[dickiegera]

♠

---

At one time I use to play "RANGE" where 2♠ asked if NT was at the top of the 15-17 range for 1NT opener.
2Nt said no, 3♣ yes. 2 bidder could go from there.

If 2♠ bidder just wished to play club he would pass 3♣ bid or correct 2NT to 3♣

My question

How would a strong hand with ♣ bid this?

Also we then used 2NT over 1NT to show 5-5 minors weak or ♦

I forget how one would show if♦ were strong or weak

---

Any help would be GREAT

[Stephen Tu]

dickiegera, on 2020-December-23, 15:16, said:

How would a strong hand with ♣ bid this?

[Edited after smerriman pointed out my brain short circuit]
Strong hands with clubs would just bid something > 3♣. Meanings are dependent on rest of structure, but in the U.S. it's common for 3 of other suits to show shortness. 3nt would be a nf slam invite with a good club suit over 2nt, but just to play over 3c (then need 4nt to invite). 4c would be forcing setting clubs, some might also use it as minorwood, or optional RKC, up to partnership preferences. 4D could be kickback, higher bids exclusion.Structure depends on how good hands with 4 cd major and long clubs are typically bid. Some countries I gather they transfer to clubs then bid the major, which would then make showing shortness harder. In the U.S. typically these hands are shown by stayman followed by clubs if the major fit isn't found immediately, so 1nt-2s-?-3M! shows shortness rather than suit.

To show strong diamonds, start 2nt, then same principles (pass or bid 3d with weak, bid > 3d with strong). Maybe some difference of opinion of whether 1nt-2nt!-3d-3nt! should be similar meaning as over clubs (nf slam try), or specifically be a club splinter (but willing to play 3nt opposite significant wastage/good stoppers), weaker than 4c.

[smerriman]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-December-23, 16:49, said:

3nt would be a nf slam invite with a good club suit.

I would take 1NT - 2♠ - 2NT - 3NT to be a signoff, so that you can play in 3NT when others are in 4NT after a quantitative invite. (But nf slam invite over a 3♣ response makes sense).

[Stephen Tu]

smerriman, on 2020-December-23, 16:55, said:

I would take 1NT - 2♠ - 2NT - 3NT to be a signoff, so that you can play in 3NT when others are in 4NT after a quantitative invite. (But nf slam invite over a 3♣ response makes sense).

Oops, I wasn't thinking straight and forgot 2S was including the NT invite hands.

But you got this backwards.1nt-2s-3c-3nt is to play since this is basically is 1nt-2nt-3nt playing no conventions (opener accepted showing max, responder has the natural 1nt-2nt bid).

1nt-2s-2nt-3nt is the slam invite.

[smerriman]

Oops, yes, I should have said I would take *both* to be signoffs, with the former being a (rejected) quantitative invite (and not showing clubs).

[Zelandakh]

I personally like to play second round transfers after 2♠:-

1NT - 2♠
--
2NT = min
... - 3♣ = weak, nat
... - 3♦ = 4♥5+♣ SI
... - 3♥ = 4♠5+♣ SI
... - 3♠ = 5+♣5+♦ SI
... - 3NT = to play (typically a natural 4NT response)
3♣ = max
... - 3♦ = 4♥5+♣ SI
... - 3♥ = 4♠5+♣ SI
... - 3♠ = 5+♣5+♦ SI
... - 3NT = to play (typically a natural 2NT response)
--

A more popular scheme is for second round calls to show shortages in a one-suited slam hand:-

1NT - 2♠
--
2NT = min
... - 3♣ = weak, nat
... - 3♦ = 6+♣, 0-1♦ SI
... - 3♥ = 6+♣, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♣, 0-1♠ SI
... - 3NT = to play (typically a natural 4NT response)
3♣ = max
... - 3♦ = 6+♣, 0-1♦ SI
... - 3♥ = 6+♣, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♣, 0-1♠ SI
... - 3NT = to play (typically a natural 2NT response)
--

If you play 2NT as a diamond transfer, then 3M rebids will typically either show 4 cards in the bid major and longer diamonds or shortage and a one-suiter:-

1NT - 2NT
--
3♣ = ♣ > ♦
... - 3♦ = weak, nat
... - 3♥ = 4♥5+♦ SI
... - 3♠ = 4♠5+♦ SI
3♦ = ♦ > ♣
... - 3♥ = 6+♦, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♦, 0-1♠ SI
--

1NT - 2NT
--
3♣ = ♣ > ♦
... - 3♦ = weak, nat
... - 3♥ = 6+♦, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♦, 0-1♠ SI
... - 3NT = 6+♦, 0-1♣ slam try
... - 4♣ = 6+♦, 0-1♣ strong SI
3♦ = ♦ > ♣
... - 3♥ = 6+♦, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♦, 0-1♠ SI
... - 3NT = 6+♦, 0-1♣ slam try
... - 4♣ = 6+♦, 0-1♣ strong SI
--

How you play these sequences in the end depends on the rest of your structure, in particular where you decide to place your one-suited slam hands. There is generally a great deal of leeway in designing NT structures and these auctions are no exception to that.

