And if you need further evidence about caliber of play: Myrm and I won a sectional pairs the first time we played together.

Hey guys, what's the standard way to play over interference over a weak (10-12) NT?

Is Lebensohl typically used for this range? Additionally, what would the standard responses over a penalty dbl be?

I am not a huge fan of Lebensohl in the sequence 1NT-(2X)-??
You could make a case for it at pairs, where you want to be able to compete for the part score.

IMO the superior method is to play invite-or-better transfers. 2NT-3H are transfers and opener may refuse/superaccept the transfer with a maximum. A transfer to an opponent suit promises 1-2 4card majors, 3S is the "I AM STUCK" bid (the equivalent of Lebensohl 3NT) - no stopper, no 4card major, no 5card minor.

Lebensohl gets the contract in the wrong hand a lot and with an invitational hand you have to gambool. Transfers make the bidding sooo much easier at the small expense of not being able to purely compete (with, say, a 6-card and knowing HCP are approximately 20-20)

I come from 15-17 NT background, not sure how much this would change playing another 1NT range. I am assuming it does not make much difference.

IMO Lebensohl is only good in situations where you are forced to bid and can have a very bad hand. For example (2H=weak)-dbl-(pass)-??

If you voluntarily bid over 1NT-(2X)-??, these hands are not in your range.

For simplicity, I'd play that pass is to play, XX is a scramble, and anything else is to play. I think there's a lot of value in being able to get out in 2m.

Alternately, you could include 2-suiters in your scheme if you did a pass-forces-XX scheme, but a tradeoff (there are a few, including giving away distributional info) is that you can never play 1Nx, only 1Nxx.

Don't think anything is standard but I like

pass is penalty or no clear direction (ie "maybe 1NTx is the least bad spot"),
redouble is a relay to 2C to try to sign off (I'm sure you could add some more stuff into this but KISS etc),
2C is stayman,
everything else is natural

Over a dbl I'd play everything natural, except rdbl which is scramble and suggests club length.

If you want, you can add lotsa tricks to differ between several types of 5/4 or 4/4 hands, for example you could bid 2D as natural, but when doubled, you redouble to show 5H/4S and 2H to show 5S/4H. With equal length you can rdbl followed by 2H

You can bid 2C as natural, but when doubled, you can redouble to show 4D+a major or 2D to show 5D+ a major or bid 2H/2H with 5H/S + 4D

You have oodles of bidding space. How much of it you use, depends on how much you and your partner are willing to memorize.

Penalty double over mini notrumps: I have played a lot of 10–12 and 10–13 notrump. I agree that there is value in simplicity, but my experience has been that more ways to run is important when playing this weak, and I have settled on the followin with a couple of regular partners: (Note, this is obviously not standard, and I'm not even sure it's best. But it works.)

System: TNT (for touching — non-touching, a mnemonic that touching two suiters bid right away, non-touching two suiters wait)

After 1NT (weak) (X) (Penalty, or penalty-oriented), responder's calls are:

• Pass — marionette to redouble (i.e., forces redouble by opener); either a penalty pass or a two-suiter with C+H, C+S, D+S, or H+S
  • after redouble by opener or any action by fourth hand:
  • • Pass (of redouble) — penalty; note that in this system it is impossible to play one notrump doubled
    • Pass (of opps' bid) — no desire to remain involved
    • Double (of any opposition bid) — penalty
    • 2C — clubs and a major; pass or correct (opener's 2D correction shows five decent diamonds and no tolerance for clubs, typically 3=3=5=2; with preference for major over clubs but no diamond suit, opener bids 2H, pass or correct)
    • 2D — diamonds and spades
    • 2H — hearts and spades; no, they're not touching, but this allows us to bid 2H right away, which is a good thing
    • 2S — spades and diamonds, highly distributional (rare)
    • 2NT — unused
    • higher bids — always the suit bid and the non-touching suit, highly distributional (very rare)
• Redouble — minor one-suiter, or major one-suiter that is more equivocal than a direct bid (keeping the majors in here makes life harder for the opps)
  • Opener bids a forced 2C, pass or correct, unless fourth hand bids; then:
    • pass — clubs (but see below about psyches)
    • 2X — the suit bid
    • 3X — invitational to game; usually highly distributional (else would have attempted to play 1NT redoubled)
    • game bids — to play; invites opener's cooperation if opps compete
• 2C — C+D (touching two-suiter)
• 2D — D+H
• 2H — H (not going through redouble suggests more certainty)
• 2S — S (not going through redouble suggests more certainty)
• 2NT — minors, highly distributional
• higher bids — to play (bids below game always preemptive; game bids highly distributional and do NOT invite cooperation if opps compete)

Note 1: This looks complicated how I've written it up, but that's because I included sequences that never come up. The basics are that one suiters bid immediately unless they're minors, in which case they go through redouble; touching two suiters (except H+S, meaning C+D and D+H) bid immediately, non-touching two-suiters go through the pass —> redouble marionette¹, and penalty redouble is available by passing first. Jump bids are to play and almost always highly preemptive.


