[helene_t]

In the Netherlands, many people play a defence against 1NT which is similar to the popular 2-openings (Multi/Muiderberg), except that (just to make it confusing) the respond schemes are different.
dbl: penalty
2♣: Both majors
2♦: Major one-suiter
2M: 5M + 4+m

One thing that I don't understand is how you are supposed to defend 1NT with a passed hand, since you already denied a hand suitable for 2♦ or 2M (or a penalty double for that matter). So I made up a scheme that is complementary to multi/Muiderberg: make all passed, distributional hands biddable!
dbl: 5♦+4♣ OR 5♠+4♥
2♣: 5♣ + 4[other suit]
2♦: 5♦+4M
2♥: 5♥+4♠

Any comments?

[Flame]

We play the same stucture over 1nt except that double isnt penalty, it shows 5m-4M, the funny thing is that we made a also needed a new bidding system for passed hand but because our normal opening are 2d=D+M, and 2H=majors, we had a different problem. Your system seems to cover everything except 4D-5M hands.

[Free]

Flame, since they already passed, they shouldn't have a 5M-4+m hand, so no need for 4♦-5M...

The way I use to play is as follows:

Against strong NT: always Meckwell
Against weak NT and not passed: multi-landy
Against weak NT and passed: Meckwell

Against strong NT I only want desruptive methods, but against weak NT I want constructive methods if I didn't pass. When however I already passed, then partner also usually passed, so we want to intervene like hell again

Meckwell is able to bid all 4-4 hands (so also 5-4, 5-5,...) and all singlesuiters (if in a Major you are 1 loser short of an opening if you already passed). When V a 54+ is suggested, when NV a 4-4 is good enough.

[Flame]

Free, on Sep 22 2004, 03:21 AM, said:

Flame, since they already passed, they shouldn't have a 5M-4+m hand, so no need for 4♦-5M...

Ic, didnt know they have a bid for 5D-4M, also they made a bid for 5C-4M and 5M-4OM, so i thought 5D-4M is missing anyway it doesnt seem too importent.
Btw as i mention before we changed all our passed hand bidding on the same idea that they wont show something we could open.
The idea is to show clubs with the unbid suit (since club is the only suit we dont have an opening with)
after they open D= clubs+ the cheapest suit, 1nt=clubs + the other suit
Now after (1H)
D= spades + clubs
1nt = heart + clubs
after 1D
D=hearts+clubs
1nt=spade+clubs.
after 1sp
D=diamond+club
1nt=heart+club.

[MickyB]

I like this a lot. The 2 bids seem right to me, but the double should include a diamond single suiter. There is also the option of replacing 5♦4♣ with a club single suiter, I'm not sure which it is more useful to be able to show.

[helene_t]

No, you can't have a diamond single suiter since you would have opened 2♣ in that case. The whole idea is that the structure should enable you to show any hand that you can have when you failed to open.

Of course, the statement that you can't have certain shapes is based on the assumption that you allways preempt if you have the right shape. This might be mildly exagerated. But personally I would say that you can't have a clubs single-suiter either since any hand the justifies a 2♣ overcall of 1NT also justifies a 3♣ opening.

[Chamaco]

I do not know whther the following is relevant.
However, vs weak NT, we play a sort of mix betwen Multi-Landy and Woolsey over NT

Unpassed hand/direct seat

X = 15-17 bal or huge hand (if bal, it is 21+). Responder passes for penalty or uses"system on" as if pard had opened strong NT (xfers, 2C stayman may be just scrambling)
2C = opening hand, 54 in majors OR 4M/5+m.
2D MULTI = ANY single suiter, minimum opening hand OR
18-20 balamced
2M = 5M+ minor, opening hand
2NT = minors
3X = good single suiter, reverse hand

Passed hand o balancing seat
similar to the above, with some ranges modifications for:

X = 11/12-15 bal or huge hand (if bal, it is 20+). Responder passes for penalty or uses"system on" as if pard had opened weak NT (xfers, 2C stayman may be just scrambling)
2D MULTI = ANY single suiter, minimum opening hand OR
16-19 balanced

[han]

Helene,

I like your structure a lot, it should work very well in conjuncture with Multi/Muiderberg.

Your ideas reminds me of "Woolsey over 1NT", which I think is very good for unpassed hands too. You might want to look it up if you don't know it, just to notice the similarities.