Bende

Why would 2♥ be masterminding? I would bid 2♥ and efter partner's neutral 2♠ or 2NT, I would bid 4♦ which I like to play as spade support, good heart suit, specifically singleton diamond and denies club control. Even if I would not have such specific agreements, I think 1♠-2♥; 2♠-4♦ should describe my hand reasonably well. If not allowed to bid 2♥, I would splinter.

In an instant IMP tournament, my GIB partner held ♠KT6 ♥T3 ♦AT72 ♣KQ86. Opponents were vulnerable. With the dealer on GIB's left, the bidding started (2♥) - dbl - (3♥). On all tables were this occurred, GIB chose to pass. Can that really be the right call?

Does the agricultural solution include being able to bid slam in clubs to play after 1♦-(1♠)-4NT and a response?

We play 2♣ = hearts and another and 2♦ = spades and another (Asptro, I believe). With both majors we show the shorter one first. After (1NT)-2♣-(dbl)- pass = relay redbl = at least 5-5 in the "other" suits (diamonds and spades in this case) 2x = to play After the pass relay: (1NT)-2♣-(dbl)-pass; (pass)- pass = 4+♣ redbl = 5♥-4♦ 2♦ = 4+♥-5+♦ 2♥ = 4+♥-5♠ This allows us to play on the two level. It also gives us the (in our opinion) important option to redouble to show the other suits and perhaps pick one of them instead. The cost is that we can not choose to play 2♣ doubled when the Asptronaut has a 5+suit but bid on with only a four card suit. After 2♦ instead it is almost the same. Redouble now shows hearts and clubs and after the pass relay: (1NT)-2♦-(dbl)-pass; (pass)- pass = 4+♦ redbl = 4♠-5+♣ 2♥ = 4+♠-5♥ 2♠ = 5♠-4+♣

Assume you know that your opponents, who otherwise plays a natural 2/1 system, will always bid 1-over-1 regardless of strength. Do you adjust your defenses in any way?

So if West with a different hand had bid a slow 4♦ and EW later argued that since they had found a trump suit, obviously 4♥ was a cue bid, this would surprise you? I would from where I was sitting have been sure a slow 4♥ would be a cue.

On the level where I play it is common to see quite different tempo in the bidding depending on what the bids mean. I think often it is not done to cheat but some people just find it natural to bid this way. It becomes a problem when the meaning of the bid is not clear but the tempo makes it clear what was inteded. As an example, in a one day weekend imps pairs event a couple of opponents held these hands [hv=pc=n&w=saq973h98d8752ckq&e=skhkqt754dat93cj5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp1sp2hp3dp4dp4hppp]266|200[/hv] The 3♦ bid was bid after a quite long think but the 4♥ bid hit the table almost at the same time as the 4♦ bid. I am willing to bet that this pair would not have been sure if 4♥ was natural or a que bid for diamonds. The tempo made it clear. If asked afterwards I am even more convinced that the pair would be flabbergasted that anyone would ever think that the bid could be a que. Obviously it must be natural! So what can be done? We can of course call the director and perhaps we should have. From previous cases I've seen, I'm guessing director would not have understood the issue either. And besides, it is no fun getting marked as someone who uses obscure laws to gain an advantage against what is common practice.

You are right, of course! Edited the description. 2♣ showed any long suit, but it was not DONT.

Transfer to a minor followed by a new suit would show shortness, so partner will in that case think you have 1x6x and a game force.

Holding the following hand, partner opens with 1NT (15-17) and RHO bids 2♣ (showing any long suit). (Edited) [hv=pc=s&s=skt7652hq653d5cj2]133|100[/hv] You bid 2♠ before realizing that 2♠ is not natural but instead showing clubs, since you play system on after interferene with 2♣. Partner makes a slightly delayed alert, explains 2♠ as showing diamonds, and bids 3♦. I understand that regardless of you realizing that 2♠ was not natural, partner's alert means you are not allowed to wake up. Partner's 3♦ (after you show clubs) is undiscussed, as only 2NT (bad hand for clubs) and 3♣ (good hand for clubs) are defined in the system. After transfer to a minor, a new suit by responder shows shortness. It is not certain what a 3♦ would show if 2♠ was natural (as it would be by agreement if 2♣ had shown hearts and another suit for example), but some sort of game try in spades seems likely, though 3♠ would show that as well. What is the ethical bid now? Where would you expect to end up?

"Svar" means "responses" but I still like it as a name for the convention :).

Good point, Frances. Is there an expert standard?

We play a 2-over-1 system with Walsh responses to 1C. Thus we think it makes sense that 1♣-1♦; 1M shows an unbalanced hand. What about 1m-1♥; 1♠? We play that as unbalanced right now but maybe it is better to just bid 1♠ with four and let 1NT deny four spades? Or maybe a 1♠ rebid should show not an unbalanced hand but at least say we have four of the minor (only really affects clubs as we open 1C with 3-3 in the minors)? What is the typical way of handling this?