[apollo1201]

We are considering adopting a 3C puppet with my partner as we realized we opened more and more hands with a 5-cd M with our strong 1NT. No harm so far, since we had a 5-4 fit we found back (!) but could have been less successful if we both had the same doubleton 5332 facing 3442 for instance.

2C would then be used only when we have inv values with 1 or 2 4-cd M, or GF and both M, or M and a longer minor worth mentioning if alternative contracts might exist (5m, 6 something) and we need space after the Stayman to discover.

So we need to ask min or max and 2S has to be it along with C hands. We plan to keep our current structure to show shortness:
- 3 oM for M shortness (we’ve played 4oM in 4-3 once and could even be 5-3 the good days if the occasion arises again), on these auctions we could be (13)45
- 3NT short D, no slam
- 4C slam inv no shortness - facultative BW for opener, with 4NT no go
- 4D slam inv with short D - same structure

55 minors GF are shown with 3D. The tweak with the 3C answer is that over it, we’ll need 3D to be either 55m or D shortness, since 3NT would be natural over 3C, 8-9 bal. I understand the desire to stop lower with a quant slam invite but I am not sure it is that useful, I’ve never went down so far, fwiw, in rejected invites.

We have the same structure over D: 3oM, 3NT, 4m and 4om.

That was my contribution to the OP 😃but I’d like to share further interrogations I have😅, from past hands I remember playing. Applogies Dickie for hijacking the thread.

Using 2NT for weak 55m (or D) is interesting.

I remember having that hand once, hesitating between passing or tossing which m to play, then deciding I would pass and balance if opps dont sell out at 1NT. It went 2S, pass, pass, 2NT that partner took as natural (7 pts and a stopper, probably what it should show), but I was rescued with a 3M balance by RHO, a 3NT balance by p (!!!), Xed, 4C (then she alerted and said oh well maybe he has minors🤣🤣), that I was allowed to play for -1, a good-ish save). Having the 2NT tool would probably have won the board quicker.

Nevertheless, the downside of these 2-way minor transfers is that you lose the minor super’accept (Hxx and other suits reasonably stopped with rather quick tricks so that partner with HHxxxx can try 3NT). And that proved useful...3 times in my bridge career.

Therefore I’m not sure what is best at the end.

Of course one can’t have it all, and it is probably a matter of frequency, and my experiences are not mathematical stats. What do you think?

Also, what is more useful for 3DHS with this « new » structure to answer « modern » NT openings? I know some play super strong M hands, either direct or with a transfer, some play some kind of M splinter with (13)(45) hands...

[Zelandakh]

apollo1201, on 2020-December-24, 03:50, said:

We are considering adopting a 3C puppet with my partner as we realized we opened more and more hands with a 5-cd M with our strong 1NT.

You might also look up the 2♣ Puppet structure that I have posted here a few times.

[JLilly]

Quote

1NT - 2NT
--
3♣ = ♣ > ♦
... - 3♦ = weak, nat
... - 3♥ = 6+♦, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♦, 0-1♠ SI
... - 3NT = 6+♦, 0-1♣ slam try
... - 4♣ = 6+♦, 0-1♣ strong SI
3♦ = ♦ > ♣
... - 3♥ = 6+♦, 0-1♥ SI
... - 3♠ = 6+♦, 0-1♠ SI
... - 3NT = 6+♦, 0-1♣ slam try
... - 4♣ = 6+♦, 0-1♣ strong SI
--

How you play these sequences in the end depends on the rest of your structure,. . .

Most people in my area (Northern California) who play four-way transfers, with or without 2♠ as "range ask or clubs", use acceptance of the 2NT->3♦ transfer to show Hxx (H=A,K,Q) or better. This way responder can make a light invitation to 3NT with HHxxxx and little else, which opener accepts with a diamond holding that will let responder's diamonds run for six tricks. So after 1NT-2NT; 3♦, 3NT = "I have HHxxxx, so we've got 3NT", and 4♣ is the sole slam invitation with club shortness.

