Notes on variants or alternatives of agreements that have been considered, but we don't actually play
It's somewhat a negative not having a pre-emptive weak NT, specifically NV at matchpoints. Outside of that downside 16–18 just fits too well with the other system parts where we force all ~16–20 1♣ opening hands to be unbalanced as 1NT and 2NT handle 16–20 (semi)balanced hands. Hands tend be limited very quickly.
Mini NTs are a fun novelty but hard to construct over. When vulnerable, particularly at IMPs scoring there's too much risk of going for a penalty when defenders X to show 13+ points. When NV it's definitely safer, high frequency and pre-emptive. It also pre-empts partner though, so perhaps better played NV in 3rd position or white v.s. red only. The opponents will declare more often over a mini NT and shape/strength information has been given away. Having two systems for VUL and NV is possible but a chore.
Even some fairly basic stayman + transfer responses will go a long way. However, the 1NT and 2NT responses have been rewritten multiple times. There's many reasonable alternatives, all with their pros and cons. It's a common opening bid that should have some design thought, but complexity with regards rarer auctions is a danger.
The choices over 1NT are more focussed on being close to a current expert standard without too much added complexity. Things such as 2♥ garbage/rescue stayman after a 2♦ Stayman response and 2♠ as a natural 5 card invite. That in turn leads to transfers over transfers, without anything too complex. There's a lot of transfer break styles, but given all the space below 4♥♠ we don't need to reveal too much about openers hand in the break, just a rough min/max showing approach instead of showing good side suits or doubletons.
When playing 4 suit transfers, as we do, the difference between using 2♠ as a range ask or using 2♣ stayman non-promissory to do a NT invite whilst trying to avoid giving the opponents more informations has arguments either way. We can't use 2♠ as a game try based on ♣s, as it might just be a NT invite without ♣s. How bad that is compared to Stayman telling the opponents what 4 card major opener may have v.s. letting the 4th hand double 2♠ is unclear.
Using 2♣ as 5 card puppet stayman is an interesting alternative, which gives us the 3♣ bid back to use. Puppet stayman may better hide opener's major holding but show responders instead in a paradox auction such as 1NT–2♣–2♦–2♠ (showing ♥s).
Designing responses over 2NT is difficult. Opening 2NT is often a slam killer given the lack of space left. Transfer breaks are therefore more informative/revealing showing a side source of tricks and possibly done on 3 cards (with good controls, some doubleton and HHx 2/3 top honours support). There's so many response structures over 2NT, all with different flaws. Given the prevalence of opening 2NT with a 5 card major, committed partnerships often want to play some sort of modified puppet (muppet) 5 card stayman, but it's much easier just to play 4 card Stayman and Smolen (which maybe fine at IMPs where the +20 from a 5–3 major fit matters little). Nilsland's Scanian 2NT responses are good for many auctions at the cost of complexity. Our latest structure is based on the Revision club system. It does let us find all 5–3/3–5 major fits at the cost of not being able to sign off at the 3 level in a major. Compared to some muppet systems the 4♣♦ minor bids are often natural slam tries and not too complex. 2NT + muppet responses become very complex as you try to to support every type of responding hand and at the same time minimise information leakage. Even a basic muppet system has a lot of bids that have responder bid the other major or relay/retransfer somehow to make opener play the contract.
Having a natural 4+ 1♦ opening helps define some hand types more quickly and makes competitive inverted minor raises easier, though we'd often try to find a major fit anyway. Our 1NT range of 16–18 would make the weak NT variant of the 1♣ opening too wide ranging though, and the high 16–18 NT range is a central part of the system design that keeps the 1♣ opening unbalanced in the 16–20 range. The range 12–15 is too wide for the weak NT 1♣ opening, though some players don't mind a wider NT range - it seems suitable against weaker opponents only. Even if the 12–15 wider range is acceptable we prefer to be bidding most 11 hcp balanced hands for the same reasons as a weak NT. That naturally leads to a two tier weak NT scheme with 1♦ as 11–13 nebulous (not natural) and 1♣ as (13)–15.
Additionally, 1♦ cannot be 4+ cards natural unbalanced unless playing a 2♣ opening as possibly 5♣s and 4+ major which is difficult to construct over, hence we use a 6+ ♣s intermediate 2♣ opener.
Swapping the weak NT ranges around. This is somewhat arbitrary, two sides of the same coin, so may still be experimented with. 1♦ is more pre-emptive with the weaker hand, but with interference over 1♣ it could feel safer to pass with a flat 11–13 hand rather than a 13–15 hand that is close in values to the 16–20 unbalanced strong club range. The 11–13 hand feels no pressure to re-open and compete, but the 1♣ weak NT might want do with 5–3–3–2 and 15 hcp.
The pros and cons seem fairly balanced, though this hasn't been considered too deeply, mainly because most artificial club literature uses 5 card majors. Opening 1♥/♠ with a 4 card major will not miss a major fit if you open 4–4 majors with 1♥, but responder does play 1NT more often instead of the stronger opening hand. It is nicer to open a major instead of using a Precision 2♦ with 4–4–1–4 or similar. Promising a 5 card major is very valuable in competition though, and modern bidding involves lighter overcalls. Slam bidding maybe easier with 5 card majors as shape is shown quicker. Playing 4 card majors the 1♦ opening would still be nebulous, e.g. 3–3–2–5 shape. With an artificial club we don't get the benefit of natural systems where all suits are natural 4+ cards. I guess it's possible to play the 2♣ opening as possibly 5 cards whilst denying a 4 card major, so 5+♣–4+♦ hands can be bid more directly (5♣ + 4cM bid canapé style starting with 1♥/♠). Some have experimented with this but a 5–4–(3–1/2–2) with both minors bypassing 1NT and having less room for a 5–3/4–3 major fit finding is perhaps suboptimal, though maybe gains back by preempting the opponent's of a cheap 1♥♠ overcall.
