fromageGB

I must admit that seeing the opening hand, I was assuming my style : 1♦ guarantees a shortage outside diamonds. Therefore opener is guaranteeing 3 diamonds, and will have 4+ more than 90% of the time, cannot have 5 spades. I am expecting 12+ unlimited,and this includes the 15-17 range. This has a big impact on my choice of responder bid. Given the open, and the overcall, I am worth a strong bid of some sort as I am going for game in a minor.

Another way is for responder to start with 3♥ (GF without spades). I play this as possibly but not necessarily a splinter, but opener doesn't care, he has a powerhouse. 1♦ (2♥) 3♥ 4♣ - 4♦(too good for 5) 4♥(ace ask, crucial card ask, whatever, in diamonds) - whatever(1 or 2 keycards depending on whether you have an agreement to count the second suit) 6♦ The slam may be a bit of a leap in the dark, but responder has made a GF so will have some good cards or good holding apart from his trump K, and he did bid 4♦ rather than 5♦.

Depending on how you play 2/1, particularly these two issues : 1) is 1NT forcing or not ? 2) after a forcing NT is a new suit at the 3-level invitational or weak ? it can go 1♠ - 1NT(forcing) 2♣(partial suit, not strong) - 3♦(invitational) 3♥(stopper, not wanting to play in diamonds but not wanting to commit to 3NT (ie happy to pass 3♠) - 4♥ or Nige1's sequence if not invitational. I don't think his comment about non-expertise is valid. My perspective as opener is that this is a solid open. My perspective as responder is that the hand is too good and non-fitting to subside in 1♠ or 2♣, and I will be intending to take 2/3NT out to diamonds. As I actually play a form of Gazzilli I do not rebid 2♣ but 2♦(artificial 12-14), and then as responder I will rebid 3♦ if I am in a good mood, or pass if feeling subdued.

Who knows what a robot is programmed to do. Try playing with people.

One way that might help is to think of a straight uninterrupted 1♠ 2♠. With this, you look at the power of your hand - more than a minimum, all aces and kings, a brilliant Q, a 5xx5 shape which is always better than a 5233, and you'd probably make a game try. Now consider the actual sequence, and add on the fact that you have a singleton in their suit, and the bidding indicates partner will not have wasted values there. I'd be torn between making an invitation, and bidding game. If X as invitation is not part of robot's system (or if I didn't know for sure) I'd bid 4. Yes you need to have the agreement that this 2♠ is a good raise to 2♠ (which you said it was), because you would not do this if 2♠ could be weaker. For method, I prefer transfers over their overcall or double, so my human partner would respond 2♥, but robot lovers have no choice. I don't know how the robot would handle a weaker raise to 2♠, perhaps it just passes.

This all hinges on SAYC definition. Why restrict yourself? OK, if you play with a new partner you have to start somewhere, but think of it this way: if you agree to play a method that doesn't cope, why not for next time you play suggest variations? For me, the problem with these hands is [C], where you jump with a strong hand. If this is handled with a simple Gazzilli, then hand [D] is a jump in spades, defined as a trick short of a 2♣ open, self-sufficient suit.

Ah, yes, I am with you now! If you have already shown 6 spades, then your 3rd bid is difficult, and while you might like 4♣ you can't do that if responder might have only a 4-card suit. 3♥ is probably best.

Maybe I misinterpreted you when you wrote "or a very weak opening with 5 that cannot rebid 3m" because I play that a "weak" opening of 12-14 hcp cannot bid higher than 2M and that does not show 6. Now at my 3rd bid, I can rebid spades to show 6. If you do play that "2♠ always shows 6 except when it shows 5", I do not understand. If you are saying any strength 6 card suit can immediately bid 3♠, ie 1♠ 2♥ 3♠, then I think you taking up room unnecessarily and depriving yourself of a chance to discover the best contract. That bid is in my view best reserved to show a hand that is not quite good enough to open 2♣, has self-sufficient spades, and is requesting a cue bid. Alternatively, if you are saying that a rebid of 2♠ is subminimum and may be passed, then you are not playing 2/1 GF, which the OP is discussing.

"What else" is an obvious 3♠ to show the 6 card suit.

