Do you play Lebensohl?
Well, consider this one. Use a diamond advance to a passed double of a club opening as "Lebensohl," also called a "Herbert Negative."
How would this work?
Consider the simplest auction. LHO opens 1♣ and partner doubles.
This double might typically show a three-suited hand with opening strength, of course, but "three-suited" is VERY flexible. This is not remotely the Min-Roman 4-4-4-1 with a 5-4-4-0 exception. "Three-Suited" means, in practice, anything with three cards in each suit, although the "other minor" is suspect even to that degree, with possible lop-sided "equal level conversion" holdings, and maybe as strange-looking as 4-3-3-3 with four cards in Opener's suit. How about range? If you are three-suited, the range is something your partner will not shoot you for up to 40 minus whatever Opener has. But, the bid also might not resemble this definition if partner has the "almost a strong 2♣ opener," the "just about a 2NT opener," or the "ACOL-style two-bid opener" variations of the double. So, he has some amorphous interesting hand.
Back to the auction. RHO passes.
This sequence creates a silly problem. Responder might have a hand worthy of a cuebid or a jump. If not, however, his range is somewhere between about a 9-count down to a 0 count with a sick three-card least-of-all-evils suit.
Using the Herbert Negative 1♦ bid, however, we now have some structure:
1♦ = weak, bust, run for the hills
1♥ = heart suit, values (maybe 5-8 or so)
1♠ = spades, values
1NT = normal
2♣ = normal
2♦ = diamonds, with values
This way, partner knows a little more about your hand in the event that either (1) he has strength and wants to know how to proceed or (2) Opener has strength but partner wants to know how to compete.
How about after a Precision 2♣ (11-15 with clubs)?
Same principle. 2♦ is the bust hand, making 2M show "values." This allows mild game tries without leaving the comfort of the two-level.
How about 3♣-X-P? Same thing, with a 3♦ "lebensohl" or "Herbert Negative" bid. Advancer can now distinguish between "three-please-don't-double-hearts," "three-wanna-try-four hearts," and "four-really-mean-it- hearts." That's better than "three-ugly-or-promising-you-guess-hearts" and "four-maybe-you-have-my-bid-hearts."
What after the relay? After 1/2/3♦ as "Herbert," partner is expected to usually bid 1/2/3♥ to allow you to pass/correct at the right spot. This forces us up one level when the contract should be a low-level diamond contract, but that loss is met by many gains.
A tweak might be for an immediate jump to diamonds (e.g., 1♣-X-P-2♦) to be weak, such that the non-jump (e.g., 1♣-X-P-1♦) shows either a weak hand OR a hand with promise and diamonds. Or, you might treat an immediate 1NT as a positive with diamonds and a delayed 1NT (through 1♦) as a positive without a suit. There are some merits to these treatments -- I'll leave anyone interested to decide.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Super Stayman?
The more I think about this, the more I like it.
My wife, who is a new player, quickly learned one of the core principles of bridge early. Gerber sucks. She hates Gerber. "Gerber is stupid!" Such a natural...
So, we ditched Gerber quickly. But, what should 1NT-P-4♣ show, then? Can't leave a bid without a meaning, after all.
Well, she also has this strange other rule -- 4NT is always Blackwood. I can live with that, I suppose. Blackwood has been tested over time. RKCB is too, well, Roman. As a former Catholic School Girl, which is a plus in some ways, she is not that keen on things Roman. Whatever. So, Blackwood it is.
But, this left no simple 4NT-as-natural-and-invitational, or "quantitative." She even laughed at that term -- "Quantitative." It is really a silly word. Why are other invitational bids not called "Quantitative?" 1NT is "quantitative" for that matter.
In any event, we needed a "slam invitational" bid. Her solution was that 4♣ was "Super Stayman," of sorts. Maybe "Baron," buts she's much too young to remember that name, and, being from Cleveland, much too power-of-the-people to have any positive reflection of title on her card. So, "Super Stayman" works.
How, precisely, does "Super Stayman" work?
4♣ shows slam interest. If Opener lacks slam interest, he bids an immediate 4NT. If he has slam interest, he bids 4-card suits up-the-line. If Opener rebids a suit (1NT-4♣-4♥-4NT-5♥), he promises a five-card suit. If Opener jumps in a suit (1NT-4♣-5♦), he promises a six-card suit. Opener can bid 5♣ with a five-card club suit and slam interest, or 5NT with 3-3-3-4 and a maximum, or 6♣ with six clubs.
