem over a 2♣ response. That previously rebid 2NT but with 2♣ being possibly only 3 that should probably show a 4 card raise now. Maybe 2NT will have to cover both hands - not sure.

In general though, my feeling is that natural bidding on weak hands works just fine in finding a playable spot at a low level and the lack of forcing calls in these auctions works to our advantage.

Finally, the positive on GF hands is that all of the hands with 4 hearts have been removed and the range halved. In a limited (max 15) opening system the benefits would be less but for semi-limited openings the range reduction is important, particularly when not using QPs.

Perhaps it is just a case of seeing what I want to see but I guess I do not see the disadvantages as being so problematic as you do. At the same time I trust writers such as fred who point out how difficult the F1NT response is to handle and that even very strong players sometimes get into silly contracts with it. That Adam says the F1NT always reaches the best partial flies in the face of everything else I have read but as I very rarely play 2/1, that is not something I can easily comment on. At the moment, I remain doubtful that the weaknesses in the NF 2/1 responses are greater than those of the F1NT (even without using the 3m responses, which for me are raises). I do think there are some further optimisations to be found though and I appreciate very much the ideas that you have brought up.

[awm]

It's just on Straube's hands that the 1NT response always reaches the best partial. Here's a summary of the situation:

1. 1NT response is very good on hands with doubleton in partner's major. You get to hear more about opener's hand and you can always revert to 2M if that seems best. The NF 2/1 structure sometimes has problems on such hands, where partner might pass 2♣ on a 4-3 fit or 2-red on a 5-2 fit despite 2♠ (opener's suit) being the best partial. These hands are also quite common! Obviously this is most expensive at MP (total disaster) but even at IMPs you get an extra IMP for making the same number of tricks, and usually 5-2 fits play better than 4-3 especially when the 3-card hand has no singleton.

2. 1NT response is good at finding out when opener has a six-card suit, and playing 2♠ (opener's suit) on a 6-1 fit but not on a 5-1 fit. You've given some sequences where opener removes 2♥ or 2♦ response to 2♠ on only five (the most extreme being the Axxxx - x KQJxxxxx hand rebidding 2♠ after a 2♥ response); this obviously works great when responder has doubleton spade but seems risky if responder has singleton spade? Of course responder could always remove 2♠ with singleton but then we can't play 2♠ with a good six card suit opposite singleton? I guess in the new style 2♥ pretty much promises doubleton spade or 6+ hearts (or 5/5? or does that bid lower suit), but even so, you might want to get out in 2♠ with your mediocre six card heart suit (or your 5/5 hand) if opener has six.

3. One problem in partscore bidding with the 1NT response is responder's single-suiter. With a minor you often have to go to the three-level (1♠-1NT-2♥-3m). When responder's suit is clubs this applies to the new NF 2/1 style too (opener can only pass 2♣ with FOUR, which is really unlikely and anyway misses games like Axxxx AQx x Kxxx opposite x xxx xxx AQxxxx). When responder's suit is diamonds, you can sometimes get out in 2♦ (when opener has two-plus diamonds) but there are some problems (like whether opener is supposed to bid 2♥ with 5422 or 5431, whether to pass opener's 2♠ which might be 5314 where diamonds is better or might be a 6-card suit where spades is probably better). It seems like the differences are that the 1NT response reaches the three-level when we have a good diamond fit (instead of staying in 2♦ in our nine card fits) which is a small loss (but with a big fit we are usually okay and opponents might balance over 2♦ anyway), whereas the 1NT response does a bit better when opener has singleton in the minor (can play 2♠ if opener has six for example).

4. Another problem in partscore bidding for the 1NT response is responder's 5/5 hand. These are rare and there were only three examples in Straube's twenty-four hands. If the 5/5 hand includes doubleton spade there's not really a problem, and if opener has four cards in one of the five-card suits there's not really a problem (there go Straube's examples). With five hearts you can rebid 2♥, but you have to agree about what this means (some people play it as six-card suit; if you play it can be 5/5 opener may remove with singleton and you get to the three-level when you do have six hearts). The worst case is 1255 where opener has 54xx, but if you're responding in clubs on such hands (as you did on #4) you've got the same problem! If you respond in the higher suit you've always got a rebid at the three-level, but this causes other problems -- one big downside is that you may want to play 2♠ if opener has six, but by responding 2♥ (or even 2♦) you can never really be certain.

5. The problems people really complain about with responding 1NT are around 5332 hands (if these can pass it causes problems with responder's shapely hands, if they can't pass you get into some fuzzy situations because you can't raise on four or pass on three any more which makes the right partial harder to find). I've excluded those here since your 1M openings don't have them.

