[gwnn]

2C=(11)12-16, 6+C or 5C4M. See poll question. BTW I know some people play transfers, how do they work? When does opener accept? When does he superaccept?

We had two hands with mgoetze the other day where we both bid 2M:

1.
xx
ATxxx
KQxx
xx

2.
AQxxxx
xxx
xxx
x

How would you bid these hands in your favourite 2C system?

[Oof Arted]

I play 2 ♣ as 11-15 Either Bad 6 card suit or Good 5 card suit NO 4 card Major W

We use 1 ♦ as the catch all for either ♦ or 4 Majors or 11-12 NT

[WellSpyder]

In my case, "something else" = NF but constructive, 5+. c8-10 HCPs in principle, but occasionally shaded on the downside...

[gwnn]

awm argued a while ago that the problem with 5+, NF but constructive is that partner doesn't know what to do with a singleton in my suit (5-1 fits make you sad) or a max with a doubleton (you can miss a game easy). That's why we discarded 5+ NF from the start.

[awm]

You're a bit stuck because of the definition of 2c. Assuming that you'd like to avoid 5-1 fits where you hold roughly half the high cards, you almost have to play 2M as NF and potentially "correcting the partial" without a real invite. Of course you also have no way to bid invitational 5M hands...

I think you either have to accept some dumb partials, or bid 2d on invites with 5M and accept that you miss a lot of 5-3 fits, or play 2c as 6+. Or you can try transfers, but my experience was that this gets complicated fast and also leaves you without good methods on balanced hands or slam hands.

[MickyB]

Consider playing 2H = spades and 2S = hearts. This must be better than playing 2M as natural and forcing.

[mgoetze]

Oof Arted, on 2012-April-23, 08:17, said:

I play 2 ♣ as 11-15 Either Bad 6 card suit or Good 5 card suit NO 4 card Major W

We use 1 ♦ as the catch all for either ♦ or 4 Majors or 11-12 NT

Yes, that's good for you. We are playing a different system, so if you'd like to comment on OUR system then you are in the right place.

[mgoetze]

Research indicates everyone plays 5+ NF. WJ 2005 is 5+ NF, Balicki-Zmudzinski Polish Club is 5+ NF, Rigal Precision is 5+ NF, Viking Club is 5+ NF.

[gwnn]

How can they make it work? Or do they just hope they get it right at the table or better still, that the 2C openers won't come up that often?

[straube]

I want 2C to promise 6.

Without that, I'd vote 2M as nf constructive

[Zelandakh]

I am one of those that plays transfers over a 2♣ opening that includes the 5♣4M hands. In my case the opening is 10-14 but I don't think it makes much difference - more than a 5 point range starts to get unwieldy though. The way I play the transfers Opener accepts with 0-2 cards in the suit and "super-accepts" with any 3-4. This gives some Law safety to weak hands that are just trying to take out into 2M. Some system data:-

2♦ = 4+ hearts, either a weak hand with long hearts or INV+
... - 2♥ = 0-2 hearts
... - ... - 2♠ = 4+ spades, F1
... - ... - 2NT = nat, INV
... - ... - 3♣ = nat, INV
... - ... - 3♦ = art GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 6+ hearts, INV
... - 2♠ = 3 hearts, 4 spades
... - 2NT = 3 hearts, 0-3 spades, min
... - 3♣ = 3 hearts, 0-3 spades, max
... - 3♦ = 4 hearts, min
... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, max
2♥ = 4+ spades, either a weak hand with long spades or INV+
... - 2♠ = 0-2 spades
... - ... - 2NT = nat, INV
... - ... - 3♣ = nat, INV
... - ... - 3♦ = art GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ hearts, INV
... - ... - 3♠ = 6+ spades, INV
... - 2NT = 3 spades, min
... - 3♣ = 3 spades, max
... - 3♦ = 4 spades, min
... - 3♥ = undefined (play it as 4 spades and mid-range if you like)
... - 3♠ = 4 spades, max
2♠ = no major, INV+
2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV
3/4♣ = weak, nat
3♦ = weak, nat
3♥ = slam try with long diamonds
3♠ = slam try with club support