Note, very little evidence that 2/1 GF vs NF (weak) matters when playing a forcing NT. The old-fashioned ~9/10+ NF invitational style is equally unlikely to make much difference. There is some comfort though in knowing that we don't have to push the bidding high to force to game and can focus on slam finding when playing 2/1 GF. The difficulty with standard 2/1 GF is how opener shows extras, but that's easier with club systems due to limited openings (though can still be challeging after 1M with 11–15 when not playing either an intermediate 2HS opening or a Gazilli variant). Conventions like the serious 3NT and last train can convey extras at a later stage.
We play 2/1 GF over a major opening. The major rebid is then shape showing, 6+ cards "Bergen" style, which deviates from the catchall minimum strength showing "Lawrence" rebid style that the Revision club system uses. 3NT will be serious after agreeing a major following 2/1 GF.
A 2♥♠ bid could be played as a weak jump shift (with some suit quality standards and not always preempting if have a side suit). It is often played as weak/invitational with 5♠s 4/5♥s in strong club systems. Even if 1♦–1♠–2♣ denies 3♠s, we could have a maximum ~14–15 4–4–4–1 and so with a possible ♥ fit which can't be found opposite a limited hand as 2♥ is then FSF, and so the 5♠s 4♥s responses help here. 1♦–1♠–2♦ as natural is not relevant if playing an intermediate 2♦ opening, so there is less need there to get the different strengths of 5♠s 4/5♥s hands in quickly.
A different style is to avoid 3 card raises after 1♦–1♥♠ and also to avoid bidding 1NT without an actual (semi)balanced hand. These restrictions may lead to bidding 2♣ on 3 card ♣ suits. Our style is to often prefer a 3 card raise with a side singleton and also to bid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit.
Our agreements include 1♦–1♥♠–2♦ as a "better" raise (distributional minimum raise / 3 card maximum raise) - better than 2♥♠, which is usually 4 cards balanced or sometimes a minimum 3 card raise and a side singleton that doesn't want to bid 1NT. In normal precision systems this is usually 6+ ♦s and ~11–13, but we use the intermediate 2♦ opening. This would all be complicated if we decided to open 1♦ with 6♦–4♠, where the theory is we might miss a tight ♠ game by opening 2♦ including 4♠s. A 4 card ♥ suit has the same problem, but shutting out the opponent's ♠ overcall with an opening 2♦ compensates more than shutting out a ♥ overcall does.
Maximum hands with 5♦s + 4♥s can also be awkward after 1♦–1♠. Some styles bid 2♥ with 6–5 or a 5–4 maximum though it can push you too high. Our style is to open a 5–4–2–2 14–15 hcp hand with 1♣ weak strong, whilst 5–4–3–1 with 3 card support can use the special 2♦ "better" raise. Finally, bidding 1NT with 14–15 and a singleton in partner's suit is not too much of distortion due to the misfit.
Starting 1♦–1♥–2NT/3♦/3♥ + 1♦–1♠–2NT/3♦/3♥ are ♣/♦/(other major) mini-splinters. Note, we don't have a balanced 14–15 raise (opens 1C) to worry about, natural 6♦ jumps rebids, or any 6♦ + 3 card support type hand (opens 2D). It might be better to hide the short suit unless asked for, e.g. 2NT as some mini-splinter. 3♦ could then be a a fit jump, 3oM as ♣ fit jump. Arguably a fit jump is just as information revealing as a specific splinter and a fit jump is probably 5–4–2–2, often best opened with 1♣. If we were to open 6♦–4♠ with 1♦ then 1♦–1♥♠–2NT would be some minor splinter and a 3♦ rebid would be natural. The 2♦ rebid would likely be a weaker 6–4 rebid making it harder to deal with 3 card raises unsuitable for 1NT rebids.
For the rebids after 1♦–2♣, there's not much variation in responses over a normal precision 1♦. Whether 3♣ shows a (4–1)–5–3 or is just a minimum minors 5–4–2–2 is about it. We open 5–4–2–2 maximums with 1♣, and minimums can show a balanced hand. Playing the intermediate 2♦ opening we have the additional 4–4–1–4 shape to handle, which we can overload the 3♣ call with (or treating as balanced if there's a singleton A/K). In a normal precision 1♦ system the 3♦ rebid would be a natural good 6 card suit, but with an intermediate 2♦ opening it has few uses as it must be GF. It could be a stronger 3♣ bid or a max 5–5 minors that prefers not to splinter. For the 1♦–2♦ auctions 1♦–2♦–3♣–3♦ has to be NF unless the 3♣ bid is GF, so overall to have consistency between 1♦–2♣ and 1♦–2♦ using 3♣ as 5–4–2–2 minimum maybe the best compromise.
