MickyB

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

You don't think "momentum" applies to the decision to play strong? In the English trials, the five top teams consisted of nine pairs playing strong NT and one pair playing weak NT.

Yup, pass and 1♠ are the only options. Pass feels right, if the oppo are going to game it's very unlikely that there would be a gain from bidding.

Usually I think exactly like that, but do you really want to get your hand off your chest as a balanced 15 hcp with stopper? Give partner a random balanced 10-11 count with neither 5 hearts nor a spade stopper, and do you want to be in game? I voted for 1NT, but you've convinced me. Conventional wisdom is that partner should bid game aggressively on this auction, partly because overcaller usually has tenaces over the opening bidder. We don't have that here. If pard has any help in spades, the lead will come through it, and we'll quickly lose a diamond trick to RHO who will cash out. Double and 2♦ are both sick, so pass it is.

10-12 NT throughout or Romex?

I have enough to say about this to fill a book, or at least a few chapters. Maybe I'll get around to it one day. For now, I'll just answer your questions - Weak no-trump and five-card majors fit together better than weak no-trump and four-card majors. I prefer strong no-trump, because if you open one-of-a-suit on a balanced 16 point hand it can be difficult to show that extra strength in competition (see David Collier's blog on bidding theory). As Frances says, any combination works, but there are a lot of subtle inferences attached to each method. Play what you are comfortable with, and I wouldn't recommend playing a variable no-trump unless you already have a lot of experience with both ranges.

Perfectly reasonable answer: Another possibility would be to use 2N as Diamonds and a major... This would still permit 3♣ as an ask, eliminate the two suiters with both majors, and halve the frequency that partner holds Spades. Any chance that you could post the response schedule that you use over the Hearts + a minor variant? I think uncertainty over which major suit opener has would make it harder to reach 4M quickly when it is the right thing to do. The responses to 2NT - 3♣/4♣/5♣ pass-or-correct 3♦ ART enquiry, now 3♥ = any MIN, 3♠ = MAX with ♣, 3N = MAX with ♦, 4m = 5♥6m max 3♥/4♥ to play 3♠ natural invitational

Any reason that you don't use as 5+ Spades and 5 cards in a red suit? Over your (original) scheme, it seems trick yo fit in a low level ask bellow 3M. You pretty much need to use 3♣ as pass or correct and 3♥ is to play. In theory, you could use 3♦ as a range ask or some such, but I can think of other reasonable interpretations. If you use 2N as Spades and a Red suit, you get to use 3♣ as an artificial ask. I can't help but think that this would improve the accuracy of your constructive sequences. A 2NT opening showing spades and a red suit would be more likely to go past par on the hand. If both sides can make 8 tricks in their respective major-suit fit, you are happy to preempt to 3♥ but not to 3♠. It's less useful to preempt holding both majors (oppo are less likely to have game) and the well-defined major-suit lengths often allow responder to place the contract immediately. Also, 2NT is often free in structures with a multi 2♦ and a two-suited 2♠ opening. 2♥ may show a weak hand with both majors, if that is to your taste, or in Swedish/various strong club systems it is useful to have it available to show a three-suiter short in diamonds.

Ew. What's the Pre-Alert Suggested Defense for this bid? Or do you not play it in ACBL games? Actually, the Ew is for me having to play against that. That's just a vicious pre-empt. Wow. I live in England, no idea about the legalities of it in the ACBL.

Agreed, 2NT as minors and 3♣ NAT is better than inverting them - overall, you will give the oppo more options and wrong-side more 3NT contracts if you play them the other way around, partly due to the higher frequency of a natural club preempt. My preferred meaning for a preemptive 2NT opening is 5♥5minor.

Pass is routine. If pard is only able to bid 2m over 1NT, you haven't taken much space away at all, and you have given them info about your hands that they'd never have had if you'd passed. A 1NT bid here has to be aimed at getting pard to preempt to 3m or higher, and if you can be 4-4 vul he won't be able to do that often. If I could bid 2♣ showing both minors, I'd be more tempted, as it would give the oppo fewer options. I'd still pass, though.

