[Chamaco]

Hi all!

I'd like to have comments on the following system choices for system changes with my teammates ! Thanks to anyone willò contribute !

We have decided to play a version of precision using weak NT, and plain standard 1D/2C precision openings, with 2H as 3-suited short in diam 11-15 and 2D as multi (weak 2 in a major or 4441 with 18-20hcp ).


Now we are working on the development of 1♥/♠ openings, which is the issue of this post.
I would like to play 2/1 absolutely GF, but guaranteeing 5 cards in the suit "à la Lawrence/Gitelman".
However, I love jacoby 2Nt (J2NT) as a conventional raise and I want to keep it;
and I want also to keep 3-level bids for other meanings (right now inverted Bergen, soon to be changed into fit-showing jumps reducing jacoby2NT to invitational+, and not necessarily GF), so I cannot use Fred's jumpshift structure in place of J2NT.

Therefore I do not have an ideal bid for a GF with a balanced hand (4432/4333) without 4 card support in the major.
The choice is:
1) bid 2♣ or 2♦ even when the suit is only 4 card long;
2) bid 2♦ always guaranteeing a 5 bagger, and 2♣ would be an ambiguous bid, which could be either balanced, or a 5 card suit in clubs, to be discovered at the next bid.

I like the second approach, and I would appreciate criticisms, comments, and I would like to know whether there is study material available on this second approach (2C as EITHER balanced or with clubs), either online or as book/articles I can purchase.

Thanks all!!!

[the hog]

Seeing as you are playing 2/1 as absolutely GF, you will obviously be playing a forcing NT to 1M
In this case, why not:
1M 1N
2? 3N = some 4432/4333 or bad 5 card m with 5332, always with less than 3 card support for opener.

Ron

[Fluffy]

I don´t think 1NT mayeb strong balanced suits the problem: rebid 3NT for ANY (a lot of options) balanced(what about 3-suiters) and a strenght of 12-18 or so... too innacurate for hands that are coming kinda often.

And also makes you unable to make a forcing raise to 2M.

I liek to play 2/1 4+ natural, that would be my solution, but if you really wanna play scientific try this:

1M-2♣ game forcing: balanced or 3-suiter, if you wanna play very very scientific try reading a bit of viking club realys, I think you could finish asking for specific Q at level 4.
1M-2♦ 5+ in ANY minor (or both)

añterantivelly using Ron´s idea you can use 2♣ only with 15+ balanced and 1NT+3NT with 12-14 bal.

[cwiggins]

What Ron suggests would get my vote: it's what I played for several years even though my 2/1 was not GF.

Note that playing this way means that 1NT must be 100% forcing, not semi-forcing. The good news is that this leads to gains two other ways. First, after 1M-1NT; 2x 2M, opponents frequently have a problem. If responder has a doubleton, he probably has at least 8 or 9 HCP (otherwise he would have passed originally). So when responder has this hand type and opponents balance, my partner and I sometimes find matchpoint doubles that other tables can't. But if responder has four card support (or three with distribution) for opener's major, the 1NT forcing could be almost any thirteen cards and not balancing may give away at least a part score and occasionally a game. The opponent in balancing seat may have a non-easy decision, which means they'll get it wrong sometimes. The second gain comes when opponents decide to jump in with marginal hands after 1M-1NT. If responder holds the balanced GF hand, a very cold bottom for the opponents may well be in the offing. I have a won a number of matchpoints and IMPs from this also.

If you do not want to do follow Ron's suggestion but want to stick with the two apporaches you mention, I would vote for approach 1 (2m shows 4+). Both approaches are playable. Berkowitz-Cohen use approach 1 (at least according to their convention card for Salt Lake City Olympics). Meckwell play 2C like your approach 2. But while approach 1 is well documented by both Lawrence and Hardy, documentation of approach 2 is rare. For something about as good as you're going to get, you could look at http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...wtopic=1409&hl=. (Note that the posting from Inquiry on November 11, 2003 has a reference to a previous thread about the same topic.) This description is not as complete as I would want. Even if it were complete, nowhere does it discuss how to adjust the responses if you are bidding inside a big club system. Given the absence of good, complete documentation for approach 2 inside a big club system, I would lean towards approach 1.

One more choice other than the two you offer: you might want to take a look at Hamman-Soloway's card for the 2003 Bermuda Bowl. Their methods are laid out fairly completely in their notes. http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...20+%20notes.pdf. Their 2♣ shows: "forcing to game (natural or 2/3 clubs), natural and invitational, or any three-card limit raise." Their responses cover the other situations you mention in your note. While Hamman-Soloway's 1H may be 4-cards, their responses seem playable as is with 5-card majors (or with trivial tweaks).