It makes sense if playing 2/1 GF, as we are, that the bidding with more limited hands is more difficult. Note, this is why many playing 2/1 GF in natural systems employ Gazilli after the wide ranging 1NT response. We also use Gazilli even in a limited opening system.
The semi-forcing 1NT response (really just non-forcing) allows opener to pass with a flat(ish) 11/12 (maybe bad 13) hand. Typically 5–3–3–2 or maybe 4♠–5♥–2–2 after 1♥–1NT. As the 5–3–3–2 handshape is frequent and hands with values closer to 10 are also more frequent then a semi-forcing NT seems valuable as 1NT is often the best place to play with limited values. When responder has a 3 card game invite and opener has a minimum there's also a reasonable chance that 3♥♠ would not have made but 1NT will.
That said, the 100% forcing NT, as e.g. the Revision club system uses, has its benefits (despite the occasional need to bid short minor suits without a 6 card major or 4 card side suit). It maybe useful to escape to a weak suit at the two level when dreading playing in 1NT and not wanting to play in partner's major. It may also help in just preempting the bidding a bit with very limited support or general rubbish.
Revision also makes clever use of 1♥–1NT–2x–2♠ as 4 card ♠ suit with 10–12 hcp. It is pointed out that an invitational hand with 4♠ may often go too high in the bidding after 1♥–1♠–2♠. As the 2♠ raise could be done with 3 cards and a singleton, responder with 4 cards will have to bid 2NT even if 2♠ was the best spot or even pass 2♠ with a 7 card fit and a weak hand. It's also possible to push 4–4–4–1 hands (short in partner's major), or other esoteric GF bids, through a forcing NT which makes the 2/1 suit bids clearer.
We play 2♦ constructively (intermediate strength) so that the nebulous 1♦ opening is less messy and constructive bidding is easier. So no multi 2♦, or even better, some weak 2♦ variant. The lack of direct pressure on the opponents with a multi 2♦ would make it less desirable as a pre-empt aswell - it's played more for the constructive additions and the extra preempts that can be fit in.
While it hasn't been tried (unlike a precision 2♦ opening which we have played), actually a multi is possible if we play a Precision 2♥ opening, that is a 3 suiter with short ♦s that opens 2♥. As 2♥ is very passable it does put maximum pressure on the opponents. The multi does not apply as much pressure, but it is some what awkward to defend against and gives us an extra constructive bid. It also loses the 2♥ opening preempt, though it has been argued that it is the least useful preempt of ♦s, ♥s and ♠s (it's hard to bid and double 2♦ without both majors and the 2♥ opening almost points the opponents at the higher ranked ♠ suit).
A weak only multi would apply more pressure and perhaps be more fun.
5–4/5–5 major/minor two suiters are more frequent than a standard 6 card weak two bid, roughly a 3:2 ratio. Ambiguity in 5 v.s. 6 cards makes safe game constructive bidding a challenge, so we can choose one of 5 or 6 cards in a constructive style or be careful of the hcp and suit quality when bidding mixed 5/6 carders non-vulnerable. We define the style for the stronger hand (the 6 card suit) first and add 5+ carders non-vulnerable as an optional extension with tight quality requirements. In 3rd position anything is biddable of course - mix of 5 or 6 carders.
At the moment the weak two style is reasonably constructive - good 6 to bad 10 range. This range is more frequent than 4–6 hcp hands which are more suited to destructive bidding preventing slams.
The 1st/2nd bid quality is lumped together, but really 2nd position should be more constructive than 1st.
We mostly play standard Michaels and Unusual 2NT overcalls. The exception is (1♠)–3♣ shows specifically a non-strong ♥s + ♣s two suiter. Why not two suiter overcalls like Roman or Astro jump overcalls? These alternatives can be used to show 5–4 or 6–4 hands.
An example Roman jump overcall is 1♥–(2♠) showing 4+♠s and 5+♣s. These hands may often have less playing strength than a typical 5–5 hand, but the 5–4 shapes are much more frequent. Apart from the memory load, the obvious downside is losing a normal (weak) jump overcall, so a constructive/destructive trade off. You need reasonable strength to bid like this with a 5–4 hand aswell, so ~5–7 losers. Bids that force to the 3 level would often be 5–5, except unlike Michaels etc, you may include a 6–4 hand.
A downside of the 5–4+ style is that you can never be sure under pressure whether partner has enough offensive strength. 5–5 two suiters make it more likely to bid a tight game that makes on shape instead of strength. The downside of 5–5 two suiters is the ability to clearly show a 4 card major. We play minimum level conversion takeout doubles to mostly deal with this downside - we often takeout double to show a major without tolerance for all 3 suits.
Why not play Ghestem or Extended Michaels to always use a 3♣ overcall to show the remaining 5–5 two suiter? It's a close decision. Would a 3♣ preempt be more useful? It's certainly more frequent. 3♣ forces us to play at the 3 level, in the case of (1♥)–3♣ a normal Michaels bid would allow us to play at the 2 level, so extra strength is required there. Knowing partner's minor after (1♠)–2♠–(4♠) is a nice benefit of Ghestem like bids, and after the opponents open 1♠ we are already forcing to the 3 level. Playing (1♠)–3♣ as the exception to a natural overcall covers this situation. Given the finely balanced pros/cons what is best maybe just what is easiest to remember, which will be the more frequent natural bid.
