BRBanger

I like the 10-14 HCP approx. range, because it has more power than the more traditional (old-fashioned?) 5-9 which often helps oppo's and wins the contract much less frequently. Oppo's will find it harder to come in over 10-14. Using 10-14 gets this tricky hand off your chest (e.g. do you bid clubs twice...or not), takes it out of the 1D opening, and makes it a little harder for oppo's with its pre-emptive value, albeit that it offers oppo's a "values double". I guess 8-12 is the most frequent range of HCP, but I agree that the lower end of this is a bit "thin", especially vul. By all means, reduce the requirements a little, especially non-vul in 3rd, but my standard expectation (as partner) would be KQxxx in both minors.

In a short club (with transfer responses), 15-17 NT, and unbalanced 1D opener, I like to open 2NT with 5-5 m's and 10-14 points. And a 2D Multi opener to cover 20-22 bal. Hence my vote.

Passing may be right, but is landing on the head of a pin. I bid 4♥ with my stiff club, otherwise I'd pass. Harder at Match Points though.

I bid 4NT, two places to play. Pull 5C to 5D, showing long diamonds and 4 hearts. I agree with helene_t that 5D is safer than 5H, provided partner has 2-3 diamonds. If hearts break 4-1, we could get forced in both hands. I'd be happier if partner has 5 hearts, which is quite conceivable, e.g. 2-5-1-5.

If the 1♠ rebid is not forcing, I think you must rebid 1♥ with 3h unbalanced, if those are your choices. Responder has shown hearts, not spades (yet). After the 1♥ rebid, can responder show 4sp instead of opener? Then the Major fits will not be lost. e.g. After 1♣-1♦-1♥, then either 1♠ is natural, or you might use 1NT to show 4 spades (<INV) if you prefer to use 1♠ as artificial. If responder is INV+ with or without spades, opener will be able to bid (e.g.) 2♠ later, in order to show shape and strength.

Partner may think that double is criminal when he sees my hand. He has 4-5 spades, but how good are they? He chose not to overcall, so I hang him out to dry? I'll double at MP's.

I also play 2NT as weak in clubs or strong elsewhere (and play Lebensohl this way too). Other reasons for this, as well as those already mentioned are: a) With weaker hands I get the suit in immediately, so that if oppo's bid again, partner is better positioned to compete. Less ambiguity. b) Oppo's are less likely to bid over 2NT (where 2NT is strong). c) 2NT is just assumed to be weak with clubs, if not, opener will surely bid again. However, I like Phil's idea of playing 2NT as just strong in opener's suit.

5♥. A tough choice, but a decent 2-way bet at green. I'm not convinced hearts will break so badly; the 5♦ bidder will upgrade his hand with AQx of hearts, and will downgrade club values.

Assuming 2♥ is not forcing, I guess the question is: "Should 3♥ now be forcing?" I think not. Responder has shown a weak hand with long diamonds, and opener could be quite weak with 6-5 M's. Ok, I always take a pessimistic view. But with diamond support we might raise with: AKxxx Axxxx Qxx void ...or bid 5D, or even cue-bid the void! 1♠-1NT-2H-3D-4H is interesting too, because this must show some diamond support (opener's hand just got better). Maybe something like: AQxxxx Axxxx Kx void

Ok, I can see that being able to show 4M and 5c in a 15-18 range(i.e. non-forcing but encouraging) has some benefits to help solve typical problems we may get with standard systems. And if the hands with 6+diamonds are removed, it's very likely that responder has either 3 cards in the M, or 3+c (although my partners usually have 2-4-5-2 shape!). In principle, though, it's good to see more varied use of the 1C-1D (relay) - 1H sequence (and similarly the 1C-1R-1M sequences for T-Walsh players), taking more advantage of the "free" rebid. I suppose you take your choice as to whether to add some complexity in this interesting area, rather than use 1C-1R-1M to show 3 card support, or just to show a weak NT type. Another thought, if we take the G-F system where 1C-1M shows 5 (and 2M responses are used to show weakish hands with both M's): If RHO enters the bidding, how best to play double by opener? We don't need a support double / redouble (to show 3 card support). Anyone for penalty doubles with the 17-19 balanced type? Responder can always go back to 2M to play opposite opener's doubleton. Or do we now have to commit to a 2NT rebid...if the re-opening double is for take-out? e.g. 1C-(p)-1S-(2H)-x / 2NT.

