[Antoine Fourrière]

Has someone experimented with two of a major as showing a weak notrump with five cards in the bid suit in a five-card major cum strong notrump structure, whether American or Polish?

It should enhance our constructive bidding, and be rather annoying for the opponents.

Answers:

2S over 2H : to play
2N : invitational (but could be long clubs)
3C : game-forcing relay asking for the doubleton
3D : to play
3M : invitational
3H over 2S : to play
simple jump: splinter
3N, 4M : to play

Opener rebids 3C on 2N with a maximum in case responder has a bunch of clubs.

[luis]

Do you mean 2h as 12-14 Balanced with 5h and 2s=12-14 Balanced with 5 spades? I assume you will be using a multi 2d so you don't have to sacrifice your weak 2h and 2s bids.
It's an interesting idea the major flaw I can find is that if the opps buy the hand they can play it double dummy knowing the strenght and distribution of the 4 hands due to the very descriptinve 2M opening.
The other problem I can see is that after 2M-dbl responder may have problems without a fit for hearts, if he passes and RHO passes 2M can be set for a number on the other hand if he bids it can easily start a rotational doubling sequence while a pass may find RHO bidding something different than a penalty pass...
Summarizing I find the idea interesting and worth trying, let us know your results!

[hrothgar]

I don't think that this is a treatment that I would chose to play:

First, this may surprise people but I don't adopt conventions for the sake of playing a complex card. In this case, I don't think that 5332 hands with 12-14 HCP are a undue burden on system playing weak NT. If I did feel a requirement to offload these bids from 1M, I would prefer to bundle them into the 1NT opening rather than give up my traditional meanings for 2H/2S. [2H and 2S are two of the most useful preempts available. I really dislike sacrificing these bids in order to tweak the constructive major suit openings)

Second: You are opening the bidding at a high level on what is likely to be a part score hand.
I think that the main effect of this opening will be preempting your own partnership. I don't think that you will be able to intelligently sort out ranges and stoppers below the level of 3NT.

With this said and done, the proof is in the pudding. Try this out and see whether you think that it improves your game. I've been wrong in the past and I'll be wrong many times in the future.

[inquiry]

I am not so ready to hammer this idea as totally wacky. For one thing, it better defines the opening bid of 1H or 1S (since these hands are removed).

For another, I often end up in 2 of the major with a 5-2 fit anyway playing forcing 1NT...the bidding on this hands go...
1H - 1N
2x - 2H
Pass

And the odds are partner has at least a two card fit (8 cards out... partner is likely to have at least 2). This is why "preempts" on five card major to the 2 level has become increasing popular.

Now I am not sure I am in love with the responding scheme. For one thing, I doubt opener is going to be strong enough to do much over a splinter bid but signoff. So I think jumps in a new suit should be fit jumps. I also prefer a simple raise as a bar bid, if you are close enough to invite, just bid the game here.

New suits as non-forcing seem best, so this drops us to the 2NT bid (invite or club signoff) and 3C (GF relay asking doubleton).

Ok, I admit, I like this relay, with 3M = doubleton in clubs. Over 2NT-3C-now new suit or 3M are invitational.

Is it playable? I would not worry so much about 2Hx or 2Sx... After all, if partner is very short in your major, he has a suit he can bid... worse case is if partner is 4441.

The question becomes how does removing these hands from your 1M opening bid help? I think the answer is potentially a lot. Your 1M becomes by nature unbalanced (if you open 1NT with balanced 15-17 including a five card major).

1H-1NT
2C <<<------ will have clubs!

Because the balanced hands are gone.

It is something to think about at least.

[luis]

I agree with Ben, responses should be re-structured but that can be done easily with the assistance of a master-optimizator... ie: Me :-)

My first question is:
Is it better to bid a relay to ask for the doubleton or number of controls?
Asking for controls can be useful to find if we want to play game AND if we want to play slam/grand.

So maybe it is better to ask for controls first and then for the doubleton!

Method a)
* relay asks for controls
* new suits show stoppers looking for 3nt or 4M (no slam interest and game forcing)

2h - 2s
2n = 2 controls
3c = 3
3d = 4
3h = 5
3s = 6
2s - 2n
3c = 2 controls
3d = 3
3h = 4
3s = 5
3n = 6

A subsequent relay different than 3M can then ask for the doubleton, and then you can use denial cuebids or similar if you want to explore for slam or grand slam.

If the number of controls is not enough for game you can just bid 3M as a signoff. We can easily build a simulation and know depending on the strength of responder hand's the number of controls that we need for game....

What do you think?

