lowerline

(1) 5-5 in the majors (1a) No, 2♦ would have been natural (2) dbl is takeout, 1nt is 5-4 in the majors (lacking the distribution for 2♣ or the strenght for dbl), 2nt does not exist (3) see (1) (4) there is only a difference if West is unpassed (1nt natural and 2nt a stronger 2suiter than 2♣) Steven

South opening: 1♦-2nt(1) 3♠(2)-4♠(3) p (4) (1) 12-14/18-19 balanced without a 4crd major (2) unbalanced natural (3) with an expected singleton in ♥ or ♣, this is a proposal to play in the 4-3 fit (4) can correct to 5♦ with a 6crd diamond suit North opening: 1♣-1♦ 1nt-2♠ 2nt-3♣ 3♦ (1) - 3nt (2) 4♠ (3) -p (4) (1) shows the diamond fit in case S has slam interest (2) no slam interest (3) with the known shortness in hearts, this proposes the 4-3 fit (4) 4♠ is one trick less than 5♦... Both sequences are reasonable but might be judged differently at the table. In the first sequence North might bid 4♦ iso 4♠ and then you will likely end up in 5♦. In the second sequence North might show his diamond support earlier (bidding 3♦ iso 2nt), then 4♠ becomes unlikely again. Steven

Pass Double Pass But I prefer 2♠ over double. Steven

So partner overcalled 2♥ on both hands? Then I bid 4♥ on both hands. Steven

First of all opener should not jump over a GF 4SF. Over openers 2nt responder can tell what the 4SF is about. That way you are sure to find the right strain. If opener is limited to 16/17hcp (if you play a natural NF 2♣ rebid), he will never need to make a move over responders 3nt signoff. And for responder it is easier to judge whether he should make another move over 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2nt-3♠-3nt when he knows opener is limited to 16/17hcp. So the above agreement is part of the problem. Steven

I don't understand why 2C must be forcing if it is natural... I suppose it is that agreement that lead to the other agreement to jump in NT with a minimum hand. Steven

Open 1♣ when strong enough to reverse. Open 1♦ otherwise. I only consider opening 1nt with a singleton honour. Steven

lmilne & gwnn & TWO4BRIDGE already mentioned Baze after Stayman. I think that is what you need here. After Jacoby tranfers I think it is a good idea to play Splinters. Then you have to use Texas transfers with 6322 or 7222 distributions. 4nt after Texas is always RKCB (as others already said). Steven

Hand A is a clear pass. Unless in 3th or 4th position and playing some form of Drury. Hand B is borderline. The 2 aces and the intermediates in spades draw me towards a 1♠ opening. Is rule of 22 = rule of 20 + QTs? That rule will tell you hand B is better than hand A, but does not allow you to open any of them. Steven

Not reaching 6 is incomprehensible... The blame for not reaching 7 is shared: East for not opening 1♥ and West for not splintering after the 1♥ response. Steven

Spades cannot be 5-0 because both followed to the first round... The bidding diagram is a bit confusing, but it looks as the doubler is behind declarer. If you continue with the ♠K now and spades turn out to be 4-1, you will lose 2 spades, 1/2 diamonds and 1 club. If you continue with a small spade, you keep trump control. The heart ruff is unlikely because that means that the partner of the doubler has 3 spades. But even then you will only lose 2 spades and a club. With one spade remaining in dummy you cannot be forced in clubs. Then you can continue playing trumps, enjoy all the hearts, discarding your diamond losers. Steven

Small spade next. Steven

Double, showing 3crd ♥ support. Not playing support doubles, I would bid 2♥ with this hand. A balanced 12-14 hand can pass the rest of the time. A 2♠ bid should definitely show an unbalanced hand. Steven

