[mike777]

Coming back to playing bridge the 2 hot newish conventions I see many playing are the range ask and Spiral. While I have my doubts about Spiral, I will leave that for another time. For those of you who play 2 spades range ask over NT, how does it work? I understand the idea came out of the book Camouflage which I read many years ago. Do you recommend the convention?

Two concerns are how do you handle game force or invitational hands with a long minor? How do you handle a hand with a diamond bust?

[mw64ahw]

mike777, on 2025-May-29, 08:21, said:

Coming back to playing bridge the 2 hot newish conventions I see many playing are the range ask and Spiral. While I have my doubts about Spiral, I will leave that for another time. For those of you who play 2 spades range ask over NT, how does it work? I understand the idea came out of the book Camouflage which I read many years ago. Do you recommend the convention?

Two concerns are how do you handle game force or invitational hands with a long minor? How do you handle a hand with a diamond bust?

For range ask over 2♠ includes long ♣
2♠ ask.
.. 2N min
.. 3C max

I tend to use the range ask only when I have a 4333 hand given my 2♣ is a 5cM non-promissory relay or as a prelude to a quantitative bid.
Playing 4-way transfers 6-card minors go through 2♠/2N any strength unless I feel passing is optimal.
2♠ also allows GF xx55 & xx64 to be shown
2N allows weak xx55 to be included

When GF with a long minor
3♥ is semi-balanced or shortness in the other minor
.. 3♠ shows concern about weakness in the other minor
3♠ short ♠
3N short ♥

[DavidKok]

The idea is to overload a clubs transfer to also ask about opener's hand strength. The answers are simple: 2NT minimum, 3♣ maximum. Responder can then make a rebid of 3♦ or higher with a strong hand with primary clubs, and several continuations exist.

The main downside is that a clubs ask specifically asks opener to evaluate their hands for clubs. This tool doesn't have that luxury, and opener can only evaluate their hand strength without much to go on. Consequently you are behind with actual clubs, especially on COG or slam situations, or when you need specific clubs honours opposite to proceed. Compared to 2NT invitational it also allows a lead directing pass/double.
It is the opposite of camouflage. I think the only convention that leaks more is putting too many hands through Stayman.
Personally I don't recommend it, but at mentioned in the other thread my views on some of these gadgets are contrarian. Either way it won't make you rich and it won't make you poor.

[akwoo]

At least around here, Flight A standard has more or less converged to:

2♠ = range ask or clubs (opener bids 2N=min, 3♣=max, after which a 3♣ bid by responder shows a weak club hand, suit bid by responder shows a game forcing club hand (and shortness), and a NT bid by responder indicates a hand that just wanted to know min or max)

2N = diamonds or weak both minors (opener bids their preferred minor, after which 3♦ by responder shows a weak diamond hand, suit bid by responder shows a game forcing diamond hand (and shortness), and 3N shows a mild semi-balanced slam try in diamonds)

One can use 3♣ and 3♦ as invitational hands specifically asking opener to evaluate their hands in those minors. This is not usual; more common is 3♣ as asking for a 5 card major and 3♦ as some kind of 2 suiter; my preference is 5+/5+ in majors, invitational or better.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-29, 08:47, said:

The idea is to overload a clubs transfer to also ask about opener's hand strength. The answers are simple: 2NT minimum, 3♣ maximum. Responder can then make a rebid of 3♦ or higher with a strong hand with primary clubs, and several continuations exist.

The main downside is that a clubs ask specifically asks opener to evaluate their hands for clubs. This tool doesn't have that luxury, and opener can only evaluate their hand strength without much to go on. Consequently you are behind with actual clubs, especially on COG or slam situations, or when you need specific clubs honours opposite to proceed. Compared to 2NT invitational it also allows a lead directing pass/double.
It is the opposite of camouflage. I think the only convention that leaks more is putting too many hands through Stayman.
Personally I don't recommend it, but at mentioned in the other thread my views on some of these gadgets are contrarian. Either way it won't make you rich and it won't make you poor.

Well, Martens definitely disagrees with you! He wrote a book called Camouflage and this was where I first saw the convention.

Fwiw, and compared to Martens it’s not worth much, I also disagree with you.

I’ve enjoyed quite a few good results due to a lead coming around into declarer’s good major suit when such would not have happened after 1N 2C 2M 2N…

I play a simple version with most partners but in my main partnership we have a complex set of agreements.

2S is range ask or clubs or precisely invitational with diamonds. Opener bids 2N with a hand rest wouldvreject an invite in notrump and 3C with a hand that would accept.

Over 2N, 3C s to play and 3D is the invite with diamonds…which will almost always be passed since opener has a minimum.

Over 3C, by opener, a new suit, including 3D, is shortness since responder will bid 3N with an invite in diamonds. Btw, this means that opening leader doesn’t know whether responder is balanced, has 6+ clubs or 6+ diamonds.

On the surface the fact that opener describes his range without regard to whether he likes either minor could mean that we’d reach some bad games due to opener’s hand not meshing well, but our experience is that such has so far been a theoretical issue rather than a real one.

We use 1N 2N as both minors, any strength.