[Zelandakh]

JLilly, on 2020-December-28, 18:45, said:

Most people in my area (Northern California) who play four-way transfers, with or without 2♠ as "range ask or clubs", use acceptance of the 2NT->3♦ transfer to show Hxx (H=A,K,Q) or better. This way responder can make a light invitation to 3NT with HHxxxx and little else, which opener accepts with a diamond holding that will let responder's diamonds run for six tricks. So after 1NT-2NT; 3♦, 3NT = "I have HHxxxx, so we've got 3NT", and 4♣ is the sole slam invitation with club shortness.

You can certainly do this if you are prepared to give up the "both minors, weak" hand from the 2NT response but I was assuming it was included there. The old (before 3C Puppet took hold) solution to this was to use a direct 3m response to show the one-suited invite hand and then have Opener make the decision on acceptance or not. In my Puppet scheme, I actually forego this specific hand type and in general it does seem to have gone out of fashion as you cannot show absolutely everything and there is good reason to regard this as one of the less important ones.

[awm]

Zelandakh, on 2020-December-28, 20:44, said:

You can certainly do this if you are prepared to give up the "both minors, weak" hand from the 2NT response but I was assuming it was included there. The old (before 3C Puppet took hold) solution to this was to use a direct 3m response to show the one-suited invite hand and then have Opener make the decision on acceptance or not. In my Puppet scheme, I actually forego this specific hand type and in general it does seem to have gone out of fashion as you cannot show absolutely everything and there is good reason to regard this as one of the less important ones.

You can still include both minors and weak. If opener bids 3♦ he has at least Hxx and you will be fine playing there. The only risk is that opener has worse than ♦Hxx and yet diamonds are still a better fit than clubs (basically 3+ diamonds with no honor and doubleton clubs.) This is possible but relatively rare, and it seems having the diamond invite (and also some help on diamond slam tries) is worth occasionally playing the wrong minor when responder has a weak 5-5.

[mvaatn]

This is my first time running into this convention and it sounds like a midtier that can not be played in club games. If it is allowed, it needs to be prealerted so the opponents know that they are playing it.

No one plays this convention which is why it should be prealerted.

[smerriman]

mvaatn, on 2023-June-29, 17:32, said:

No one plays this convention which is why it should be prealerted.

I assume you mean "at your club", which is fine, though I see no reason for a prealert when a normal alert will suffice. 2♠ as "range ask or clubs" is extremely common and pretty standard elsewhere (e.g. it's part of Bridge World Standard).

[mikeh]

mvaatn, on 2023-June-29, 17:32, said:

This is my first time running into this convention and it sounds like a midtier that can not be played in club games. If it is allowed, it needs to be prealerted so the opponents know that they are playing it.

No one plays this convention which is why it should be prealerted.

I suppose much depends on the bridge jurisdiction where you play

In ACBLand, it is definitely playable in any club game or higher and needs no pre-alert. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s ‘extremely common’ or even close to ‘standard’ amongst non-experts but many advanced players use it and, in my experience, a very substantial proportion of experts use it.

[Gilithin]

mvaatn, on 2023-June-29, 17:32, said:

No one plays this convention which is why it should be prealerted.

What "no one plays" is heavily dependant on both the level of the field and the location of the event. You probably do not know anyone that plays a 1♣ opening as "12-14 balanced, or 15-17 natural, or 18+ any hand" but travel to Poland and you will find this rather popular even at club/social level. Similarly, a simple Stayman auction like 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ might cause issues of you switch between North America and Central Europe - in one region Opener might have 4 spades and Responder has not necessarily made any promise about major length or strength, whereas in the other Opener has explicitly denied 4 spades and Responder has guaranteed a 4 card major with at least invitational values. Each considers their interpretation to be normal.
Regulation is a tricky area but if you require a pre-alert to something this simple, there are going to be pairs playing very standard systems who will have to spend 10 minutes every round explaining their methods. If Nige were still here, he would for sure have a few words to share on the matter...

[bluenikki]

Gilithin, on 2023-June-30, 02:45, said:

What "no one plays" is heavily dependant on both the level of the field and the location of the event. You probably do not know anyone that plays a 1♣ opening as "12-14 balanced, or 15-17 natural, or 18+ any hand" but travel to Poland and you will find this rather popular even at club/social level. Similarly, a simple Stayman auction like 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ might cause issues of you switch between North America and Central Europe - in one region Opener might have 4 spades and Responder has not necessarily made any promise about major length or strength, whereas in the other Opener has explicitly denied 4 spades and Responder has guaranteed a 4 card major with at least invitational values. Each considers their interpretation to be normal.
Regulation is a tricky area but if you require a pre-alert to something this simple, there are going to be pairs playing very standard systems who will have to spend 10 minutes every round explaining their methods. If Nige were still here, he would for sure have a few words to share on the matter...

