MickyB

How can you play in 2D when partner has long diamonds if he has to rebid 2D to show 8+ points? Because I open a strong NT with a five-card major - 1S:1NT, 2C is natural, and partner's 2D rebid now is natural and weak. I don't have to find a rebid on a balanced 16-count after 1H-P-1S-P. If the auction gets competitive, I have already shown that I have extra values. I preempt the opposition more. While I may have only deprived LHO of a 1NT overcall, it is likely that several of his bids over my 1NT opening will show length in my five-card suit, so it is unlikely he will be dealt a hand suitable for them, and if he is, he will probably regret bidding. Playing Bart and a (semi-)forcing NT, I would sometimes prefer 1S to 1NT, but I would much sooner be playing a non-forcing NT and have to open 1NT with any 5332 15-count I happened to be dealt.

I am not sure why playing 4cM should make you less likely to open 1NT with five - if anything, I'd think it would make you more likely to open 1NT, because you cannot be playing a forcing 1NT in response to a four-card major.

So long as you have ways of responder showing shortage, you won't regret missing a 5-3 fit very often. 3NT will usually be right when partner is 4333 and is often acceptable when responder is 5332 or 4432.

I thought it had been established that "everyone" on BBF played new suits as NF in auctions like this.

It really depends what hands you are putting through Stayman. The advantage is that 1N:2C, 2M denies four in the other major. Playing standard stuff, this means that 1N:2C, 2M:2NT neither shows nor denies length in the other major without any guesswork later, and 1N:2C, 2H:3m, 3S isn't needed to agree spades. The main disadvantage is that garbage hands land up at the three-level. I'm using a structure where Stayman then 3m is invitational with or without a major, sadly this isn't compatible with the "both major" 2NT and 3C responses because I would need every bid over 2NT to be non-forcing.

1S:1N, 2C:2D as multi works well.

I am just considering the use of 3C as INV+ with diamonds (regardless of what the response to Stayman is) but I wouldn't be using Smolen. 3S as 5+C4M seems pretty bad unless you have other ways of showing various 5431s with five clubs.

2H, wtp? I can show the sixth spade later. If it gets back to me at 4H I can bid 4S and partner will have a decent idea whether to pass or pull. If it comes back to me with partner having asked to play in my minor at the five-level, 6D seems a decent shot.

4450 seems the most likely to me.

Was pleased to see so many replies :P I assume 4-4 majors goes through 2C Stayman so opener doesn't have to disclose whether he has four hearts or not when you go through puppet? What is 1N:2C, 2M:3N?

I am interested in continuations over 1NT:2NT and how it affects continuations over 1NT:2C. Does anyone know how Meckwell play it? Thanks

I'm not sure I've ever picked up a hand over partner's weak 2H where I wanted 2S to be forcing. I've picked up quite a few where I was glad it was NF. Over a weak 2D it's closer, there you might well want to bid 2M forcing when you have diamond support.

Yup, they don't want to have to find a way to show extras in competition with a balanced 19-count.

Both minors.

I bid 1N. Nothing else came to mind.

Bidding up-the-line, I think there's a lot to be said for short diamond and four-card club :)

Scoring?

Yup, fair point - surprised I've never seen anyone give up transfers by a passed hand. Straube's response structure looks pretty cool, I am definitely going to steal at least some of it.

I looked at various structures a while back, including the ones you have mentioned and some others (Puppet Stayman, Two-Way Stayman, and others less well known, e.g. 2C as hearts, 2D as spades, as played by arguably the top theorist in England), but I am yet to find anything that works better than Stayman and Transfers, preferably with some kind of Transfer Extensions. I don't think your goals over a weak NT are that different to over a strong NT - if 1NT was 8-11 then I might think again!

"Total points" includes distribution, so it wasn't expecting them to have only 13hcp. Still, I suspect it took you for a strong hand asking for a stop.

It depends on how you play your other responses [most noticeably your jump-shifts], but the 1NT response will include some or all of the following - 1 - A natural 2NT bid, 11 points or so. If a 5332 14-count passed this you rate to miss a good 3NT. 2 - Invitational hands with a long suit. A suitable 5332 12-count will make game cold. 3 - Invitational hands with three-card support. A 5332 14-count may well miss game by passing, while a 5332 12-count will play 1NT instead of 3M [admittedly, if responder is balanced that rates to be fine]. 4 - Weak hands with three-card support, too weak to raise to 2M immediately. They would rather play 2M than 1NT. 5 - Weak hands with a long suit. They are intending to bid at their next turn. Obviously they are hands which would much rather have played 1NT than a suit contract, and hands that will be left with no course of action that will guarantee playing in a seven-card fit, so it isn't all one-sided. My preference is to try to remove some of types 2 and 3 from the 1NT response, and to play it as semi-forcing - i.e. you rebid a short minor on a balanced 14-count but pass 1NT with a balanced 12-count. This lets you play 1NT instead of 2NT opposite type 1.

Despite, apparently, noone agreeing with me, this thread has made me really want to play 2D as S+m or H and 2H as H+m or S - this seems to have nearly all the advantages of Wilkosz and 2H multi, without a lot of the disadvantages. I think I would play 2S as a good weak two, removing the top end from the 2H opening will make it more comfortable to pass at times. If I had 2C and 2NT available as well, I think I would use 2C as 5+m4M and 2NT as minors or majors.

It depends what you are intending to do with the space, but playing 1C:1D as spades is arguably as good as playing it as hearts, and is GCC ok I believe. Unfortunately, I think 1C:1M has to be game-forcing if artificial, so you would be stuck with something like - 1D = 4+S 1H = 4+H 1S = GF, no four-card major 1NT = non-forcing, denies 4M/6m 2C = NF 5-cards 2D = NF 6-cards And possibly 2NT or 3C for the minors, 5=5 or possibly (1-3)=5=4 when the conditions are right. 1C:1D, 1H as natural solves the "responder's reverse flannery" hands. 1C:1H, 1S is a matter of taste - options that spring to mind are - 12-14 balanced [1NT showing 18-19] 5C4D [No rebid problems on 1345] Three spades

Not sure I'd fancy playing your suggested method when vulnerable, playing in the suit that oppo have game in becomes rather less attractive. I think that something like Tutti Frutti [2D = spades+minor or hearts, 2H = hearts+minor or spades] would be almost as good when NV but much better when vul.

It seems slightly bizarre to be bringing short club vs better minor into a debate on Montreal Relay - why not assume that all balanced hands are being opened 1C, then compare the merits of various responses?