[Flame]

Fred posted his system long time ago here
http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=2779
I wonder if this system must be forcing to 3NT or 4m (like Ben's system) because if not then i dont see how we can live without an option to play 2nt when opener is minimum balanced.

[fred]

We do indeed give up the option to play in 2NT.

The downside of our approach is that we have to play in either 3C or 3NT on some combinations that belong in 2NT.

One advantage of our approach is that opener can "go slow" with 18-19 balanced. Another plus is that there are actions where 2NT is useful as a forcing "stall" (on hands that are either borderline game tries or borderline slam tries).

At matchpoints or BAM we play 2NT as non-forcing in some of these auctions, but at IMPs we think it is worth giving up on this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

i've been rereading bergen's 'better bidding' volumes, uncontested auctions at my bedside and contested auctions in my *ahem* library

looking at it again made me remember why i like his way so well.. there's no ambiguity (except for possibly one instance)

1c/2c=6-9
1c/2nt=9-12
1c/3c=0-5 (with, usually, 5 cards)
1c/3d=13+

1d/2d=6-9
1d/3c=9-12
1d/3d=0-5 (usually 4+)
1d/3h=13+

1c : 1d
1any : 2nt is the one that can possibly be ambiguous, but it shows 10-12, what in standard 1c : 2nt would show...

playing that way (all deny 4 card majors), you can show all possible raises.. weak, constructive, limit, forcing

[Flame]

Thanks