Our overcall style is modern standard, i.e. light 1 level overcalls ~(7)8–17 hcp and 2 level overcalls being opening bids. The 2♣♦ overcalls don't have to be sound 6 carders, which may make finding game (often 3NT) a bit harder, but lets us compete and sacrifice more.
In standard, when responder (3rd hand) passes, advancer's suit range is NF and wide, e.g. 1 level ~7–16, 2 level ~10–16 and is combined with strong jump shift responses to handle the GF hands. We give up a natural NF 2♣ response and use it as a strength ask. This means the jump shift responses can be natural NF invitational, both direct and more common than a strong jump shift. Simple new suits are more defined ~8–12 hcp and 1NT can be limited 8–13 without playing a natural 2NT response. The strength ask also allows us to use 2NT as the familiar invitational plus limit raise, which in standard is only used when responder bids (a natural 2NT makes little sense when opener and responder both have values). A downside of using 2♣ as a strength ask specifically after the opponents open 1♣ is the lack of a simple HCR cue bid at that point, though it's ok to show the 3 card limit raise via the strength ask, at least if opener does not preempt the bidding too much.
After our 1♥♠ major overcall a jump raise advance to 3M is cooperative. This is similar to standard except it does not include weak hcp hands. The idea here is that we either bid 4M straight away (maybe 0–4 hcp) or our 3M has a cooperative nature to it allowing partner to bid more with better overcall. This is different to when we open 1♥♠ and the opponents interfere, at which point 3M is ~0–6 hcp (the 11–15 opening range is tighter than 8–17).
When we are overcalling and advancing this is commonly a mixed raise for a major (maybe minor) or splinter.
When we open, and the opponents overcall, responder may want to play 3NT, e.g. 13–15 hcp and nothing much else to say. With that sort of hand it's frequently better for the overcalling hand to be on lead, so a jump cue bid could be used as a NT transfer.
We play it as a mild GF 2 suiter after a minor opening, e.g. 1♣/1♦–(1M)–3M, and as a splinter after a major opening. The NT transfer should be more frequent, but having a bid for awkward two suiters helps game and slam bidding.
We have specific rules for Fit Jumps and Splinters in Competition, basically fit jumps take priority over splinters with higher jumps (if available) being splinters. Other styles may only use fit jumps, with different strengths of fit jumps. This maybe more useful for correctly judging double fits and competition to the 5 level, but must be weighed against it also helping the opponents.
Against light overcalls and raises slam finding can still be important – splinters have value there. When playing splinters it's possible use void only splinters for finding the rarer tight slams.
After a 1♦ opening and 1♥♠ response we do play mini splinter showing bids for various jumps, the structure supports mini splinters and showing 6–5 shapely hands (though not in the most natural intuitive way).
After 1♥–1♠ we keep 2NT as 6–4 with a minor and 3♣♦ rebids as 6–5 hands. No space has been left for direct mini splinters even though they are more frequent. Having the jump rebids be shapely hands works with a limited opening system to show offensive hands with limited points. In a natural wide ranging strength system Gazilli covers the 16+ hands. We do play Gazilli over 1♥–1♠ so it can be used to show a max 14–15 mini-splinter like raise – opposite the NF responses opener going to the 3 level in a new suit often makes little sense.
When we open 1♥/1♠ and the opponents overcall we play standard one round forcing new suit bids at the 2 level. It's possible to play negative free bids, e.g. 1♥–(2C)–2♠ as non-forcing, less than a mild invite. Paired with a limited opening structure this works fairly well, as long as we don't bid too many bad 5 card suits when VUL.
With this structure you have to jump in a new suit to game force with a good suit (double with a poor suit GF), so 2 level non-forcing, 3 level forcing for new suits. With a good suit the jump is ok but with a poor suit we have to double first, which means the advancer can preempt us before we've really said whether we have 4/5/6 cards. Using a jump as GF loses fit jumps and also a 1-under jump as a mixed raise. The mixed raise is the most useful aspect. Arguably we could still play mixed raises by just raising to the 3 level instead of using the 3 raise as preemptive.
It's also possible to use the jump as an good invite hand, or just not play a natural jump. Either way if advancer raises the bidding it can be hard to sort out certain hands.
Transfers are the way to try to get the benefits of NFBs without so many drawbacks, though they add complexity. After opening 1♣/1♦ we do have a transfer structure for some suits after (1H/1S) interference, which gives some benefits similar to negative free bids at the cost of giving the opponents a suit to double for lead/values.
When we open a minor we assume it's a balanced hand. The responses could perhaps be more finely optimized for each specific opening and overcall but instead they are made more memorable by being similar.
After a takeout double there are transfers, including 1♠ to 1NT. At this point it might be good to use 1NT as an invite type hand so we don't have to go too high. An invite over 1♣ with it's tight range makes little sense though, so 1NT is just a ♣ transfer. If it were more optimized over 1♦–(X) then 1NT might be an invite with 2♣/2♦ system on 10+ natural - no way to bid a less than invite minor hand. As it is the transfers to the 2 level are 8+, mostly for consistency and so that over a strong 1♣ we can assume a GF. Not quite as aggressive as a negative free bid or weak transfer, but less than the strength for a standard 2 level new suit bid.