Note 2: It's helpful to psyche occasional with this. Responder's later redouble is always business, so if responder chooses to psyche, he can either sit for an undoubled awful contract, or begin a scramble himself. We have (because of the rules against psychic controls) no tools to handle this. It's worth recalling that opener will almost never psyche a mini notrump opposite an unpassed partner, but may well do so when partner has passed; each member of the pair should be alert and use good judgment, but we can't legally say a lot more than that.

¹ A "marionette" is, according to Bridge World terminology, a puppet that must be followed by all hands that (in this case) opener can hold; a true puppet is bypassed with some subset of hands. (e.g., in puppet stayman, opener bids the 2D or 3D puppet with many hands, but something else with a five card major or no four card major)

We found that the trickier thing to deal with was not penalty doubles, but conventional (not penalty or penalty oriented, in other words, supposedly rarely passed) doubles that got passed by fourth hand, presumably for penalty. This happened to us more often than should be expected; I believe opps were not always straight with us on what direct double meant over our unaccustomedly (to them) weak range.

In practice, there are two solutions:

1. Responder, facing 1NT (X), where double is conventional, must do something with all terrible hands, so his pass shows sufficient values that 1NT will probably not be a disaster. If you play that way, opener can now pass fourth hand's penalty pass, supposedly secure in the knowledge that down more than one is not likely. But this has problems:
   1. Often, responder really just wants to pass with balanced crap, because most of the time opps are going to pull you out of the fire when they've started with a double that is ostensibly for takeout.
   2. Sometimes, responder does have values but 1NT doubled is still a disaster; a combined 18 or 20 HCP won't play well when someone has a solid suit to run, for example. This means running from the double is often correct even when responder was happy to play the contract undoubled.
   3. This makes pass alertable, I believe, and in any case the information that responder isn't broke will often help opps stay avoid getting too high, which they may otherwise be wont to do.
2. Responder can do as he likes, but opener needs (usually, at least) to start a scramble when his LHO's conventional double is passed back to him. (He might elect to sit when white versus red, but it's very hard to know; my experience is that when opps sit for this double they're usually right.) The best way to scramble is an interesting question; we used to redouble with most hands, but bid a five card minor if we had one. How to proceed beyond that is, again, an interesting question, compounded by the fact that this rates to be a very weird auction for your opps, too, unless their description of the initial double was misleading.

Another problem we had was opps who refused to tell us what the direct double meant at all: Many used to say that it was "optional" or "values", and try to leave it at that. Well, because our system varied depending on its meaning (the runout system over penalty, normal systems on over takeout), that posed a problem, one that wasn't even always solved by a director call. ("How often is it passed?" "I don't know, it's hard to say...")

Our probably-not-totally-legal solution to this problem posed by an illegal explanation was this: If the one giving the explanation said "penalty" or "values" at any part of his explanation, then it was penalty unless it was clearly otherwise (and responder would seek clarification in such cases). If those words didn't occur and it was still unclear, responder would basically maneuver fourth hand into at least tacitly agreeing with one explanation or the other. If there was never any clarity, the partnership would assume the meaning that responder had tried to get opps to agree to. (That last part isn't legal, but occasionally we were stuck with it.)

Another approach would be to treat all unclear "values"-type doubles as penalty, because that's what they usually work out to be.

The weird variation was against some much older players, who would describe it as being both "equal or greater strength" and "takeout". Yes, really. Unfortunately, these same players would then often pass the "takeout" double when fourth hand would add her 10 points to the 14 her partner had just promised, glance at the vulnerability, and work out that maybe pulling to an anemic four-card suit wasn't the best approach. For these, you have to grin and bear it... and have opener scramble for sure, because when Mildred and Ethel double your notrump, they are ALWAYS right.