6. There are also problems with responding 1NT because of the INV hands. For example, you can't play 2M on a declined invite (because reverting to 2M shows less-than-inv), you can't distinguish invitational and weak one-suiters a lot of the time (unless you devote your direct jumps to fixing this problem), you can't find 5-3 heart fits on invites (because 1♠-1N-2m-2♥ is a weak hand, so you have to bid 1♠-1N-2m-2NT with five hearts some of the time), and even raising opener's rebid suit is awkward if it could be three (1♠-1NT-2♣ and you have 1444 INV). These INV hands were not really considered in the discussion! My methods solve a lot of these by using 2♦ as artificial invite (removes some hands from 1NT), passing some weak hands with doubleton spade (so 1♠-1N-2x-2♠ shows constructive values), and using "less than INV" jump shifts (so 1♠-1N-2♦-3♣ shows constructive values). But again, we weren't really discussing these.

[straube]

I bid these with my own system. Hard to do it double dummy but......

1. K8653 A5 V AKJT97....T7 KQ63 A975 Q52

.....1S-1N, 2N*-3D*, 3H*-? opener shows a giant 5S/6m hand and 3H shows clubs. 5C? 3N?

2. KT8542 A7 J8 K87.......A Q9543 T954 942

.....1S-1N, 2S

3. AKQ54 QJ864 2 97.......72 752 AQ75 J532

.....1S-P

4. KQJT4 QT3 K KT54.......63 8 QJ875 AJ732

.....1S-1N, 2C

5. AKJT97 T QJ5 K32.......82 AK864 K62 J54

.....1S-1N, 2S-3S, 4S

6. KT852 QT6 AK62 7.......J9 J54 Q8543 KQ5

.....1S-2D, P...........1S-2D, P

7. AT654 A6 AK75 84.......7 754 964 AKQJ95

.....1S-3C, 3N.........3C is invitational

8. AJT65 K Q65 K874.......9 J9853 K3 AJ632

.....1S-2H, 2S, 3C......1S-2C, P

9. KQT987 J93 4 A53.......J2 Q86 QT86 JT42

.....1S-2C, 2S..........1S-2C, 2S

10. K9752 KQ764 QT 6.......43 J932 AJ8653 8

.....1S-1N, 2H

11. AJT976 V AQ63 K83......K2 AT632 52 QJ92

.....1S-1N, 2D-2S*, 4S................2S showed light invitational values since 2H Lebensohl was available

12. AKJ74 K T532 543.......T9 AJ97632 AQ4 V

.....1S-3H, P..........should the hand even be opened, should responder insist on game? too hard double dummy

13. AT876 Q A4 QT643.......K5 J654 KJT92 82

.....1S-1N, 2C-2H*-2S.........2H is Lebensohl

14. AJT87 J974 AJ A5.......Q2 532 KT94 QJ84

.....1S-P..........arguable but I can't see any opener rebid that will make responder happy

15. AKT543 K K54 763.......Q6 AJ9432 J86 T8

.....1S-2D*, 2S........2D shows 5H invitational or 6H constructive, 2S promises 6

16. AKQJ97 43 754 Q8.......32 KT975 8 KT974

.....1S-1N, 2S

17. AT754 2 QJ5 KQ54.......K2 A76543 AT32 7

.....1S-2D*, 2H-2S......2D shows hearts, 2H says meh, 2S shows invitational with 2 spades

18. KQJT72 AJ42 3 K5.......3 95 KQJT9864 T7

.....1S-1N, 2H-3D......3D shows less than invitational (else 1S-3D)

19. AK852 T2 Q5 A532.......97 AQT53 A853 J3

.....1S-2D*, 2H-2S, 2N........different ways this could go but I have responder showing 5 hearts and invitational values with 2 spades and opener counter-inviting.

20. A9874 V 3 KQJ8542......J6 AKT83 JT98 96

.....1S-1N, 2C-2H*, 3C........2H is Lebensohl and opener rejects the 2S request. Should opener bid more aggressively? He needs a big club fit to get rid of spades though

21. QT6532 AK86 K7 3.......V Q753 J9653 KQJ9

.....1S-1N, 2H

22. AKT52 9754 K AT7.......74 JT AJT5 KQ942

.....1S-1N, 2H-2N, 3N......responder has to invite aggressively after a 2H rebid because we don't have Lebensohl available

23. J86543 A J5 AK74.......7 743 AKT8762 53

.....1S-1N, 2C-2H*, 2S-3D.....I have too many ways of showing diamonds here. 1S-3D....1S-1N, 2C-2D, 1S-1N, 2C-3D. Obviously this makes 3N if the diamonds run.