After a suit overcall, there are again some transfers, but we keep a natural 1NT for its positional advantage. The major transfer can be weak or GF (double with invite), so that can be negative free bid like but promising 6 cards. Should the 2 level major transfer be done with any constructive (6+ hcp over 1C, 8+ hcp over 1D) 6+ cards instead of doubling with 6 and invite (only double with a poor 6 carder, weak values)? We play that variant aswell as it's unclear which way handles interference better. The minor bid is again more constructive 8+ for consistency. As 1NT is natural, ♣s as ever is harder to bid and requires a sound 10+ hcp as you cannot play it at the 2 level.
Generally content with the structure – promising 6 cards makes the constructive bidding much easier than only 5 clubs.
Standard modern precision has similar responses, except 3♦ (instead of 5–5+ majors) + 3♥ (instead of natural invitational) are invite plus transfers. Transfers have the usual downside of more lead directing doubles and bidding space for opponents, but transfers may quickly describe more hands, e.g. one 5 card major and able to go to 3NT for which we must start with the 2♦ enquiry.
SMP uses 3♠ to show 6♠s + 4♥s GF. We have to go via 2NT for 6–4 either way in the majors and for single suited GF major hands. It's not that likely to suffer from difficult pre-emption though – we could double ♦s for takeout or another major overcall for penalty. Unsure if a GF single major would struggle after ♦ preemption and support. Presumably a transfer to ♥s then bidding 3♠ would show 6–4 in SMP.
SMP uses 2NT to show the 5–5 GF type hands, including a major + ♦s which we start via the 3♣ ♦ transfer. Perhaps it's more important to show 5–5 majors directly with 3♦ in case of interference, regardless, our 3♦ is invite plus instead of GF, so perhaps a bit more accurate for major game bidding.
The most common alternative responses use 2NT or the next suit as an ask. Asking for what though? Strength, shortage, side feature (A or K) or suit quality perhaps. Strength is recognised as the most important factor, so responses often combine strength showing with showing one of shortage, feature or suit quality. It can also combine with showing 5 vs 6 card preempts if you play 5 carders NV in 1st/2nd seat.
If your suit quality can be really bad then there is definite benifit in working that out. Our quality is moderate, neither the "good" 2/3 top honours nor awful suits like J10 or worse. If playing wide ranging strength, e.g. 4/5–10 hcp then you may want min, medium and max strength distinctions. Really bad quality and/or wide ranging weak twos make constructive bidding a struggle – it's easy to overreach or underbid. As the suit quality improves and the point range becomes tighter it can then be worth considering side features or shortages. Shortages have more utility when there is a trump fit, especially when looking for slam. Features help to fit with responder's suit, probably looking for 3NT.
When only trying for game then showing shortages may give away too much information to the defenders. Responses can show an unknown shortage and min or max strength, but there won't be room to find out the shortage without going to game, so it won't help you bid a really tight game.
Transfers is an alternative to a general 2NT (or similar) asking bid that can be constructive but also allow escaping to a side suit. In our case the 2NT bid is more of a puppet as it does not always have clubs, but it will be a slam try in that case. Even if every transfer is "normal" showing the next up suit then you have the choice of playing it as invite plus or strength unknown (weak or GF basically). Our style of assumed invite plus (could rebid a minor transfer to escape, which is then in effect a minor preempt if opener showed support) allows opener to consider their strength and fit for responder's suit, often useful when 3NT is considered. Transfers do not give us a way to query opener's suit quality, opener will assume responder is looking for 3NT with at most doubleton support and judge from there. Fit for responder's suit is something that feature asks help reveal. We can do a shortage ask, but it starts via the 2NT puppet bid and is more relevant for slam finding.
With transfers we might worry about giving the opponents more ways to compete (though the artificial responses to asking bids can also be doubled) and the annoyance of opener potentially playing the contract unnecessarily. Even with natural new suit GF responses to a weak two opener it's possible for opener to end up playing 3NT anyway. In general we use the transfers when being constructive - partner has preempted us and we need tools to say more. Note, we always have a 3 level obstructive raise available – perhaps the most important bid.
Some weak two ask examples:
Presumably decent suit quality and not too wide range.
Location of shortage hidden unless explicitly asked for.
Can show side 4 card suit, but then means that showing a shortage does not convey strength, which is fine with a tight range.
We play this as limit plus, not GF. This works better in a limited opening system where opener is unlikely to want to take over and be captain with a powerhouse hand. Playing as limit plus means the opponents are unlikely to make a dangerous lead directing double or overcall in 4th, as we may never have had a game on anyway.
Many options here. Some things to consider:
Our latest variant is mostly a combination of the standard modern precision 2NT responses and the "Wilson" option further below. It let's opener show a shortage (too strong to splinter) or ask for a shortage whenever opener uses the main min/medium/max strength showing bids. Shortages are often the best route to a cheaper slam, probably more so than showing a 5 card suit which requires fitting honours from partner. There's an immediate response that shows 6+ cards and shortage - that extra trump is often crucial. Over the 3♣ GF max response there's space to distinguish 5 vs 6/7 semi-balanced hands, show shortages and 5–4–2–2 with a reasonable side suit. The weakness is that we can't focus on those hands unless the response was 3♣. Also 1M–2NT–3♣, or 1♠–2NT–3♦ are the only responses over which a natural 3NT contract might be played. A positive is that all the responses, except 4x showing a 5 card side suit, reveal only limited information.