Responder can reciprocate by introduction of suits herself. However, 4NT by either side, after initially showing slam interest, after a 4-level call (4♦, 4♥, or 4♠) is Blackwood (although you may use RKCB if that does not offend you as much). Opener can also do this, if he already showed slam interest (e.g., 1NT-4♣-4♥-4♠-4NT).
This works nicely. Notice how this also erases the need for 1NT-P-5NT as "Super Quantitative." She plays that as pick-a-minor-slam, which works fine also.
I like it. I mean, after years of thinking through cuebidding and asking bids and TAB's/CAB's and the like, maybe a lot can be learned from a newbie's simple observation that "Gerber is stupid."
Maybe she should run for office. "Bailouts are stupid" might turn out to be a winning idea...
My wife, who is a new player, quickly learned one of the core principles of bridge early. Gerber sucks. She hates Gerber. "Gerber is stupid!" Such a natural...
So, we ditched Gerber quickly. But, what should 1NT-P-4♣ show, then? Can't leave a bid without a meaning, after all.
Well, she also has this strange other rule -- 4NT is always Blackwood. I can live with that, I suppose. Blackwood has been tested over time. RKCB is too, well, Roman. As a former Catholic School Girl, which is a plus in some ways, she is not that keen on things Roman. Whatever. So, Blackwood it is.
But, this left no simple 4NT-as-natural-and-invitational, or "quantitative." She even laughed at that term -- "Quantitative." It is really a silly word. Why are other invitational bids not called "Quantitative?" 1NT is "quantitative" for that matter.
In any event, we needed a "slam invitational" bid. Her solution was that 4♣ was "Super Stayman," of sorts. Maybe "Baron," buts she's much too young to remember that name, and, being from Cleveland, much too power-of-the-people to have any positive reflection of title on her card. So, "Super Stayman" works.
How, precisely, does "Super Stayman" work?
4♣ shows slam interest. If Opener lacks slam interest, he bids an immediate 4NT. If he has slam interest, he bids 4-card suits up-the-line. If Opener rebids a suit (1NT-4♣-4♥-4NT-5♥), he promises a five-card suit. If Opener jumps in a suit (1NT-4♣-5♦), he promises a six-card suit. Opener can bid 5♣ with a five-card club suit and slam interest, or 5NT with 3-3-3-4 and a maximum, or 6♣ with six clubs.
Responder can reciprocate by introduction of suits herself. However, 4NT by either side, after initially showing slam interest, after a 4-level call (4♦, 4♥, or 4♠) is Blackwood (although you may use RKCB if that does not offend you as much). Opener can also do this, if he already showed slam interest (e.g., 1NT-4♣-4♥-4♠-4NT).
This works nicely. Notice how this also erases the need for 1NT-P-5NT as "Super Quantitative." She plays that as pick-a-minor-slam, which works fine also.
I like it. I mean, after years of thinking through cuebidding and asking bids and TAB's/CAB's and the like, maybe a lot can be learned from a newbie's simple observation that "Gerber is stupid."
Maybe she should run for office. "Bailouts are stupid" might turn out to be a winning idea...
Thursday, October 2, 2008
More on Michaels
I thought this would be met as imminently logical, but...
It seems to me that the #1 invitational bump after a Michaels bid for the majors and simple preference to hearts (e.g., 1♣-2♣-P-2♥-P-?) should be 2♠. Here's why:
1. If partner has a 2-2 yarb, he can pass.
2. Advancer can bid 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦ as a "try back" bid.
The main objection was "but that shows 6♠/5♥." Why? I mean, sure, it sounds like longer spades, if not discussed. But, then if you must have that meaning (rather than just having someone bid 4♦ eventually as choice), then perhaps make 3♥, the expensive bid, show that.
This also allows Advancer, with that 2-2 yarb, to always bid 2♥, smelling the likely bump, but saving the two-level. Eight tricks might be the limit, or worse. I recently played 4♥ (which was an overbid) with that 2-2 yarb, -500 (I should have settled for -400 rather than taking the insane line), where 2♠ would be -200 and a fair result. Actually, 2♠ makes, apparently.
I have no idea why this was resisted. It seems obviously superior.
