[jillybean]

WasWinM, on 2025-June-22, 12:03, said:

It’s only powerful with fitting hands opposite.

Of course but isn't that is the value of these distributional hands? If we find a fit, this hand is huge.
If partner can't respond, or shows a minimum, non fit, I'm not bidding again.

[DavidKok]

To me no option appeals, though some are worse than others. Here are my thoughts for this hand, in no particular order, before drawing a conclusion:

• The hand is too weak for an opening. If we open and partner has a misfit - say a long minor, or both minors - we'll have no real way to slow down and might be in a terrible spot. Partner could also double something if the opponents interfere, expecting (much) more defence on our side. The hand has a lot of playing strength in spades or hearts, but almost none in NT, diamonds, clubs or on defence. Furthermore, the lighter we open, the more probable it is that partner has extra values and creeps up on that awkward 12-13 HCP range where we'll force to game but are entirely reliant on a major suit fit to land in a playable contract.
  
• I hate passing with this much shape. The first strike is half the battle, and the director put us in first. Shape hands show, balanced hands ask. Even the vulnerability is good (enough). This is a two-bid hand - we want to convey that we have spades, hearts and a high offence but low defence hand. That's the sort of thing that is very difficult to show in a single bid, but possibly doable in two bids. If we begin by passing we're voluntarily opting to delay our description. On general principles I don't like that.
  
• My system has no bid for this hand. I do not play any preempt showing both majors (or even a preempt showing a two-suited hand which may contain both majors). Even those who do play two-suited preempts don't show 6-5, though some people have two-suited 5-5 preempts which would be a great way to describe most of this hand. In conclusion, any bid is going to be a misdescription of my hand. This argues for pass, and I might be able to show both majors next round (e.g. with a Michaels/Ghestem style bid, or some people insist this is a negative inference of preempting on the second round only). As mentioned we have the majors, so we might have less trouble entering the auction than we might have had with any other suit combination. However, in general I do not like this approach.

Between the above there are several mediocre options - nothing appeals. In particular, I am thinking of pass, 1♠, 2♠(/2♦ multi), 4♠ and possibly a gadget showing a two-suited preempt. Of this set I prefer... 2♠. My plan is to bid again, a rare exception to the rule that after a preempt we still our tongue. On 2♠-2NT (opponents silent) I intend to rebid 4♥ to show a 6-5. If partner does not make a strong bid I will choose next round whether to voluntarily bid 3♥ or to conceal the hearts.
My choice is risky - if partner has short spades we may well miss a huge heart fit. Bidding twice in competition is also risky, giving the opponents two chances to double us (though keep in mind that if partner raises spades they only get the one!). On the flip side, I get to share my offensive and defensive strength, my primary suit, and have the opportunity to tell partner about my secondary suit on some but not all continuations of the auction. I also get a chance to stay low on a misfit or partial misfit deal, as I'm not committed to rebidding 3♥ on all competitive auctions. On balance I think 2♠ is the most profitable way to show this hand.

Most partnerships have an agreement that opening a weak 2 with a side 4 card major is taboo, let alone a side 5 card major. Personally I'd be OK with making such an agreement - I think it's slightly worse than the converse, but 6-5 hands are so rare that the peace of mind of the partnership may be more valuable. With such partnership agreements I'd pass here, which I think is better than 1♠. The chance that poor partner punishes us for opening light, by which I really mean we're punishing partner for opening so light that it falls outside my opening expectatations, is high.

The multi 2♦ option would not appeal as much to me as a natural 2♠, though I (currently) don't play multi. I think that using 2♦-2♠ as a positive bid for hearts is a wasteful idea - it is too rare, and leaks too much information as well. Without this tool the benefit of being flexible with your major drastically drops. More importantly though, how good are your agreements to get out in 3♣ after 2♦ Multi (I assume the agreements for getting out in 2♦ are rock solid), or to find your best major fit when both opener and responder have only mild suit length disparity in the majors? You also lose the ability to show both suits on the second round, should you so desire. Personally I think the multi has more downsides than upsides compared to a natural weak 2 on this deal, and that that happens quite often.

jillybean, on 2025-June-22, 13:01, said:

Of course but isn't that is the value of these distributional hands? If we find a fit, this hand is huge.
If partner can't respond, or shows a minimum, non fit, I'm not bidding again.