Needs a bit of tweaking to fit in a limit plus instead of GF only structure.
The length of the side suit is less clear here, but there's room for responder to support a minor at the 4 level and even choose an alternative contract. Medium strength matters less in a limited opening system, where we can just use min v.s. max.
No way to check whether the minimum hand any singleton if using as a limit plus raise and not just GF.
This version has been played for a long time previously. It's quite good at finding cheap games opposite the right minimum singleton but readily gives away that shortage info to the opponents. As the tight game finding is based on explicit singleton finding it doesn't cater to showing a roughly medium value type hand (without a shortage), which can help if we stretch the opening range to more 10 hcp unbalanced hands. No way to explicitly agree double fits with side 4–4 suits, which is true of many systems outside of the "natural extras" and Scanian variants above. Can be hard to untangle slam going hands with 5 vs 6 card suits beyond general last train usage. Does not let responder show any shortage they may have if too strong for a normal splinter.
An alternative is to play 3NT as Solid AKQ+ 7 card major with side feature OR solid AKQ+ 8 card major. A solid AKQJxxx 7 carder without side feature is opened 1♥/1♠ and a plain AKQxxxx 7 carder with a standard pre-empt. Note, this could also be played as a solid minor, it's somewhat arbitrary.
Opening 3NT as a 4 level minor preempt is the other common option.
Opening 3NT as a specific ace ask is another option.
Specific Ace Ask:
Or one of these:
The 4NT as an ace ask bid has a larger variety of freak hands where it could be useful (basically around 11 or so tricks regardless of points), but these are still very rare. 6–6 minors is also very rare, ~ 1:1388 for 6–6, one of 6 suit combinations = 1:8333 without considering hcp. Bidding slow with an ace ask type hand is probably harder than a 6–6 minor hand, especially with interference.
The 6–5 minors hand is far more frequent, but is so high level and at some risk of being doubled for penalty that the point range will be fairly constrained, e.g. ~8–10 hcp. Clearly it preempts partner and may skip a very viable 3NT contract, so perhaps makes more sense in 3rd.
A good 5 level preempt would probably be better than 6–6 minors frequency wise. A hand with ~8–8.5 tricks and a solid 8 carder or semi solid plus side trick, or maybe 4 control points. Only pays off if slam was on the cards over the 5♣♦ preempt.
There's many ways to play it such as:
Within those there could be minor variations around whether fast shows (a stop), slow shows (a stop via 2NT first if 2NT is multi-meaning puppet and not just showing ♣s), slow/fast cue shows a 4 card major or not and stop asks, direct 3 level bids are strong or via 2NT are strong etc. Transfers to the cue suit or transfer through it. Showing competitive hands faster naturally sounds more matchpoint oriented. Focusing on invitational/GF hands better for IMPs. We play a "transfer" variant. The transfer allows the stronger player to declare. Given all the names and variations the name may not label an exact system. If a negative double is available then the Lebensohl bidder has more options/accuracy. (2S)-X takeout is harder and invitational plus only responses certainly do not make sense as advancer is forced to bid.
Currently we just play natural bids over a short/prepared minor. We keep the weak jump overcalls and lose a non-strong both majors michaels overcall. A (1♦)–2♥ bid to show majors is a reasonable alternative to a weak jump overcall, but overall the weak jump is more frequent than both majors, whilst bidding both majors with a 1♠ overcall and then hopefully ♥s later usually works fine, as the opponents will find it hard to preempt after a short minor.
When the minor could be 0–2 cards then similar to the Swedish/Polish club defence variant using a 1NT overcall with a 4 card major and 5 card minor is an option to help competing. Pass then double of their rebid would show a strong NT overcall and afford more options for penalising (assuming a NT rebid is weak). Probably better against a strong NT where the simple rebid NT is weak.
The potential downside remains the opponents claiming 1NT to play or responder being able to show their major after which they find a fit.
There's a lot of options and the "best" defence is probably scoring specific and NT strength specific.
Good article - www.clairebridge.com/en/defenses-against-1nt/
Nice against Strong NTs getting high frequency 5–4 hands and both majors. The ambiguity of the 2♦ bid makes it vulnerable to further interference though, and the ambiguity gives the opening side space to play penalty/value doubles and takeout doubles (pass then double):
Probably the first 1NT defence convention ever played. Ambiguity on 2♣♦ bids. Nice direct 2♥♠ bids, not as constructive as transfer overcalls.
Last played system. More for matchpoints or Strong NT aggression given ambiguity of suit lengths. Nice direct 2♥♠ bids. The majors showing bid can be played less aggressively, 5–4+ depending on vulnerability.
More competitive without the penalty X. Master spade suit put in the picture quickly, but lengths ambiguous.
Two suiters shown with X then easy enough to find some fit at the 2 level. Ambiguity of lengths. Quick to get in and raise single suiters.
A few transfer bids that aid in construction against strong or weak NT, or just to put the strong hand on lead. Nicely maintains a natural high pressure 2♠ overcall. 2♥ showing majors lacks room to show the relative lengths if 5–4, but it's also high pressure on responder as it can be passed.
