fromageGB

After a (semi-) balanced 1♣ I play 2M as 6 card up to 8 hcp, and while not rare, it has been a big plus every time it happens. Interference has no impact. Choose something that fits the rest of the system. All bids should fit together in a coherent whole with no hole. Hence another sequence means 6 card 9-12.

While not many play 2/1 you will have no problem. While most people still play 4 card majors, 5 card is not uncommon. Opening NT strengths vary, and "strong" is less common than weak, but is played by a few. It is unlikely a random partner will play 2/1, no chance at all of playing SAYC (mercifully), but if you say "5 card majors, strong NT, 3 weak 2s" it is highly likely any experienced spare player will do that without breaking sweat. Just beware of substandard new suits at the two level over your major open. You could ask partner "what is it forcing to?" but when I ask that, partners do not seem to know, and use "common sense". If you arrive in almost any club with a partner playing 2/1, you will be welcomed.

The above assumes you are playing 1NT forcing. If 1NT is not forcing, I would not dream of bidding 2♣ on partner's hand, but would pass 1NT.

Maybe because partner may be a 24 count 4144? If 2♦ does not have a strong option then pass is an option. Partner did once have a long diamond hand and passed, but of course I did have the strong option.

If you are not playing a natural NF 2♥ rebid over a Gazzilli that can be weak, then it is awkward. Over 2♥, a strong 17+ hand will bid again, so I would not restrict it to a 9 count, just any hand that does not want to play in clubs or spades if opener is not strong. An alternative is to use Gazzilli as strong only, and give up showing opener clubs - except a 5 club hand bids 1♠ then 3♣ NF. This 3♣ denies the strength needed to bid 1♠ then 2♣ then 3♣. With this opener hand, he bids 1♠ then 2♦ - which does not show genuine diamonds. You may not be prepared to lose opener 4 card minors, but if you currently play that opener's actual sequence shows 4 clubs, you probably do play that a 5323 hand rebids 2♦ anyway. Some people play 2♣ = 16+. If you were playing this it would certainly go 1♠ 1NT, 2♦ 2♥.

Or you could say [ ... and responder has 5S and 4H, and both are weak ... ] that 2♦ is Ekrens with at least 54xx. Use it to fill holes. I play natural weak2 and Ekrens (with different partners!) and prefer Ekrens. Yes, 2♦ is forcing if you want to include a strong option (mine is 21+ 3-suiter).

If you are playing that Gazzilli does not necessarily show 17+ but may simply show clubs, then I think it an error on this hand to bid 2♦. I would bid 2♥. Having bid as you did, I would pass.

I'd go with Ekrens, but I don't see the advantage in it being an unspecified 5 in the {45}xx. I like 44xx as minimum length. Partner normally picks a 2M, but 2NT is a generic ask while 3m is game invitation in the corresponding major. Ekrens also goes well with a strong option, if you have something not covered well in your 1♣, opener rebidding over a 2M reply.

Or if Scotland gets to the world cup final. (For those not in the know, Berwick is part of Scotland, not England.) This method seems to me the best of those here, and is akin to the local points earned. Split any tie by total percentage.

I agree that after minor agreement at the 3-level, new suits are stoppers and not long (4), whereas at the 2-level a new suit is long. This situation cries out for transfers after their overcall. South's 2♣! gets 2♦, then 2♥ shows four, while on this hand South's 2♠ describes the hand perfectly. Then it is up to North to support South's 5-card diamonds or rebid NT or anything else.

Is it sensible to take a lot of bidding space to show your 5 card suit when opener has a one-suited or two-suited hand? Better to keep the bidding low to let him describe his hand. If he has a balanced hand and rebids NT, then you may wish to show your 5 card suit. There is an argument for immediately transferring to a 6+ card suit, and opener completes the transfer if he accepts, or otherwise bids his suit. I do not know a name of such a method, but responder bidding his suit directly seems to be wrong - you want opener to play the hand, and you want to know what trumps are going to be at a low enough level. To some extent, it also depends whether your 2♣ open is game forcing, or if it can be made with a hand a trick short of game. In the first case, there is no need for a 2♦/2♥ demarcation, but if the latter, then you can agree that a positive 2♦ sets a game force, while a negative 2♥ can let opener's non-jump suit be passed. However, rather than showing initial negative/positive, what many do is show strength AFTER opener's suit has been shown. If you wish, you can still stop short of game.

Which national jurisdictions forbid this? I am surprised. If it is just a question of which system methods you choose, it is inevitable there will be hands better suited for some methods and poor for others. I too would choose a forcing 1NT (or in my case an equivalent forcing Kaplan 1♠). If partner continued with 1NT of course I convert to clubs, and luckily for us on this hand we play 1♥ 1♠, 2♦ as showing four spades, and lacking a Gazzilli 2♣, so it really is a case of choice of methods.

