PhilKing

Isn't that the point?

Phew! Great hand for the system. ;)

Don't give the ox a chance to show an even number. :(

♣J ♣J Please have the ♣J

3 reasons: 1) Advancer has a higher average number of spades after 1♠-x-p than after 2♠-x-p (where everyone plays lebensohl), so is more likely to have a natural NT type. 2) Playing in 1NT as opposed to 2 of a suit is less likely to be critical than 2NT v 3 of a suit. 3) Utility is lower. After 2M, you need to sort out responders range immediately. At the one level there is still space to explore. Just rereading the comments I see that CSGIbson has covered most of this ground.

It's not just revealing the splinter - quite a few decent pairs play a double of, say, 1♠-4♣ as asking for a specific red lead at 3 of the 4 vulnerabilities. But I guess that's not common in the big scheme of things. Also, after the direct splinters, the lowest one is the only one where you can easily RKCB below 4M, so the loss is not great. For instance, after 1♥-4♣ I prefer 4♦ as a train, so I just lose the buck-pass. And after 1♥-4♦ you have not really gained a step unless you play split range splinters (which I really don't like).

I would definitely open a 13-15 NT.

This is a pretty serious leak - play it the other way round. Singletons are more frequent, so should go through 3♠ for concealment purposes when opener has a unilateral sign-off. Also there is a small extra technical reason for this way - opener can show two voids with the steps between relay and game. When responder's undisclosed feature is a void, opener is less likely to have a unilateral sign-off and ends up asking anyway leaking information by asking anyway.

Transfers are generally not well suited to auctions where you force partner to bid, the most common example being 2M-x-p-?, where transfers enjoyed a brief popularity until people realised you could not distinguish between weak and constructive hands. This sequence has the same properties.

Well I developed it with Gold, and he played it with Tom. With Forrester, he plays only Forrester's toys though ... :( The whole system does tend to rely on opponents actually supporting to 2♠ or doubling 1NT when possible, but good luck with the passive approach! The hand you quote ♠Kx ♥AQxx ♦KJx ♣Kxxx is an almost an advert for the method. We double, partner bids 2♦ and we bid 2NT encouraging but non-forcing. Opposite the weak hand you quote (which I agree is not a raise to 2NT via 2♣), 1NT should make if the diamond ace is doubleton, which is not so unlikely. Also, although in standard you have a clear pass of 2♦, that can easily miss a cold 3NT.

Nor will they. Armstrong/Davies played a fairly similar style. I remember a set of 16 boards where they opened 1M three times where a Hackett passed at the other table ... The London pairs that played strong and four (Townsend/Gold, Price/Simpson) were playing a rather different system influenced by their rubber bridge background, but only Price/Simpson retained the simple approach.

The hand you quote is an illusion. When we have the combination of a weak takeout and a minimum double, the opponents generally bid. Look at this this way - we have a minimum take-out double with, say, two spades. Partner has a bad hand and a five card suit, bids 1NT and the opponents say nothing? Same answer to Gnasher's post.

I actually play it after 1M-x-p. But because you are lower, you can get away with playing it as two way - either 6-9 bal or 0-6 any. Two level responses show 7-10. In response to 1NT, doubler passes if he would have passed a natural 1NT. With a raise to 2NT he usually bids 2♣. Higher bids are what you would do if you knew partner had a weak hand with clubs: 2D nat, usually extras 2M nat, extras 2cue 19+ distributional 2NT 20-22

Frequency is overrated.

The sample size is too small unless you include division 2. ;) Quite a few of the 4CM 14-16/15-17 NT brigade use IJS's as well (Hacketts definitely, and most of DeBotton team I think, but Price/Simpson play strong).

In England, almost all pairs in the Premier League who play 5-card majors use natural invitational jump shifts (call it 9-11 with a decent 6-card suit if you like). Looking through the US teams trials, it seems to be the most popular treatment as well. Bergen raises can be handled by playing 2NT as 10+ 4+ and 3M as 7-9 4+. I don't believe the very weak raise is worth much as a preempt, nor is it very common. Responding 1NT with very weak hands with 4+ card support can be just as effective in a weird way.

I can't really think of many worse spots to play transfers.

Transfers work fine there (much better than lebensohl), but I prefer 2NT as a good heart raise. It's our most frequent and important hand type, and I don't want to have to bid 3♦ to show it.

My head has literally just exploded.

In the 2000 USBC, Steve Garner passed after 1♠-1NT-2♦-2♠ with: ♠Q87632 ♥5 ♦AKQT8 ♣9 Incredibly, game was on ... Even I would have managed a raise on that (although sticking could clearly be right), but the hand in this thread looks like a clear pass.

Is 4-8 more frequent? A lot of hands at the lower end point-wise have a terrible suit and certainly can't make a 3-level WJS. 9, 10 and 11 point hands are much more likely a priori - not sure how much partner opening changes it. Back to OPs method, hands with 0-5 points suitable for a 3-level WJS are very rare and the preemptive value is overstated. There's a reason why the method has fallen out of fashion. Having said that, Bergen is losing popularity as well.

There are a couple of problems: 1. We both have ♠J9xx. 2. I've never seen Sabine in partscore when game was bid at the other table.

You can switch 3♣ and ♥ over 1NT. In order to handle spade/club hands sufficiently, you have to open 1♣ on game-forcing hands with 5-5 in the blacks. Now everything flows, since opener's only possible shapes are 64, 65 and 5422 (5431s can never jump to 3♥ and hope to survive). Responder bids 3♠ waiting if he needs clarification: 3NT 5224 4C 65 4D/H 64 with void 4S 64, no void Of course, the main point is to have all that extra room when opener has a game force with both majors, and so now you can do it on 5431s.

I pass. Experience suggests they make 9 tricks, but I live in hope that partner will have his call. I have an uneasy feeling regarding partner's pass of 2♦ though. Has his hand suddenly improved?

This hand seem to have generated a whole lotta love. If partner has ♠KJTxx ♥x ♦AKxxx ♣xx you are going for either 800 or 1100 and they are almost certainly settling for game if you pass. And 1400 is not out of the question ♠KJTxx ♥x ♦KJxxx ♣Qx.