mw64ahw

Assuming a standard? X penalties 2NT feature ask because it's ♦s 3X constructive NF 3D pre-emptive and playing fairly disciplined Weak2s; it's a toss up between X, 2NT and 3♥ Opener is likely to be 1363 or 1264 with ♦ honours.

I'm not sure that I've communicated the actual MLT version I use in the computer model which is a little more intricate than standard. It is a tool along with a number of other factors hcp, points, controls etc. which go into the decision making. I remember when I first learnt the game from Goren that with 4 card support and 10-12 points you have a limit raise, but if unbalanced then you take it to 4. I had never been taught why this worked sometimes and not at other times. It was only after coming back to bridge after many years that mathematics began to make sense of the old teachings. MLT was a component of this, but it has its flaws and I think I've suggested it could be used in some cases as a tiebreaker when there may not be an 8-card fit. What I do know is that having MLT as an additional tool has upped my average (mathematically significant) bidding makeable games and slams which others miss. I'm not sure inaccurate or accurate is relevant given the problem is about maximising the probability of success and minimising any error.

One item that I found upped my game significantly was the use of a Modified Loosing Trick count. (MLT) and it doesn't seem to be taught to beginners., but in my view should be a foundation element.. Perhaps you should start with hand evaluation and revaluation which incorporates an MLT as this introduces the concept of playing strength in addition to hcp/point strength and addresses one of David's points above.

My interpretation would be that 2♠ is a reverse showing an unbalanced hand (likely 4315 ish) w. ~17+hcp so responder bids 2NT with sub ~8hcp. 3NT says I have enough opposite your minimum and likely ♦s.

As a general rule I would have thought that transfers provide a mechanism whereby responder can force to game after a transfer has been completed so the transfer itself is not forcing to game.

Hopefully my post will have highlighted this to the OP. My answer would be the same regardless of whether the the initial Double was Power or Takeout.

I view the Power Double as a replacement for the standard 1NT overcall in the direct seat so 15+hcp or 17+ with a singleton. This is in the context of The Overcall Structure. With the above sequence I would consider that roughly 19 total points plus playing a Herbert negative.

Try this one JYW Deluxe Luxury Bridge/Card Game Table - Folding & Portable : Amazon.co.uk: Toys & Games

I’d call it a 4 looser hand, but if you play Namyats start with 4♣.The slam try should be accepted, but with the right methods you will find the exposed ♣ suit

... as to whether opener has a 5 card major. Perhaps the silliest thing is writing and assuming all.

Methods are of course different with interference, but opening a Major first leaves opponents less room to interfere

I take a binary approach and open all 5 card Majors regardless of the length of the minor suit as this removes any ambiguity When long a minor responder will often have at least 2M so you play in 2M with a Minimum hand or partner can pass your 2-level 2nd suit bid (assuming 2♣ isn't artificial) or indicate a raise with 2NT when max. When opener is distributionally, but not hcp strong, I will bid the 2nd suit at the 3 level with at least 5+. I have a variety of ways to show the strong hands depending on suit opened and the 2nd suit with subsequent bids then defining the length of either suit. When I started play short ♣ I did this in conjunction with an unbalanced ♦ so the suit opens depends on whether the shape is 22(54) or (31)(54)

Thanks all for the help in refining my thinking An initial idea has be built out further for a Transfer Walsh 1♣. A more complete write up is on 1!S as a GI over a minor suit opening (bridgewinners.com) which includes more detail on the 1♦ opening I think it will meet my initial objects namely: reaching more game contracts when opener has an Intermediate handreaching more game contracts when responder has a long minor We just need to put the experimental TW into practice to see if it ups the percentages

I guess my bidding would have gone the same way - no point messing around. It looks like if you duck the ♣ return then you can count the tricks and make 6♠, 4♣ & a ♦ with a ♦ return being more taxing

Which Spiral are you talking about? the one that asks if a 3/4 card support, orthe one that aims to tease out your honours

You have your answer. 3NT shows 18-19 3343, (23)44 or 5!D(332) with hopefully a stopper in any doubleton unless 2!D denies a Major

You're likely to have 4/5 cards in the minor as with 3 you would bid a Major first or have opened ♣s.i.e. 3343, (23)44 or 5(332). Or does the inverted raise deny a Major? I happen to play the other way round, but in an unbalanced !D context.