Easy enough to find some two suiter fit at the 2 level. Ambiguity of lengths over X, but makes the X more frequent. Quick to get in and raise single suiters including ♦s. Much like the Revision defence but 2♣ shows majors specifically. Against a weak NT double would be values at which point it's the Landy convention (2♣ majors) + natural overcalls.
Nice to have more competitive v.s. constructive distinctions, perhaps more so against a weak NT where we may have game on our way.
Against an artificial Precision club 16+ or similar, natural overcalling is very reasonable, with an emphasis on bidding obstructively as we are unlikely to have a game on. NT advances could still be used as constructive game going responses to partner's often weak overcalls.
Bids of double or 1♦ do not take any room away, (even 1♥ takes little space) so they need to useful, where useful corresponds to goals of bidding, which we think should be mostly obstructive over a strong club - finding a fit and raising to our maximum level. Given the goals strong hands may choose to pass and come in on later rounds if trying to separate out 14+ constructive hands.
Transfer overcalls try to put the 1♣ opener on lead or provide a basis for constructive bidding. Transfers give the strong clubbers yet another bid to cue, so need to be 1 bid higher to be as destructive.
Hand strengths depend on vulnerability, but generally 1 level bids have some 4/5 card suit and 2 level bids have a 5/6 card suit (NV/VUL). As 1 level bids do not take up much space, if showing a specific suit there would ideally be some lead directing value to them and a choice for advancer to raise the level without much danger when there is a fit.
Semi-balanced and weaker two suiter hands should be careful about bidding, not so much because of penalty doubles (more so when vulnerable), but because the strong club side often win the auction and have gained some shape information on the opponents. Disrputive bids in the assumed fit style of preempts seem better if the overcall style includes semi-balanced 5–4 and 4–4 two suiters. Having bids show the exact two suits makes it easier for strong club bidders (with a prepared defence to interference) to handle higher overcalls, therefore it maybe better when using 4–4/5–4 two suiter showing bids to use ambiguous bids without an anchor suit - e.g. an overcall is majors or minors. The downside is that advancer can only raise the preempt to a level suitable for both combinations - a lot of multi-way ambiguous bids go no higher than the 2 level. Ambiguous bids may be better in that the strong clubbers may not be well prepared for them (but then we also have to remember the defence). Playing a system to beat weaker players is a dubious goal.
More natural overcalls allow advancer to raise the preempt quickly, but again if 2 exact suits are shown it will be easier for the strong club bidders to handle. With a rarer 5–5+ shape then whether to give away shape information should depend on suit qualities and so how likely the overcalling side is to win the auction, as a sacrifice or not. As ever, the majors and the master ♠ suit are important.
From these principles it's not too hard to invent any defence - you decide the balance of giving away information versus hopefully raising the bidding quickly and not being penalty doubled. There's no obvious best defence, but on balance natural high pressure bids and something to show the majors (maybe 2 bids for different strengths) are compelling.
Probably the most common defence that is not all natural. The natural 1♦ overcall takes little space but if advancer can raise then it's a win. Any style for the X showing majors minimum strength can be agreed, from 7+ hcp and 4–4+ shape to better, but how well 4–4 works with limited points is debatable as no space is taken and information is given away to the strong clubbers who are often the declaring side.
Lacks a way to show just 4 cards in the master ♠ suit but otherwise lots of high pressure options. 2♥ is thrown in as an amusing high variance destructive single suiter major overcall example - difficult because it can be passed. May not be legal.
Specific two suiters style, ambiguous relative lengths so hard to raise that much.
Two suiter style with one naturally bid suit and the other specific suit depending on strength. The double to show an opening balanced hand is interesting - maybe giving up too much information but hoping partner can preempt further in any suit they like. After a second position bid the defenders should have a much better estimate of overall strength and shape than the opening side.
Natural 1x bids, but higher two suiter bids, so less frequent two suiters. Two suiters are natural and clear about the suits, so can be passed or fast raised, but if 5–4 shape then hard to know how high.
More ambiguous destructive bids. The canapé like Raptor bids of 1♠ and 1NT are reasonable at taking space though maybe giving away too much shape information.
A common two suiter defence - Color, Rank, Shape. Ambiguous two suiter overcalls. The 2♦♥♠ bids are not part of crash, just another example destructive overcall, that cause some confusion but are harder to raise.
Yet another crash. The ambiguous bids start a bit higher, which may mean they need to be a bit stronger. Showing ♥s and ♠s with X and 1♦ lets advancer indicate if they like the suit, for a lead from broken suit, at the 1 level by bidding it or they can bid something else at the 1 level.
The X and 1♦ bids which take little space are used for constructive strong hands with a minor. The majors showing bid is more preemptive than other defences, but needs some quality to it as it goes to the 2 level.
The 2♣♦ bids are revealing of shape information, but do at least show the specific minor so it can be fast raised. Whether a 4 card ♥ suit can the win the auction is debatable - probably tells the opponents that they have ♠s. Otherwise a likeable defence structure.
Confusing the less prepared, probably not much else to say. Will not be easily raised by partner.
Fun, but hard for advancer to raise.
A two or three way club that maybe strong 16/17+ but is more often a weak NT.
Using the standard prepared club defence is fine - the overcalling side can easily have game on over the common weak NT type hand. Two level bids should be fairly disciplined and constructive, at least if partner has not passed. They work better than over a strong only club as responder must assume opener has the common weak NT, but obviously that's not always true. Two level bids have similar choices as opening those same bids - natural, Michaels, Ekren, Multi 2♦, 5 v.s. 6 card overcalls etc.