I'm sympathetic towards this, but the concern isn't that partner is weak or can't act. The concern is that partner can and does act, with a fistful of wasted values and length opposite our shortage. Now we wish we hadn't shown opening strength which was based on distribution. Also as a little cherry on top: if partner is weak, I'd prefer to take away an extra level of bidding space from the opponents.

[fred]

I like to play a 3NT opening shows a hand like this (a preempt with at least 6-5 in the majors - obviously, as with all preempts, the vulnerability matters).

I invented (or, more likely, unknowingly reinvented) this convention about 25 years ago.

Doesn't come up very often of course, but it seemed to work better than any of the alternatives for 3NT openings that I have tried over the years. Admittedly it is hard to be objective about such things and I certainly have not made any real effort to keep track of the results.

You need to play reasonable methods over this for it to be workable. If anyone is interested, I will post what we came up with. I might not be able to do so immediately as I am in the middle of playing in a serious tournament.

It is a fun convention to play which, for me at least, is a nice plus

[jillybean]

Hi Fred, thanks. Please share your methods when you get a chance, I'm all for fun conventions.
Good luck in the tournament.

[shyams]

fred, on 2025-June-22, 15:28, said:

I like to play a 3NT opening shows a hand like this (a preempt with at least 6-5 in the majors - obviously, as with all preempts, the vulnerability matters).

I invented (or, more likely, unknowingly reinvented) this convention about 25 years ago.

Doesn't come up very often of course, but it seemed to work better than any of the alternatives for 3NT openings that I have tried over the years. Admittedly it is hard to be objective about such things and I certainly have not made any real effort to keep track of the results.

You need to play reasonable methods over this for it to be workable. If anyone is interested, I will post what we came up with. I might not be able to do so immediately as I am in the middle of playing in a serious tournament.

It is a fun convention to play which, for me at least, is a nice plus

I remembered that Fred had posted about this 3NT agreement some years ago. So I searched and found this
https://www.bridgeba...__1#entry403051

Wow, that was almost 15 years ago. I believe I was a (mostly) silent reader of BBF during those days.

Thank you, Fred.

[fred]

Here is what I played over the 3NT opening. For sure it could be improved or at least extended, but it didn't come up often enough to warrant a serious memory load (at least the way I think of things).

Responses to 3NT:

- 4M=To play
- 4D=Ask for 6-card major (opener is usually 6-5 as opposed to 6-6 and responder is often 3-3 or 2-2)
- 4C=Opener must bid 4D, then 4M is a natural but non-forcing slam try

There were also 3 ways to bid 3 different kinds of RKCB:

- Direct 4NT over 3NT is RKCB for hearts
- 4C->4D then 4NT is RKCB for spades (I used slow=spades as a memory aid)
- 4D followed by step 1 (4S over 4H, 4NT over 4S) is RKCB for both majors (6 keycards). Easy to remember since 4D suggests playability in both majors so 4S or 4NT next is RKCB for both majors.

No doubt there is a better response schedule available than traditional RKCB 0314 or 1430 given that responder can't really hold 3 keycards (would open 1M, not 3NT). I never really gave any thought as to how to optimize this (IMO was not worth the effort to remember whatever it would end up being given the extreme rarity of such sequences).

[jillybean]

Thanks. It is good to have a method to bid these rare hands. Do you have any more fun, simple methods that you would be willing to share?
I hope the tournament went well European Open is going well (embarrassed grin)
94 teams in the mixed teams! The team names are very creative and highly amusing.