Much as I hate to admit it, I can see the case for pre-alert.

If the 2♠ bid shows a 6+ minor, doubling to suggest competition in spades is low risk. If it could be a balanced 8-count, the risk is not low at all.

People don't always ask for an explanation when there is an alert. (On the other hand, to reply to the alert with "asks for size" is bad ethics.)

[Gilithin]

bluenikki, on 2023-June-30, 08:47, said:

Much as I hate to admit it, I can see the case for pre-alert.

If the 2♠ bid shows a 6+ minor, doubling to suggest competition in spades is low risk. If it could be a balanced 8-count, the risk is not low at all.

People don't always ask for an explanation when there is an alert. (On the other hand, to reply to the alert with "asks for size" is bad ethics.)

So your case for a pre-alert is that some players might not give full disclosure after a normal alert? If you are doubling an alerted 2♠ response without asking under the assumption that it is always weak you are going to be disappointed a lot. Even in this case, Responder could have had a balanced 8 count; they just did not have to, which is why the explanation is unsatisfactory. What you are supposed to do is describe what a call shows rather than what it asks, so "a NT invite or a weak hand with a long minor" and add on any additional possible hand types. But how many pairs actually do this consistently? There are few players who do not describe Stayman as "asks about 4 card majors" or the like, or 2X (weak) - 2NT as an ask of whatever type, or for that matter RKCB as an ask about certain cards.
The second of these, in particular, is one that comes up often in Laws threads after it has been psyched. And those 2 case are more or less identical. Some jurisdictions seem to think that this is acceptable and that players have to protect themselves; whereas others have issues rulings that if 2NT can be weak, this has to be stated explicitly. I prefer the full disclosure route but a TD has to rule according to their local regulations. Last I heard the ACBL was in the "protect yourself" camp for Ogust/Feature asks that can be weak. If so, then you probably have to live with this; but it was some years back so maybe it is different now.

[mycroft]

Pre-Alerts: "1NT-2♣ might (but only rarely is) an attempt to play in 2♦." "Our 1NT overcall is for takeout" "Our jump shifts are fit-based, LR." "our preempts are more aggressive than yours" (I can skip that if I know the players or they're under 50?) "our 1m opening are usually sound" "We play non-Serious 3NT" ... where do you want me to stop?

But of course all of your advanced conventions and treatments are "normal" and don't require a pre-alert, even if they're Bergen, or 2NT rebid not promising a major after Stayman (that doesn't seem to require an Alert either; well, okay, it's a Delayed Alert from partner</sarcasm>), or RKCGerber, or 2♣-2♦; 4NT keycard for Diamonds, or...

Yes, poor disclosure is a problem (in fact, there's a whole other thread about poor disclosure of this exact agreement going on right now). But it doesn't get fixed by requiring them to announce something that "never" comes up (once or twice a month?) every round.

There's this attitude around - from the baseline players right up to experts - that "you play it differently than we expect, it has to be a Pre-Alert", but also that "well, that's what everybody (we play with) expects, it's obvious, why do we even have to mention it?" And that just isn't the way Alerts (especially Pre-Alerts) work.

Specifically in the ACBL, the following - only - have to be Pre-Alerted:

• Any system that includes at least one 1-level Opening Bid that is not Natural or that is Forcing.
  
• Any canape system.
  
• Playing different systems depending on seat or vulnerability. (It is not considered a different system if the only change is No Trump Range (and responses) or Opening Bid strength.)
  
• Additionally, you must inform the opponents about any Artificial Opening Preempts below 3NT.

That is, basic system issues that will come up basically every round that will impact understanding of standard auctions. (I will admit, I am surprised that 1NT opening ranges outside of 15-18 don't count as "basic system issues". But they're not, so we don't, unless we're playing known newer players. "we lump a weak call into our invitation, that sometimes other people forget (or even 'forget') to mention" definitely doesn't fit this bill.

[bluenikki]

"So your case for a pre-alert ...."

I didn't say it was _my_ case. I said there _is_ a case.

[Gilithin]

bluenikki, on 2023-June-30, 19:31, said:

"So your case for a pre-alert ...."

I didn't say it was _my_ case. I said there _is_ a case.

In the same way that there _is_ a case for racism and sexism?