I misinterpreted your first post, where you talked of showing "3 strength ranges", and 3♣ was "low void". I took this to mean 10-12 with unspecified void suit. From you new full example I now assume you mean club void, and next step asks range, so 3♥ is 10-12. Of course 4♣ is now an opener cue of the void. As opener does have a choice of cuing 3NT, 4♣ or 4♦, then it does make sense to assign meanings. I don't know what! How about the following? Talking for a minute about cue bids in general, if spades are trumps, then yes 3NT can deny clubs, as there is room to (positively) cue all suits, but with hearts as trumps, when you do not have room to cue 3♠ (for example if responder had 13-15 club void and therefore bid 3♠ to show that strength), 3NT as the first available cue could be a spade cue. However, here in this given lowest sequence possible, 3♠ is available, so opener bypassing that bid shows or denies spades according to agreement (I prefer denial cues, so a cue >3♠ for me shows spades, but I gather you prefer possessive cues, so opener is denying spades. Possessive cues are assumed hereafter.) Opener did have a choice of 3NT or 4♣, and any cue is seeking slam opposite a known 10-12, so I suggest 3NT would be asking strength, while 3♣ insists on a cue regardless of strength. Assuming opener has denied spade control, responder will always bid just game without a spade control, so any other bid shows spades. Therefore, over 3NT (asking strength) responder with a poor hand (10-bad 11) will bid 4♥ regardless of controls, while a good hand (good 11-12) with a diamond control as well as the spades bids 4♦, but bids 4♣ to show a good hand (with spades) but denying diamonds. Over opener's 4♣ rather than 3NT, he is not interested in strength, so responder simply cues 4♦ if he has that as well as spades, but bids 4♠ without the diamonds. In general, the "suit then strength" method always has room for a void suit cue, but it may fall to responder to bid it, as in this example hand if opener cued spades, or another hand with diamond void / mid strength, and opener cues clubs. In these cases, a cue of the void suit would fall to responder. In the first case it has been possible to cue all suits, but in the second case the spades cannot be shown. My suggestion is that : (1) If there is room for all cues, and 3NT, 3NT from opener asks for only top of range to continue (responder's void cue showing good hand but denying a higher cue), and opener bypassing 3NT asks for continuation regardless; (b) 3NT from responder shows a poor hand but with something further to cue, and bypassing 3NT shows a good hand. (2) If the ability to cue 3NT has been lost by the relays, but all suits can be cued, the void cue by opener asks for only a good responder to continue, bypassing it insists, while the void cue by responder shows weakness. (3) if the ability to cue all suits has been lost by the relays, the void suit is cued by either party to show control of the lost suit - eg 1♥ 2♠, 2NT(shortage?) 3♦(void), 3♥(strength?) 3NT(13-15) - now you lose the natural spade cue but recover it by using the void diamond cue in its place. It looks like your raise structure works, and your 2M+1 can be happily used for void splinters of different strengths. Other points or questions, though : .. if 1♠ 2NT is a balanced 'Jacoby', what is your "2M+1" void splinter when spades are trumps? .. I assume 1♥ 2♠, 2NT 3♥ is used for void spades .. with any void other than clubs (or M-2) you need to be happy that 10hcp is enough for game, as you are forced there anyway - but that is probably OK.

I think you have to consider that often you may be making the same number of tricks in either suit, so at matchpoints you want to be in the major. Most people will I reckon bid the major when weak, and perhaps the minor if good enough to show the major by rebid. That depends on the suits held : with your example if responder bid 2♣ initially and heard 2♦ from you, then he needs strength to bid 2♠, but on a different hand if you had opened 1♠ and he had 4 hearts as well as clubs, it would be safer to bid 2♣ initially at any strength, because opener would rebid hearts with 4, rather than spades again. In your example, perhaps you could have made a support double with only 3 cards - I assume you mean 2353 shdc rather than 3253. After 1♦ (pass) 1♥ (1♠), X then he will happily rebid 2♣ rather than hearts.

And who knows what the void suit is? You have not shown it. My suggestion would be to have just one strength range, and show the suit after a relay rather than the strength, and then you could cue bid. I would rather, though, not use this method. Do you have any other bids available, like 3M+1/2/3/4, or is it just 2M+1 that is free for a splinter? I would choose to include both singletons and voids, and give up cue bidding to allow the next step after the short suit to ask whether singleton or void. It is difficult to make suggestions without seeing the meaning of all replies. I like 2M+1 to be 13+ that may have a shortage (which could be discovered), and use a natural bid >3M as your "low" splinter. As you can't ask "singleton or void?" over 4M-1, I use 3NT as the void splinter in M-1.