[luis]

I'm replying myself, if you are a psychriat and found this serious let me know ;-)

Another interesting option is to use the relay as a cuantitative-trump-ask, a bid deviced by a friend of mine, you add points for honors in the trump suit (in this case the major) and side aces and kings and then answer:
- 1st step 7 or less (new relay asks again with step responses)
- 2nd step 8
- 3rd step 9
- 4th step 10
- 5th step 12
- 6th step 13

Maybe this is better to evaluate if we want to bid a game or play a par-score, after the CTA is finished a relay will ask for the doubleton and then you can ask for queens or specific queens or something like that

[Antoine Fourrière]

It is true I'm willing to sacrifice 2H and 2S as other preempts. But my point is that a 2H or 2S with a weak notrump and five cards in the suit bid could be just as disruptive as, say, 2H and 2S Muiderberg. I simply destroy with another type of hand. If LHO has 10 HCP and less than three cards, he is unable to balance, as he would have after 1M (pass) 2M (pass) pass.

After 1M 1N, I would use transfers: 2C would show diamonds, or clubs with a weak hand, 2D would show the other major, and 2oM would show 15+ with clubs, at least when the opening is 1H. (I always open a strong notrump with a five-card major, and I would do just the same with a weak notrump.)

But after 2M, I believe the priority is to play the right game, which is often a game by the undescribed hand. The opponents already know too much, as always.
The 3C relay should serve only three purposes.
1) Finding a 5-3 fit in the other major
2) Not playing 3N when we have a common doubleton because responder is 5422
(If we have no fit (or if responder is 4333) and they have no nine-card fit, 3N by undisclosed hand it must be. If responder has a fit and a doubleton, only a power try is acceptable, so I don't believe 3M should be preemptive.)
3) Exploring a slam

I think 3S and 3N by opener over 3C should show the same doubleton, without and with the King of the opened major, because it is valuable for slam, and not very useful to the opponents even when there is no slam.

As for the splinters, they do not come very often, but there are situations in which I want opener to evaluate his hand. After all, a jump after 1N 2C 2M is a splinter even when the notrump is weak.
But a splinter in opener's major is less than desirable, which is why I believe opener should tell immediately whether he holds the king of his five-card suit.
(4C over 3S or 3N is classical Blackwood, 3S over 3H asks opener to rebid 3N with the King and to answer directly his number of aces otherwise, 3H over 3D asks opener to rebid 3H with the King and to answer directly his number of aces otherwise)

Case in point

Qx Axxxx 2H 3C?
Txxxx AKQJ 3S 4C?
AKx Qx 4H 4S?
KQx Jx 5D 5N

Not wonderful, but responder has at least 50% of chances of getting away with murder.
(Opener has shown a doubleton spade without the heart king, one ace, and the kings of diamonds and clubs without the king of spades. I guess 5H would be another relay, because opener has not the slightest idea about responder's fit.)

[hrothgar]

>It is true I'm willing to sacrifice 2H and 2S as other preempts.
>But my point is that a 2H or 2S with a weak notrump and
>five cards in the suit bid could be just as disruptive as, say,
>2H and 2S Muiderberg. I simply destroy with another type of hand.

Judging individual bids in isolation from the rest of a system is not particularly useful. In this case, the question is not whether

2M = 5332 with 12-14 HCP is more or less obstructive than
2M = Alternative suggested meanings

but rather, the effect on the entire system.

From my perspective, you are giving up far, far to much.

>If LHO has 10 HCP and less than three cards,
>he is unable to balance, as he would have after 1M (pass) 2M (pass) >pass.

And if RHO has 10 HCP and less that 3 cards in the major, he is now able to balance. I fail to see your point.

Quote

[dworkin]

Since I wish to open at the two-level the major weak two-bids, the Wilkosz types and the minimum opening bids with six clubs or five clubs and a four-card major, I am unable to sneak in both the weak notrumps with five spades and the weak notrumps with five hearts. So I would suggest:

2♣ = five clubs and a four-card major, 11-14
2♦ = either a heart weak two-bid or a Wilkosz type
2♥ = a weak notrump with five spades or six clubs (could be 7222, 633K or 732K), 11-13 (with 14 HCP, open 1N)
2♠ = weak
2N = club preempt or game force in hearts or spades (so that 1♣ is always clubs or balanced)
3♣ = six or seven clubs and some shortness, 11-13 (may have four diamonds)


2♥ follow-ups:

2♥
........Pass = to play, with either six hearts or five hearts and less than three spades or 1=4=4=4... or a yarb nonvul
........2♠ = to play opposite spades
........2N = relay, either GF, GI with spades or intending to drop opener in 3♣ if he has spades
................3♣ = 5S332
........................3♦ = relay without 5M
................................3♥ = 5=3=3=2
................................3♠ = 5=3=2=3
................................3N = 5=2=3=3
........................3♥ = 5H
........................3♠ = invitational
................3♦ = 2=2=3=6 (with 633K, show the better tripleton)
................3♥ = 2=3=2=6
................3♠ = 3=2=2=6
................3N = 2=2=2=7
........3♣ = to play opposite clubs, but intends to play at least 3♠ if opener has spades (or to drop him in 3♦)
................Pass = clubs
................3♦ = 5S332

[johnu]

BBO forum historians: Is this a record for oldest necro thread? 17 1/2 years

[PrecisionL]

In two of my partnerships / systems I play 2M = 5 or 6cds and 10-14 with no void or singleton.

