fromageGB

No. The real structural problem is playing a modulus 3 ace asking, eg 0 or 4, 1 or 5. In many hands that is not a narrow enough target to be sure.

Without the hesitation I would bid 3♥ as it does not maybe have enough for a certain 4 opposite a partner who kept quiet, but with that hesitation I think I still bid 3 with justification.

I would miss Gazzilli, and without, this hand is awkward. I don't really want to force to the 3-level, if there is no fit opposite a weak hand, so 3♦ may be a step too far, but having this strength I cannot pass the non-forcing NT. (Similarly 3♣ with minors reversed.) I rebid 2♦(♣) in the hope partner can bid something invitational. My plan is to pass a return to 2♠ but after 2♥ I raise. (With clubs, I rebid 2NT over 2♦.)

I'm a simple soul, so for me with this hand and combined strength it is simply a question of aces. 1NT - 2NT (compulsory transfer to clubs) 3♣ (forced) - 4NT (spade void ace ask) ??reply?? - If 5♣ = 0 ace => pass, if 5♦ = 1 ace => 6♣, if 5♥ = 2 aces => 6♣. Grand would need an ideal but for us undeterminable hand. On the other hand, we do have a side KQ ask when we are playing in a major, so it is a simply a partnership decision to play it with a minor. 1NT - 2NT 3♣ - 3♦ (side KQ ask) 3♥ = K♦ or Q♦ (or both) - 3♠ = what about hearts? 3NT = K♥ or Q♥ (or both) [so opener has K♦+Q♥] - 4NT (spade void ace ask) ??reply?? - If 5♣ = 0 ace => pass, if 5♦ = 1 ace => 6♣, if 5♥ = 2 aces => 7♣. This way grand is a laydown if partner has ALL the right cards (apart from a ruff of the opening lead). If the Q♥ was missing but he had the others, I would think about still bidding 7 as there is a better than 50% chance of partner having another trick.

1NT but I would have transferred to 1NT (or 2C if long) on the first round.

"5 card majors 2/1" does not have any bearing on the method of advances when responder has doubled, so ask what it is. While I expect 3 spades, it could be an utter rubbish hand if they are playing anything like transfers after the double. This gives them 2 bites at a 2♠ bid, so 2♥ would be transfer with a normal unopposed 2♠ bid (probably something like 8 to 11 if you often overcall lighter than an opening hand), while the 2♠ advance is a weaker preempt, perhaps 3-7. If it matters to your bid, though it probably doesn't, ask. It is unlikely to be 4 card support unless it is too weak to make a bid that shows 4 cards. Distribution in the remaining suits is likely to be anything. A weak 3 card support will not have a bid to show a shortage, for example, and cannot bid his own longer suit.

But as soon as R shows singleton or void hearts, you are going to get a heart lead through your hand and if those exes are truly small, then partner will need to have 8 tricks off the top. While I show hearts initially, when opener denies hearts I give up on NT and just play in diamonds. No way can opener bid NT because he does not know how strong your hearts are.

Boris should go. He has done the job that nobody else could, but he is now a year past his sell-by date.

Obviously ace asking. If it was quantitative, what was the point of the transfer?

Then it is not an unassuming cue bid.

Verified the effect in firefox 95.0 in arch linux (not that you would expect OS to make a difference here). I'm getting 1000 requests in 4 seconds of mouse movements, but in real life haven't noticed any lethargy or lagginess. But I am a pretty lethargic player.

Absolutely concur with HardVector (other than I like 5+ with my lack of 4 card major). If opener rebids 1NT 12-14 then 2♣ is to play, 2♦ to play, 2♥ is 11+ 5+ clubs (remember 1♠ denies a major), 2♠ is 11+ with 5+ diamonds, and 2NT natural invite, 3m is a natural slam invitation. Given the options available with 1♠, the alternative bids of 1NT, 2♣ and 2♦ are not wanted naturally, so all can show both majors in one bid. I play 1NT as 54xx or 45xx 6+ hcp, 2♣ as exactly 4 cards both majors 11+, 2♦ as 5 cards both majors (any strength). As 1♣ 2♣ is 44xx 11+, weaker 44xx hands reply 1♦ to show hearts, and over 1♥ (denying 4) then rebid 1NT to show 4 spades. Before anyone quibbles over my 1♠ on 5+ hcp but 1NT needing 6hcp, 1NT is forcing, so if opener does not have a 4 card major he rebids 2♣ and then responder transfers to the 5. As it is forcing to the 2-level, I say 6+ while a simple 1♠ then pass 1NT is 5+ as it is at the one level. Choose your own values.

