[NickToll]

System foundation: 2/1 game forcing, 12-14 notrump including 5M332.
Issue: find a decent way to handle minimum hands with five hearts and four spades.

Common practices:
(1) open 1♥ and, over a forcing 1NT, rebid in a 3card minor, or 2♣ holding a 5422;
(2) open 2♦ (or maybe 2♥) Flannery;
(3) open 1♥ and apply Kaplan Inversion.
As often discussed in this forum, none of the three is perfect. Playing (1), we basically accept this case as a problem and choose to live with it. Playing (2), we solve the problem but accept to pay a high price, losing a valuable bid. Playing (3), everything works but we present opponents with a great (for them) opportunity to double our artificial 1♠ response to show a spade suit.

I've read about a different approach, adopted by some world class players. Briefly, Flannery hands are opened 1♥: both 1♠ and 1NT responses can include some hands with spades, and the continuations enable to find a convenient fit. Since after 1♥ - 1♠ responder can have spades, a spade-showing double by opponents is not as appealing as before. Playing Nightmare, as an example, 1NT shows 8-11 with 4+ spades, whereas all the other hands with spades (and up to 11 without spades) go through 1♠: in this development 1♠-then-2NT/3x by responder is Good-Bad, and other rebids are artificial too.

This idea makes the overall system more complex, but should also bring benefits. I have never seen it in action: has anyone experimented this approach, or played against it? What is your opinion?

[rbforster]

I'm not specifically familiar with this modification to Kaplan, but I think it should be doable. I was looking into using 1♥-1N as a normal "forcing NT" but it could include many game forcing hands as well. Switching this with 1♠ should give a playable version of Kaplan similar to what you suggest.

While I played 1♥-1♠ as standard (natural 4+), it seemed clear that if you had a way to make an artificial game force after the forcing NT (2♠ for example is often free), it isn't really necessary for responder to show a 4 card spade suit right away when he has a game-going hand. I found it was helpful to bid with 5+ spades, but you might not need to do that either if you have shape relays after your GF to find the 3♠ fragment in opener's hand.

[dake50]

This parallels EFOS (Sw?) where the lowest bid forces artificially so can be many 'gap' categories. So coalescing rest of strong bids. Freeing some bids to be weak.

[han]

I'm missing one method, it's been around for quite a while. It's called opening 1H and passing 1NT.

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Jan 25 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

I'm missing one method, it's been around for quite a while. It's called opening 1H and passing 1NT.

Huh? That's how I (and most other Norwegians) play.

[han]

You are so retro Harald.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Jan 25 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

You are so retro Harald.

He is not retro unless he opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 25 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

You are so retro Harald.

He is not retro unless he opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥

Yeah, that seems to be from Culbertson's time or thereabouts. Indeed retro!

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Jan 25 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

You are so retro Harald.

Retro? Most Scandinavians bid like that. Most of them don't use 2/1, though.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 25 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

You are so retro Harald.

He is not retro unless he opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥

I was reading an old BJ becker interview last night by Jeff Rubens in BW. He mentioned how Edgar would never take BJ back to 2♠ on an auction like this on a doubleton, for fear he would be playing a 4-2 fit.

[lexlogan]

Method 1 has never seemed like much of a problem. Opener must be specifically 4522, too weak to reverse, and responder specifically 3154 with less than invitational values to land in a 4-2 misfit, and then either opp might bid spades or something and rescue you. (I'm assuming 3154 invitational would likely rebid 2NT, not 3C.) If any significant portion of the field plays 1NT non-forcing, which inferior contract you land in may not matter much.

Really, is this much different than 1S-1NT-2D where responder is 1435 ? 3-3 may, of course, play better than 4-2, but essentially the forcing notrump has damaged you. I strongly believe it wins more than it loses, even where 2/1 isn't GF. And I suspect whatever scheme you adopt will have its own problem combinations.

What might make the Kaplan inversion or other scheme worthwhile would be if they have some other advantages, such as handling 4-6 responding hands.

[gwnn]

what's the problem with 4-2 fits anyway? the norwegians made a grand slam in a 4-2 fit not so long ago.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I'd add one additional mitigator.

1♥-P-1♠ should IMO occasionally be the start of auctions where 1♠ is natural, 4+, but Responder only has three spades.

Of course, then you have the situation where the auction should really go 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠, and Opener has a spade fragment.

When the two combine, you have the situation where the auction is 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-P-? and the Opening side is languishing in a 3-3 spade "fit."

But, then you have the situation where the opponents balance and cannot seem to find their best fit, the 5-2 spade fit, instead languishing in one or the other minor, which is assuredly doomed to a poor result, whether because of a trump stack or because of a cross-ruff.

When that happens, you have arrived. LOL

I had the pleasure of defending some three-level minor contract in this situation when our "fit" was actually xxx in spades, opposite Jxx. We each made a well-timed turkey bid, of course, but the principle was sound, maybe.

[Cascade]

han, on Jan 26 2008, 05:53 AM, said:

I'm missing one method, it's been around for quite a while. It's called opening 1H and passing 1NT.

Han's suggestion is best - don't play a forcing NT.

When I have a minimum hand with 4=5 in the majors it is partner's responsibility to bid spades if we belong there.

Easy game ...

[benlessard]

This should be playable in your setup if you are willing to rebid 1Nt with 15-17 bal or hands with clubs.


The relay i played have no problems with 5H+4S.