I prefer two-way checkback with the following structure 1♣ - 1♠; 1NT - 2♣ = Asking partner to bid 2♦, to play, any INV or choice of games with 5♠ ...2♦ ......pass = Weak with diamonds ......2♥ = 5♠-4♥, INV ......2♠ = 5♠, INV ......2NT = 4♠, INV ......3m = 4♠-5+m, INV ......3♥ = 5♠-5♥, INV ......3♠ = 6♠, INV ......3NT = Choice of games with 5♠ 2♦ = Any GF without a more descriptive bid to make 2♥ = 5♠-4♥, non-forcing 2♠ = To play 2NT = Asking partner to bid 3♣, either to play or choice of games with support for opener's minor and (5431) ...3♣ ......pass = Weak with clubs ......3♦ = 5♠-4m, short in other minor (so in this case 5314) ......3♥ = 5♠-4m, short in other major ......3♠ = 4♠-5m, short in other minor ......3NT = 4♠-5m, short in other major 3♣ = GF with good support for clubs 3♦♥ = GF with two good suits 3♠ = GF with very good spades

To answer the questions about 11 point hands, our system is based on the general structure of the Levin-Weinstein and Gitelman-Moss convention cards where they play 1♦ - 1NT = 6-11 1♦ - 2NT = (12)13-15 or 18+ 1♦ - 3NT = 16-17 After 1♦ - 2♣, Fred Gitelman plays (according to the cc) that 2♦ is "any minimum with 4+♦". That was as far as we had discussed it up to this point. The structure I suggested did not handle for example (31)63 hands with extra values so it was obviously not good enough. I see that it could be useful to have 2♥ and 2♠ as artificial but I'd rather avoid more artificial bids if I can. If 2♦ should show any minimum with 4+♦, the problem hands, if bidding faily natural, seem to be 12-14 with 4432, extra values with 4441, and extra values with 6♦ but without a very good suit.

We open 1♦ with 4-4 ms and 1♣ with 3-3 ms. After a 1♦ opening, 2NT is GF with a balanced hand and 3♣ is INV so we play 2♣ as GF with 5+♣. Do you think the following are reasonable continuations after that? Since we don't have non-serious 3NT as a tool when a minor suit is trumps, I thought it would be a good idea to let opener limit his hand quite quickly. 1♦ - 2♣; 2♦ = 4+♦, denies 4+♣, 12-14 balanced or minimum unbalanced 2♥ = 4+♥-(4)5+♦, extra values (could be 4441 if 18+) 2♠ = 4+♠-5+♦, extra values 2NT = 12-14 with 4432 or 18-19 balanced (in which case opener could have 4♣) 3♣ = 4+♣, limited by failure to splinter or to bid 4♣ (or 2NT) 3♦ = 6+♦, extra values and very good suit 3M = Splinter, 4+♣ and extra values 3NT = 15-17 with 4441 4♣ = 4+♣ and very good hand 4M = Void

With hearts she bids 2♦ as it is a transfer bid. If she wants to play diamonds she has to sign-off in 3♦ however.

Let's say you play, after 1♠-1N, 2♣, that 2♠ is a constructive two card preference (about 8-10) and with a weaker preference you could start with 2♥, intending to pass 2♠ (which opener bids unless he has a very strong hand). How would that affect when you would pass 2♣?

I would think 2NT followed by 3NT is stronger than a direct 3NT.

Given that you after a 1♣ opening bypass diamonds without a game force, what do you play 2H and 3H respectively to mean in these auctions? 1. 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 2♥ 2. 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 3♥ I would assume 3♥ shows a game force? Would you want to play 2♥ to be a three card raise, even though opener is very unlikely to hold a five card suit?

If (1m) - 3m is played as natural, which strength is it normally played as, preemptive or a sound overcall? Does it depend on if (1m) - 2m is played as natural or Michaels?

Maybe it is that easy :). It just seems to me that if opener can have 4522 with 21 hcp and 3523 with 18 hcp it might be difficult for responder to know whether to bid on after 4♠. Maybe I shouldn't be that worried :).

We play a 15-17 NT and Flannery with 1♥ - 1♠ showing a five card suit. The question is, what does opener bid in this auction with a) 18-19 balanced with 35(32) b) reverse values with 4♠-5♥

We play 1D-2H as 5+S 4+H weak and 2S as 5S 4H INV. We also play support doubles. How should we use the inference from the reverse flannery convention in this auction? 1D - (pass) - 1S - (2C); dbl - (pass) - 2H If responder has a four card heart suit he also has a five card spade suit and we already have a fit i spades. It can't really be natural and INV since responder didn't bid 2S directly. I suppose it could be 5-5 INV or 5-4 with slam interest. Or maybe a game try with a three card heart suit. How do others handle this auction?

I play double as takeout and transfers. I think I got this structure from Justin Lall. 1NT - (3♣) - dbl = takeout 3♦ = GI+ with hearts 3♥ = GI+ with spades 3♠ = GF with diamonds 3NT = to play 4♣ = 5-5 majors 1NT - (3♦) - dbl = takeout 3♥ = GI+ with spades 3♠ = GF with hearts 3NT = to play 4♣ = NAT forcing 4♦ = 5-5 majors 1NT - (3♥) - dbl = 4+ spades ...3♠ = three spades ...3NT = two spades ...4m/4♥ = cue with four spades and good cards for slam ...4♠ = four spades without good cards for slam 3♠ = GF without four spades and without stopper 3NT = to play 4m = NAT forcing 1NT - (3♠) - dbl = GF takeout 3NT = to play 4m = NAT forcing 4♥ = to play