24. A8762 J95 KQT9 2.......54 Q732 8642 A83

.....1S-1N, 2D....There's no harm bidding here. We can pass a diamond, spade, or heart rebid and we have Lebensohl for clubs

[straube]

awm, on 2017-October-15, 01:33, said:

5. The problems people really complain about with responding 1NT are around 5332 hands (if these can pass it causes problems with responder's shapely hands, if they can't pass you get into some fuzzy situations because you can't raise on four or pass on three any more which makes the right partial harder to find). I've excluded those here since your 1M openings don't have them.

straube said:

Had the thought lately that Zelandakh is in a much better position than Adam and I with his 1S opening in that he doesn't have to deal with the 5332s. It's largely those patterns (maybe minimum 5422s and other minimums)that make a semiforcing NT response desirable...and then we have the problem of missing game when the 5332 is 13 hcps and responder 12 or 13.

I hadn't included responder's shapely hands as a reason, but I think his exclusion of 5332s should be a big win for his 1S opening and also the adoption of forcing NT response.

awm, on 2017-October-15, 01:33, said:

6. There are also problems with responding 1NT because of the INV hands. For example, you can't play 2M on a declined invite (because reverting to 2M shows less-than-inv), you can't distinguish invitational and weak one-suiters a lot of the time (unless you devote your direct jumps to fixing this problem), you can't find 5-3 heart fits on invites (because 1♠-1N-2m-2♥ is a weak hand, so you have to bid 1♠-1N-2m-2NT with five hearts some of the time), and even raising opener's rebid suit is awkward if it could be three (1♠-1NT-2♣ and you have 1444 INV). These INV hands were not really considered in the discussion! My methods solve a lot of these by using 2♦ as artificial invite (removes some hands from 1NT), passing some weak hands with doubleton spade (so 1♠-1N-2x-2♠ shows constructive values), and using "less than INV" jump shifts (so 1♠-1N-2♦-3♣ shows constructive values). But again, we weren't really discussing these.

I think direct jumps is the answer. The obvious reason I can see to exclude them are missing out on 4/4 heart fits (which is solved if you can respond 2C and then relay break to your minor with a 4/6 hand) or if you want 1S-3L to be some sort of fit bid.

Btw, I think both awm and I have done our bidding without using 1S-2H since that for us is a good raise. That's worth an awful lot if we can at least have parity on the other hands.

Zel, this has been an interesting discussion and I don't know whether it continues or not, but it sounds like you're pretty satisfied with your structure as is and I get that. Thanks for letting us discuss it.

[foobar]

This is a little bit of an aside, but it's good to see a spirited discussion on the forum after a series of "thou shalt follow my system without question" posts .

For those following from the sidelines, is the summary of methods that were discussed the following?


1) 1♠ - 1N (semi-forcing, but shows 8-11ish with possibly doubleton ♠). Opener may pass with 5M332 hands (not relevant to zel's system)
........awm: 1♠ - 1N - 2x...2♠ (doubleton spade with 8-11)
........straube: 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ / 2♦...2♥* (*:puppet to 2♠)

2) 1♠ - 2♣
.........awm: 12+ including 5+ ♥; relay sequence
.........straube: 12+, excluding 12-13 5♥ (?); relay sequence

3) 1♠ - 2♦
.........awm: 12-13ish with 0-4 ♥
.........straube: weak 6+ ♥ OR invite 5+♥

4) 1♠ - 2♥ (LR+)

[straube]

That's essentially right for me. I use 2C as GF with the exception of certain strongly invitational hands with 4 hearts (specifically those are 4H/6m or 4H/4+D but I'd only suggested the 4H/6m variety here). I use 1S-2H as constructive or GI with exactly 3 hearts.

[awm]

I'd describe my 1♠-2♣ sequence as either:

1. 12-13 with 5+♥
2. 14+ any (GF)

But otherwise this seems right. The big difference between Straube and my methods is treatment of invitational and semi-invitational hands; mostly this discussion has been about the weak hands and comparing Zel's "NF 2/1" style vs. responding 1NT vs. other possible NF 2/1 styles.

[straube]

What's the difference you see in our treatment of invitational and semi-invitational hands?

My recollection is that a principal difference is your use of 2D for invitational hands without 5 hearts? Is that right? And the point of this was because we both have the 5332s in our 1S opening, have consequently chosen a semiforcing NT and consequently have the potential for missing game when opener passes 1N with a maximum 5332. About right?