What strength is your 1NT opening?

As South you're strong enough to start cue-bidding, so 3♠ for me. The simple test with South having a modified looking trick count of 5.5 is 19-7.5-5.5=6 level

Thanks for jogging my memory. My 1♦ opening is 3+ because playing in a Moysian fit is Ok because of the ruffing ability. So opener accepting the transfer and rebidding 2♥/2♦ shows 4315 which fits in with the overall philosophy playing in the Moysian ♥ fit and at the same time doesn't miss the 44♠ fit. Consequently 1♥-1♦-1♠ can show the 46 in the blacks. The simulator hadn't forgotten the system it simply hadn't learnt enough/been parameterised well enough by me so the bidding is off. 1NT is standard, nothing fancy, but should have been 2♣ given the hcp count isn't quite there to super-accept.

The search for a new variation is based on the observation that we were missing games with intermediate semi-balanced hands and 3NT contracts when a good long minor with a sub 25 hcp count would make opposite hands with certain support. The later is an attempt similar to a minor suit transfer after opening 1NT followed by a super-accept, but in reverse. 1♣-1♦-1♠ is more a corollary rather than a pet idea, i.e. its what's left after everything else is covered; as pointed out by others just having 4♠6♣ in the bid is wrong so in goes the omitted 4315 Int hand. Putting 4225s Int in there as well is possible giving the option to play in 2♣, but looses a 2♥ contract when responder is weak with 5. It also means the Major part-score could be could be missed when responder has 5♠4♥ Weak as 1♣-1♥-1NT to show the Int semi-balanced hand becomes ambiguous as to the 1st&2nd suits, assuming 22(45) then comes out of 1NT. We currently play a more standard version of TW, but giving up 1♣-1R-1N to show the strong hand doesn't seem like too big a loss;after all you don't have that option with a Major suit opening. There is an edge playing a 14-16NT, but that has implications for the Major openings which I don't want to touch at the moment. Using 3!D to show the splinter is what we what we currently use, but the playing strength can just as easily be shown with the raise to 3 or via 1♣-1R-2[D] without divulging the shape. Opening 1NT with 22(54) and 2 weak doubletons doesn't feel good to me either, but you can end up in the same place with TW, but loose the pre-emptive effect when opponents compete in a Major. If opponents X then the run out finds the fit if partner is weak. If partner is GI then we have a response that shows 22/(23) in the Majors, but that's another story. Still not sure on this one. So the overall trade off becomes making game when others aren't there versus the odd ♣ part-score miss Still some simulations to run to quantify the theoretical benefits/losses over our current approach and then trying out in real-life

1♦ if you play R19, 2♠ if you play Velociraptor otherwise Pass?

Having played around a bit more with possible hand types. I think that in the mooted tweaked variation: 1♣-1♦-1♠ can contain --4♠6♣ Int --4♠3♥x5+♣ Int --4♠6♣ Min <2♥ 1♣-1R-1NT can be semi-balanced Int with the other Major if you open all 22(54) Int with 1NT. Continuations after 1♣-1R-1NT are straightforward, but non-standard.. There are also some interesting possible plays after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT as responder can show potential game going hands w. 4♥ & 6♠/6♦/6♣ w. 2 honours. There is also the possibility of showing 5♥6♠ Str hands with ♦ can also go through 1♣-1R-2♦ so you have --Int hands w. 4M or Str hands w. 4♦ (may have oM) while 1♣-1R-2♠ shows Str w. oM & ♣ while finally 3♦ can show the Str 4414 thus freeing up a bid if you show these types of hands via a Multi

Yep there is the odd situation where you don't get to show the void, but I find showing rather than asking is usually preferable as a response to RKCB can often chew up the bidding space. There is a natural progression from Blackwood to RKCB to Turbo to Kickbo and in general if you find one tool restrictive then look at using another. The comments above cover most points w.r.t. to the original question My 1M-2NT approach is non-standard and a two-way conversation rather than either partner being captain, but in this case if you reserve the bids above 3M for Italian cues and inviting slam then either player can initiate.

I faced the same challenge when I played RKCB I'm not sure I'd splinter on that hand without a ♣ control. Better to go via 2NT where you can show the splinter and then cue again below the 5 level to show the void. Alternatively switch to showing keycards rather than asking for them i.e 4NT from South to show an even number. That way you can re-cue ♥ to show the void.