The most unusual thing about this structure is that with both majors you usually have to start with 2♦ even if spades are longer. The exceptions are 5-5 and 5-4 invitational hands, the former is bid by 2♥ followed by 3♥ and the latter by an immediate 2NT response. With GF hands you can start with 2♦ followed by 2♠ and show your 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. Obviously there's some stuff you just need to learn here but I don't think it is as complicated as Adam was suggesting. Alot of the time you know immediately what you needed to. I feel quite strongly that this approach is significantly better than standard Precision. If you do not like it and want to play a system with relays then I would suggest looking into Meckwell and Viking Club first and seeing how you like that style. Personally, if I could not play transfer responses I would change the system.

On the sample hands, the first begins with 2♦. If partner responds 2♥ (0-2 hearts) then we can just about make a natural 2NT invite - if we did not feel strong enough to invite then best just to leave it in 2♣. If partner has a fit then obviously we are looking for 4♥. With the second hand the first response is 2♥. If partner responds 2♠ (0-2 spades) then we leave it there; if partner shows a fit then we should be ok at the 3 level.

The first hand shows quite well, I think, why increasing the range is so bad. You only have one invite range here so you are not only making bidding less accurate but also playing many more (unnecessary) 2NT and 3♣ contracts with a bigger range. Even 5 points is awkward sometimes. The second hand, as well as similar hands that are also weaker, show one of the advantages of transfers. With these weak hands with a long major you often have to leave it in 2♣ when playing 2♦ as a relay. Transfers give you the ability to make the weak take-out with an elemant of safety and without messing up your constructive bidding. On the other side, knowing partner has a 4 card fit for you in addition to 5 clubs can (very) occasionally allow you to bid 4M based on shape where other systems are left in a part-score.

The down side of transfers is that you give up on relays, which hurts your slam bidding quite a lot, and that there is more to remember. The latter is somewhat mitigated if you can make the responses mirror your 1NT structure. I doubt you can ever make slam bidding as good as pure relay-based methods though, you just hope that standard methods such as splinters and RKCB will get you to the right spot more often than not. Overall I think transfers are better since I prefer better game bidding over slam bidding. The stronger the 2♣ opening the more important are the slams though.

[mgoetze]

Yes Zel, we had already dug up your scheme with even more detail. http://www.bridgebas...r-2c-structure/

I just drafted an entirely different transfer scheme

2♦ = weak with (5)6 hearts or INV+ with 4+ hearts (may have 4 spades)
... - 2♥ = 2-3 hearts
... - ... - 2♠ = Forcing, 4 spades (need to think about responses to this)
... - ... - 2NT = Invitational (accept = 3♥ with 3, 3NT with 2)
... - ... - 3♣ = Sign-off (basically a hand that was only interested in game with a nice double fit - but perhaps Opener can bid 3NT with supermax?)
... - ... - 3♦ = Edit: GF Checkback, may also be 5-5 with diamonds.
... - ... - 3♥ = Invitational with (5)6 hearts
... - 2♠ = heart shortness, 4 spades
... - 2NT = heart shortness, no 4 spades, max
... - 3♣ = heart shortness, no spades, min
... - 3♦ = 4 hearts, diamond shortness, max
... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, min
... - 3♠ = 4 hearts, spade shortness, max
... - 4♥ = 2425 max
2♥ = weak with 5(6) spades or INV+ with 4+ spades (denies 4 hearts unless GF with 5+ spades)
... - 2♠ = 2-3 spades
... - ... - 2NT = Invitational (accept = 3♠ with 3, 3NT with 2)
... - ... - 3♣ = Sign-off (as above)
... - ... - 3♦ = Edit: GF checkback, may also be 5-5 with diamonds.
... - ... - 3♥ = NAT GF
... - 2NT = spade shortness, max,
... - 3X = etc. as above.
2♠ = Invitational reverse flannery
... - 2N = min, no fit, diamond stopper
... - 3♣ = min, no fit, no diamond stopper
... - 3♦ = max, no fit, no diamond stopper
... - 3♥ = min, 4 hearts, not 3 spades
... - 3♠ = max, 4 spades (forcing)
.,. - 3NT = max, no fit, diamond stopper
... - 4♠ = max, 3 spades
2NT = Invitational
... - 3♣ = min, unsuitable for NT
... - 3X = max, shortness
3♣ = light fit-based invite, then bid stoppers up the line
3♦ = NAT GF
3M = splinter
3NT = to play
4♣ = PRE
4R = Texas