1H---1S (relay)

1Nt= clubs (clubs or bal 15-17 in your case)
2C= diamonds
2D= 6 hearts
2H= 5H+4S 12-14 (12-17 in your case)
2S= 6H--4S GF no void
2Nt= 4522 GF
3C=4513 GF
3D=4531 GF
3H= D void 4s+5H or better
3S= C void 4S & 5H or better
3Nt+ extreme shapes with voids


our 15-17 bal are opened 1C so our 1H opening is always unbalanced.(12-14 or 18-22) This setup will allow opener 3 natural bids at a cheap level.

1H----1S (relay)
2D(6h+)----2S (GF)
2Nt====balanced hand with 6H

1H-----1S ?
1Nt----2D ? GF
???

2S===3514
2Nt===2524
3C===?5?5 no void
3D===1534
3H ===?6?4 no void
3S=== S void
3Nt=== D void

[NickToll]

benlessard, on Feb 25 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

This should be playable in your setup if you are willing to rebid 1Nt with 15-17 bal or hands with clubs...

Benoit, it is playable for sure, but I'm afraid it doesn't get the point.

My interest is: is there anywhere a good development of 1♥-1♠ and 1♥-1NT that enables a good follow-up with Flannery hands AND does not present the opponents with a free-risk double over 1♠?

Just to make myself clear, I was thinking about something like the following (in a 2/1 base when minimum 5M332 are opened with a weak notrump and responder's strong balanced hands go through a natural and forcing 2NT):
1♥ - 1♠: weak or inv with less than four spades, or normal 1-over-1 with five or more spades (guarantees five spades if GF)
1♥ - 1NT: weak with exactly four spades, or inv with four or more spades, or inv with a balanced hand

A reasonable follow-up could be:
1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT: Flannery hand, not forcing
1♥ - 1♠/NT - 2♣: hearts+clubs or 15+ balanced -> 2♦ relay with game interest opposite 15+
1♥ - 1♠ - xx - 2NT: Lebensohl-ish
1♥ - 1♠ - xx - 3x: natural and game forcing, five or more spades
1♥ - 1NT - xx - 2♠/2NT/3x: natural and invitational
1♥ - 1NT - 2/3♠: natural opposite spades; responder can convert to notrump when appropriate

... etc etc... but it's just on paper. This is the reason why I wondered if someone had experimented something similar in real play.

[Gerben42]

One of the Dutch junior pairs plays:

1♥ - 1♠ = Forcing NT with 0 - 4 ♠ / GF 5+♠
1♥ - 1NT = 6 - 11, 5+♠

[benlessard]

Sorry missed the

Quote

does not present the opponents with a free-risk double over 1♠?

But i can assure you that the gain you get by a setup similar to mine vs plain Kaplan inversion is beyond comparaison Vs the risk of the free X.

My approximative guess is we get 8-12 good boards (better partscore or better slam bidding) for each board where we lose because of

1H----(P)-----1S (relay)-----X & at the other table it went

1H----(P)-----1Nt etc

One thing im sure is that if you play that

1H---1S----1nt as not forcing. Then it should show 15-17 balanced. These are more frequent and bring more trouble then the flannery hands.

Maybe something like

1H---1S
???

1Nt = 15-17 bal
2C = D or flannery
2D = 6H
2H = H+C

Or way better imho

1Nt---15-17 or H+C (not 64) non-forcing
2C= D
2D= 6H (maybe with 4C since with ?6?4 you dont want to play 1Nt)
2H = flannery weak
2S = H+S INV

etc

The inconvienent of sometimes having to play 1nt instead of 2C(or 2H in 52 or 2S in 43) is nothing compared to having plenty of JS available. Your are going to play contract from the other side quite often by the way and sometimes you will be able to pick the declarer of your choice.

This free up 1H---1Nt for whatever you want (5S or GF relay or both minors or misfits hands etc)

If you want more details i can send you my followed up after 1H----1Nt

[awm]

Here's another alternative.

1NT = limited something like 6-10, no 4♠, no 3♥, not forcing
1♠ = either 4+♠ or 11-12 hcp (i.e. invitational hand)

Over 1♥-1♠:

1NT = 4+♦ or 2533, denies 3♠
2♣ = natural, 4+♣, denies 3♠
2♦ = a "spade raise" with 3+♠; if 4♠ then 11-14 or so, if 3♠ unlimited
2♥ = natural, 6+♥, denies 3♠
2♠ = 4♠ raise and 15+ hcp, forcing one round (a light reverse)
Else = natural, normally deny 3♠

1♥-1♠-1NT:

2♣ = "4th suit GF" with natural spades; in principle could make this INV+ (a bit more complex)
2♦/2♥/2♠ = NF natural, not invitational
2NT = natural INV, may or may not have a spade suit
3♣ = natural INV, normally 6♣, may or may not have 4♠
3♦ = natural INV, may or may not have spades
3♥ = natural 3-card limit raise, may or may not have spades
3♠ = natural INV
3NT = to play; implicitly 4-5♠

1♥-1♠-2♣:

2♦ = "4th suit GF" with natural spades
Else = natural, 2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥ are INV and ambiguous about spades

1♥-1♠-2♦:

2♥ = relay, real spades and INV+ values
2♠ = 4+♠ minimum; opener can bid on naturally with 3♠ and extra values
2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥ = all natural, normally deny 4♠, invitational values

1♥-1♠-2♥:

Suggest using one of 2♠/2NT as a forcing relay; this auction is difficult in "natural" methods also because of the need to go to the three-level to force.

1♥-1♠-2♠:

This is like a reverse; suggest 2NT as a relay here (GF), 3m/3♥ as natural forcing and 3♠ as NF spade raise (forcing spade raise bids 2NT first). Note that all non-gamegoing hands opposite this bid will include real spades; this also makes the range of such hands rather narrow.