fromageGB

If 1NT is natural, I don't think it is standard to change the strength range. Of course 2NT can be natural, but I think standard is to play it as a support bid of some sort if partner has opened a major. If partner has opened a minor, certainly natural is standard. My preference is that if partner opened 1♥, when you want 2NT to be conventional (I play 3 card support and 11+hcp, while a cue bid is 4 card support and 9+, but I think standard is the reverse of these) then it is better to transfer to 1NT by means of a double, while 1NT is itself a transfer to clubs. This means you can transfer to 1NT and pass, with the natural 1NT hand, and transfer then raise to 2NT with the natural 2NT hand. However, this is NOT standard and needs partnership agreement.

Can't agree with Spawn here. I think the initial two passes are reasonable. Partner would probably have doubled if he was interested in spades, and 1♥ going off may not be a bad result. A bid of 1♠ could force the level too high for a bigger no-fit negative score. However, it is different over the double. When it is passed round to him I think he should protect with redouble. Let North scramble spades or clubs, or an unlikely 1NT.

It works very well with 1NT=15/16, and there are no invitations at all. Transfer responses to 1♣ perfectly handle the ranges 12-14, 17/18, and 19/20 where the rebid is never higher than 2NT, and it is just a 2-point range. An added bonus is your 2NT open is now 21/22 and 2♣..2NT = 23/24.

Disagree. I would not argue if playing normal methods, but with this agreement, the 1♦ is not normal. It shows a very weak hand, and nobody has yet made a natural bid. You have to bid your suits upwards, so must bid 1♥. You then pass whatever partner says, if anything. Edit : but with partner's hand I would not be bidding a 4 card club suit. If 2344 I pass (would not argue with 1NT), if 3244 I bid 1NT. It seems wrong to agree such methods unless you have the time to agree what happens after 1♦. As to thinking you should be in 1NT, you would be happy to play in 2♣ if partner had the 5 card suit expected. > "bid 1NT and let the possible major fits look after themselves". I hardly think there will be any further bidding by partner, so the major fits get lost.

If partner has not already passed: If you play that a weak 2 may be 5 cards and 11 hcp, this hand is too strong; you open 1♠. If not playing that, you open 1♠. If it has started pass (pass) then: I open 2♠ whichever version of the weak 2 I am playing.

While the OP has specified that splinters are covered, the lack of detail leads me to suspect that they are not covered satisfactorily. In my view you need to be able to show at least three strength ranges of 4 card support with a singleton or void, whether you define the boundaries by hcp, losers, controls or whatever. The lower range at the 3-level can aid a "game or not" decision, while mid and higher range (if beneath 4M) can help the "slam or game" decision. I doubt in the OP's methods whether all of these are covered with bids lower than 3M, and if that is the case, my suggestion would be to use the space to do this.

I am intrigued. If you have covered splinters and all four card supports with lower bids, then your methods seem remarkably condensed. Perhaps 4 levels could be jump fits? Sort of support plus a good 5 card suit, and if you go through a normal 2/1 with those, perhaps defining a shortage elsewhere?

The question is specifically what lead from AKxx, not "what do you lead in general". My general play is K asks for count and A asks for attitude, but with this holding against suit contracts it is always K. I don't understand Vampyr's (and others') answer. Under what circumstances would they lead which card from this holding against a suit contract?

Need partnership agreement for all levels and types of interference. My preference after a double : system on in entirety. My preference after natural simple or single jump overcall is : X and up to suit below partner's = transfer to next step (eg 1♥ (1♠) X = transfer to NT, while 1NT = transfer to clubs) .. with a transfer to partner's suit being "full strength", ie transfer to 2M is 3 card 7-10 hcp, and .. immediate support = weaker new suit above next level of partner's = natural, forcing unless passed 2NT = 3 card support 11+ hcp opponent's suit = 4+ card support 9+ hcp raise to 3+level = 4+card support, up to 8hcp jump (or double jump) new suit = fit jump = 5 card suit with a raise hand good enough for that level. So applying this to your Bergen bids, 1♥ (1♠) 3♣ = fit jump, but 1♠ (2♥) 3♣ is forcing natural suit. Your Bergen hands are likely to be 1♥ (1♠) 2♠ (or 3♥ if you bid them that weak).

Yes, you can, but it is fiddly. This is one way. Setting global default : click the three bars icon to get a "menu"; click "add-ons"; for shockwave flash, open dropdown, and select "never activate". For a specific website such as bridgebase : click the padlock, or the "i", in front of the web address; click the "right chevron"; click "more information"; click the "permissions" icon; for "adobe flash", click the "allow" radio button. (Shockwave being adobe) That should allow someone to do it, but opening a different browser is easier. I prefer chromium anyway, being noticeably faster, and not freezing with multiple tabs.

I too don't like the idea of running flash, so use chromium and no flash. When I do want flash I start firefox - just for that one trusted site - and close it down afterwards. It works. I know you can go to settings, plugins, and enable or disable flash, but will you forget to reset? Much easier to keep a program specific to the task.

Preferably two aces.

It's not something I've noticed. All contracts have a variability in the number of tricks taken depending on unknown factors, and the purpose of bidding is to make your assessments more accurately. If not, you bid without meaning. Knowledge of whether partner is 15 or 17 hcp puts you in a position to be in the right contract more often than you would be without that knowledge. I think that is incontrovertible. The main argument is whether - with a limited gamut of potential bidding sequences - you find a better and more profitable use for the bid that could be invitational. If you do have such a use, consider increasing the accuracy of pass or blast by restricting the range of the 1NT open.

I play a simple 4 suit (compulsory) transfers. 2♠ = asking for 4 card minor; may be weak both minors, GF both minors, or slammish needing 4 card support for just one minor 2NT => ♣; may be weak, GF, or slammish 3♣ => ♦; may be weak, GF or slammish but I avoid unnecessary disclosure by having just a 2-point range 15/16 1NT and therefore no invitations needed. Stayman then 2NT is to play, which also has the advantage of being able to use stayman when weaker than normal.

I take it that the 5♥ bid (being > 5Trumps) is not showing any particular side K, but just confirming all 6 crucial cards. In that case, why not replace that with denial cues? 5♥ meaning "we have all 6 crucial cards, but I do not have ♥K". The bidding continues with each party bidding 6♦(ie trumps) when a king is known to be missing (of course 6NT can be an alternative), but if partner denies a K that you have, you skip all the ones you do, in a ranking upwards "revolving" sequence, but then bid the next one you don't. You have room to show or deny all kings. Simple and perhaps standard denial methods so far. In addition, there is the spare bid of 5NT. You can use this bid to mean "We have all the side kings so far, with me having any I have bypassed in bidding 5NT, but I cannot see 13 tricks even if all kings are held, so only continue with the kings process if you have designs on a grand. I don't". The message is clear. If partner has all the other kings and no grand slam interest either, he signs off in 6. If he can see or expect 13 tricks himself, he continues the denial kings process, and if YOU have the final king, KT-1, you bid the grand because partner has told you he wants to. Conversely, if you had bypassed 5NT, such as bidding 6♣ to deny that one, the 5NT bypass says that you DO fancy a grand. Partner will sign off in 6♦ if he sees a missing K (or doesn't see it!) but otherwise he continues the denial process and he bids the grand if he has the last K. This works I think for all suits as trumps, playing 4T+1 type methods, and in your case the bidding goes 5♥(denial) - 5♠(has K♥ but not K♠) 5NT(have K♠ but do not fancy a grand) - 7♦(but I do, and have K♣) Naturally if partner denies a K and you can see it does not matter (eg singleton) then you continue as if you have it. Using this concept of 5NT as "no desire for grand" means that there is no captaincy involved.

The spreadsheet opens fine in my libreoffice, only 820K, but it takes some interpretation. At first glance it seems a considered method of hcp adjustments for "usefulness", length of suit, degree of support, and many other factors. It seems a natural based opening, followed by multiple relays to discover all aspects of a hand, but (writing as a person who has never played relays) I don't understand it. Perhaps a relay player can get to grips with the notation and explain it.

I play 3♣ as the extreme suits, but as this bid is passable (and I'd pass with West like a shot) I don't include strong options. Therefore this is a simple 2♥ followed by clubs. Note this is nothing to do with one suit or other being good enough or better. 2♠ is a fine bid in my view if the suits were the reds. That being the case, the concept of "fit or extra values" does not apply here. When it does I use the cheaper of opener's suit or the 4th suit as good hand support somewhere unspecified.

More than a suggestion. A decision. I have something vaguely similar over a balanced 1♣, the bidding going 1 - 1♠(balanced or minor) where a typical 12-14 opener bids 1NT. If instead he bids 2♦ (equally 2♣) he is saying that he is probably a 2353 sort of hand, and that fact that responder does not even have a 4 card major means he thinks it highly likely 2♦ will score better than 1NT. In your situation, this seems identical. "Weak, think ♦ is better". I can't imagine a hand suggesting 5♦ as an alternative to 3NT, but maybe somebody can. However, if it is weak long diamonds then responder can do no other than pass. Not a "suggestion".

We play twalsh in a balanced club / unbalanced diamond method. When they open 1♣ against us, other than an artificial strong club, we play "system on" so that (1♣) 1♦ is unbalanced or 6+, and (1♣) X means "I'm opening 1♣", and then we are playing system on. If responder bids, as responders are wont to do, and this is a natural bid, then advancer bids in exactly our methods as to an overcall of our 1♣ opening. We are happy with this and play (1♣) 1NT as a normal strong NT, because the raptor hands of 4M5m are covered by our minor overcalls. (We do like raptor over a 1M opening, but over a minor, particularly an unknown minor, it is not so useful.) It could get quite amusing in twalsh over twalsh sequences like (1♣) X (1red), but then you do need different agreements and here we do play 1NT = 4M5m, as we play X for the other major (that's original!) obviously denying a 5 card minor, and completing their transfer is both minors. All suit bids are natural 5 cards. This is actually our defence to twalsh in 4th seat when it starts (1♣) p (1red) but here the bids are of course stronger. Same meanings. So you need to agree what you are doing in second seat over their twalsh opening, what you are doing over a twalsh 1red when your side comes into the bidding in 3rd seat, how you handle opposition bidding when you start 1♣ and they bid in 2nd seat, and how you handle their 4th seat intervention. Could be complex.

But for me it is a weak hand with only 4 cards in the major and 5 or more in diamonds. Playing better than 1NT when the points are balanced or adverse. 2C responder rebid to play as well.

Your point count is the extreme case, and with this the opponents are sure to speak. But I play a non-forcing 1M to a 1-red, and it is not unfrequently passed out.

I think it sounds a good idea, it's probably not to difficult to work out the "wierdness total" of your own methods. I prefer this approach to one that says "thou cannot play transfer responses to a balanced club" even if the rest of your methods are vanilla - especially if the authority does allow transfer responses to a balanced 1NT. As for the middling club player, you can't expect him to understand anything. He will soon be told if his methods are not allowed, but of course they would be.

Yes, that will do it, but it takes away a whole bid, and also possibly wrong-sides the 1♣ - 1NT. I prefer my approach, as the use of the heart reverse does not cost much and is rare. On the other hand, Helene's 1NT on 17/18 does keep the bidding a level lower, but while a minimum 5+ card minor responder will want to play in 2m over 1NT if opener is 12-14, opposite 17/18 you would want to play in 1NT, so that's a downside possibly. Nothing is perfect, and everything has a cost.

@ Perko As a "1NT=15/16" player, and very happy with twalsh, my advice here is that if your local regulations forbid twalsh, you should up sticks and move. It's that serious. North of the border and take heated bridge gloves? South of the border before the wall goes up? Maybe there is a break-away region that is about to declare UDI? FWIW, if you play twalsh all NT bids or rebids above 1NT should never be more that 2 point range, so there is no need of invitations. My NT ladder when balanced is 1♣ 1red completion(1M) = 12-14 and 2 or 3 1♣ 1red 2M = 12-14 and 4 1♣ 1♠ 1NT = 12-14 1NT = 15/16 1♣ 1red 1NT = 17/18 and 2 or 3 1♣ 1red 3M = 17/18 and 4 1♣ 1♠ 2NT = 17/18 1♣ 1red 2NT = 19/20 and 2 or 3 1♣ 1red 3M+1 = 19/20 and 4 (aka non-serious 3NT) 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ = artificial puppet to 2♠ then 3♣ = x4x6+ natural reverse, or 2NT = 19/20 2NT = 21/22 As all 2NT bids are just 2-point range, no invitations are needed, and no hand bids higher than 2NT, so responder can always retransfer or bid 3m to play.

Yes, this happens. The best cure I know is to walk three times round your chair anticlockwise when viewed from above. Please note that if you are playing using a mobile phone, that while relativity speaking it would be the same thing to rotate your mobile three times in front on you clockwise while you sat still, THIS DOES NOT WORK.