ali quarg

I've spent some time looking at various approaches to this issue; as yet with no robust conclusion. Some points to consider in deciding on where you want to go: Are you assuming a basic Gazzilli 17+hcp vs 8+hcp. I have seen some versions based on 15+hcp which naturally can stop before game. Are there other approaches that opener can stay low with 17+hcp This is an approach which is worth considering in conjunction with other techniques http://bridge-tips.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/fixing_the_forcing_notrump_perry_khakhar_v.03.pdf Do you include balanced 5M in the 1NT opening? or even some 5M(422) Using this approach removes a reason for using Gazzilli. Can responder be weak? i.e. <=6hcp This may be an issue if used indiscriminately. i.e. no quick tricks How do you manage misfits when responder has a long suit Passable transfer rebids may be useful in this case. i.e. 1M-1NT-2♦ (limited ♥)-Pass When responder has a long suit can you distinguish between the invitational and weaker hands Fits well with Gazzilli How do you approach finding the partials in the other Major Kaplan Inversion finds the ♠ fit over a 1♥ opening, but over 1♠ it can prove an issue distinguishing between the 5-3 and 6-2 fits weak/invitational fits in ♥ Are openers jumps forcing? i.e. 19+hcp/tp or distributional? How do you manage opener'sdistributional hands with a lower looser count? Similar to suggestions above. I play jumps as Pass/Correct/Raise with 5-5/6+M and a modified looser count of 6 or less and <17hcp What are the benefits of reverse Gazzilli? Similar to transfer responses 1M-1NT-2M shows 5+M4+♣ limited I've been playing 2♣ shows balanced or 6+M or strong other Major/♣ with 1M-1NT-2NT showing strong♦/balanced w. weak ♦ doubleton. See 2. above A jump by responder to 2M then shows 2M and is invitational opposite opener with 6+M. Over a 1♠-1NT-2♣; 2♥ shows 5♥2♠ and opener with a weak hand will bid go via 2♥ (passable) after a 2♦ response Can you combine Gazzilli principles with transfer responses? Possibly, something to work on.

A standard bid would be 3NT 16+hcp with a stopper so from this perspective South's X is an under bid as they do not have a longer suit/stronger hand for a rebid.

Is the benefit of this avoiding a non-makeable 3NT contract, although it may be that when the minor doesn't fit then 2NT is makeable and 3m not?

Same for me, but with a different sequence 1NT-2♣ 2♦ No 5cM - 2NT 4♥♠ GI The GF version goes via 3♣ which is either 44 GF or a potential SI in a minor, so 1NT-2♣ 2♦ no 5cM - 3♣ 5cm? GF 3♦ no 5cm - 3NT 4♥♠ GF Great to start thinking again about some of these sequences <_< :rolleyes:

Do you distinguish between 5m4M(31) and 5m4M(22)? At the moment I go through 2♣ for the former and 2♠ for the latter, although perhaps it would be better to do it the other way round. There is this option in the Lakebeach NT as well.

An update on my simplistic view Partner has on average 7 hcp and 2 hearts. You end up playing 2M much of the time on a 1M opener when partner is a passed hand. Just under 50/50 defending 1NT +100 vs -90 Playing in 2M +110 vs -50 I'll transfer to Hearts so the Weak NT hand can lead.

I will bid the balanced 5 card Major with an opening bid, especially over a Weak NT and White vs Red via a transfer. This is little different from opening 1H and ending up in 2H the majority of the time with a non-GF partner. The exception being that they would have passed an opening bid when bust.

Next question and perhaps a harder decision? 8 playing tricks white vs red and you get a 5♥ bid [hv=pc=n&s=sj5h762dqj52cjt86&w=sakt764ht8dak8ck9&n=sq8hakqj9543d64c7&e=s932hdt973caq5432&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s4h4S5H?]399|300[/hv]

With a stopper in ♣ you can raise straight to 3NT. 3♦ shows 3+card support without a stopper in ♣.

Playing 2/1 MPs I was wondering what the best strategy is? [hv=pc=n&e=s932hdt973caq5432&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s4h?]133|200[/hv] Corrected

Thanks for the reading material Interesting to note that the Wolff sign-off is the recommendation.

West has dropped a card :D

Can you expand on a transfer-based mechanism and what additional options is gives you compared to the Wolff sign-off?

Always a slam try from North's perspective :rolleyes: until you actually get there

So did you make the 6NT available?

How many play 1♣ - 2♠ as weak?; say 3-7? Stops you getting too high in this case, assuming North isn't blinded by their good ♣ suit.

Maybe controversially I tend to add a point for 4333s when the 4 is in opponents' suit so persuade myself that 2NT is OK

Even with singleton Q♣?

Not quite sure how I should have bid this one as I was playing Acol rather than 2/1, but needless to say we didn't make PAR [hv=pc=n&w=sk53hkt3daq5432cq&e=sq8haq72dk976cak8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p?]]266|200[/hv]

I would have said that a basic Turbo/Kickbo simplifies the issue as it clarifies the keycard picture above 4X so sign-off can be immediate. Otherwise you have to repeat cue at the 5 -level providing unnecessary information to opponents to establish that the slam is off.

I can understand not using any 'woods', but I thought Turbo and Kickbo combined cue-bidding and keycard showing so these seem a natural extension to cue-bidding.

North has 8.5 playing tricks and 3.5/4 losers so perhaps equivalent to a 22 count Is there an alternative bid to X that describes this hand? 2NT as in the overcall structure is the closest, I can think of, but is it on in 4th seat after 2 bids with partner passing? This may not prevent EW from winning the contract and could push them to 5♦, but perhaps it could encourage South to be more competitive. Is Pass over 2♦ standard as I would tend to compete with a weak 5 card Major even at this vulnerability?

The following site summarises Lebhensohl http://kwbridge.com/leb.htm so for me not in play for this hand and different from Larry Cohen take on the subject. 3♦ is constructive 4♦ for me is invitational; I bid what I think makes opposite a minimum X.

A touch weak for me to pre-empt at equal vulnerability