fromageGB

True, and this may not be a bad thing (see "simulation question" thread in the general section). However, there is also imprecision with responder's suit being perhaps 4 or perhaps 5, and if my partner shows a 5 card major invitational hand when I open a NT, I would like to bid game with 4 card support, even if minimum. (But just a 3 point range.) You don't have that problem with classical methods. It's a big loss for the advantage of being able to play in 2M, especially when it could be a 4/3 fit when it is no benefit.

Very interesting. What really surprised me, borne out by both analyses, is that hearts is just as good as spades. A 4-3 fit with a singleton in the short hand - yes, I would anticipate that. But with only a doubleton ! I suppose the big benefit is that by ruffing just once you are setting up a couple of tricks in the other hand. Nigel's double dummy comment may come into play here.

It's impossible. Look at the heart suit. Responder may have a 5 card or a 4 card heart suit. Assume opener responds to the 2♣ with 2♦ meaning "something". If responder bids 2♥ to show a 4+ card heart suit, opener will move on with 3 (if "something" includes 3) and then responder if he had 5 hearts is stuck. If 2H♥ by responder guarantees 5, then opener cannot have 4, or you miss your 4/4 fit. So for the 2♥ bid to work, opener must be either denying 3, or denying 4 hearts. If opener is denying one or the other, then he has to respond to 2♣ with 2♥ with all hands with 4 (say) (or all hands with 3 of course). So the spades are unknown. They could be 2, 3, or 4 in length. There is now no way for responder find a spade fit. QED Of course, it is trivial if you exclude responder holdings of 5 of a major from the 2♣ response, but that defeats the object, as you cannot show 55xx, 35xx, 45xx and 54xx with a 2♦ bid and stop in 2♥ when it is correct !

I wouldn't profess to know what the "standard" continuations are, but my partnerships play 1♥ 1♠ = 0-4 1♥ 1NT = 5+ spades Strength of responder up to about a 15 count (using 1♥ 2♣ for stronger hands) Replies to 1♥ 1♠ : 1NT = 12-16 balanced or with 4 spades. . . 2♣ (with 8+ points) asks : . . . . 2♦ = 12-14 balanced . . . . 2♥ = 12-14 with spades . . . . 2♠ = 15/16 with spades . . . . 2NT = 15/16 balanced . . other responder bids takeout / normal 2♣ = Gazzilli-like any hand 17+, or natural clubs any strength . . 2♦ (with 8+ points) asks: . . . . 2♥ = 12-14 with clubs . . . . 2♠ = 15/16 with clubs . . . . 2NT+ = 17+ natural 2♦ = 4+, 12-16 2♥ = 6, 11-16

Good question. My instinct is that the best contract is spades (in terms of the score obtained), then NT then hearts, in that sequence.

I very much like the idea of finding the fit at 2M and passing, knowing it is invitational. Very useful even if not wide ranging NT. This is why in one partnership we have given up the 1NT open (in a constructive way - we play a mini which is primarily destructive) as we can with our transfer Walsh treatment find all lengths major fits and stop at 2M with game invitation declined. If it was possible to iron out this set of NT responses it would be very good. However, you need to solve the inv 44xx and 45xx hands, and it's just not possible, I feel, from a 1NT open, as there is no room to show all invitational hand types without recourse to the 3 level in some instances. With another partnership sans mini we restrict 1NT to 15-16 and then the consequences of a declined invitation at the 3 level are not so bad.

Is pass an option? Matchpoints, lousy spades (RHO has 4 over partner), 2 heart losers, maybe club losers, you may not be able to ruff diamonds at all if they switch to trumps, no entries to my clubs. I guess it depends on what your requirements are to overcall the open, but my partners' hands may not be strong. KQxxx, xx, QJxx, Ax is consistent with partner's and RHO's bidding, and 3 is going off.

Initially planned to pass, now X. Lead ♥K, get count. If no ♠A in dummy, 2 hearts and a 3rd for a ruff if that's on. If ♠A in dummy, take ♣A before giving the heart ruff. If no heart ruff on, play the diamond instead of the 3rd heart

This is the big snag with super duper trooper gerber, and the answer, obvious when you think about it, is modified super duper trooper gerber. For those who have never come across it, it will strike you as blindingly simple, and you will wonder why everyone doesn't play it. When partner opens some level of NT, a reply of 3NT expresses slam interest and asks opener to suggest what 4NT should mean. Now there is room for opener to bid 4♣ as a suggestion that 4NT should be ace asking in clubs.