Chris

[mishovnbg]

Use ETM Victory structure, adopted by Ben. 2♣ is 3 way:
1. Natural GF - natural rebids
2. Inv+ with bal hand - 2NT/3NT rebids
3. Good raise to 2 level+ with 3 FIT - 2/3 FIT

It works very well with GF 2/1 structure and was posted here in forum by Ben.

Note: I didn't agree with any 2/1GF structure by the way and prefer inv bids+GF relay structure, simple because uncontested 2/1 GF auction is very rare and despite it is GF, it still have lot of nebulous sequences...

Misho

[Chamaco]

Thank you all very much for your answers so far !
Useful as usual !!

Now, let me try to explain better what is my plan for the 2/1 structure over 1M.

1) we intend to avoid artificial relay structures, at least at the beginning, for practical reasons; we are already messing up some strong club auctions, and that would be too much, both for me and my pards;

2) yet, I would like to base the developments on the sequences described by Lawrence in his 2/1 Workbook and subsequent "Uncontested auction quizbook".
One point I like of Lawrence's style is that you bid based on *concentration of honors* rather than distribution alone.
The differences would be:

• his 1M is not limited (no strong club); yet most of the examples he gives in his books refer to 12-15 hcp opening hands; and in his book he suggests as well that opener's reverses(usually 3-level bids or jumpbids) after a 2/1 can be purely distributional with good suits (this can apply also to Precision 1M openings);
  
• he uses 1M:2x as absolutely 5 cards (2NT is balanced GF). As explained above, since I plan to keep Jac2NT, in the structure I am planning, 2C would be either balanced or 5+ clubs.

3) After 1M:2C there is the only slight artificiality I am planning:
since usually, in Lawrence's 2/1, opener often rebids his suit (1M:2C:2M) only as a "waiting bid", as he does not have a suit to bid at thge 2 level, and he is not strong enough (or suits good enough) to bid 2NT or a suit at the 3-level;
In this case, after 2C, I have decided to switch the meanings of 2diamonds and the major rebid.Example:
1♠:2♣:?

2♦= waiting bid: I have a hand that would "normally" (e.g. in case of 1♠:2♦ or 1♠:2♥) rebid 2♠ (since it does not meet the requirements for a NT bid nor for introducing a new suit at the 2 or 3 level) but I do not want to waste bidding space before responder's hand is clearer (is he balanced or has he clubs ?); this way maybe responder will support me at the 2 level, or maybe I will raise his clubs.
This bid denies diamonds, since with diamonds opener would rebid 2M

2♥= natural

2♠= shows diamonds; this is the hand that would have bid 2 diamonds naturally but cannot because that is taken by the relay;
it is true we have lost the 2 level for exploration, but I prefer to lose the 2 level wity opener's hand quite clear (<16, 5 spades, 4 diamonds), rather than in the other approach when opener rebids 2♠ as a generic waiting bid (may have any hand that cannot bid no trump nor bid at the 3 level)

[mishovnbg]

Hi Chamaco!
Switching 2♦ and rebid of O suit is not bad idea. But if you play 2 way 2♣ response, critical is not ♦ suit, but support in ♣ suit with min hand, because ♣ is not sure long suit anymore. So better is rebid of O suit to show support in ♣ with min hand, instead of useless ♦.
Misho

[Trpltrbl]

You can either play 2♣ as GF with different types of hands and find out after some relays what pd has.
Or, my favorite ( for now ), use common sense and lie a little. Never about having 4 card support for pd, but maybe making a 2/1 response on a 3 card minor.
I think the hands that would include you to lie are very few and not worth the headache.
If you get more comfortable with you system, maybe you can add a 2♣ relaying system.

Mike

[Chamaco]

Thank you all !!

I appreciated all the comments !

After reading all the posts, I think that it is actually valuable to know that responder has a 5 bagger when he responds 2/1 in a minor (just as in Fred Gitelman's style: I think his article "Improving 2/1 GF" -http://www.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/2over1.html - describes the advantages of this approach better than any word I could say ).

Having said that, I really appreciated Mishovnbg suggestion of using 1M:2C:2D as a waiting bid (as was my original plan, in order not to waste valuable bidding space with the major rebid as waiting bid), but to use the major rebid 1M:2C:2M to show a hand that would support clubs if they were "real" (my original thought was to use this to show diamonds but as Misho pointed out, much more critical is the knowledge of the existence of a good club fit)


Thanks again !!!

Mauro