[paulg]

When I'm an NPC I try to forbid sitting out pairs from watching BBO Vugraph, as it tends to mean that you are not really sitting out but playing the boards in front of you - perhaps I'd have to introduce a rule about reading BBO Forums although it is clearly better than watching bridge when you are supposed to be resting

Fred is currently playing in the European Open championships in Poznan - the results microsite is at http://db.eurobridge...ite/Results.htm

His team, Full Deck, is currently a little down approaching half-time in the Round of 32 of the Mixed Teams - however they had an excellent second half of the Swiss to qualify and a lot of bridge still to be played. BBO is covering four tables.

[fred]

jillybean, on 2025-June-23, 05:22, said:

Thanks. It is good to have a method to bid these rare hands. Do you have any more fun, simple methods that you would be willing to share?
I hope the tournament went well.

The main inspiration for 3NT=majors was that you need to use the 3NT opening for *something* (or never open 3NT which seems silly). I wasn't happy when any of the alternatives I had heard of so I decided to make up a new one. I started with this premise:

Whatever a 3NT opening means (at least in 1st/2nd seat), it should suggest a hand for which 3NT is very unlikely to be the correct contract and for which a 4-level contract will usually be playable (possibly as a sacrifice).

A hand with limited HCPs and a lot of cards in the majors seemed to fit the bill.

In general I am not a big believer in going out of my way to find bids to describe obscure hands, unless the methods are trivial (for me) to remember and don't give up on anything I consider to be more important. That is mostly a function of learning (the hard way) that all players have a limit to how much they can deal with in terms of system.

If your system is too complicated (for you) then I guarantee that your results will suffer badly - you will frequently forget your system and your card play and judgment will significantly deteriorate.

I have mostly played Precision for the last 10 years or so (not that I have played much during that time) so most of the semi-recent work I have done bidding-wise has been in a strong club context.

But I will try to come up with some more food for thought and post if I think of anything (though probably not until early July when I get home).

[mw64ahw]

I just open 2♠ and if I get 2N in response the 65 can be shown
3♣ some splinter or (62)(32) max
..3♦ <Describe?>
.... 4♦ 65(20)
This one stops at 2♠

[jillybean]

fred, on 2025-June-23, 07:51, said:

If your system is too complicated (for you) then I guarantee that your results will suffer badly - you will frequently forget your system and your card play and judgment will significantly deteriorate.

Yes, I've had a few miserable 30-40% games with my 2x month partner trying to learn twalsh and unbalanced diamond. That's been put on hold until I have the time and capacity to take it on.
10-13nt is fun enough for now.

[WasWinM]

Just a mention and nothing more but to those who open have you considered that partner’s penalty doubles are made with non-fitting hands. How good is this hand without a fit?

[jillybean]

This hand is awful in defense without a fit, but now I don't have to open these 1M

Who would believe, I played at the club today and picked up this hand. Before the game, I mentioned Fred's methods but alas, my partner didn't want to take it on.
But with this hand, 1♠ looked ok

---

[akwoo]

I would open the original hand in my Precision partnership, but in that partnership the responding hand isn't a game force.

The new hand I'm opening in almost all my partnerships or with a pickup.

[fred]

jillybean, on 2025-June-23, 17:12, said:

This hand is awful in defense without a fit, but now I don't have to open these 1M

Who would believe, I played at the club today and picked up this hand. Before the game, I mentioned Fred's methods but alas, my partner didn't want to take it on.
But with this hand, 1♠ looked ok

---

For me this hand is a comfortable 1S opening. It is not appropriate for the 3NT opening for 2 reasons:

1) Enough working HCPs to open at the 1-level.
2) Suit quality disparity is too great. For example, you probably want to play in spades if partner has 3 hearts and 2 spades so a 3NT opening will often get you to the wrong suit.

With the original hand, if 3NT is unavailable, my style is to Pass (even playing Precision) on the theory that the hand is easier to describe that way. My 2nd choice would be 2S with the intention of bidding again, but I almost never do that. I do not like 1S, but I am somewhat of a dinosaur about such things.

100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. My guess is that most modern experts playing Precision would open 1S, but there would be no consensus among modern experts playing natural methods. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong.

[TMorris]

the second hand is an easy 1♠ for me also.

[jillybean]

Yes, it's important to understand the difference in these hands.

---

---