Both seem clear openings - the first would be close at other conditions, whereas the second is totally routine given the spade length.

Randomers leave all the time in MBC, for any number of reasons...I wouldn't worry about it. 1NT looks fine to me. Better this club suit than, say, AKxxxx, when if pard has xxxx you are getting 6 fast tricks from only 7 HCP.

How would you show a good hand with ♣?

I do the same as Art, and understood this to be standard.

Invite for me. But yes, it is very close

I don't know quite what the difference between Rub and Xfer leb is either. I'd have guessed that Rub was more specific, referring to methods invented by either Ira Rubin or Jeff Rubens. As David says, there are auctions where, if using leb, you would distinguish weak hands from invitational hands (e.g. over weak twos) and there are auctions where you would distinguish competitive hands from GF hands (e.g. over pard's 1NT opening). Using xfers only works when the strong option is GF. When this is the case, Rub is superior to leb. If you use 2NT as a puppet to 3♣, as Matt suggests, you can show all three ranges - weak, invitational and forcing. If you are going to play this method in many different situations, it is best to separate the INV hands from the GF hands, otherwise it gets awkward when partner has a misfitting minimum that wants to (re)bid its own suit. 3X = xfer, weak or strong 2NT = weak or GF with ♣; or INV with a different suit The advantages are obvious, the disadvantages less so. You lose a lot of room when responder has a GF hand with ♣, and, unlike Rub, you might sometimes lose the club suit if the opponents keep bidding. Unlike leb, you can't choose to have a way to show a constructive hand with ♣, so again this method is more suitable for use over a 1NT opening than over a weak two.

Double looks normal. Might be different for "Italian"-style doublers. Change the suits around, so I've got xx spade over a 1♠ opening, and it's a fairly obvious pass for me. Think I'm still doubling over 1♥.

Adam - (1) Agreed - we don't have any auctions at the two-level or above where free bids are natural and forcing. Most are competitive, with the odd situation where transfers are used. We play transfers from 2NT upwards over two-level overcalls. Obviously, after a three-level overcall, there will be some guesswork on hands that wish to force to game opposite a weak NT. (2)+(3) Hopefully you will/would find that this document does a pretty good job of describing which bids show which hand-type(s), and it deals with artificial overcalls. In the auction you mention, a double can be based on a minimum with 4-5♣ and 0-1♦, but any higher than that the double shows at least the 15+ hand.

I'm a recent convert to Polish Club, David's blog on bidding theory convinced me of the merits of the system. The file is quite in-depth, however it covers a lot of auctions of which I would not have been confident about the meaning, whatever system was being played. Well worth checking out IMO. Btw, we open 1♣ on (43)15 and 4405 minima. Some will consider this to be a distinguishing feature, although I'm told that WJ also recommends 1♣ on 4405 - a 2♣ opening is just too likely to preempt yourself out of your own major suit fit, and responder already had to allow for 4414 minima with opener.

Indeed. They should be playing whist/minibridge, then bridge without any system for a while - bid your longest suit, 12 pts to open (or overcall), 6 pts to respond. Once they are comfortable with the mechanics of the game, you can get teach them that opening 1NT and a 2/1 response show a certain number of points. Things like Stayman should come a while after. I think Acol is fine for beginners, there can be issues with showing the strength of a strong NT later but that won't worry them, and it means they can 2/1 with fewer points than if playing strong NT and 4 card suits, which feels right to an inexperienced player.

When I was first learning bridge, the teacher emphasized the importance of playing in a 4-4 fit rather than a 5-3... The other day, I heard a teacher telling a class to "always" play in a 4-4 rather than a 6-4 :rolleyes:

Don't let Carl Hudecek hear that statement!! I'm more than willing to debate the matter with him :)

I'd guess it's to do with tradition and having a sense of identity. The minority group has convinced itself that it is right and isn't willing to or capable of listening to the arguments of the majority. In England, the situation isn't that different, but here it is the no-trump range that divides people. BTW, teaching strong NT and 4 card majors to beginners is bizarre IMO.

This would be a blindingly obvious pass if partner had dealt and passed, but given that LHO has passed also it is close. I'm still passing though.