[MickyB]

Not sure if I was clear - I meant that 1Y:2X, 2Y:2N should be GF

[pbleighton]

"Not sure if I was clear - I meant that 1Y:2X, 2Y:2N should be GF"

Didn't understand.

In this case we play 2NT as a min with 1 or 0 trumps, since pd frequently has 5. Opener will usually pass this, unless he has 7/great 6 trump suit.

You are suggesting an artificial GF - "bid again, pd, and show your shape"?

Peter

[Gerben42]

What about this sequence?

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♥

And another one:

1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT

or:

1♥ 2♣ 2♦ 2NT

[pbleighton]

What about this sequence?

1♥ 2D 3D 3♥

Shows 3 hearts. 3D established a GF.

And another one:

1♥ 2D 2♥ 2NT

Signoff.

or:

1♥ 2♣ 2D 2NT

Invite.

Peter

[Robert]

Hi MickeyB

I tend to disagree with your idea that 1NT responses lose IMPs. If you have good judgment and assorted playable methods, the 1NT 'fills' a hole in the system methods.

I might have agreed with you 'before' I added my version of the Anti Bart convention to my bidding arsenal, but the results have been very good.

I use many Roth like bids after the 1NT response, I can make slam trys 'at or

below 3NT' and my system can also stop in 2M after making a 3 card major raise

with a 10-11 dummy points.

Results,
Robert

[FrancesHinden]

Gerben42, on Dec 19 2005, 05:58 AM, said:

What about this sequence?

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♥

And another one:

1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT

or:

1♥ 2♣ 2♦ 2NT

These are easy. They are all non-forcing, invitational.

The first because this is the way you show a 3-card invite.
The second and third because this is the way you show a raise to 2NT. (If you are playing really basic Acol you might have responded 2NT with a raise to 2NT but we don't play that.)