As the 1♣ bid is forcing, you can give up a natural NT overcall (which maybe bad in matchpoints if the opening side settle in a 1NT contract that we could have stolen) and pass with strong balanced. A strong shapely hand may need to start with a takeout double as a simple overcall could be passed out. Passing and bidding later with a strong shapely hand risks losing a chance to show your hand, though takeout doubles for strong single suiters can suffer this as well.
Variation with 1NT 4♥ + minor (which could also be played as any 4 card major + 5 card minor):
Variation that gets in both major + some minor combinations, but loses a natural 1x overcall:
More majors focus including two suited transfer overcalls and a natural 1♠ overcall:
We prefer the 2♣ and 2♦ opening bids that show a 6 card minor. The common precision style with 5–4 and possibly a 4 card major is awkward but there's another rare style which allows (3–1)(5–4) openings, so a 3 card major, major singleton plus 5–4 in the minors whilst always denying a 4 card major (even with a 6 card minor).
5–4–3–1 is common (3rd most likely hand shape at 12.9%) and when we deny a 4 card major it is also preemptive. 1NT may still have been the best contract at matchpoints, but we may also shut the opponents out of a major.
Denying a 4 card major in the 2♣♦ opening puts more load on the 1♦ opening, so using the 2NT opening as intermediate with 5–5+ minors seems prudent. 2NT minors opening loses the probably more common natural 2NT opening and there's a lot of benefit to quickly showing shape and points with balanced hands and not giving opponents space to overcall, even if there's always examples where going slow with balanced hands works out better for tight slam finding. Maybe there's a way to allow a 4 card major with a 6 card minor 2♣♦ opening to reduce the load on 1♦? If that's true though, responder maybe even more unsure about whether to rescue to a major (hence this style would play forcing 2♥♠ responses) and play a 5–2 minor fit instead of 5–3 major fit. On principle you have to pass in a 5–1 fit.
The responses I've seen over 1♦ use 1♥ as a relay, maybe natural, maybe balanced game try or general GF. How this copes with competitive pressure is unclear. Unlike most systems the 1♦ opening includes 6♣ or 6♦ with some 4cM and a whole load of other hands.
The main alternative to playing an intermediate 2♦ opening bid – main because the intermediate constructive bidding would be undesirably difficult playing some weak 2♦ or multi 2♦ etc with an artificial 1♣ opening and 2♣ opening that is 6+ ♣s. Both bids are for intermediate constructive hands, they just put different constructive meanings into the 1♦/2♦ openings.
(11)12–15(16) hcp, short ♦ 3 suiter, 4–4–1–4, 4–4–0–5, 4–3–1–5, or 3–4–1–5
Not played anymore - earlier notes on how to play it before we used the Precision 2♦ opening. Given the limited space for bidding strong minor hands after a 1♣ opening, if a 2♦ Multi were played in a weak strong club it's perhaps more useful to play the strong variant as an Acol 2 strength hand in ♦s, maybe either minor, or a limited 5–5 two suiter such as major + diamonds, and throw out the 4–4–4–1 strong variant.
Sound 6 card weak Two OR 4–4–4–1 (any singleton), 4+ control points, 17+ hcp
6 card major ~10–13 hcp OR 4–4–4–1 (any singleton), 4+ control points, 16+ hcp
A simpler system is possible but is very vague and space consuming for 4–4–4–1 hands. It's also possible to handle 5–4–4–0 hands but that requires differentiating singleton v.s. void shortage and the 2nd ask responses showing losers are likely too overloaded given the wide range of hands we can open on.
Second ask gives more definition on the loser count:
Third ask checks blue club controls (A=2, K=1):
Fourth ask checks for queens NOT held, grand slam fishing:
Either major, perhaps 5 cards NV or you can be more constructive and only open 6 carders. Weak only puts more pressure on the opponents as partner can pass the 2♦ opening. As with a normal multi, the stronger hand, the responder is more likely to declare.
Playable if a 2♥ opening is used to show the short ♦ 3 suiter with 11–15 hcp. These responses assume possible 5 carders - the 3♣♦ responses look for a fit in the other major with no way to bid constructively in a minor. As with any possible 5 card weak two, checking for a fit with your own 5/6 card suit and clarifying whether opener has 5/6 cards is full of compromises.
Not played, but these are the old notes. The ambiguity of the major lengths makes it more suited to an aggressive bidding style, particularly matchpoints. Some pairs play it purely aggressively with a very wide range, e.g. 3–10 hcp and 4–4+ both suits. Very high variance in that case. This can be played as a 2♦ opening, but the 2♥ bid puts immediate pressure on the opponents as it can be passed.
Both majors, longest one unknown.
Not played, but these handshapes are covered when playing the mixed 5 or 6 card weak twos style non-vulnerable. The Dutch two is specifically only 5 carders, no 6 card weak twos. Nice if can also play something like a multi showing specifically a 6 carder, then it's easier to fast raise knowing the length (but also helps the opponents), whilst also preempting more frequently with both 5 (careful with suit quality when VUL) and 6 carders.
~7–10(11) hcp, 5♠ + ♣/♦ OR generic weak 2♠ in 3rd
Note, usual undisciplined style in 3rd.