ali quarg

You're in a GF, what's wrong with 2♠?

[hv=pc=n&v=b&n=sthakjt72dq7caqt8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1Dp1Sp2Dp3cp?]133|200|[/hv]

What happens to 23 balanced?

Natural denying a Weak NTish type hand, implying long ♣

[hv=pc=n&v=b&n=sthakjt72dq7caqt8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1Dp1Sp?]133|200|[/hv]

One I didn't quite get right playing Transfer Walsh 2+♣, may have 5♦ IMPS [hv=pc=n&v=b&n=sthakjt72dq7caqt8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp?]133|200|[/hv]

If you play Majors always first then 1♥ and keep rebidding diamonds with 9+ playing tricks unless ♥ are supported.

Margubnally too weak for me to open and I wont pre-empt with this balanced hand

You are in a GF with opener looking to slam in ♥ or NT. I'd treat 3♥ as slam invitational with a self-sustaining suit; still plenty of space to establish whether you have controls in all suits and switch to NT if applicable.

Contract as expected and I guess you made 4 since the opponents failed to take out the trumps giving you 2 ruffs

It looks like 6NT is the optimal contract, so cue-bidding looks like the way to get there

♣ by default. If I had long ♠ I would have shown earlier/be bidding 4♠, ♥ support would be shown with 3♦, and I have no idea how it could be ♦

That's why you need strong partnership agreements. Passing 3♦ is more of an issue as you can always raise 4♦ to 5♣

Struggling to count to 23+ total points (max. 20) so not a 2♣ opening? I'm not sure the robot can count either if the description is correct A 1♠ opening for most ending in 4♠

North has to force and a self-sustaining 7 card suit with 13hcp is enough to go to 4♠

I'm in the MAFIA camp so will always open 1♥ and keep bidding ♣ if no ♥ fit is found

If you bid 2♥ as natural then GI/GF is ambiguous. You get a 2♠/2NT response. That leaves South showing their 5!H and needing to force to game which may not be the case if North takes this as Pass/Correct rather than GF bid.

I expect North to bid 3NT and wouldn't want to miss the potential slam so 4♦ would be my South bid ending in 5/6♦. Having the void in ♣ is also a potential warning sign opposite a minimal responder

Playing a 5 card Majors approach any style; where do you want to end up? [hv=pc=n&s=s2h53daqjt985ck63&n=sakqt6hj974d6caj5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp?]266|200[/hv]

And if your ♣ suit is as few as 3 when playing 2NT as artificial you may still end up in ♠ before showing real ♣.

I voted 2♣ only because I play Kaplan Inversion with my primary partner 2/1 GI. Otherwise I'm in the MAFIA camp and can force with a follow up 3♣ after 1♠. The slam is on if we can find a fit

I'm with David on this one 16+hcp points and a sort of long running minor. AQ♥ & A♠ give you additional entries so you ought to make at least 5♣ tricks. If 3NT is an option bid it.

X over a 1♦ opening can be your traditional takeout/both Majors. I doubt its a Power X given the potential point counts I would read 3♦ as asking for a ♦ stopper for 3NT with the 1♠ bid having been made on a minimum.

Another option http://www.bridgematters.com/idea3.htm if you're OK to play 1NT as forcing

Do you really want to pass on 13hcp opposite 2/1 GF where responder's 1NT may be 12hcp? Or are you playing 2/1 GI? I like the concept of your transfer approach, but have a few of issues with the semi-forcing NT: a) I currently put a weak raise through 1NT so any game tries after a direct 2M raise are built on a more solid foundation. Is there a way round this apart from Pass and then support if the opportunity arises? b) I also put a weak 3-card limit raise through 1NT. This isn't too much of an issue as I can use a jump bid to another suit to show this, but I may not be able to distinguish between 3 & 4+ limit raises.1M-3M is preemptive law based for me. c) I show long-suited misfit hands via 1NT rather than jumping directly simply because I like to see opener's 2nd suit if they have one so I can play in the Moysian rather than 3X. Is this much of a loss?