I play in two EBU affiliated local clubs that use BBO, and one club that uses video and speech on a different platform. I much prefer the BBO experience.

Does the operating system matter? I have always thought it was purely a browser thing (on web access) and provided it coped with html and javascript, as all browsers do, it worked.

No.

1D Over their 1S, 2D. I always need A,K or Q for a 5 card major open. Otherwise I treat as 4. Too many times partner leads K into declarer's AQ, or underleads K. Edit : btw, I never have played rubber.

What adverts? I have never seen any. If you don't want adverts, get an advert blocker. If BBO refuses to operate with advert blockers in use, I will take my custom elsewhere.

An average 17+ for me, but weaker with solidity and controls.

And the EBU version is crazy. I still fall foul of it having played in England all my life. Is this the one thing Scotland has done right in its myriad attempts to do things the non-English way?

Presumably by maximum, you mean "not good enough to make an immediate ace ask" but good enough for game opposite a 6 count? While 4♠ could express that, it is not a signoff because partner with a stronger hand, say 10+, would be entitled to go further. That of course will commit to at least 5♠, so I reckon most regular partnerships would be able to show a strong hand in some other way with a conventional bid and keep the bidding lower. As far as I know SA is not prohibitive of that, and a Gazzilli 2♣ may be worth ad(a/o)pting if you have no short minor to splinter.

I think this is a problem. The bidding in my partnership methods starts with 2♣ because, although marginal, it is not hard to envisage missing a game if 1♠ is passed out. 2♣ (probably GF) - 2♦ (positive with at least 1 ace or king, and sets a GF) 2♠ (first or only suit) - 2NT (the next step denies 3 spades and this is my worst suit [to allow opener to bid a second suit]) 3♣ (next step = I insist on spades) - 3♥(2 steps = 2 AKs) 3NT (2 steps = asks for cheapest side Q starting with diamonds and going up the ranks) - 4♠ (=none) 4NT (ace asking) - 5♦ (2 steps = 2 of 6 :AAAAKQ) There is no point in looking for side kings as responder cannot have any. Responder has denied both red Qs. Opener can see a possible heart loser on a finesse, and a certain diamond loser as there is nowhere to throw it. If responder has long hearts he will not have an entry after taking the heart finesse. Spades can take a 4-2 break, but they may break more badly. There may be voids around, and it seems slam odds are a bit worse than 50%. I rule out NT because a club lead will give a bigger negative if the heart finesse fails. 5♠ or 6♠? I think in matchpoints I bid 5♠, but is very close.

I voted "invitational", but "none of the above" would be better. I use it purely as a descriptive bid to help opener decide what to do. For me it show 4 card support and no shortage and 9 or 10 hcp. Of course that is invitational, but not what is understood by "invitational". To some this may be "giving away too much information, useful to defenders, on run-of the-mill hands", but surely it helps opener's decision (pass/game/slam) much more than it helps the opposition lead. They are going to see my hand after that anyway.

I think these 3 are the salient quotes : - if the hand cannot be bid using a 2♣ opening it should not have been opened 2♣ - a 2♣ opening should be an announcement that a hand is held that requires captaincy: either opener as captain or - with a NT hand - opener passing captaincy to responder - the right solution - using an immediate 2♥ as a [Double*] Negative and thus allowing auctions to develop naturally without the strength ambiguity This seems the obvious way to go, and I have never understood the logic of a different approach. (In local clubs here a single response of compulsory 2♦ is also found, and while that ostensibly gives more room to develop those hands it has missed out on the initial discovery made by the binary 2♦/2♥ style.) Consequently I cannot answer the question posed as I have never played that way nor thought much of it, but surely such a responder should never propose a suit as suitable to be trumps : it takes too much space away to no avail, while you want a 2-suited opener to be able to show his second suit if possible, to give you a choice. A single-suited opener can only be hampered by your suit bid. A 3-suited opener should not be bidding 2♣ unless your agreements allow it to be treated as a balanced NT rebid. THEN you may transfer :). PS The [*] brackets above are mine, as I call 2♦ a positive and 2♥ a negative.

Regime change is never a good idea, when imposed externally.

A agree with you David, but using the normal definitions of weak and strong NT, I say transfer completion is 2 or 3 card support with a weak NT hand, the strong NT hand opens 1NT, and a twalsh 1NT rebid is 2 or 3 card support stronger than a strong NT. That caters for all hands without 4 card support, and when you do have 4 card support with twalsh you have two ways to get to a 2M bid, as we discussed earlier in this thread. (The chief difference between us is that with an unbalanced hand I will be opening 1♦, and a rebid of 1NT then shows 3 card support.)