[han]

Many of us play non-standard methods after 1m-(1!H) and some also after 1C-(1!d). Most who do think these methods are superior to standard methods.

One of the toughest overcalls to deal with is 1D-(2C). For example, in standard methods there is no good good way to deal with xx AQJxxx Jxx xx.

What do you think is theoretically the best structure over 1D-(2C)? Here is one structure for you to comment on:

Dbl = takeout, never a 1-suited major.
2D = hearts, at least constructive.
2H = spades, at least constructive.
2S = mixed raise in diamonds.
2NT = natural, invitational.
3C = invitational or better with diamonds.
3D = preemptive.
3H/3S = support jump.

Is this superior to standard or is it worse?

[Fluffy]

I like it, the biggest flaw is you give up on the likelly 2♦ raise, also a small flaw is that you also give a tiny extra space to opponents (but most won't be able to take advantage of it).

I cannot imagine how useful is the 2♦ raise is, it doesn't seem crucial to me, but if you try this convention and tell me in 2 months that its a disaster because you lack 2♦ I will believe you.

So try it and tell us your experience .

[awm]

Sam and I play something very similar to what you suggest over our 1♦ (our 1♦ is artificial though, playing strong club). This works even better for us because there's no real desire for a non-forcing "raise" of a short diamond opening.

A few differences though:

(1) We use 2♠ as "limit or better values in diamonds" with opener's primary responsibility being to show a club stopper. There's a set of hands where responder is (for example) 3-3-4-3 and really wants a stopper ask.

(2) We use 3♣ as showing an extreme major two suiter (like 5-5) without a very strong hand. This is a useful call since transfer to spades followed by 3♥ should probably be forcing, and doubling with 5-5 or 6-5 majors is kind of undesirable.

(3) Our 3♦ preempt is wide-ranging (includes most mixed raises), again a good fit for a strong club system.

[mike777]

NFB can certainly have their drawbacks but at the actual table they seem to work pretty well over this auction and this is an auction we all hear very often. This allows for a natural 2D(weakish) bid still

OTOH,,,trf on all the time seem to be catching on at the top levels after decades of discussion in BW.

[skjaeran]

It's similar to what I play with my regular partner:

x= negative, at least two places to play
2♦=hearts, at least constructive
2♥=spades, at least constructive
2♠=transfer to NT, ♣-stopper, inv+
2NT=constructive 4+♦ raise, non-inv.
3♣=inv+ ♦ raise
3♦/M=nat pre

[han]

I like the changes Adam suggests. We play a 2/1 system, but 1D can't be strong balanced. I think that we can't play 3D as wide ranging as you strong clubbers do though. Maybe we should give up on the very weak raises (or bid 4D with those) and play 3D as somewhat constructive, 2S as inv+.

[awm]

Seems like you could use 3♣ as the constructive diamond raise and 2♠ as limit or better (just reversing the two). The point is that there are some hands where you really just want to make a stopper ask (which 2♠ accomplishes as opener's first priority is to show a stopper). The 5-5 majors hand is useful to be able to show, but I think not all that frequent (and you could probably get by either doubling or transferring and hoping for the best).

[Edmunte1]

I've played:
-2♦=5+♥, constr+
-2♥=5+♠ constr +
-2♠=inv+ fit ♦
-2NT=nat
-3♣= fit ♦ constr
-3♦=weak

This method worked very well

[jdonn]

Against me you don't have to play anything, my opponents always negative double on 5-3 either way and find a 5-4 fit

[han]

jdonn, on Aug 21 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

Against me you don't have to play anything, my opponents always negative double on 5-3 either way and find a 5-4 fit

I suggest you give up bridge immediately Josh, you can't beat those odds.