This is completely wrong. There is no such thing as this rare hand; 2/1 sets up a GF to 4M or 3NT (or 5m for me, I guess others may drop out at 4m). If you are - even rarely - dropping the bidding, then your partnership is opening or responding too lightly. In this bidding, opener is unlimited *, so responder cannot pass. 4♣ is my bid, and then pass 4♥/4♠/5♣. * (Edit) Well, not unlimited if the 2♠ is limited by agreement, but not for me.

I don't see anything strange in opening a minor, nor awkward/confusing etc. You do not miss a major because responder will show a 4-card major if he has one, and you will support with a fit. Much more important to distinguish between opener's 4-card and 5-card major, so it seems the right way to me. The scoring makes it better to be in an 8-card major fit rather than an 8-card minor fit, but bidding methods would be completely different if minor tricks were 30 each, and major tricks 20.

Agree with Helene, and would like to emphasise her point : the E hand is not a 1♠ open for 2/1, unless you are happy with disasters. (If you compensated by strengthening the requirements for a 2/1 bid then 1NT is overloaded.) However, even if you did have an extra hcp, or were stronger in some way, game is not always there but it will not be a disaster because the majority of the room will be with you.

Thank you all for the elucidation; I said I don't play this. One thing eludes me in this style, and that is how you find a 4-4 major fit when responder has a fairly weak hand with both 4 card majors, if opener rebids 1NT with a balanced sort of hand that may or may not have 4 cards in the other major. Or does opener with a 4333 shape bid 1♣ 1♥ 1♠? On the sound of it, this seems to imply (semi-)imbalance such as a 4225 or 4135. Transfer walsh seems so much easier...

You will note a difference between gordontd's and ahydra's methods. As appollo stated, in competition it is vital to know both strength and length of support. An invitational raise, or "limit raise" cannot be assigned just one bid, because while say a 4 card support and some strength, or 3 card support and a bit more strength, may both be considered sufficient, when the next opponent bids, opener may want to bid on with the former but double for penalty when you have the latter. 2NT and a bid of opp's suit are the two bids to use here. One means 3 card support, the other means 4, in a typical style, but be careful you agree which. Ahdydra plays 2NT=4 card, cue=3 card, and that is probably the most common. I prefer 2NT=3 card, and cue = 4 card because when you have a longer fit, it is more beneficial for the opponents to compete. If 2NT=4 card, it therefore lets them get in a cheap 3♣, and with a 9-card fit partner is almost certainly having to bidding on. If 2NT=3 card, then if they try 3♣ partner has an excellent chance to double for penalty, as you have the majority of the points and they have taken their bidding too high. To put a hcp strength on these bids, in a typical flattish hand, I would go with 2♠ = 3 card up to 10 2NT = 3 card 11+ 3♣ = 4+ card 9+ 3♠ = 4 card up to 8 When you are moving from beginner to intermediate, think of adding transfer responses after a major opening is overcalled, as ahydra says. That can come later. Beginners can become deluged with things to remember, but if you and partner can manage the 2NT/cue bids, it will help greatly in your bidding.

Bear in mind that I don't play Walsh style ... It seems to me that Cohen has it right. When you introduce the major, opener is much more likely to bid NT rather than support diamonds, whether you are known to have 5 or not. The only time you will play in diamonds is when opener is unbalanced or there is a missing suit, and opener will then have a genuine diamond suit of his own. When that happens, 4 or 5 is moot.

Maybe it is best not to play in ranked events, but at a club where all play all. When I came to this area partnerless, I attended local clubs by letting the secretary know in advance that I was solo, and going there regardless of prearrangements. With no partner you can sit around and watch (if a table is OK with that), but if you do this on a regular basis people will become aware of your availability. Hopefully for the first couple of weeks the director can announce at the start that "shaky here is partnerless and is looking for a game if anyone can oblige" - and you will be asked to fill in while regular partners are away. My next step was politely declining repeat performances from someone I disliked, and eventually found a group of people who at the club each week checked diaries to see who would play with whom the next week (not everyone is in a committed mono-partnership), tagged along, and had regular games that way. Eventually I found people I could get along with, who had similar desires, and more stable partnerships formed. It takes a dedicated time commitment, but I found it pays off. It is no more than the commitment you would have if you were in a regular partnership. In these days of web sites, the club might be willing to temporarily put "partners found on the night" on the home page, while you are doing this, and that might encourage others in the same situation.

