MickyB

I think it also loses when LHO is 1-2 minors without CQ

Defence is much easier after 1N:2C, 2H:2N, 3N than it is after 1N:3N or 1N:2N, 3N.

Not many serious partnerships play 1N:2N as natural - there's just too many other things to be doing with the bid. The big disadvantage of bidding Stayman with no 4-card major is that you are giving unnecessary information to the defence, it'd be better to just blast 3NT and hope they find the wrong lead. You might consider playing a slight modification on 4-suit transfers - 2S = clubs or a balanced invite [now 2N = minimum, 3C = maximum]. The advantages of this structure over 2S = 1 minor weak, 2N = natural may not be immediately apparent, but as you improve you'll find that, with a 3-1-3-6 11-count opposite a strong NT, you really want to show both your clubs and your shortage in hearts without bypassing 3NT. This isn't really possible playing 2S as a weak hand with either minor.

Probably the wrong place for a bug report, but when I am switched seats I find I can't click on the top-right card without opening an advert. That's on the windows client using pictures of cards, it's fine if I switch to symbols.

Why can't pard be 5134 16-count or something? 3H looks plenty. Pard is allowed to raise on an 18-19 NT

Theoretically, I prefer 5524 or 5443/5434 [1H with 4H4m and sometimes 4H5m] to 5533/5542, although I've not actually tried playing them :rolleyes:

If the only difference between a 5533 system and a 5542 system is the choice of opening bid on a 4432 shape, then they are basically the same system. Either way, partner will assume 1D = 4 cards, 1C = 3 cards, and occasionally he will be disappointed. Of the two, I recommend 5533, simply because sometimes opposition will be allowed to play unusual defences to a 2+card 1C opening.

A pair playing in the English Premier League bid (3N gambling)-P-(4C)-5C; AP. I thought they were somewhat unlucky to find trumps breaking 8-0.

g) 1C = nat/17-19 NT, 1D = nat/11-13 NT. Now 1C:1S!, 1N = 17-19 NT. Clearly better uncontested auctions than the alternatives and arguably better contested auctions than many of them - having both weak bal and strong bal in the same opening puts a lot of pressure on the strong bal hands IMO.

A common convention amongst bad players in England [weak NT-land] is 1N:2S shows 11 pts, 1N:2N shows 12. I once played vs a pair who played systems on over a 1NT overcall - 1D-(1N)-P-(2S); P-(3N) and that was 15 opposite 11.

Lead-directing doubles at the two-level aren't risk-free. I play this in my main partnership, I'm unsure whether it's worth it. I like that 2C:2D, 3m:3M shows 5+cards and some values. The big issue is wrong-siding of spade contracts going through Kokish, but we break with some spade hands as responder so it's not too bad.

Pass is forcing. I don't see why 3N here should deny a balanced 18-19. If both 2N and 3N are forcing it would make more sense to bid 3N with the balanced hand and 2N with the unbalanced hand. Obviously, this means I find that South is to blame. I would've opened 2NT, and I would like to think that we would reach slam after partner responds 3S showing spade shortage.

It depends on your requirements for a good 4M opening, but I doubt the frequency is that different from a gambling 3N. Your OP suggests this shouldn't be counted as "sufficiently frequent" B-)

3N = good 4H bid is a good compromise between theoretical merit and memory-load.

Yup, 2H = 3-card INV, 3H = GF. Obviously these aren't the most vital descriptions to have available which goes part-way to demonstrating the superiority of transfer walsh.

KJx opposite 9xx or KJ9 opposite xxx I think, the ten seems a reasonable shot.

I seem to remember 5H332 weak NTs are something like 10.5% of 1H openings. Many of those will reach the same game/2H/2S contract. Some of them will score better in 2M. I guess all edges are quite small, so just losing on a net 1% of hands on this start might well be significant; However, I don't think reserving the cheapest call for a relatively infrequent handtype is best.

I'm happy playing vs the non-JEC pair, unfortunately Simon doesn't really have internet access atm. Hopefully this will change at somepoint but there's no timeframe really. Saturdays > Sundays for me.

Yes. The version I played used 2D as a 3-card spade raise so you could still get to 2H.

There are lots of simpler and better ways of doing it using an ART 1NT rebid. Obviously won't be similar to your other stuff though.

1C would've been strong - as you might've expected given that 1D showed 11-15 B-)

Sasioc and I faced the following auction the other day. 1♦:1♥ 1♠:2♣ 2♥:3NT 1♦ was 11-15, natural or a balanced range On lead, Sasioc asked for an explanation of the auction. We were told that 2♣ was Checkback, and that opener had 4♠3♥. She asked if he had promised real diamonds, and was told that he had not. She led face-down, and I enquired further - would 2♦ over 2♣ have denied three hearts? We were now told that any hand with Hxxx diamond would have bid 2♦ instead of 2♥! Thankfully, she had led a diamond and the contract was cold anyway, so there was no need for a ruling. However, it got me wondering - a) Do you consider the initial explanation to constitute MI? b) If the issue came to light with her card still face-down, presumably it can be changed. If she changes it is this AI to me and UI to declarer? c) I believe it can still be changed once the lead is face-up, if dummy has not gone down. Again, is her initial lead AI to me? d) Are there any issues with regard to improper communication between us - say she changed her lead to a diamond and found my strong suit? e)If the issue comes to light after dummy has been put down, presumably it's too late to change the lead. I believe that everyone is now responsible for calling the director, so presumably the opening leader should do so even though some might consider this to transmit information to declarer/partner? f) As partner of the opening leader, is it improper to deliberately delay further questioning until the dummy has been put down as an attempt at a double-shot? Not that I'm considering doing so B-) Thanks Mike

I've never been a fan of 2♣ puppet. IMO Stayman works very well on weak hands, and on hands that are just interested in game opposite a fit - 4441, (43)51, 5-4 majors, 5-5 majors. Also 5+ spade invites if you play 1N:2C, 2R:2S as this, and other 4M5+D hands if you play 1N:2C, 2X:3C as diamonds. I agree that Stayman gives less info away than Puppet in this situation, but it gives more info away about declarer's hand, which may be significant during the play. I agree it would be fairly unusual for 1N:3N to deny a three-card major! Obviously, this isn't the same as 1N:2C, 2D:3N denying a three-card major.

Sure. However, the common alternatives [5-5 minors weak, or 5-5 minors invitational] hardly seem to be making better use of the bid. Also, I think Puppet handles balanced slam-tries very well. In my experience, most methods do not cope well with 5m332 or (32)44 hands with slam interest. Sure, I do try to disclose this stuff properly. 1N:2C, 2D:3N as "denies precisely three cards in a major" is of marginal benefit to the opening leader IMO - much less so than 3NT promising 4-4 majors.

I was thinking about this again yesterday. I've concluded that - - Bidding Puppet with 4-3 majors is clearly better, on average, than bidding Stayman with 4-3 majors, *even when you don't find a 5-3 fit*. 1N:3C, 3M:3N when responder is 4-2 majors is pretty awful in terms of giving info away about declarer's hand. - There is a case for being able to take either route with 4-2 majors. That way, 1N:2C, 2D:3N doesn't show 4-4 majors, and 1N:3C, 3M:3N doesn't show 3-2 majors [strongly suggesting a lead of the other major]. - Say you are (42)(52) with Hx in the major and xx in the minor. I think it's right to bid puppet, prepared to play 4M in the 5-2 fit, because you suspect that your coverage of the minor isn't great opposite a 2-3 card holding.