So basically your method finds these games (using 2D) while mine gets hearts (using 2D) in the picture.

If Zelandakh were to switch to a forcing NT, I'd recommend my solution because the GI without 5 hearts will always get another chance to invite.

[awm]

straube, on 2017-October-15, 12:25, said:

What's the difference you see in our treatment of invitational and semi-invitational hands?

My recollection is that a principal difference is your use of 2D for invitational hands without 5 hearts? Is that right? And the point of this was because we both have the 5332s in our 1S opening, have consequently chosen a semiforcing NT and consequently have the potential for missing game when opener passes 1N with a maximum 5332. About right?

So basically your method finds these games (using 2D) while mine gets hearts (using 2D) in the picture.

If Zelandakh were to switch to a forcing NT, I'd recommend my solution because the GI without 5 hearts will always get another chance to invite.

There are a number of differences, mostly around my desire to have two invitational ranges. Basically I always have a way to distinguish weak invite (say 10-11) vs. strong invite (12-13). You have this ability if the auction starts 1♠-1NT-2m, but you lose the distinction if opener rebids 2M, or if responder starts with 2♦, and you also have the possibility to miss a game if opener passes 1NT (opposite the stronger invite). You'll be better off when responder is weak with 6+♥ (you can transfer into 2♥, I have to play 3♥). There are slightly different hands where we miss 2♠ on a declined invite -- for me it's responder with 12-13 and 2♠-5♥ opposite opener with ♠+♦; for you it's hands where opener has ♠+♥ and responder has 12-13 with 2344/23(35)/22(45) or the like (where 1♠-1NT-2♥- and you can't really bid 2♠ with the upper end of an invite). There are probably some sequences where you will play 3m in a 4-4 or 5-4 fit while I play 2♠ in a 5-2 (my "strong invite" auctions don't prioritize finding minor suit fits of less than ten cards, due to some simulations showing that 2♠ in a 5-2 is often superior). And I think we've chosen different 1♠-2♥ treatments (mine is a real limit raise, not constructive-plus).

So there are definitely a bunch of differences! Most of them are not around the weak hands though.

[straube]

If you have a 10-11 count and say 1354 and the bidding goes 1S-1N, 2S are you bidding 2N here since opener knows you can only be lightly invitational? Or do you worry about removing from a more likely part score?

[awm]

straube, on 2017-October-15, 13:42, said:

If you have a 10-11 count and say 1354 and the bidding goes 1S-1N, 2S are you bidding 2N here since opener knows you can only be lightly invitational? Or do you worry about removing from a more likely part score?

2♠ actually shows extras in our style (because we open 2♠ with up to a bad 11), so it's pretty safe to bid 2NT. We also don't really jump to 3♠ unless we have seven, so opener having 14-15 is definitely a possibility.

[nullve]

straube, on 2017-October-15, 13:42, said:

If you have a 10-11 count and say 1354 and the bidding goes 1S-1N, 2S are you bidding 2N here since opener knows you can only be lightly invitational? Or do you worry about removing from a more likely part score?

awm, on 2017-October-15, 13:46, said:

2♠ actually shows extras in our style (because we open 2♠ with up to a bad 11), so it's pretty safe to bid 2NT. We also don't really jump to 3♠ unless we have seven, so opener having 14-15 is definitely a possibility.

I bet that passing with 11, 1354 is winning bridge unless vul-at-IMPs. (The 11good-15 range is too wide IMO.)

[straube]

awm, on 2017-October-15, 13:46, said:

2♠ actually shows extras in our style (because we open 2♠ with up to a bad 11), so it's pretty safe to bid 2NT. We also don't really jump to 3♠ unless we have seven, so opener having 14-15 is definitely a possibility.

I think we're in a similar place after 1S-1N, 2S because I play that shows a bit extra as well. So responder's rebid of 3m or 3H is lightly invitational? You play 1S-3m/3H as WJS? I think for me that 1S-1N, 2S-3m would be lightly invitational since I'm removing from a playable spot; I give up then on the weaker hands. After 1S-1N, 2S I could rebid the same 2N with the 10-11. I have both 3H and 3S available if I want to split the difference with spade raises. So I lose with 1S-1N, 2S when responder has a weak hand with a long minor but gain when responder gets to show hearts before opener rebids 2S.

1S-1N, P- opposite an invitational hand is bad for me whenever opener has the 5332 13 ct. So I miss an occasional game or decide to include the 5332 13 ct with my 14-16 NT; means I get to 23 pt 2Ns and 24 pt 3Ns. On the plus side, I get to play two hearts after 1S-1N, 2D-2H which seems at least as frequent.