Many thanks for all the comments. Different descriptions it will be !

Adam gives a good summary of the negatives. I would add a followup (2b) comment that responder showing a game force 5 card suit then 3M agreement is a perfect starting point for cue bidding sequences. Not possible in the OP methods. I don't see how you can call it 2/1, it is just standard with an artificial 2♣ response. Plenty of negatives, but the positives are very scant.

The other night at the ftf club my partner passed, RHO bid a natural 1♣, and I bid 2♥. Questions, explained as weak jump overcall, no follow up questions. I had a good 6 card heart suit and a 13 count including a singleton ♣K. Ultimate contract by them went off, and declarer - who was the director for the night - strongly objected to my bid as it caused her to misplay the hand. Am I entitled to discount a singleton K in the opposition suit, giving a working 10 count, and overcalling a WJO? If asked, my partner would explain further that he would expect a 6 to 10 count and a 6 card suit. Should I be penalised? What is the normal definition of a WJO?

This could be a serious question, and I think it behoves people with methods to handle strong hands to explain what they do. I am aware of 2 ways to show strong hands : the first is simply to play inverted minors but opener (excepting possibly closely defined agreed hands) after hearing 2♣ makes a 2♦ relay. Responder's rebids then show whether it is "strong" (your choice of game forcing or slam seeking strength) or a normal invitational hand with club support. The second is to play transfer Walsh, which has advantages all round, and then the responder gets a second bite of the cherry to describe his hand. You can combine this with the first option, so with a 13-15 type hand responder makes the transfer Walsh bid, and with 16+ goes down the inverted minor route. I have never played Walsh without the transfer, but I can't imagine anyone bidding 1♦ without diamonds.

So it seems to be unanimous. Many is the time I have been facing rubbish and been grateful when oppos have overcalled partner's NT.

Everyone seems to say 4♠ is automatic, and at this vulnerability I agree. But any other vulnerability and it's a more open decision. As Marlowe says, I expect we have a 25-26 count on average, and that's good, but look at suit length. Opener is expected to have 8 hearts, so his partner is expected to have 1. That makes a 9 card fit. I have 5 spades, give opener his one or two spades, and partner is going to have an expected 3 spades. So that makes an 8 card fit. Enough to bid game, sure, but with TNT=17, if we make 10 tricks (the expectation), the expectation is that opener playing in hearts will make 7. So if we are all green, 500 beats 420, and all red, 800 beats 620. A close call. At IMPs I bid 4S, at matchpoints I double. The way the pictures lie, it could well be 10 tricks in spades and only 6 in hearts. And green against red, then no contest. So vulnerability definitely affects my choice, and scoring method too.

Agree with the 6♦, but don't like the initial pass. 2♣ is simple and would definitely be my bid. I play it as non forcing, but even if it is forcing, I don't mind partner rebidding 2♦.

2) Probably not the same with hearts. There is a bigger incentive to play in the major games, and with major fits confirmed at the 3 level I want to embark on cue bidding, so I like to keep 2/1 GF for 1♠ 2♥. With 1M 2m 2♥/♠ 3m it is no great loss for me to have this as invitational, as with a true GF I would rebid 4SF or 2NT, and partner with a fit may then support.

What do 'WayXX' and 'WayX' mean in this post? In the non-serious splinter, way 27 would be a specific 4441 shape, with a singleton club, but having no diamond honours. Way 28 would be the same 4441 but guaranteeing at least the diamond king. Unfortunately, there is no way to show all the possible ways, but if you did that, it would turn into a serious splinter, and that negates its value.