A variation on the basic system, if you don't like to psyche, allows you to handle three suiters: responder bids them as he would have a one-suiter, settling in the short suit, and then redoubles (for rescue, in this variation) when the opponents double. This approach has some fascinating effects, both positive and negative. I think ideally you'd play it nonvulnerable only, where going down five undoubled is probably a great result against opps' likely game and down two or even three isn't so bad on a part-score deal, but that's a significant memory strain. We did try this for a while, and the best part was watching opps try to work out what to do when we settled in 2X and they had a stack.

Note that without the variation, you have no way to handle a three suiter — basically, responder decides which two-suiter to call it. And when he has truly balanced crap, well, no system is helping much here. It would be nice in such cases to get opener to bid his best suit (since he often has a five carder), but our system doesn't allow for that. So be it.

I realize that no one cares at this point, but now I"m having fun:

Suppose you are third hand, white/red (IMPs or MPs does change it; see below). You hold J9xx x T8x JT8xx. Partner deals and opens 1NT, 10–13 (or 10–12 if that's what you do, but I suggest opening it up a bit, particularly nonvulnerable). RHO doubles, showing (usually) a balanced 15+.

Your call.

You have options:

• The book bid is pass, then bid 2C over partner's double. That's fine as far as it goes, particularly because partner will rarely pull from clubs because he doesn't know which major your other suit is. (If he's, say, 2=4=5=2, he'll pull and that's good.) The problem is that this gives opps plenty of time and space to find their probable heart game. (We do open 1NT with five card majors, so it's not definite.) This would probably be your best approach if you're vulnerable — you'll almost always get to the best place if you pay the hand, and you won't have much risk of going down more than the value of their game.
• Another choice is an immediate 2S. If this is doubled you can try running to 3C, or sit — no one will be sure what's best. Playing 2S in what will often be a six card fit won't be a lot of fun, but if you can find five tricks you'll still be OK. Down four would be a lose five at IMPs, which definitely isn't good but isn't a horrible thing, but at matchpoints it will be a zero a lot of the time, so this is an IMP tactic.
• You could redouble and show a club one-suiter, but if you're taking a slow route, leaving spades in the picture is good.
• If you're considering calling this a club one-suiter, I think you might as well try 3C. This is about the cheapest you'll be able to buy it anyway, it is only a disastrous choice of suit when pard has decent spades and a doubleton club, and it's a much better way to keep opps from finding their game (or the right one). Again you are often going down three or more and maybe even four, so this is, again, an IMP tactic imo.
• The fun one: Bid 2H, showing hearts. If you have the agreement that this is a possible hand for a 2H bid, opps will probably work it out, but it will be fun watching them try to do the math, especially if hearts are 4–4. If you don't have such an agreement, there's a slim chance you could play 2H undoubled for down about six (win 12; MP top) or that you after you scramble out of the double, opps don't quite work it out and let you score –500 against their game, or play 3NT instead of 4H when the latter was right, win 1 IMP or ~3 MPs. Good opponents should get this right, but see below. This one is a matchpoint tactic. (Note that this sort of bid works only if pard knows not to get stupid once the psych is revealed. Also, if you have an agreement to do this in your short suit, so it's not a psych, you need to have redouble be the way we start formally scrambling, so opener doesn't think your later new suit is pass-or-correct.)

Now, suppose your opponents know (because you tell them) that the 2H approach is a possibility. That opens up the double fake: Suppose now that we switch your suits, so you have J9xx T8x x JT8xx. Now opps are odds on for 3NT. If you take a straightforward approach they'll probably find it, so try the effect of bidding 2H. They let you play it undoubled (unlikely but probably awesome) or they double and you run and then they have to judge what to do... and sometimes they'll "know" you have the hand above, and find themselves playing 4H with a seven (or six?!?) card fit. Win a little or a lot. And of course once they know this is a possibility, they'll need to be on their toes to find their heart game when you have the first hand. How many pairs will be able to distinguish 3, 4, and 5-card lengths in the suit in which they think, but do not know, you just psyched?

Or you could try the effect of bidding 2S with the second hand. Again, you play it undoubled because opps "know" you're trying to get away with one. Cool beans. Or they double, you judge to pull (watch each opponent carefully!), and they have to judge whether to bid game, which game to bid, and how to play it — guaranteed they miscount the hand, which could be a good thing.

What's really going on with all this is that when responder (1) has a pretty good idea what his partner holds, and (2) can direct the action, he has a ton of flexibility. Add in that his side is known to be the weaker one, which happens a lot when you play mini-notrumps, or psyching at least now and then is practically mandatory.


