[beatrix45]

Recently heard some players reverse the meaning of the 1♠ and 1NT responses to 1♥ opening bid playing a forcing NT response bidding structure. It allows opener to rebid 1NT to play with a balanced minimum.

1. Is this a good system in your opinion?

2. What are its strengths and weaknesses?

3. Does one need to play Flannery using it?

4. Assuming you like it, how would you advise playing it? What does responder need in spades for a 1NT bid, and how should opener carry on?

5. Do you know of any high level pairs who use it?

6. Is it legal in ACBL pairs events?

[mikestar]

1) A fine system.

2) It eliminates the sometimes horrible 1H-1N auctions when opener has 4 spades but not enough strength for 2S--no need to figure out what the heck to do with 4-5-2-2. You can sometimes play in 1NT. No real weakness except that a new/inexperienced partnership may have memory problems.

3) No need for Flannery whatever--the Flannery hands open 1H and have no rebid problems.

4) There are several ways of playing it. My favorite is to have 1N show 5+ spades and bid 1S on 0-4 spades. Over 1N, opener can raise spades freely on three. Over 1S, all rebids are the same as over 1N forcing, but 1S shows four spades and not enough values for 2S.

5) Don't know any off the top of my head but it would suprise me if there weren't.

6) Unfortunately for us in ACBL land, this is no longer GCC legal (it once was). For high level events it is Mid Chart legal.

On the context of Precison, I've had good luck using similar response to 1D: 1H=relay (ususally weak), 1S=hearts, 1N=spades. This was never GCC legal.

[Walddk]

beatrix45, on May 12 2005, 12:01 AM, said:

Recently heard some players reverse the meaning of the 1♠ and 1NT responses to 1♥ opening bid playing a forcing NT response bidding structure.  It allows opener to rebid 1NT to play with a balanced minimum. 

1. Is this a good system in your opinion?

2. What are its strengths and weaknesses?

3. Does one need to play Flannery using it?

4. Assuming you like it, how would you advise playing it?  What does responder need in spades for a 1NT bid, and how should opener carry on?

5. Do you know of any high level pairs who use it?

6. Is it legal in ACBL pairs events?

1. Yes.

2. 1NT is played by the "strong" hand. So is a spade contract of course. It's a big advantage to bid a major when you are not going to play there. I don't see any weaknesses.

3. Don't understand the question (the F-word is taboo in my world).

4. 4+ spades and 6+ hcp. Opener proceeds as if responder bid a natural 1♠. 1NT is of course forcing for one round since the hand is unlimited.

5. Dorthe and Peter Schaltz of Denmark among others. I don't think many outside DK know that this gadget was invented by Peter Schaltz and is known as the "Schaltz Relay" in Denmark.

6. I don't know, but I would be surprised if it was. Restrictions are popular in ACBL-land. I will, nice as I am, refrain from commenting on that topic.

Roland

[Chamaco]

beatrix45, on May 12 2005, 05:01 AM, said:

Recently heard some players reverse the meaning of the 1♠ and 1NT responses to 1♥ opening bid playing a forcing NT response bidding structure.  It allows opener to rebid 1NT to play with a balanced minimum. 

1. Is this a good system in your opinion?

2. What are its strengths and weaknesses?

3. Does one need to play Flannery using it?

4. Assuming you like it, how would you advise playing it?  What does responder need in spades for a 1NT bid, and how should opener carry on?

5. Do you know of any high level pairs who use it?

6. Is it legal in ACBL pairs events?

Trixi, the method you refer to is similar to "Kaplan Inversion", although in KI opener rebids 1NT NOT with a balanced minimum, but with 4 spades, to cater for a potential 4-4 fit and to avoid having to bid a 2-card minor or rebid a 5.bagger.


--------------------------------------

1. yes

2. 1H:1S denies 5+ spades , may have 4 spades (opener will rebid 1NT if he hols 4 spades). 1H:1NT = 5+ spades.
One of the advantages is when opps preempt and opener has a 3 card raise in spades.
If bidding, natural, went 1H-(p)-1S-(3D)-?, now opener with 3 card support often faces an awkward choice, unless he is fond of Moysians.

Another advantage is that opener avoids a weird rebid over 1NT forcing if he holds 4-5-2-2 (the dreaded flannery hand).

Kxxx-AQxxx-Kx-xx
If you open 1H and pard responds 1NT forcing, then you have a tough problem: you can't reverse to 2S, you cannot rebid H (it promises - with no exception - a 6 bagger), you should bid a 3+ card minor, but you have none...
Many people would rebid 2C here, but I doubt they are happy of this choice...