Partner is allowed to correct to his suit with a singleton or void in the opener's suit since opener promises 2cd or better support for all unbid suits. A 2NT response is GI or better asking for number of losers (which corrects for a 6cd suit). Have had good success playing this in pairs or KOs. Thus, a weak 2 of a major is now (sometimes) opened as a one bid or a 3-bid.

[nullve]

dworkin, on 2020-December-17, 10:52, said:

Since I wish to open at the two-level the major weak two-bids, the Wilkosz types and the minimum opening bids with six clubs or five clubs and a four-card major, I am unable to sneak in both the weak notrumps with five spades and the weak notrumps with five hearts.

Idea:

Either:

1)

1M-1♠/1N; 2M = 11-13, 5M(332)*

and

2♥ = like a standard 2M rebid over 1M-1♠/1N** (I think of this opening as "Intermediate Major Flash")

Or:

2)

1♥-1♠/N; 2♥ = 11-13, 5H(332)

and

2♥ = like a standard 2♥ rebid over 1♥-1♠/1N OR 11-13, 5S(332)**.

(2) seems more playable to me.)

* I've seen worse in some versions of Gazzilli.
** This is NOT a brown sticker if it promises 10+ Milton Work points.

Edit: There is a problem with the above when Opener has intermediate strength and 4(+)S6+H.

[dworkin]

If 2♥ should cover the minimum opening bids with six hearts and some spade hands, I would prefer:

2♥ = either 10-14 with 6 hearts or a weak two-bid in spades
2♠ = 10-14 with 6 spades
When responder has a fit for spades and a misfit for hearts, he would rather end into a 3-2 heart fit with less than half the deck.

But I would still prefer 1♠ and probably 3♣ to be unbalanced, to have opposite a weak two-bid in spades responder be able to raise immediately to 3♠ or 4♠, and to have opposite a weak notrump with spades the undisclosed hand declare at spades.


With hearts, I would suggest a kind of Kaplan Inversion/Granville:

1♥ = five or more hearts, 10-21, maybe 5332 if 11-13 (or a bad 14)
........1♠ = the equivalent of a one-notrump forcing answer, but may have four spades
................1N = clubs or diamonds
........................2♣ = to play in opener's minor
................................Pass = 11-15 with clubs
................................2♦ = 11-15 with diamonds
................................2♥ = 16+ with clubs
................................2♠ = 16+ with diamonds
........................2♦ = good preference to 2♥, 8+
........................2♥ = bad preference, 4-7
................2♣ = 4S
........................2♦ = 8+
........................2♥ = bad preference, 4-7
........................2♠ = bad preference, 4-7
................2♦ = 5332, 11-13
................................2♥ = to play
................................2♠ = 4=1=3=5
................................3♣ = 6C
................2♥ = 6H, 10-14 (may have 4m)
........1N = five spades
................2♣ = 5H4C, but not 10-14 with 1=5=3=4, or 2=5=3=3, 11-13. Forcing
........................2♦ = relay
................................2♥ = 5H4C, either 2=5=2=4 or strong
................................2♠ = 2=5=3=3, 11-13
................................3♣ = 5H5C, weak
................2♦ = 5H4D, or 10-14 with 1=5=3=4 (so that I end in a 3-3 minor fit with 5=1=3=4 opposite 1=5=3=4 rather than 5=1=4=3 opposite 2=5=3=3)
................2♥ = 6H, 10-14 (may have 4m)
................2♠ = minimum with 3S

[nullve]

dworkin, on 2020-December-18, 14:40, said:

If 2♥ should cover the minimum opening bids with six hearts and some spade hands, I would prefer:

2♥ = either 10-14 with 6 hearts or a weak two-bid in spades
2♠ = 10-14 with 6 spades
When responder has a fit for spades and a misfit for hearts, he would rather end into a 3-2 heart fit with less than half the deck.

But this would make 2♥ a brown sticker, a problem at least in my part of the world (Norway).