1S-1N, 2m I think I'm ahead on these hands when responder has invitational values. I suppose 1S-1N, 2m-2N is again 10-11? I can show that after Lebensohl. More important, I can raise opener's minor strongly or lightly. 1S-2D* as GI misses many minor suit fits.

1S-1N, 2H involves more guesswork for me. Probably for you a 3m rebid is lightly invitational? I think I need it as a landing spot. If I remember right, you pass with doubleton spade and like 6-7/8 such that 1S-1N, 2X-2S promises 8/9 or more? So far I've done 1S-1N, 2H-2S as wider ranging but I could consider having that promise constructive values...in which case I could only respond 1N with 6-7 with either a 3-suited takeout of spades (planning to pass whatever) or a 6-7 with exactly two spades and 4 or 5 hearts.

So 1S-1N, 2H I pass with 6-7 2S/4-5H. Maybe I have xx KJxx Kxxx xxx (I think you pass this hand). If instead partner rebid 2C I could just Lebensohl to 2S. Anyway, that seems an attractive option to me...possibly improving the contract to hearts, taking away (at least) the 1N bid from the opponents.

But anyway, 1S-1N, 2H-2N is more ambiguous for me...11-13? 1S-1N, 2H-3H is lightly invitational (same). I'm endplayed into 1S-1N, 2H-4H with GI hearts whenever I have a hand unsuitable for the 2C relay start....basically 4 hearts and fewer than 4 diamonds. I think that 1S-1N, 2H ought to show a little more than a very minimum hand with exactly 5S/4H anyway.

[awm]

nullve, on 2017-October-15, 17:23, said:

I bet that passing with 11, 1354 is winning bridge unless vul-at-IMPs. (The 11good-15 range is too wide IMO.)

This seems like a pretty easy simulation.

Opener: 12-15 6(322) or 6(331)
Responder: 11 with 1(345)

Which is better, 2S (always) or 2N (12-13) and 3N (14-15)?

[straube]

I noticed a system update from...

awm, on 2016-November-13, 14:14, said:

1♠ - 2♣ = either GF (any) or a good 12-14 with 4+♥

1♠ - 2♦ = forcing; shows a good invite (12+ to 14-) without three spades and without four hearts
... 2♥ = normal asking bid; responder makes a natural call next with 2♠ being balanced with doubleton, 2NT showing both minors, 3m a six card suit
... 2♠ = GF 6+♠
... 2N = GF 5+/5+ majors
... 3m = GF 5+/5+

to

awm, on 2017-October-15, 12:05, said:

I'd describe my 1♠-2♣ sequence as either:

1. 12-13 with 5+♥
2. 14+ any (GF)

which picks up your 5-3 heart fits and lets you discriminate 4H/6m from 5H/5m. Then 12-13 and 4H goes through 2D. For practice I tried working it out, but I found it rather hard to solve. Does the 2H rebid have to handle more hands?

2H-asking (any minimum <4H OR GF balanced to semi-unbalanced OR GF 5S/4-5H)
.....2S-2 spades, nf
..........2N-GF
..........3m-nf
..........3H-GF, 4H
..........3S-GF 5H
.....2N-short spade, nf
..........3m-nf
..........3H-GF, 4H
..........3S-GF, 5H
..........3N-other
.....3m-6m, nf
..........3D-6D, nf
..........3H-GF 4H
..........3S-GF 5H
..........3N-other
2S-6S, could have 4H, GF
2N-4H, min
3m-5m, GF
3H-6S/5H, min
3S-6S/5H, GF

or maybe something simpler like

2H-4+H, f
2S-minimum, usually only 5S
2N-6S, GF
3m-5m-GF
3H-6S/5H, min
3S-?

[awm]

1S-2D
... 2H = not four hearts; if max denies some shapes
... 2S = min 4+H NF
... 2N = max 4+H
... 3m = max 5+/5+ natural
... 3H = short hearts max 5143/5134/5044
... 3S = short hearts 6S max

1S-2D-2H
... 2S = doubleton NF
... 2N = 1444, 1(345) not 5H, 04(45), 1255, 0355 etc
... 3m = 6+ suit NF
... 3H = extreme both minors invite
... 3S = min GF 3-card support, not suited for 1S-4S

1S-2D-2H-2S/2N
... 3m = 5/5 min over 2s, 4+ minor min over 2N
... 3H = max short diamond
... 3S = max short club
... 3N = to play likely max no shortage
... 4m = 5/5 good min over 2N, shortness with 6S over 2S
... 4S to play