3C is a transfer to diamonds, either to play or gf (which is why we place invites with diamonds into the 2S bid).

3D is 5=5 or better majors with invitational or better values…to which 3M is to play opposite an invite, 4C is a super max for hearts, 4D super max for spades and 4M is enough to accept an invite but denies a super max.

Our major suit transfer structure includes secondary or extended transfers and our stayman structure is quite unorthodox. For example 1N 2C 2N is 4=4 majors, minimum, 3C 4=4 max, both with responder being able to transfer into his preferred major. This means that we are committed to the 3 level and I’d not advise this for matchpoints. In real life, we’ve been playing this for a couple of years and yet to reach a silly 3M contract when responder is weak.

[awm]

In terms of dealing with the “invitational no major” hands, it’s clear that a natural 2nt is best and going through stayman is worst. In fact it’s typically better to “pass or blast” if the alternative is stayman on these hands.

The problem with 2nt natural invite is that it devotes a potentially useful call (2nt) to a very specific and not really common hand type. Using 2♠ as range ask is a bit worse than the 2nt invite (allowing opponents to double 2♠ for the lead) but it’s quite a bit better than bidding stayman and you probably get enough back from the artificial 2nt that it’s a good overall trade.

I think akwoo’s post is the way this is most commonly played.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-May-29, 10:28, said:

Fwiw, and compared to Martens it’s not worth much, I also disagree with you.

I’ve enjoyed quite a few good results due to a lead coming around into declarer’s good major suit when such would not have happened after 1N 2C 2M 2N…

I'm comparing 2NT natural with 2♠ 'clubs or range'. Martens is comparing this 2♠ against having to bid 2♣.

Adam explained the situation very clearly. Thank you for clarifying this point. It surprised me a lot that mike thinks the direct 2NT auction is more revealing than a 2♠ bid, and indeed we disagree on this.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-29, 13:15, said:

I'm comparing 2NT natural with 2♠ 'clubs or range'. Martens is comparing this 2♠ against having to bid 2♣.

Adam explained the situation very clearly. Thank you for clarifying this point. It surprised me a lot that mike thinks the direct 2NT auction is more revealing than a 2♠ bid, and indeed we disagree on this.

When did I say that? You must have misread my comments.

As I know you know, designing a coherent bidding system entails compromises on everything. As awm said, using a natural 2N means not using it for some other purpose. My view is that using 2N as a natural invite is not a good choice…not because it’s inherently bad (which in isolation it is clearly ok) but because it affects every other aspect of any complex set of notrump responses. We use 2N as both minors, with any strength between ‘to play in 3 of whatever minor opener chooses’ to invitational to game force to slamming. Without 2N for both minors, we’d have to invent some other sequence, probably disrupting still other specialized sequences we use for other purposes.

In our view, the loss of 2N as a natural invite is far outweighed by the other benefits that we think we get from our methods. Our methods are not some semi-random collection of different gadgets…they are an integrated whole, and whether you think they’re good, bad or indifferent matters not. Every single choice is made in the context of the entirety of the method, and for every single choice there are arguments pro and con.

Name any…literally any…convention and I’ll show you a loss caused by the use of that convention. 2C stayman? You pick up xxx x xxx QJxxxx. I’d far rather play 2C than 3C and yet stayman makes that impossible. I’m sure yiu and everyone else has many arguments as to why giving up a natural 2C response to 1N is a valuable idea….and I agree…but my point is that only a fool would argue that there is any gadget that comes with no cost. Giving up 2N as natural has a cost. It’s worth paying, in the opinion of virtually every good player in the world.

[DavidKok]

We agree on this point, every agreement comes with opportunity costs. I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but it's not me.

It still makes sense to me to discuss the pros and cons of two different options for a system. I was very surprised that you disagree so strongly with my assertion that 2NT invitational leaks less information than 2♠ range ask. I think this is one factor among many in designing a system, and it is helpful context for understanding the relative merits of such a 2♠ response to 1NT.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-30, 01:50, said:

We agree on this point, every agreement comes with opportunity costs. I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but it's not me.

It still makes sense to me to discuss the pros and cons of two different options for a system. I was very surprised that you disagree so strongly with my assertion that 2NT invitational leaks less information than 2♠ range ask. I think this is one factor among many in designing a system, and it is helpful context for understanding the relative merits of such a 2♠ response to 1NT.

I remain puzzled. I have never said that a natural 2N leaks information. I have no idea why you continue to make that false assertion. You said that 2S range ask was the opposite of camouflage and I strongly disagree with that silly assertion. 2S range leaks less information than the then-prevalent use of 2C stayman without a major en route to inviting via 2N over opener’s response to Stayman. That approach needlessly leaked information about opener’s major problems holdings. Indeed, for several years prior to adopting range ask my main partnership didn’t invite in notrump, without a major. We just bid 3N. Fred Gitelman was the one who suggested that approach, back in the late 1990s. That was precisely due to a desire to avoid leakage. When range ask came along we adopted it because the slight leakage cost was offset by the times when blasting didn’t work because opener was minimum and the lack of leakage didn’t lead to help from the opening lead or subsequent play.