If instead using kaplan Inversion, the same hand is easy:
1H-1S(forcing, less than 5 spades)
1NT(=4 spades).
Now the bidding can either proceed on a natural basis, or use further relays (2C) if you are a relay-addict.

3. Indeed, the use of Kaplan Inversion reduces greatly the rebid problems for Flannery-type hands, so that the 2D opener can be used more effectivley for anything else but Flannery.

4. "Classical" Kaplan Inversion uses 1H-1S-1NT to show 4 spades by opener, and 1H-1S-2m can be a 3 card minor (as in std 1NT forcing).
If playing Gazzilli, you can further reverse te meaning of opener's rebid (Buratti-Lanzarotti play something like this):
1H-1S-?
-1NT ="Gazzilli" relay, either with strng hand OR minimum opener with 3+ clubs
-2C = 4 spades
- other bids natural as if you were responding to 1NT forcing

If using Gazzilli, you can use the 1H-1S-2NT sequence to show 64 by opener with a minimum hand in hcp but good shape (say 5-5.5 losers)

5. Buratti-Lanzarotti use some sort of Kaplan inversion, although they use 1H-1S and 1H-1NT to discriminate not length of spades but hcp range.

6. Some people here on the BBF wrote that KI is not allowed in ACBL events.

[Gerben42]

1. As everyone seems to be so happy with this convention let me add to the happiness and say that I also really really like it.

2. There is one drawback. Opponents can show their spades more easily after the 1♠ = 0-4 ♠ bid. On other tables the auction would go 1♥ - 1NT, here they have one step more.

3. F-what?

4. I have seen two response schemes.
a ) 1NT = 4♠, rest natural
b ) 1NT = 4♣ or balanced, 2♣ = 4♦, 2♦ = 6♥, 2♥ = 4♠

I suspect the second scheme might be better.

5. As for top players, here in Germany there are some pairs in the 1st Bundesliga (which is the top league) that play it. As for internationals, I am sure I have seen it on some of the CC's in my database but I would have to look for it.

6. Others said "Midchart". I guess that must be the standard in any club worth playing in, right? If not, start a new club.

[Chamaco]

Gerben42, on May 12 2005, 08:44 AM, said:

There is one drawback. Opponents can show their spades more easily after the 1♠ = 0-4 ♠ bid. On other tables the auction would go 1♥ - 1NT, here they have one step more.

This can be tricky also for opps.

If they use the double of 1H-(p)-1S as showing spades, they do not have it available for power hands, usually balanced.

That means that, if you use 1S forcing with very wide-range (from yarborough to GF with 4 spades), you can steal much more often because opps power hands (which cannot double right away showing spades) will have to take action at the 2 level, very risky if responder is indeed not broke. :-)

I tend to respond 1S forcing or 1NT forcing VERY light when NV (expect when I smell total misfit), but we play a strong club, so 1M openings are limited and if I respond with a bust, I expect pard to take off only when he has distribution (so it still works as a preempt).

In this view, if responder strength can be so wide ranging, it seems more productive for opps to use the double of 1S forcing or 1NT forcing as "power double" (showing immediately values, "in-quick, out-quick"!!) rather than shapeshowing or lead directing double.

Entirely different, IMO, is the matter if responder guarantees constructive values, and opps use sound opening bids: n this case, sticking in with good balanced hands can spell misfortune, so I suppose it is beter to reserve the bids for distributional hands (e.g. use double of 1S as showing spades)

[PriorKnowledge]

Kaplan Inversion or Kaplan Interchange
1S = 6-11, 0-4 spades
1N = 6+, 5+ spades
Opener rebids over 1S as if over 1N except 1N rebid = 12-14 with 4 spades

Alternate rebid style is transfers as Gerben42 showed.

Transfer rebid style works best with alternate KI:
1S = 6-11, 0-4 spades OR 12+, 5+ spades
1N = 6-11, 5+ spades

[PriorKnowledge]

Add a little Walsh, some anti-Bart, an alternate Jacoby, multi-2D & multi-2C, and pretty soon you'll be playing expert 2/1

[Free]

Seems fine

[whereagles]

Jlall, on May 12 2005, 02:59 PM, said:

Great convention. Should be standard.

I was skeptical about it in the beginning, but now I realize it's quite good a gadget.

[pigpenz]

The other day playing 2/1 had the following hand:

♠AXX
♥X
♦XXX
♣KQJXXX

partner opened 1♥ pass i bid 1♠ temporizing...
left hand opp doubled and partner redoubled...i bid 2♣

even passing the redouble was correct on this hand. Max Hardy's old book on five card majors western sytle always advocated this temporizing bid...gives you chance to play 1NT.

