MickyB

Which would be UI to declarer and AI to partner

There's a case for playing 2D multi, 2M 5M4D. When opener is short in the major, he'll have diamonds, and will actually be able to go back to 3D with reasonable frequency. I think 2D as D+M with 2M natural is better, though. I hate the idea of playing 2M as forcing here.

2♦ as ♦+major would work well here too.

Definitely penalty. You'll often have an 11-13 NT opposite a 9+hcp responder and catching them here can be very profitable. 2♣ for the majors

It's teams

I suspect they know very well that - a) 2H is a NF ask for overcaller's five-card suit b) everything else is undiscussed c) they don't want to play a 5-1 fit Even if they have discussed 2N, playing it as an INV+ enquiry sounds quite tricky to me, you don't have enough room for 3C to show a min with clubs

[pedantry] It is almost zero-cost compared with playing it as *natural* and non-forcing, but there is a definite cost vs playing it as "extras, no convenient bid, non-forcing" [/pedantry]

1NT is 12-14, it says so in the diagram. The normal way to show 4S5H in Asptro is to bid 2D, if partner bids 2H asking for your five-card suit then you pass. If you start with 2C you lose the spades completely.

What do we expect partner to do with a 17-19 NT if we make a WJS? "WJS" could conceivably mean - 17-19 NT has to bid again INV opposite 17-19 NT to play opposite 17-19 NT We need to know which it is.

In before CSGibson flips

I don't see how the 2C bid would work. This seems worse than playing 2C S+D, 2D majors.

Sorry, 1147. Cant see how to edit from my phone

Imps, unfav x A KQTx AKQT8xxx 1c (2h) 3n (p) 4c (p) 4n (p) 1c was natural 11+ or any 17-19 nt. Are you happy with 4c? What now?

Looks good. Agreed. I think the bidding at MP/IMPs is far more similar than most people realise. Now, matchpoints/BAM/hybrid scoring where 10 points counts as a tie - there's a game that requires a different approach.

It wouldn't have occurred to me to do anything but double 3H. If partner bids 3S then I bid 4C...

Open the majority of 11s but not many 10s. Opening 5-5 9-counts is just losing bridge, it'll often be easy to show your hand on the next round, whereas if you open you'll often be unable to show your second suit for lack of strength. GF on all 13s, invite on most misfitting 12s. Take the bad hands when they happen. Declare better, so that you have a chance of making 3NT on your second construction :P

I'd get there via a 2C overcall showing 3+S,4+H. I'd pass it out playing almost any other method. Try playing 2H when partner puts down a stiff trump and see if you still claim AKTxx is a good suit :P

How varied are methods out there currently? If everyone plays multi it would be silly to ban it. If noone plays it then it may well be right not to allow it - depends on the views of the players IMO. This is relevant in terms of alerting too. If most people play basically the same system, an ACBL "alert anything unusual" approach is probably best. If there's no such thing as 'usual', then an EBU-style "alert anything not natural" approach is probably the way to go. I like announcements of 1NT opening and responses, and of two-level openings. I dislike announcements of 2NT openings and responses. I think transfer responses to 1C should be announcable, as it is a position where UI is frequently transferred, and it's not uncommon to see 1C!-P-1H!-1S as natural if you don't ask first but artificial if you do!

- You are much more likely to hold an 8-count than a 4-count a priori; this is especially true for shapely hands - Dealer passing increases the difference in relative frequencies It is unclear to me whether those who are saying they need very little for 3H here are advocating weak preempts (eg 3-7 points) or wide-ranging preempts (eg 3-9 points); I think the former is clearly bonkers [i'd prefer the higher frequency of 5-9] and the latter is questionable [will your 3H opening on QJxxxxx and out show a profit when partner plays the odds and assumes that you have an ace more?]

Accepting on any hand with precisely three hearts strikes me as an attempt to play "natural" rebids with little regard for theory. The "complete = 11-13 NT" method is decent but I am fairly sure it's better to play the transfer completion as artificial and forcing. It's much like any number of other auctions - the cheapest bids should be used for hands that are still looking for a fit, most higher bids [and this may well include 2♦ or even 2♣] should be used to show various hands with support.

An Acol 2/1 shows you wish to be in game opposite a 15-16 NT. If you think that gives you the values for 2NT opposite a minimum opening then you must open more soundly than I do.

Q98xx jxx jxx xx Love all imps P-3C-X-3N ??

It's a name for a method. It's what most people mean when they use the name. So, yes? When I started playing duplicate, whenever we were asked if we played Better Minor, we would respond that we played Longer Minor. After the first dozen people all explained that that was what they had meant by "Better Minor", we gave in. Sometime afterwards I realised they had just been asking if we played 2+card club or 3+card minors.

Ok let's say 11-21 unbal/12-14 bal/18-19 bal. Assume 5m422 in range opens 1NT. Thanks

Playing 15-17 NT, Better Minor, 1C on 3-3, 1D on 4-4: What is the probability that partner has 3 cards/4 cards/5+ cards when he opens 1C? And likewise when he opens 1D? Thanks.