When you play a forcing NT you have lost the ability to play in 1NT, and those who choose to play this way think that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages - but that's another discussion. Given that you cannot play in 1NT, this is not an argument. If you play "natural" rebids after 1NT, and repeating the major shows 6 cards, you are really forced to rebid 2♣ when you have no club suit in the accepted sense, perhaps being a doubleton. Gazzilli does not therefore lose a natural bid. Yes, it surely may be. But when responder is not strong enough to reply to your 1NT open, having no long suit, 1NT may well be a terrible contract compared to 1M played on a 5-2 fit. Often, though, they take the same number of tricks, which is why I prefer in MPs that 1NT excludes a 5 card major, and in IMPs it may include. When it includes, I thoroughly agree with you that the 5 cards are best not revealed.

2/1 GF with strong NT that may include a 5 card major IS designed for teams scoring. If you have a matchpoint system that is similar in some ways then it is easy to take 2/1 standard as a simple start. Add Gazzilli, and concentrate on what you do after a 2♣ open - ie show/deny fit, controls, additional strength beneath game level. Similarly work on your style of non-serious and cue bids after major agreement, to ensure you can find the best slam when there is one. If designing from scratch, put emphasis in getting to games that are there, rather than best part scores, but if thinking of taking a mixture of features from different systems, remember that they may not gel as systems should be holistic. If your memory is up to it, relays can be better than "natural", but then this is the wrong forum.

Surely the last election was the worst campaign in history. "Vote for me, because I know that Brexit means Brexit." Unfortunately, Brexit to a remainer means "stay in at all costs". I'm beginning to think Corbyn would be a better choice, unless Screaming Lord Sutch reincarnates.

There are a couple of other considerations. First matchpoints. If you fail to show a 5 card major then when partner passes you will usually be scoring badly compared to the others who play in 2M. Not so valid at IMPs, so it depends on your scoring method. It depends too on the field, as if all around you are playing the same the scores will of course be normal. If the field is weak NT, you will notice. Secondly, you may have agreements on things like mini-splinters, whose benefits you lose, and other treatments that may help you find game if you open 1M. Having said that, I do think it most important that you play some form of Gazzilli and for me it is 15+.

@ Pete Trusting partner means that you expect him to have a 6+ card spade suit, so even though he may be 6332 and feels he should rebid 3NT, you have a clear-cut return to 4♠. An opener rebidding a second suit may have only 5 cards in each, but a balanced opener with a mere 5 card suit will be rebidding NT at his second turn, and not spades.

I would have thought that 4-suit transfers (transfer directly to the suit you want to play in) is MUCH simpler for beginners, rather than your suggested : This is really confusing. You use stayman to find 4-card major fits, and 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ is likely to be met with 4♠ if opener has both majors. No, the "basics" way is to transfer to your suit, so opener plays the hand with his side-suit strengths, then show slam desire.

Playing a 19/20 2NT was a fashion here quite a while ago, but most have sensibly dropped it. You can still now see crazy results from those that have not moved on. You can play a 9-25 1NT for even more aggression and "systems on", but those are not my objectives.

The first hand is best described in my responses as 4 card support balanced 9-12, and we have a 3M-2 bid for that. The second could be bid the same way, but better - if you have it available - is a 4 card support 9/10 hcp mini-splinter, which for us is 3M-1 if short in the other major. On hand one I do insist on game if partner declines, but the benefit of showing what you have (as opposed say to a direct 4♥) is that it makes it easier for partner if he is considering slam.

I certainly would NOT suggest a 20/21 2NT open, but thoroughly agree with those who say it should be no more than a 2-point range. How can responder unilaterally make the game decision opposite anything wider? I too used Kokish before I adopted transfer responses to 1♣, but suit bidding is better after 2♣ without Kokish getting in the way. Out NT ranges are 12-14 starting 1♣, 15/16 opens 1NT, 17/18 starts 1♣, 19/20 starts 1♣ but has a different sequence to a 2NT rebid, 21/22 is 2NT, 23+ starts 2♣. I am more than happy with this choice.