I play a sort of kickback (you can search for "green aces") which is simple. The ace ask (there are 5 aces) is the step above 4 trumps. Responses in steps are : 1 ace, or 3 aces without the trump queen 2 aces 3 aces with the trump queen 0 aces (this is the trump suit). If Teller has 4 aces he gives the king reply (ie above 5 trumps). Over the first of these Asker can then bid the next step to ask for the trump queen, with replies in steps : 1 ace with the Q 1 ace without the queen (this is 5 of the trump suit) If Teller has 3 aces with the trump queen he gives the king reply. Over the 2 ace response, the next step asks for the trump Q, with step replies : no queen (this is 5 of the trump suit) If Teller has the trump queen he gives the king reply. The king ask (confirms all the aces and Q) is again the step above 5 trumps. There are only 3 kings. Teller with no kings signs off in 6 trumps. Teller with 3 kings bids 7 trumps. Teller with 1 or 2 kings bids the cheapest (you use NT to show the K of the asking suit, so with ♦ as trumps, 5NT shows ♥K, so ♥K is cheaper than ♣K for example). If Asker wants to know if Teller has a second specific king that would enable the grand, he simply bids that suit. Teller signs off in 6 if he does not have that king, bids 7 with it. All is natural (apart from the NT substitution), the ace steps go 123 so there is never any doubt, and the "nothing" reply is always the trump sign off. You can always play in 5 trumps after the A+Q asking. You can always play in 6 trumps after the K ask. Simple, but with the normal kickback caveat that you have to have agreed very carefully what the trump suit is taken to be, if it could be ambiguous.

I don't like the idea of giving up useful bids to show different splinter types. The normal "less than opening values" splinter is OK, and a "splinter" with opening values we incorporate into the 2NT reply to 1♠, sort of "Josephy, son of Jacoby". 1♠ 2NT, or 1♥ 2♠ (ie 2M+1) is the game forcing shortage inquiry with 4 card support. Opener bids a shortage and whether singleton or void, if he has one. If not, he bids the next step. Responder then over that next step shows his shortage in the same way, if he has one. If not, if he is not minimal he bids an otherwise unused 3M+1 (ie this is not a shortage reply) to ask for opener's general strength in steps. If either partner shows his shortage, the other hand re-evaluates in the light of that shortage and shows his "useful points". Of course either side can break the sequences with hands that know what other action to take, and the fact that 2M+1 is the shortage ask, 3M+1 is the strength ask, and 4M+1 is the ace ask, makes it easy to remember. So this multi-purpose "Josephy" means you don't need the other stronger splinters.

Nice one :)

... and this is standard? I believe it is pretty common to bid 2♣ as the better minor that may be 3 card. Denying gadgets, I would say it is standard. So when partner makes a weak takeout to diamonds, 2♥ seems a perfect description of the shape and strength. Having not bid hearts initially is a problem, as will partner take you for 5404, or will he take you for maybe 5314 and asking for a guard in hearts to bid NT? If so, it may not achieve its intended aim, unfortunately, but there is a good chance partner will understand you hate diamonds and want to play elsewhere. Yes, if he bids 2♦, I want to bid 2♣. Bit if he was going to pass 2♣ I want to bid 3♥ :-)

Sorry, I misread the hand quoted. With only 2 cards in partner's major we would normally bid just a simple 3NT with 13-15. Yes, I agree that there could be a side suit wide open, but that is never guaranteed. However, with this particular hand only, I may bid 2♦, which allows partner to show hearts if he has them, and if he supports diamonds I have a chance at escaping in 3NT. If he insists, then 5♦ may not be disastrous. We would only do this with 4 hearts, and then we may bid a 4 card minor.

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.) Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion). This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler. What do you bid after partner opens 1♠ and you hold gf 2443, unsuitable for 3nt? In the methods my partner and I play, we have a bid of 2M+2 (eg 1♥ 2NT, or 1♠ 3♣) that is defined as typically 13-15 and 3 card support, no sensible 5 card suit. If opener rebids 3M, this is a command to cue bid. If opener rebids 3NT it shows a hand that is happy to play there. If opener rebids the other major it shows a natural 4+ card suit in case it fits better. We can make this 2M+2 bid, because it is otherwise free, with 2M+1 being the 4 card support shortage inquiry, and both 2M+3 and 2M+4 being Bergen raises. It was an otherwise unused bid for us. If we are that sort of shape but stronger, we actually start off with a forcing next step but show it on the next round. I think there are advantages in having a 2♣/♦ immediate response as showing a decent 5 card suit.

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.) Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion). This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler.