fromageGB

This is rather an implausible statement. Of course the responses are ambiguous. If you are saying this is not a good method to use when the bidding has deprived you of the space to make exploratory discoveries first, then I agree with you, but surely the problem is with your choice of ace asking methods.

Incidentally, playing this "natural" 1NT rebid, opener has simply described his hand, and responder immediately knows there is a fit in any second suit of his. Therefore there is no XYZ, as 2♣ is to play, 2♦ is to play, as is 2 other major. I agree with you that you should not lose the minor suits here, because with an unbalanced hand you will usually be playing in a suit.

I play Gazzill on 15+. Bidding starts 1M 1NT, or 1♥ 1♠. If opener rebids 2♣ it says nothing about clubs, but shows 15+hcp. (Depending on how you want to play Gazzilli you might also include a 12-14 hand with 4 clubs, which will always rebid 2M to show that hand.) Over 2♣, responder with 8+ hcp will always bid a 2♦ relay. Without that 8 hcp responder makes the most sensible bid to play, which could be 3m on a long suit, but will commonly be 2M. Over the 2♦ relay I play that an opener rebid at the 2-level is 15/16 (passable) and 17+ will bid naturally at the 3-level GF. Gazzilli is 15+, 16+, or even 17+ in the original style, but I like to have a 15 boundary. There are other opener rebids >2♣, but these show specific hands, such as 3m being a 14-16 passable 5-5 shape. Playing Gazzilli, you do not get high unless the mutual strength for it exists. Of course if the bidding does go 1♥ 1♠, 2♣ 2♥ (rather than 2♦) there is nothing to stop opener bidding game on a 20 count, but he knows responder is just 6/7 hcp (or perhaps weaker with support if you include that option in a forcing 1NT).

Welcome to the unbalanced world! I play two different methods will different partners, and the "advanced" one is better, but not easy. Email me if it would be of interest to you - the method is based upon 1♠ being any 11+ hcp hand, while 1♥ is max 10 but can be either or both majors (strangely, you do not need to know which.) A simple method though, is far better than no method. I would recommend you start with all "natural" bidding, but let opener support partner's suit if he has 3 cards only, and treat it like 4. This is usually very effective, as you have practically guaranteed ruffs in your void or singleton suit. An opener rebid of 1NT is natural in the sense that it shows a 3-suited hand with a shortage (singleton or void) in partner's suit. So with a 3-suiter, you either support or bid NT. The only other possible non-jump opener rebids are 2♣ with 10 cards in the minors, or 2♦ with 6 diamonds. This is based upon the definition of 1♦ as either a 6 card suit, or a hand with a shortage outside diamonds. Incidentally, this definition guarantees that a 1♣ open has at least 2 cards in each major, unless 6 clubs are shown by a rebid of clubs, which makes it ideal from the transfer walsh point of view. One thing to get used to is that a (comparatively rare) shape of 4135 opens 1♦ rather than 1♣, but it works.

You cannot simply forget about those in 4. If you judge your bidding as "correct", then by all means play straight percentages. However, if you judge that you got it wrong somewhere either through a mistake in bidding, or that your unusual methods were not suited to the hand, then you must do something different to the norm. If you play "normally" and take 10 tricks then you have a bottom. If you finesse the wrong way, or attempt a drop of the Q with 5 cards missing, then making 9 while everyone else makes 10 will make no difference to your score. But making 9 or 10 when others make 9 will give you a top. Safety play is an example of this "abnormal" choice. Be happy to play safe making 9 tricks, if others make 8 or 10 without that safety play.

This is the big problem with a wide-ranging opener rebid : it forces (as evidenced by most posters here) responder to not describe their hand. If you played rebids that distinguished strength, you would be delighted to find the spade fit if there is one, and if not, let partner know you have that 15 to bad 17 to let him make the contract decision.

Bid your 4 card 1♠. OH, you have 5? It depends a little on what partner does with a strong hand, if you are 6-7 rather than 8-9. If your methods are that he jumps uncontrollably, with a weak hand, raise partner instead. If he uses say Gazzilli, a 1♠ weak is safe because you can sign off in 2♥ over the artificial 2♣.

(see post #3) 1♠ - 2NT 5♣ - 5♥ 6♦ - 7♠ In post #3 I described 5NT as a "positive" bid to avoid explanations, but in truth I use it as a "negative". By bidding beyond 5♠ you confirm you have all the 6 crucial cards AKQAAA (except here clubs are excluded). 5NT is used as control to enable the partnership to stop in 6 even if all kings are held. As I play denial kings, I play denial 5NT, and it denies the desire to be in a grand even if all side kings are held, unless partner can contribute a trick I do not expect. Bypassing 5NT as the strong asker means you have that desire - in the same way that bypassing a suit means you have that K, when playing denial kings. (If it was the weaker (teller) hand to bid or bypass 5NT, bidding denies the ability to contribute an unexexpected trick even if all kings are held.) Here asker has a completely solid hand, should teller have the two missing kings, so is very happy to say this by bypassing 5NT and bidding 6♦ to deny that king. Teller bids 7♠ because he has that king, has the other side king, and asker has told him to bid 7 if all kings are held.

... or better, if you are prepared to give up a penalty double, is simple transfers starting from X = transfer to next step. This way partner is playing the hand and overcaller is having to lead away from his holding. So if you were going to transfer to 2♠ before the opponent bid, just bid the same 2♥ or double their 2♥.

I play almost as the OP, and think it is Questem. However, we play 2♦ over 1♣ to show extreme suits (giving up the WJO in diamonds). This means that any "extreme suits" bid can be passed, which is advantageous as responder cannot be sure of another bite at the cherry. It also keeps 2♠ in the frame. As others say, any non-strong 1m open is overcalled this way, with different methods over strong openings. For me, it is two hearts over a strong 1♣ with both minors, being a relay to 2♠, which is passed if single-suited in spades, or taken out to 2NT with both minors. With the "possibly short" 1♣, if 2-suited including clubs, we just bid the other suit.

This one is easy. 1♠ - 2NT (13+hcp, 4+♠) 5♣ (15+ hcp, void, "ace" ask) - 5♥ (2 of AKQAA) 5NT (>5♠, so confirming all of AKQAA, and grand slam desire as prelude to K discovery) - 7♠ (ignoring the king process) Responder has both of the side Ks, can see a minimum of 28 out of a 30 point pack. (Edit - see post #8)

Really? OK, vulnerable in third, now you have thought, would you really pass any?

No, the Atlantic stretches out quite a long arm north of France, so you are definitely on the other side. Playing 5 card majors proves it. The French have long recognised it. What is "manche" other than the sleeve of an arm of the Atlantic?

Of course a {5332} is more "suited" to suit play than NT play. Whether strong or weak NT. Mick is correct in that if you open 1NT on this you have more chances of reverting to a fitting major with the strong variety, but for me it is more about scoring. Scoring a minor part score usually loses out to scoring a NT contract with the same hand, so I suppress a 5 card minor. A fitting major part score beats NT in matchpoints, but not in IMPs. For this reason it makes sense to me to open 1M at matchpoints and 1NT at IMPs.

Double for me would be a "good 2♠" as opposed to a direct weaker 2♠, and 2NT is also spade support, so I pass.

If you play matchpoints there is a lot to be said for putting the 5♥332s back into a 1♥ open! Having said that, there are various things I don't like with your suggestion. You are using a 16+ 2♣ but also have a 16+ 2NT on 36xx. Is this really necessary, when partner has already denied 5 spades by bidding 1♠, and when it forces you to 3♥ when after 2♣ you would play in 2♥? I think you are also missing out on your objective of playing 1NT on misfit hands, because partner is obliged to continue if holding either spades or diamonds, and that's more than half or the hands, when there is still no guarantee of a fit. Again, that 2♦ bid will force you to 3♥ on a 16 count opposite 5 or 6. I would prefer all strong hands to start with Gazzilli, except for 15/16 hcp 5+5+ two suiters. If you would rather play in a 6 card heart suit rather than a 4-4 spade fit, why do you have that 2♥ rebid showing 4 spades and 6 hearts? Just use it for 6♥ alone, and use 2♦ to show 4 spades with 5+ hearts, as you have already given up on the minors, and put 1NT back to any weak hand without spades. You will then play 1NT more often. An alternative and more radical idea is to almost give up on spades once partner has denied 5, and have 1NT=clubs or no other 4 card suit and not 6 hearts 2♣ = Gazzilli 2♦ = diamonds 2♥ = 6 If partner does not have clubs he passes 1NT, and if he does bid clubs, you remove to 2♦ with 4 spades, and 2♥ otherwise.

Go back a bit. If partner misunderstood 2♠ then you certainly can't bid 3♥ because it is not forcing. In a situation where a wheel comes off ( I speak from much experience), you must be thankful your bid was not passed, and eschew any further "scientific" bidding in the auction. Who knows what partner thinks you have? If you originally intended to ace ask then you must do so immediately, or bid 4♥ if not. Others have suggested 3♠ - but this obviously just confirms you have a long spade suit and that the opposition bid was a psyche. Or 4♣ - probably a weak extreme 2-suiter. You have no alternative to 4+♥ or 4NT - and with the latter then hope over the 5♦ reply he does not take your 5♥ signoff as asking for the Q of diamonds, if that's your method. 4NT carries this risk.

I haven't heard of it been used over a minor open, but I do play something similar - Kaplan inversion - over a 1♥ open. My 1NT is 5+ spades, but I have heard of 4. The point ranges are related to those you would use for the bids as you would play uninverted, so 1NT is expected to be 6+ hcp unlimited, while 1♠ can now be also unlimited, as it is forcing. So a basic flat 6-10 can bid 1♠ and pass 1NT, while a stronger responder would bid on.

I was curious about a regulation which seems contrary to that in other jurisdictions, so I read this to find: "COMPETITIVE AUCTIONS Any allowed method of competitive auction may be used, subject to the following requirements which are alertable: ... n/a ... All doubles must be marked in the convention card. They need not be alerted unless using screens." So all is well. It can mean what you like, but don't alert. (Contrary advice to that from PhilG007 and your stated idea) (This sort of thing is not a bridge rule, so you won't find it in the rule book. Regulations are imposed by the national authority to make life miserable for their own players only.)

OK, so we have some confusion over its spelling. Do we know how it is pronounced? Do we even know what it means?

Yes. But no more than one a week!

Alerting doesn't help. If it starts 1♣ 1♦ 1♦, opener is not going to alert, so nobody may be aware they are playing transfer responses. Then when offender corrects to 2♦, which therefore after already having shown hearts, carries some additional information such as a diamond suit with four hearts, or an XYZ type GF, nobody other than opener knows. It seems wrong that the rule is assisting the passing of UI. Surely in every instance of such corrections the director MUST check methods, even if the initial thought in this case may be to wave "play on".

Yes, that was tongue in cheek, but I do seriously think it is a big hole. In fairness, my second post was created before seeing your reply. You are saying that a list (or pool) of possible meanings is in effect generated by the director - presumably including "what if he hadn't seen the overcall?" - and then checking that the corrected bid relates in the prescribed manner to one of those. However, to make that list, surely he needs to know what methods are being employed by the perpetrator, and needs to study his card? 1♣ (1♠) 1♦: I assume you allow a correction to 2♦. 1♣ (1♠) 1♦: If I correct to 2♥ is this permissible? I am playing transfer walsh. I think the "pool" needs to be defined in the law, or the director must check the convention card.

An alternative Rubensohl approach I prefer is simpler - transfers start with a double, so you can use "system on" at the 2-level. Transfers also apply at the 3-level, and transfer to their suit (or implied defined suit for an astro type, or assumed single suit for an ambiguous suction type of overcall) is a GF 4-card major(s) type hand. This is handled naturally : opener bids a 4 card major up the line if he has one, else bids 3NT with stops, else completes the transfer by bidding their suit if he needs help in that for NT. It seems to cater for any hand, and you have your normal methods for invitational or two-suited bids. Simpler than Lebensohl, with the benefit of opener playing the hands.

I have the answer. In the systems I play, I shall agree with partners and put on the convention card that the meaning of an insufficient bid is "a hand between 3 and 23 hcp, with at least one suit of length 4 or more". Now every time I make an insufficient bid I can correct it to any legal call with no penalty. The call I make will be a subset of the meaning of the insufficient bid.