It seems to me that the #1 invitational bump after a Michaels bid for the majors and simple preference to hearts (e.g., 1♣-2♣-P-2♥-P-?) should be 2♠. Here's why:
1. If partner has a 2-2 yarb, he can pass.
2. Advancer can bid 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦ as a "try back" bid.
The main objection was "but that shows 6♠/5♥." Why? I mean, sure, it sounds like longer spades, if not discussed. But, then if you must have that meaning (rather than just having someone bid 4♦ eventually as choice), then perhaps make 3♥, the expensive bid, show that.
This also allows Advancer, with that 2-2 yarb, to always bid 2♥, smelling the likely bump, but saving the two-level. Eight tricks might be the limit, or worse. I recently played 4♥ (which was an overbid) with that 2-2 yarb, -500 (I should have settled for -400 rather than taking the insane line), where 2♠ would be -200 and a fair result. Actually, 2♠ makes, apparently.
I have no idea why this was resisted. It seems obviously superior.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Duh!!!
After discussing general principles with a regular partner of mine, I realized something rather stupid.
My general rules had been that a leap to the five-level was Exclusion RKCB if I could be short in the suit but, if not, then RKCB for this suit. In other words, assume a cuebidding sequence where spades are trumps. 4NT would be RKCB for spades. Obvious. However, what is 5♣? In some situations, such as where I could be short in clubs, 5♣ would be defaulted as Exclusion RKCB. If, however, I am known to have length in that suit, then 5♣ would be RKCB, except that partner is expected to treat the King and Queen of clubs as the key cards and ignore his King and Queen of spades. This would typically make sense if, for example, we already know about the spade secondaries because of trump cues, or because I as the asker am looking at them.
My partner suggested another level to this general rule, one that made me say, "Duh!!!"
If partner has already denied, say, a club control, then what the heck would be the purpose of 5♣ as Exclusion RKCB? Similarly, if we have already shown all of the top three cards in clubs, or have denied these, then how can 5♣ be asking that question?
The rules should make more sense.
I still believe that the general defaults should apply. If, however, the normal default would make no sense, such as if the default would suggest Exclusion in a way where Exclusion would be stupid, and where RKCB in that suit would be illogical, then the bid should mean something different.
What precisely these should mean are worth considering.
It dawned upon me that one reasonable default is to look to the next suit up, using the "useful space" principle. Consider as an example a sequence where spades are agreed as trumps. Suppose that the normal defaults would suggest that 4NT is RKCB, 5♣ is RKCB (but answer club secondaries), 5♦ is Exclusion, and 5♥ is RKCB (but answer heart secondaries). If 5♣, however, would make no sense as RKCB for club secondaries (because Opener has denied the A/K/Q of clubs) or as Exclusion (for the same reason), then look one up. Bump the 5♦ meaning down on, to save space, such that 5♣ would be Exclusion now, but excluding diamonds. If that meaning also make no sense, bump down the meaning of 5♥ to make 5♣ be RKCB for the heart secondaries. If the 5♦ meaning is bumped down to 5♣, then the 5♦ call now would likewise grab hold and pull down the prior 5♥ meaning.
This might be a tad difficult, as then partner, if hearing a 5♥ call, would have to think through whether 5♦ or 5♣ would have made sense, and similarly you would have to assess the same thing before bidding the otherwise obvious 5♥. A safer technique might be to have an impossible ask (like 5♣) always flag the highest other option. How would this work?
Well, consider the example again. If 5♣ makes no sense under the existing defaults, then it shows the normal 5♥ meaning or, if that makes no sense either, the 5♦ meaning. This is safer for a few reasons. First, if you forget or do not realize that 5♣ would have worked, you bid your normal 5♥, risking only partner looking at you scornfully for forgetting that 5♣ would have worked just fine. If you bid 5♣, partner knows that this makes no sense and then knows to figure out what you really mean, according to the agreements. Plus, perhaps most importantly, the 5♦ call is unaffected, such that you do not have to think about the possible meanings for 5♣ as asker or answerer to a 5♦ call.
The second way is much safer. The first way technically seems to have more options, such as defining cleared bids at the top in new and creative ways.
My general rules had been that a leap to the five-level was Exclusion RKCB if I could be short in the suit but, if not, then RKCB for this suit. In other words, assume a cuebidding sequence where spades are trumps. 4NT would be RKCB for spades. Obvious. However, what is 5♣? In some situations, such as where I could be short in clubs, 5♣ would be defaulted as Exclusion RKCB. If, however, I am known to have length in that suit, then 5♣ would be RKCB, except that partner is expected to treat the King and Queen of clubs as the key cards and ignore his King and Queen of spades. This would typically make sense if, for example, we already know about the spade secondaries because of trump cues, or because I as the asker am looking at them.
My partner suggested another level to this general rule, one that made me say, "Duh!!!"
If partner has already denied, say, a club control, then what the heck would be the purpose of 5♣ as Exclusion RKCB? Similarly, if we have already shown all of the top three cards in clubs, or have denied these, then how can 5♣ be asking that question?
The rules should make more sense.
I still believe that the general defaults should apply. If, however, the normal default would make no sense, such as if the default would suggest Exclusion in a way where Exclusion would be stupid, and where RKCB in that suit would be illogical, then the bid should mean something different.
What precisely these should mean are worth considering.
It dawned upon me that one reasonable default is to look to the next suit up, using the "useful space" principle. Consider as an example a sequence where spades are agreed as trumps. Suppose that the normal defaults would suggest that 4NT is RKCB, 5♣ is RKCB (but answer club secondaries), 5♦ is Exclusion, and 5♥ is RKCB (but answer heart secondaries). If 5♣, however, would make no sense as RKCB for club secondaries (because Opener has denied the A/K/Q of clubs) or as Exclusion (for the same reason), then look one up. Bump the 5♦ meaning down on, to save space, such that 5♣ would be Exclusion now, but excluding diamonds. If that meaning also make no sense, bump down the meaning of 5♥ to make 5♣ be RKCB for the heart secondaries. If the 5♦ meaning is bumped down to 5♣, then the 5♦ call now would likewise grab hold and pull down the prior 5♥ meaning.
This might be a tad difficult, as then partner, if hearing a 5♥ call, would have to think through whether 5♦ or 5♣ would have made sense, and similarly you would have to assess the same thing before bidding the otherwise obvious 5♥. A safer technique might be to have an impossible ask (like 5♣) always flag the highest other option. How would this work?
Well, consider the example again. If 5♣ makes no sense under the existing defaults, then it shows the normal 5♥ meaning or, if that makes no sense either, the 5♦ meaning. This is safer for a few reasons. First, if you forget or do not realize that 5♣ would have worked, you bid your normal 5♥, risking only partner looking at you scornfully for forgetting that 5♣ would have worked just fine. If you bid 5♣, partner knows that this makes no sense and then knows to figure out what you really mean, according to the agreements. Plus, perhaps most importantly, the 5♦ call is unaffected, such that you do not have to think about the possible meanings for 5♣ as asker or answerer to a 5♦ call.
The second way is much safer. The first way technically seems to have more options, such as defining cleared bids at the top in new and creative ways.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Be Practical (Me?!?)
A discussion on BBF went unresolved, as each side took their view and stuck to it. For my part, I am firmly convinced, especially having run this by my regular partner and having read Fred Gitelman's agreement.
The situation, Part I:
Your partner opens 2♣, and you respond 2♦, played as waiting but GF. Partner rebids 3♦, presumably 6+ and very very strong.
What call would you make with something like ♠AJ10xx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Kxxx? (With a spade suit not good enough to make a positive response)
My view (shared by some in the debate) is that this calls for an immediate splinter (4♥) in support of diamonds. Sure, you might miss a spade fit. Sure, partner will not know that you have a trick source in spades. But, this is a critical situation to be practical. You have three controls, a stiff in hearts, and great diamond support. The question will be 6 or 7, not strain. With space at a premium, do not box yourself out of the ability to share incredibly good news.
Part II:
You, instead, have ♠Qxxxx ♥KQx ♦Jx ♣xxx, so you decide to show that spade suit, bidding 3♠. Partner bids 3NT. Now what?
At this point, the debate was between 4NT and 4♦. Obviously, with slammish values and a stiff diamond, 4NT is your call. Equally obvious is that 4♦ would be your call with three diamonds and, per force, a side doubleton. This hand is in the middle. Which way to go?
My view is that 4♦ is right. Partner is known to have a long diamond suit that lacks the Jack. Give him any number of possible diamond holdings, and he almost always will be primarily concerned about whether his suit will produce to maximum expectations. When partner is known to be huge, tell him what he needs to know. 4NT will sound like a stiff to him, which will assuredly be overly discouraging.
Also, when in doubt, opt the lower option -- you will have more space to explore options.
Part III:
So, you opt 4♦. What should happen next?
Presumably, partner will usually be able to cue 4♥. Let's assume that. What should Responder's calls mean?
IMO, 4♠ should show a spade control, not two top spades. This is a lopsided-strength sequence. Opener is not likely to be concerned about your spades to get to 12 tricks.
IMO, 4NT should (deny a spade control and) show poor trumps in this sequence. This would be a parallel to 3NT in a minor slam-probe.
IMO, 5♣ should (deny a spade control but show one of the top three diamonds and) show a club control.
Part IV:
So, you hear 4♥ and cue 4NT (no spade control, poor trump contribution). Opener cues 5♣? That should be last train, seeing if you have 5332 or 5233/5323.
You sign off.
The situation, Part I:
Your partner opens 2♣, and you respond 2♦, played as waiting but GF. Partner rebids 3♦, presumably 6+ and very very strong.
What call would you make with something like ♠AJ10xx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Kxxx? (With a spade suit not good enough to make a positive response)
My view (shared by some in the debate) is that this calls for an immediate splinter (4♥) in support of diamonds. Sure, you might miss a spade fit. Sure, partner will not know that you have a trick source in spades. But, this is a critical situation to be practical. You have three controls, a stiff in hearts, and great diamond support. The question will be 6 or 7, not strain. With space at a premium, do not box yourself out of the ability to share incredibly good news.
Part II:
You, instead, have ♠Qxxxx ♥KQx ♦Jx ♣xxx, so you decide to show that spade suit, bidding 3♠. Partner bids 3NT. Now what?
At this point, the debate was between 4NT and 4♦. Obviously, with slammish values and a stiff diamond, 4NT is your call. Equally obvious is that 4♦ would be your call with three diamonds and, per force, a side doubleton. This hand is in the middle. Which way to go?
My view is that 4♦ is right. Partner is known to have a long diamond suit that lacks the Jack. Give him any number of possible diamond holdings, and he almost always will be primarily concerned about whether his suit will produce to maximum expectations. When partner is known to be huge, tell him what he needs to know. 4NT will sound like a stiff to him, which will assuredly be overly discouraging.
Also, when in doubt, opt the lower option -- you will have more space to explore options.
Part III:
So, you opt 4♦. What should happen next?
Presumably, partner will usually be able to cue 4♥. Let's assume that. What should Responder's calls mean?
IMO, 4♠ should show a spade control, not two top spades. This is a lopsided-strength sequence. Opener is not likely to be concerned about your spades to get to 12 tricks.
IMO, 4NT should (deny a spade control and) show poor trumps in this sequence. This would be a parallel to 3NT in a minor slam-probe.
IMO, 5♣ should (deny a spade control but show one of the top three diamonds and) show a club control.
Part IV:
So, you hear 4♥ and cue 4NT (no spade control, poor trump contribution). Opener cues 5♣? That should be last train, seeing if you have 5332 or 5233/5323.
You sign off.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Funny hand from tonight -- would have been easy
I am not providing the hands or the actual auction, because the bidding was silly and the result absurd. Suffice it to say that the opponents ended up in 6NT doubled, missing three Aces.
However, the problem was intriguing. I'll give the patterns:
Opener: 3154
Responder: 5503
Assuming that Opener is strong enough to open a strong forcing 2♣ (standard), how is this pattern resolved (also assuming that Responder's majors are too weak to positive)?
This is not all that difficult if 2♣ tends to deny a four-card spade suit and 2♦ shows a hand with four spades (strong), with my methods.
2♣-P-2♦(waiting, GF)-P-
3♦(natural, no 4-card major)-P-3♥(five hearts)-P-
3♠(no heart fit, three spades)-P-4♠(or cue if stronger)
Easy. (Opener would have bid 2♠ with four hearts and a longer minor or 1-4-4-4.)
The actual problem faced by my opponents was a 4♦ overcall of 2♣. Now what?!?!?
This also is rather simple:
2♣-4♦-4♥-P-
4♠(spade fragment)-all pass
Now, maybe 4♥ is wrong, and maybe Opener should pass 4♥. But, you see the point. If Opener has four spades, he must be balanced, where he could pass 4♥. If he bids spades, then, he must have only three of them but unbalanced.
Neat, eh?
I liked 6NTX, though.
However, the problem was intriguing. I'll give the patterns:
Opener: 3154
Responder: 5503
Assuming that Opener is strong enough to open a strong forcing 2♣ (standard), how is this pattern resolved (also assuming that Responder's majors are too weak to positive)?
This is not all that difficult if 2♣ tends to deny a four-card spade suit and 2♦ shows a hand with four spades (strong), with my methods.
2♣-P-2♦(waiting, GF)-P-
3♦(natural, no 4-card major)-P-3♥(five hearts)-P-
3♠(no heart fit, three spades)-P-4♠(or cue if stronger)
Easy. (Opener would have bid 2♠ with four hearts and a longer minor or 1-4-4-4.)
The actual problem faced by my opponents was a 4♦ overcall of 2♣. Now what?!?!?
This also is rather simple:
2♣-4♦-4♥-P-
4♠(spade fragment)-all pass
Now, maybe 4♥ is wrong, and maybe Opener should pass 4♥. But, you see the point. If Opener has four spades, he must be balanced, where he could pass 4♥. If he bids spades, then, he must have only three of them but unbalanced.
Neat, eh?
I liked 6NTX, though.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Interesting Discussion Hands
From a discussion on BBF:
Opener: ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦KQJx ♣KQJx
Responder: ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣Axx
As you can see, agreeing spades, having Opener bid 4NT as RKCB, and getting "three" and then "with the Queen" makes bidding 7NT (13 top tricks if spades behave) easy. Add the spade Jack to Opener's hand if you want.
However, after a 2NT opening by Opener, this task is more difficult and resulted in the discussion.
My initial thought was that this is a good problem explaining why 3-card super-acceptances after a 2NT opening make sense, IMO. If Opener can set trumps immediately, such as with a 4♣ cue, Responder can reciprocate with a 4♦ cue and we are off, well-placed to bid this hand. The risk is in reaching 4♠ without much play, such as opposite trash on the outside and weaker spade honors. However, that risk seems somewhat worth taking, because of cramped space. After 1NT and a transfer, Responder might have options like three of the other major or a fake minor or a splinter to get things headed in the right direction. Nothing is available over 2NT below game if Opener does not super-accept.
An interesting alternative, or an additional tool if you will, was suggested by "pclayton" as from Meckwell, apparently per Walter Johnson, namely that a transfer followed by a five-level call by Responder is immediate RKCB answering. I assume that 3♥...5♣ would show a five-card spade suit with slam interest and 3 key cards, 5♦ then as a queen-ask, whereas 4♥...5♣ might be the same start but with six+ spades. Not sure. I'm also not sure precisely how Opener gets out at 5NT if that is right. Presumably 5NT is to play, whereas 6♣ might be the specific King ask.
This seems workable. It gives up on Exclusion, but that seems rare. Maybe Texas and then the five-level is Exclusion? Not sure what Meckwell does or what makes sense. I just found this idea interesting. I have used similar concepts myself in some sequences, and I have even found the usefulness of occasional calls that demand that partner ask. This seems like a good solution for a difficult problem.
Opener: ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦KQJx ♣KQJx
Responder: ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣Axx
As you can see, agreeing spades, having Opener bid 4NT as RKCB, and getting "three" and then "with the Queen" makes bidding 7NT (13 top tricks if spades behave) easy. Add the spade Jack to Opener's hand if you want.
However, after a 2NT opening by Opener, this task is more difficult and resulted in the discussion.
My initial thought was that this is a good problem explaining why 3-card super-acceptances after a 2NT opening make sense, IMO. If Opener can set trumps immediately, such as with a 4♣ cue, Responder can reciprocate with a 4♦ cue and we are off, well-placed to bid this hand. The risk is in reaching 4♠ without much play, such as opposite trash on the outside and weaker spade honors. However, that risk seems somewhat worth taking, because of cramped space. After 1NT and a transfer, Responder might have options like three of the other major or a fake minor or a splinter to get things headed in the right direction. Nothing is available over 2NT below game if Opener does not super-accept.
An interesting alternative, or an additional tool if you will, was suggested by "pclayton" as from Meckwell, apparently per Walter Johnson, namely that a transfer followed by a five-level call by Responder is immediate RKCB answering. I assume that 3♥...5♣ would show a five-card spade suit with slam interest and 3 key cards, 5♦ then as a queen-ask, whereas 4♥...5♣ might be the same start but with six+ spades. Not sure. I'm also not sure precisely how Opener gets out at 5NT if that is right. Presumably 5NT is to play, whereas 6♣ might be the specific King ask.
This seems workable. It gives up on Exclusion, but that seems rare. Maybe Texas and then the five-level is Exclusion? Not sure what Meckwell does or what makes sense. I just found this idea interesting. I have used similar concepts myself in some sequences, and I have even found the usefulness of occasional calls that demand that partner ask. This seems like a good solution for a difficult problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)