I think it all hinges on law 16A1d. "A player may use information in the auction or play if it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board and the laws do not preclude his use of this information". This information already known is the name of partner's dog. No law I see precludes using this information. Therefore it can easily be used in free bidding. If the name of the dog is Lucy, you play weak NT, otherwise strong NT. Or 1♣ is either a strong unspecified type bid or a transfer walsh 1♣, and a 1♥ reply is either controls or shows spades, etc. It must be very difficult to compete against this. Used in competition, you can say that an overcall is either natural or the suit higher (encrypted), and this would certainly throw my bidding off if they did it against me. What is the point of this clause (d)? This is the one law that deals with unauthorised information, and it is saying that the name of the dog is legal information.

Law 16 seems in need of a revamp. The clauses are linked by ORs, and (d) effectively says "anything goes". (But not looking at the clock, because it has to be information gained before withdrawing the cards.) Specifically 16A2 says you may use the traits of the opponents in this, so if you play against Steve you are allowed to use all the obfuscation you can muster, where you may play straight with others.

OK, so this is not only legal, but presumably acceptable by national jurisdictions. The examples quoted here do not give anything other than obfuscation, as the same information may be given by open means, so could be deemed by Steve as nefarious ; except perhaps for my initial kings example, which does actually have a merit in that it is simpler than other methods if you want to find all kings. I infer from the replies given here that the defenders are NOT allowed to ask which king(s) are shown.

The EBU does not allow encrypted signals, but I have not read anything about encrypted bidding. Presumably this is not allowed either? I am using here "encrypted" in the sense that the information conveyed by the bid is available only to your partner, not the opponents. To take a silly example, you could say that the suit controlled, indicated by a cue bid, depends on whether we declared the first board on the previous round : it means the suit above if "yes", but the suit below if "no". When they ask the meaning of the bid, that explanation does not help them, but partner knows. Are they allowed to ask a follow-up question "did you declare the first board on the previous round?"? Having answered that, now consider the king-showing method where in response to a say 5NT king ask, with one king you bid that suit, and with two kings you bid the suit of the king you do not have. That could be explained to the first question as to meaning, but can they then have a follow-up question to the bidder's partner to ask "do you have that king?"?

Are you sure about this? If 2♥ is forcing, surely a minimum opener is forced to bid a second suit if he has one. My methods are different, as I play transfers over interference. East . . . . . . West 1♠ (2♦) X 3♣ ... Opener would bid 2♥ as requested if he would pass a non-forcing response, so 3♣ here not only denies hearts (could bid 3♥) it also shows a strong hand and is GF with at least 4 clubs. ... 4♣ 4♦(asking) - 4♠(2 of the 6 crucial cards 6♣

I see what you mean. Maybe you want a method where you start off 1NT and if anyone else bids, you take it back, and say "no, start again, I'm opening 1M" ? On that night there was only one hand where there were contracts both in 1NT and 2M. I opened 1♠ on a 5332 14 count, partner replied a forcing NT and we ended in 2♠. All hands played by South, the spade players made 9 or 10, the NT players made 8. Of course not a scientific sample.

If you are 1 down in NT, you are unlikely to be 2 down in spades, as they have the strength and suits to run in NT, while you have length in spades to ruff them with. Both going 1 down is more likely, or spades making. Why else do people bother to transfer to play in 2M? All I can say is that your experience is the complete opposite to mine. I commonly find that whether at game or partscore, playing in a major fit is worth a trick, and while meaningless when converted to IMPS, it is huge in matchpoints. Of course there are hands that make the same number of tricks in both, but these are much fewer in frequency. Just checking at random, the last local club night had 12 hands out of 27 where people were playing in both the major and in NT. Of these, 8 hands had better results in the major, 4 better in NT. That's actual results, not the double dummy. That includes hands where only one pair is in one of the contracts, so it is fairer to restrict it to those with at least two pairs in each. That gave 5 hands, 4 for the major, 1 for NT. Double dummy gave it as 5-0.

It sure does. Different styles of 2/1 mean 2♠ may or may not show extra strength, but if (as I play) a 2♥ rebid may be just 5 if no additional strength, the 2♠ rebid clearly shows 4 cards and 15+ hcp. 2NT does not say you want to play in NT, but is bid without any clear shape to show, such as longer clubs or a second suit, and it allows opener to clarify his hand. When opener shows a 46xx shape of 15+, responder can make slam moves. Those moves depend on methods. Unfortunately you can't ideally ask for aces now because opener may have just Jx in diamonds, so it may be better to bid 4♦ as a 4th suit general slam move agreeing hearts, and let opener with his ideal hand do the asking.

A simple answer - at IMPs always 1NT. At MPs always the major. Different scoring, different methods, as said by StephenG, but my 1NT is 15/16. I don't think vulnerability matters significantly. What does matter is your strength-defining methods after a 1M open.

If you have methods that do what you want after a pass, why not do the same after a X? In my case, 1m (X) system-on. However, our responses to a major are deficient with a weak hand, as we play 1NT forcing, so after 1M (x) we play transfers up to 2M. If you were asking what would be assumed as standard if you have never played together before, then surely it must be natural. If you had agreed inverted minors, then still inverted.