As you can see we apparently disagree on several points.

Comments?

[wclass___]

gwnn, on 2012-April-23, 09:36, said:

awm argued a while ago that the problem with 5+, NF but constructive is that partner doesn't know what to do with a singleton in my suit (5-1 fits make you sad) or a max with a doubleton (you can miss a game easy). That's why we discarded 5+ NF from the start.

It seems like there are quite a lot of people who have psychological problems with 5-1 fits.

AFIK 5♣1M min is auto pass; 6♣1M min is usually 3 ♣; any max = bid again.

Also i have observed people have pretty bad hand selection for 2M...

[Zelandakh]

You are right, there is a lot more detail on the other thread. It looks like a copy-paste out of my system document and then re-formatted for BBF. Unfortunately I do not have that at work so I just gave the basics.

Some of the things you have in your scheme are things which I have tried. The splinters seem like a good idea but it hurts your slamm bidding for a minor a lot - that was why I gave up on them and switched to the specialised 3M responses. I notice that you have taken my idea of using a bid for an invitational hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. Using 2♠ for this has the advantage of allowing you to stop in 2♠ but the disadvantage of reducing the number of hand types that can be shown. There is another disadvantage too - when Opener has a minimum with 3 spades they will pass but sometimes a fit is all Responder needs for game. The main things you end up missing out on are a sign-off in diamonds and a weak raise to 3♣. You can probably survive without these so I am not worried - the lack of a slam try in clubs is a bigger problem.

The main difference is in when the red suit transfers are completed though. The issue I have with your method is that we are forced to 3M when Responder has a weak hand one-suited hand and Opener has a misfit. I think this is going to be a big loser. Where your method is good is on constructive auctions. Here your 0-1/2-3/4 division ought to make life easy. Essentially what I am saying is that if you play this method you should probably drop the weak hands and just play the transfers as primarily constructive. Naturally that means getting stuck in 2♣ occasionally when it is wrong but your constructive auctions will not be too far behind Standard players. And you only have to come close to breaking even on 2♣ opening hands to have major gains elsewhere in the system.

In summary, what I am saying is that while I prefer my method (surprise?!) I think what you have should be playable. With your 12-16 range it also makes sense to aim your response structure somewhat more constructively than mine. I also strongly suspect you will find either transfer structure much easier to play in practise than the more traditional 2♦ relay methods. As always with things like this, it is beneficial to try each method out over a wide variety of hands and see which you feel more comfortable with.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2012-April-24, 08:21, said:

The main things you end up missing out on are a sign-off in diamonds and a weak raise to 3♣. You can probably survive without these so I am not worried - the lack of a slam try in clubs is a bigger problem.

Hm, a slam try with no splinter and no 4 card major? So like 2245 shape? I think I can live with not having a bid for that.

I also don't see much use for a sign-off in 3♦, and would rather give myself a shot at finding 22-23 HCP 3NTs than having a somewhat feeble preemptive raise to 3♣ available (and besides with a 4cM and a good club fit I can just psyche 2R instead), but these are just preferences about which hand types one considers important (and the correct answer might differ between 10-15 and 12-16 as you pointed out).

