skjaeran

Does that indicate that Arend is the better declarer in your partnership? ;)

Is 2over1 GF? ;) :lol: For Helgemo-Helness I'm unsure - their CC don't tell. They used to play 2/1 as F1 only. Brogeland-Sælensminde play 2/1 as GF unless responder rebids his suit, which is invitiational.

Depends on strength. I transfer to the major with non-GH hands and bid 1♠ (3-way) with GF strenght. Some I know transfer to M with non-inv hands and bid 1♠ (=♦) with inv+.

Why ever so? Playing it inv+ allows you to stop at 2 in your suit when partner doesn't accept your invite. Whereas natF1 doesn't. Btw, I didn't advocate playing it inv+.

Congrats, David!!

Speaking for those who open light, this is a clear 1NT for me. That's NF btw.

Agree with Justin, I'd respond 2♣ too. Also agree with Han, I'd overcall 1♥ with the north hand rather than double.

I used to play this as forcing. But for quite a long time now I've used 2♦ as a conventional call and 2♥ as NF.

It seems to me all are trying to find out just that - whether we have controls in all suits and thereafter if we have enough keycards. Give partner KQJx xx AK KQJxx/KQJX AK xx KQJxx/KQJx Ax Kx KQJxx/KQJx Kx Ax KQJxx and it will be nice to stop at the 4-level.

Agree. Easy stop in 2♥. Even playing rubens advance, shouldn't north bid once more after 2♦ and 2♥ by south? Transfer and pass will show a weak hand in rubens as i know. That really depends on your overcalling style. If partner could have something like the OP south hand or a minimum not much better than that, I think you should pass the 2♥ transfer completion. If your minimum for an overcall is better than that, the ♥T is a great card that should prompt a raise to 3♥. In addition what you consider a minimum for bidding 2♦ influence your decision over 2♥ from partner. If you can bid it on "rubbish" you can't pass 2♥ with this. If 2♦ promise an invitiational (or close to that) hand you should pass 2♥ with this hand.

1♥=4 with 3433 or 4432/23. 1♥-2♥ will have 4 most of time, but you're of course allowed to raise with 3 on appropriate hands. Just like you can raise 1m-1M to 2M with 3. What is the average no. of ♥ with this method please? BTW is 1♥ - 1NT forcing? 2over1 FG? Diff treatment for 1♥ and 1♠ opening? :) :lol: Both Helgemo-Helness and Brogeland-Sælensminde play 1M-1NT as non-forcing. Same treatment after both majors. Average number of hearts? I don't know. Probably somewhere near 4.5 or just above - I'm guessing though.

1♥=4 with 3433 or 4432/23. 1♥-2♥ will have 4 most of time, but you're of course allowed to raise with 3 on appropriate hands. Just like you can raise 1m-1M to 2M with 3. The most frequent responses are 2NT=longer diamonds, else 3♣. You can bid 2♠ with weak or strong hand, one or both minors. After openers response you can pass or bid 3m to play, 3M is GF+ with both m shortness or fragment as you like. Not sure how HH play it though. Yes. 1♣-1♦ is always natural for both pairs as far as I know. Walsh type for both i think. HH used to play 1♣-1♦-1x-2♣ as slammish with ♦ + 3+♣. Don't know that they've changed anything here. Conventional GF, responder can show 5m/55m/5♥/4♥/Hx support. With 4-3-3-3 for HH. I think it's the same for BS. Better judgement. :lol:

Nothing, as far as I can see. Clear 4♦ IMO.

1. Pass 2. 2.5♥ 3. Pass

I'd pass only at unfavourable vulnerability.

It could be terribly wrong (any action/non-action could), but I'm a bidder here: Double.

Fast denies, slow show, cuebid=4cOM is ingrained in me - except that these days I play negative doubles, so lebensohl have changed.

Unluckily, I still got zero reasons WHY all of you bid. So I repeat my questions just in case you did not tak it serious. It was. What are the upsides of bidding 1 Heart in this situation compared to passing with 4 card suits and bidding just 5 card suits? You can find your four-four fits. And some nice 4-3 fits too.

Isn't 4♥ - last train - an option for you?

Agree. Easy stop in 2♥.

Traditionally we've opened lowest 4-card suit in Norway. Acol was the main system since the 50's I believe (yes, many played Goren and Vienna). This meant a 1♠ opener would have 5 spades more than 90% of the time. So during the 70's (I guess) this evolved into 1♠ absolutely promising 5 and thus 1♣ was opened with only 3 with specifically 4-3-3-3. 3-4-3-3/3-3-4-3 opened 1♥/1♦ respectively. Helgemo-Helness and Brogeland-Sælensminde belong to this school. (It's possible Brogeland-Sælensminde can open some hands 1♠ with only 4 - I'm not sure.) In the 90's some (juniors) changed this again and opened 1♥ with 5c♥ or 44M. This has never become predominant, only a minority play like this (I've done so with a previous partner). Today the majority play 5443. But a significant minority (mostly at high level) play 5cM 2/1. Transfer responses over 1♣ is growing in popularity, mostly by the juniors (and some still juniors in mind like me :lol: ).

I was east. I agree with partners 3♥ rebid. A splinter would show a void for me, so that's no alternative. The bad bid was my 4♦ cuebid. Even without any agreements about serious 3NT I should have made just that call, to give partner the opportunity to make a cheap 4♣ cuebid. Whether or not my partner should make some other call than 4♥ is IMO a very close decision - I don't fault his choice at all. He can't be sure the 5-level is safe, even if it rates to be. So I'll take the blame for missing this slam. If I rebid 3NT there's no way for us to avoid getting there.

As you've inferred serious/frivolous 3NT isn't in our agreements yet. I agree that both west and east COULD make another move, but that's close and not clear IMO. The grave error occured earlier though.

I raise to 3♠. If partner rebids 3NT (serious) I'll cue 4♣ next and bid 4♥ (last train) over 4♦. If partner only makes a cuebid (non-serious) I'll sign off in 4♠.

This hand is from a district teams championship match on Monday.[hv=d=w&v=b&w=sk5432hkjt5dqcat6&e=sthaq943dakj94c94]266|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠ - 2♥ 3♥ - 4♦ 4♥ - passs[/hv] This was our 2/1 sequence to the 2nd best contract and -13 IMPs. We're a new partnership with too few agreements in place, but I should obviously have done better anyway. Would you?