Frances, please accept my apology for mis-spelling your name in my previous message! I lose track too, and that's my problem with trying to understand the thinking behind a system, based solely on the convention card. I have noted a few changes on their card over that last couple of years, but don't understand the reasons why, and don't understand how the auction can develop, because there's insufficient space on the CC for "follow-up" sequences. A lot of the subtleties therefore remain an "unknown". The only obvious thing I can gleam is that they're big on 5cM's!

Aleksis, I didn't quite understand your first sentence, but I guess you meant that the 1S response gives us lots of space. I'd be particularly impressed if we can agree clubs and show slam interest "at the level of 3C". Can you (or anyone else) please help me with the "nebulous 1S" response by offering a scheme for developing the auction, either after 1C-1S-1NT, after 1C-1S-2D (I like the ideas suggested, using this to show 17-19 bal). Welland - Fallenius, for example, used 2H as INV, 2S as a puppet to 2NT, 2NT forcing and choosing to right-side, 3C to play. But their initial response scheme was different; apart from the "nebulous 1S", 1NT was 11-13 INV, and 2C inverted. Looks quite old-fashioned by today's standards! But note that they attempted to add some definition to the initial "non-Major-showing" responses.

Transfers are pretty, but I agree, we DO need a bid to show 4h. I'd like to include a voting option where the double shows 4h, or maybe a decent spade raise (with 2S as weaker). Happy to use 2D as a transfer, or to swap 2D and 2H.

My thoughts exactly Michael - opener is not always balanced. There is scope to use 1S (and some higher responses)to add definition. Current trends seem to like using 1NT and 2C as GF transfers (wow, so much space), or maybe 1NT as INV bal (which has appeal, although about two thirds of the time you have a 4cM), and 2m as 5+m GF. Also using 2M to show some of the tricky limited hands with (say) both M's (personally I like 2D as a Multi alongside 2M as limited with both M's). A bonus, sometime overlooked perhaps, is that sequences like 1C - 1S (let's say this is natural for the sake of this example!)- any rebid - 2H cannot be the limited 5-4 M's (we would have bid 1C - 2H). So with T-Walsh 1S to say "nothing much" is ok, and fine if opener is balanced. However, some folk (see above) prefer to go completely the other way and use 4 or 5 bids all showing diamonds (er...I really don't like this - do we really need that many?). Again, this idea has support, but it seems a bit of a waste, maybe even a backward step in terms of development. It feels to me a bit like we've improved quite a bit of the system, but forgot to think about diamonds. I'm not meaning to denigrate the "loads of responses showing diamonds". After all (in a 5M system), if we open 1C (whether or not we have a real club suit) the most likely other suit we have is diamonds. To be fair (to both Michael and Aleksis), perhaps I'll take a middle road, with 1S=4+c, 1NT=4/5d limited, 2C=6d weak or 5+d GF, and if I can't use 2D as a Multi, then I'll pick 2D to show 6d INV (but I'd choose to squeeze this and the INV+ 4/5d hands into the 2C response). Phew - I've only used 2 or 3 bids to show diamonds! Feeling better already. Anyone else for some kind of "balance", or "all those in favour of the nebulous 1S"? Sorry, I've drifted away from the original post: T-Walsh or some other method of responding which (at least some of the time) allows a 1NT rebid to show the 17-18/19 range.

But 1C-1D (relay, no 5M)-1H (covers weak NT) -1S (relay)-2M showing 15-18 with 5+clubs and 4M has no guaranteed fit; we may wish we were back in 2C. I'm still left guessing how the Gold - Forrester system works here. As Jeffrey points out, all is fine if responder can bid 1NT to show both M's <INV. Maybe I'm missing something, and it wouldn't be the first time!