Quote

The main difference is in when the red suit transfers are completed though. The issue I have with your method is that we are forced to 3M when Responder has a weak hand one-suited hand and Opener has a misfit.

Not necessarily. If responder has club tolerance we can still play 3♣. Sometimes we will be better off playing 3♣ even without club tolerance. And if responder is 3-6 in majors we can get out in a nice Moysian 2♠.

Quote

I think this is going to be a big loser. Where your method is good is on constructive auctions. Here your 0-1/2-3/4 division ought to make life easy. Essentially what I am saying is that if you play this method you should probably drop the weak hands and just play the transfers as primarily constructive.

Or perhaps just give up on weak hands with 6M and 0-1 clubs but try our luck with 2-3 clubs.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-24, 08:41, said:

Or perhaps just give up on weak hands with 6M and 0-1 clubs but try our luck with 2-3 clubs.

Yep, that would work. The other aspects are more differences in style/opinion than anything and I do not see any problem with the choices you are making. The next stage is to test it out fully and see if you find any unexpected system holes. As I said before, I am confident you will find this sort of structure easier to handle than the traditional one.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2012-April-24, 08:21, said:

I notice that you have taken my idea of using a bid for an invitational hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. Using 2♠ for this has the advantage of allowing you to stop in 2♠ but the disadvantage of reducing the number of hand types that can be shown.

Another comment on this: In your scheme, when opener declines the invite, responder decides unilaterally whether we play 2NT or 3♣. In my scheme opener decides. I think when responder shows a balanced invite without a 4 card major, opener is better placed to decide whether 2NT or 3♣ will be better.

Showing more hand types via a 2♠ range ask is work, whereas getting the chance to stop in 2♠ on the RF invite is a low-hanging fruit.

[mgoetze]

Testing reveals the first hole... when I transfer and opener completes, I can't currently distinguish between a GF with 4 of the major and a GF with 5 of the major.

Edit: I have come up with a truly wonderful solution which just barely fits in this margin. 3♦ is a GF checkback, may or may not contain 5+ diamonds.

[benlessard]

IMO old style precision is fine its the classic response structure that really sucks. Ive said it many time I much prefer that my 1D show 4 +2C show 5 VS 1D show 2+2C show 6.

What i like best is

2M inv with 4 or 5, partner need 3 to pass (everytime your inv with a M and a club fit you can safely bid 2M with 4,5,6 knowing that you wont play there if partner doesnt have 3 or is maximum.

2D multi inv (Everytime you want to play 2M no matter what partner hold in your major) Over 2D opener bid the inv he rejected (pass or correct style, ex 2S means that hes super accepting H but rejecting a S inv, this is useful when your inv with 5/5 in tyhe majors)


4-3 fits tend to play rather well when the hand with 3 trumps has some shortness, if they lead trumps then the 5th clubs come to life. IMO im sure that we score better in 2M in 4-3 than 2Nt. Its not perfect for slam, but slams not based on a club fit are rather rare.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-24, 11:14, said:

Edit: I have come up with a truly wonderful solution which just barely fits in this margin. 3♦ is a GF checkback, may or may not contain 5+ diamonds.

This was my original solution for this too. I even wrote it in this thread without thinking - it is still the most logical use for the bid to me. However I found in testing exactly the opposite, that this almost never came up and having a bid to show diamonds was more useful. While looking at this I also noticed that you are using 2♣ - 2♥; 2♠ - 3♥ as natural and GF. So I have a question from that - how do you show an invitational major 2-suiter? It looks like you have to start 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ but I guess you need some kind of coded follow-ups to make this work now as there are quite a lot of hand types to sort out (from both sides) and very little space to work with.

Oh, and another hand type to check which I see might be a problem is one that wants to play 3NT with suitable stoppers and clubs otherwise, say 4135 opposite 12hcp and 3253 or 3244 with a small doubleton heart. Or would you respond 3♦ with these? If so then how about 3235? There ought to be some sensible way of choosing between 3NT and 5♣ here I think.