Yet another addition: It's important to know what's allowed in terms of psyches you might contemplate. Because 1NT is natural and doesn't extend below 10 HCP, psyching responses to it is not prohibited, except for (on the ACBL General Chart) this: "Disallowed. ... 2. ... Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings." So in our system we are allowed to psyche everything except our immediate 2C and 2D bids, which are conventional. That's also a reason not formally to add the three-suiter meaning to our 2H and 2S bids, because doing so would make psyching them illegal; better is to say something like that they're "ostensibly natural, but sometimes responder is stuck for a bid and needs to get creative; if so, he might plan on scrambling out of it later". That might be a tough sell in a committee, but you're probably not getting to a committee as long as you psyche only against opps who can deal with it. (Don't do it in clubs unless you like controversy.)

So what are thoughts on Bergen raises? I had someone ask me my opinion at the club about them and replied I wasn't a general fan. Looking around CCs of top pairs it seems most pairs play some variation of it though. Though hardly anyone plays it exactly.

I know this: being able to bid 1M-3M with 0-6 and 4-card support is the nuts. Using 3C and 3D, which are low frequency bids anyway, to show 7-9 or 10-11 limit raises is a good price.

Ask anyone with a nice hand and 5-card spades if they like that the bidding is at 3-level when it is their turn.

I used to play Garozzo splinters as well, which means that 1M-3D is always a balanced hand.

Bergen (and reverse) also popular in my area, but i've never seen it as a big competitive advantage.. playing 2/1 there are plenty of ways to describe the hands it uses

don't like the loss of 1M - 3N as natural



now inverted swiss minor raises are the nuts

reason #6,592 to play strong club:

no need for bergen

The hand type that wants to do this is so narrow that you can do without it.

Still it will be excellent to be able to bid 1M-3M with any hand containing 4-card support and no values to play or invite for game.

I'm with gabe that having that preemptive raise available is the main advantage, and is a good thing.

I don't particularly like the other bids in the system, but whatcha gonna do? (Actually, there are some nice solutions, but they're complex.)

Re strong club: In my troll club, which included some very weak (8 HCP) natural one-level openings, we had the preemptive raise available (albeit via transfer, e.g., 1S – 3H! is a transfer to spades, either preemptive or game forcing and starting a control-bidding sequence). But brrrr is right about the other bids being largely unnecessary.

You can.

1M-2NT is no longer good ol' Jacoby 2NT. Use it as limit+

Opener rebids 3C with a minimum.

I actually got rid of my preemptive 1M-3M.

I have been using 1M-3M as mixed, and weak raises have to take an alternate approach (4M or f-1N, mostly).

Yeah, mixed is good.

I guess I'm more scared of 1M-3M with nothing than gabe is

My attitude is: half the time you'd want to make a weak raise, you're vulnerable, so the range shades toward mixed anyway. And the other half, you're nonvulnerable, and it is unlikely to cost much to overbid to 4M. So I don't think it costs much to do this.

I think in IMPs rather than MPs, but I've had MP success with this as well.

We play inv j/s by un-ph out of comp, fit jumps by ph or in comp, 3M+1 ambiguous 9-11 splinters, and 2N limit+ 2N. Seems to work pretty well as a major suit structure.

1M – 3M weak is considerably more valuable at MPs than IMPs. The solution to overbid to 4M is pretty poor at matchpoints, where getting to exactly the right level is often critical, so having that unavailable when you want to preempt is a bad thing; at IMPs, it's not too bad to overbid by one when NV. When vulnerable, at MPs you don't really shade your range down much, at least not when your suit is hearts, whereas at IMPs you have to consider the issue more carefully when you're broke.

At matchpoints, a preemptive raise to three is fine against aggressive opponents with a shapely zero count and four card support (though an agreement to have a bit more is fine too). At matchpoints it's suicide.

I believe in the Law

I will not quickly bid 1M-3M with 0 and 4333, R vs W though

playing 2/1 with a good partner but someone i haven't played with before

NV all

KQ65
KT632
A2
t8


Open a routine 1H, and when partner bids a forcing 1NT i pass. Should I always bid 2H here even without a 6-suiter? I was leery of bidding hearts again and had no 3-card suit in the minors.

My partner had bid 1NT with 4 hearts (the qj54) and 10 points. I think that hand is too good to be invitational. Nonetheless, we should still score better if he has an invitational hand, say 3 hearts and a good 8.

P's full hand:




I know this should be a routine spot, but hadn't come up for me before.