Ok, now it is clear to me you mean something different with MLTC than I do with new-LTC... See my first post for the explanation on new-LTC. I have not miscounted. The original hand was QT3/QJT86/J4/KQ9. Missing AK in spades = 5 half-losers; missing AK in hearts = 5 half-losers; missing AK in diamonds = 5 half-losers; missing A in clubs = 3 half-losers. Total = 18 half-losers or 9 losers. So clearly not an opening hand. Only followers of the original LTC (7 losers) would open this hand. You are right about your last example though. The count is the same with the old or the new LTC. But like any other hand evaluation method, that is easy enough to apply at the table, you will always find hands that it doesn't evaluate correctly. Still, new-LTC is better than old-LTC most of the time... But whatever aid you use, it is never an excuse for eliminating common sense. I would never open your example hand. It might come as a surprise to you but I'm known around here as a sound opener... ;-) Steven

5♥. If partner bids 5♠ (his most negative response), I will raise to 6♠. If he bids anything else, I will probably continue to 7♠. Though I must admit I'm not sure about the meaning of all the continuations... Steven

Lots of ways to bid hearts. I wonder what the differences are... immediate: dbl = 4crd ♥ (7+); 2♥ = 5+crd forcing (10+); 3♥ = 6crd NF (7-9) first pass then after reopening dbl: 2♥ = 4crd ♥ (0-7); 3♥ = 6crd (4-6) OR via 2nt then 3♥ = 6crd (0-4) If these are the agreements, the hand is borderline between 3♥ now or 3♥ via 2nt... Steven

I cannot say that I fully understand what you are saying here... The hand in the OP has 11hcp. According to the original LTC it has 7 losers which is enough to open an 11hcp hand. According to the new-LTC it has 9 losers, while only 7.5 losers are allowed to open an 11hcp hand. No, it is not clear to me why new-LTC in combination with hcp is worse than any of the other methods you mention... From a practical point of view the new-LTC is certainly easier to apply at the table than QPs or the modified Milton base because you don't have to change your hcp reference framework. Steven

Being a non-expert player, I use the (new/adjusted) LTC to help me decide whether to open. The new-LTC works like this: missing ace in a 1+ suit = 3 half-losersmissing king in a 2+ suit = 2 half-losersmissing queen in a 3+ suit = 1 half-loser # of losers = # of half-losers divided by 2 Open any 11+hcp hand with 7.5 losers or less Open any 10hcp hand with 6.5 losers or less I will only consider passing a 12hcp hand with 8.5 losers or more Steven

Playing Wolff SO: With 5♥ or 4♠4♥ bid 3♦. Partner will show 4♠ before 3♥. After 1♦-1♥-2nt-3♦-3♠-3nt partner can correct to 4♥ because he knows you have a 5crd suit. After 1♦-1♥-2nt-3♦-3♥ then 3♠ is a cuebid that sets hearts as trumps. Steven

I don't consider this a bidding problem (yet). This is a 2♠ bid in any natural system. If partner comes back with 3♦ over my 2♠, well now I have something to think about... Steven

I suppose you play 4SF as inv+? Then partner has denied 3crd hearts or extra values, so I bid 3nt now. Steven

I agree with the initial pass, but I would have bid 3♥ iso double. I suppose 2nt is Lebensohl? Don't bid 3♣ but 3♥ now. Steven

1) With Smolen available I would have used it to get to 4♥. South's hand is good enough for game opposite a strong nt. 2) I would have overcalled 1nt iso double. Though 4♠ is aggressive, it is the double that caused it. Steven

This is what I play: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♦ - 2♥ (inv+ relay) Then: 2♠ = 4crd ♥ (2nt or 3♦ next can be passed) 2nt = 6♦ max GF 3♣ = 6♦4♣ (3♦ next can be passed) 3♦ = 6♦ min NF 3♥ = 4♥6♦ GF 3♠ = 3♠6♦ GF The issue with the invitational major 2suiter remains of course. But you have already given the solution for those. Steven

It is true you can forget about a club contract after 1♦-1♠-2♥. But how likely is it to find a diamond contract after 1♣-1♠-2♥? Because of the popularity of (T-)Walsh diamonds are often skipped after a 1♣ opening... Steven