[nullve]

dworkin, on 2020-December-17, 10:52, said:

2♦ = either a heart weak two-bid or a Wilkosz type
[...]
2♠ = weak

I believe you can free up the 2♠ opening by playing 2♦ somewhat like I suggested in

https://www.bridgeba...after-multi-2d/,

but with 5+S5+H hands included (like in Wilkosz) and 5S3-OH4m hands excluded (unlike in some versions Garbage Multi).

For example,

2♦ = Weak 2M or Wilkosz
...2♥ = to play only opposite 6H3-S
......P = 6H3-S
......2♠ = 6S3-H or [as dworkin points out in the next post:] 5S5+O
......2N+ = 5H5+m
......E.g.:
......3m-1 = 5H5+m
...2♠ = to play only opposite 6S3-H
......P = 6S3-H
......2N+ = 5M5+m or 6 H
......E.g.:
......3m-1 = 5M5+m
.........3m = to play only opposite 5 S
............P = 5S5+m
............3♥(say) = 5H5+m
.........(...)
......3♦ = 5+S5+H
......3♥ = 6H3-S
...(...)
----

If the 2♦ opening works as well as I hope, then instead of

dworkin, on 2020-December-17, 10:52, said:

2♣ = five clubs and a four-card major, 11-14
2♦ = either a heart weak two-bid or a Wilkosz type
2♥ = a weak notrump with five spades or six clubs (could be 7222, 633K or 732K), 11-13 (with 14 HCP, open 1N)
2♠ = weak

maybe

2♣ = 11-13, either 5M(332) or 6C(322) [or even 6C(331), 2227 or 7C(321)?]
2♦ = WK 2M or Wilkosz
2M = 11-14, 4M5+C

?

This post has been edited by nullve: 2020-December-21, 11:17

[dworkin]

Yes, I got myself more than a bit carried away when I wrote that it was impossible to sneak in the weak notrumps with five hearts at the two-level. I am unsure it is worth it, because there is more room after a 1♥ opening than after a 1♠ opening, and because a natural 2♠ offers more possibilities of preemption. But I am also unsure it isn't worth it.

It also means that the pair has to play at the three-level when opener has a spade-minor Wilkosz if 2♠ shows a misfit for spades or that the pair has to play at the three-level when opener has both majors if 2♥ shows a misfit for either major and 2♠ shows a misfit for a spade-minor Wilkosz (I was unaware of the latter structure). (But if 2♥ shows merely a misfit for hearts, 2♠ by opener should cover all spade types IMO so that the defense doesn't know it has a fit for hearts.)

Opening 2♠ with a weak notrump with spades forces opener to be declarer in spades and prevents responder to play 2♥. So I think I prefer opening 2M with five clubs and a four-card major. I am afraid 2N has to be invitational opposite a four-point range, though Flannery seems to do without it, so 3♦ should ask for pattern and responder has to bid 2N also with long diamonds, praying for a maximum. So probably it would be better to open 1♣ with 14HCP, and play 2N forcing over 2M.

2♣ should then be a weak notrump with a five-card major or perhaps with six clubs (or 632K, 7222, 732K) but not with any 6331. I prefer to open as many minimum openings with six clubs at the three-level as possible. (If responder has two or more clubs, the LAW says there are sixteen or more total tricks unless the enemy has seven spades, seven hearts and seven diamonds, and the percentage action is to go as soon as possible to the three level, and you probably belong in clubs at a partial level anyway.) The main reason for lumping the weak notrumps with five spades and the weak notrumps with six clubs together in a 2♥ opening bid is to force overcaller either to bid now without knowing opener's suit or to give time to responder. A secondary reason is to allow responder to ask for shortness over a 3♣ opening bid. (Well, 3♥ after 3♣ 3♦ may be balanced or short in hearts.) and to get a slightly better picture of opener's hand if he is balanced.
In fact, 2♠ as a weak notrump seems too preemptive and 2♣ as a weak notrump with a five-card major or perhaps with six clubs seems not preemptive enough.

There is also the possibility of opening 2M as 10-14 with six cards, or even 2♠ as 10-14 with six spades or 10-14 with six clubs and less then three spades (six clubs and less than two spades?). Ending in a 2-2 (2-1?) spade fit could be more infrequent than unpleasant. But knowing that 1♠ is unbalanced seems more useful than knowing opener hasn't a minimum with six spades.

What bothers me more in my own structure is that 2♣ as 11-14 with five clubs and a four-card major seems too infrequent, though that's no reason not to open the minimum hands with six clubs and no four-card major at a higher level.

[nullve]

dworkin, on 2020-December-21, 08:50, said:

But if 2♥ shows merely a misfit for hearts, 2♠ by opener should cover all spade types IMO so that the defense doesn't know it has a fit for hearts.

Agreed! Corrected now.