[luis]

1. Is this a good system in your opinion?

I think it is

2. What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Strengths: The obvious ones, better rebids after opening 1♥, etc,
Weaknesses: Pd tends to forget it, and they double 1♠ with spades and compete more often.

3. Does one need to play Flannery using it?

What is Flannery?

4. Assuming you like it, how would you advise playing it? What does responder need in spades for a 1NT bid, and how should opener carry on?

Naturally.

[awm]

I played a version of this convention (which is also called Granville) for quite some time. It's definitely an improvement over playing 1♠ natural (with natural followups) and 1NT forcing. However, I've recently switched to playing a different structure, which uses 1NT as a nonforcing bid. A few thoughts on this:

(1) The auction 1♥-1♠ is one of the worst in standard bidding. The main issue is that both hands are effectively unlimited. This requires one or both to make frequent artificial "temporizing" bids just to express values. After inverting 1♠/1NT, you still pretty much have the same problems in the auction 1♥-1NT. Of course, you haven't lost anything on those hands (in fact you gain a little because responder shows five cards)...

(2) There is some advantage to nonforcing 1NT, especially at matchpoints.

Anyways, I'm currently playing 1NT nonforcing, and 1♠ showing 4+ where opener rebids:

1NT = 3+♦, will be either 4+♦ or 2533 exactly.
2♣ = natural
2♦ = good raise of spades (sort of like a 2.5 spade bid)
2♥ = natural
2♠ = bad raise of spades

If opener rebids 1NT/2♣ then we have the lowest suit bid available as an artificial checkback. This eliminates the problems in more standard bidding from 1♥-(whatever shows spades)-2♦ where the 4th suit is at the three level. We use 4th suit invitational and direct jump forcing here. We also gain the distinction between good/bad raises of spades. And we get to play 1NT with pretty high frequency when it's right. Notice that such a fix would be much more difficult if playing Kaplan Inversion, since there isn't as much space over 1♥-1NT.

Anyways, my feeling is that under the assumption that you want to play forcing notrump, this is a great convention with very little downside. But forcing notrump isn't my favorite convention...

[beatrix45]

Thank you, thank you, thank all of you for your expert and perceptive replies. I have decided to make this convention standard (for those who want to play it) in my Thursday morning rubber bridge game (ten cents a point - Canadian). We will see for ourselves how well it works out.

As far as it not being allowed in duplicate pairs games goes, the EH SEE BEE ELL can kiss my patootie. Nelda says that goes DOUBLE for her.

[Fluffy]

-Is it good?

I like it.

-Advantages?

It does let you play 1NT when opener is balanced more often, adn you are more likelly willing to play 1NT when opener has a 'forcing NT' response, than when he has a 1♠ response.

It has nothign to do with Flannery.


-Any good pair?

I know Goded-Lantaron, but I guess you don't know them :-P.

Quote

5. Dorthe and Peter Schaltz of Denmark among others. I don't think many outside DK know that this gadget was invented by Peter Schaltz and is known as the "Schaltz Relay" in Denmark.

Everything I heard untill now was that it came form Brazil, but I guess you should know better Roland.

[microcap]

The Biggest problem is remembering the darn thing! If Rex had a nickel for everytime I forgot to switch the responses, he wouldn't have to be such a tightwad! LOLL

[luke warm]

mikestar, on May 11 2005, 11:22 PM, said:

3) No need for Flannery whatever--the Flannery hands open 1H and have no rebid problems.

while i don't hold the general hatred for flannery, neither do i see that this convention (as described) does much to solve this problem... from what i've seen, 1H : 1S can show from 0 to 4 spades... how is opener better placed? now if it was 0 to 3 spades, and if 1NT showed 4+, it makes more sense to me

[WrecksVee]

Jay aka Microcap and I (Rex) play that 1♥-1NT = 0-4 ♠ and 5-12 hcp; Opener rebids 1NT to show 4+ ♠ in a hand too weak to reverse. As we play a no so weak 13-16 NT we jump to 2NT with 17-18 after 1♥-1♠. So for us this treatment eliminates all rebidding problems as we have no need to ever bid a three or (ugh) two card suit.

We play that 1♥-1NT shows 5+ ♠ and any strenght OR 4♠ and 13+ hcp.

Sadly this is not allowed by ACBL in most local events. So we have to fall back on regular methods when playing in face-to face events.