fromageGB

I think the point is that (a) if I do not have 4 card support for a shown major, I do not want to rebid above 1NT unless I am taking out to a long minor (b) if I do have 4 card support then I do not want to make any bid above 2M no matter what my strength. So there is no difference, because both 2NT and 3M are wrong in my view. Sorry, it was a misdirected comment of mine, it is nothing to do with being ambiguous - I shall edit that post.

An ambiguous 2NT also destroys the possibility of responder bidding with 3/4 hcp and a 4 card major. The ability to do this is a great asset, as anyone who has this capability will tell you. Edit : This is nothing to do with being ambiguous, just that any bid above 2M is too high.

For any new viewer, we are talking of a 1♣ open by NORTH - not so obvious when you look at South's clubs! If you really want an ambiguous 2NT that is either/or then I suggest you need to allow any minor by either party to show 5, and the other can show support or bid NT (or spades in the case of North). But I really can't see why you should favour a minor when you already know of a major fit. You do not have room to both find fits and be able to ascertain the relative strengths (in terms of top cards) in BOTH suits, so there seems no point in looking beyond spades. Don't forget, responder may have 5 spades as well as a 5 card minor, and moreover responder may have AKQ in either. You cannot mutually describe the hands sufficiently to reach the "right" contract, if you wish to include contract possibilities other than spades. Consequently I don't see a benefit in ambiguity.

The big benefit of making 2M the strong variety is that it is forcing, (forcing unless responder is 4 cards 3/4 hcp), so you ask whatever it is you want to ask without taking any space in doing so. Similarly, by making the weak bid 2M-2 responder can bid 2M as forcing, but of course he is asking different questions. YOU may be weak, but partner may be very strong. Asking with 2M from either side gives LOADS of space for resolution. To accommodate it yes something needs to be switched around, and for your "natural 2♣" it is easy to play 1♣*-1♦*-1♠ as either 4 spades or 6 clubs. Partner bids 1NT if he has 4 spades, then when you bid 2♣ you are showing 6 and denying the spade fit.

I do something similar, but rather than "always diamonds" for the second range of 4 card support, I use 2M-2, ie diamonds if 4 spades support, clubs if 4 hearts support. I use that bid for the limited hand, opener 12-14. Therefore 2♠ as 17+ in my case (maybe 18+ for you) for the strong version is not at all awkward, and it gets responder to show his hand. (By the way we play that responder 4 card 3/4 hcp will pass this.) Similarly, over the limited 2M-2, responder can bid the next step to puppet 2M so that opener plays the hand in 2M or higher ( a further responder bid below 3M is a game invitation (showing a shortage if he has one), but a strong responder can bid 2M forcing to ask about opener's hand. This turns the tables, and takes control should he wish to find more about opener's hand for slam purposes. This will clarify the strength, or course, but also discover a 6 card club suit and the nature of the concomitant shortage, or short diamonds which is also allowed in our 1♣. All below 4M, of course, to allow our normal Ace asking etc. I find this "weak 2M-2, strong 2M" extremely useful. Edit : the 3 card support hand completes the transfer with 12-14, which is forcing unless responder is weak and 5 cards.

Yes, I/A is fine, and that is my category. Gaining ground in UK, but not common at club level where I am.

I seem to end in 4♠ but then I am unadventurous. My non-mainstream bidding would be 1♣ - 1♥ 2♠ (17+ with 4 card support and asks about partner's hand) - 3♦ (shows a heart shortage) 3♥ (how strong?) - 3♠ (9/10 hcp) 4♠ (The heart shortage downgrades my hand, and as my trumps are terrible I would want partner to have them all, which leaves precious little for help in the minors) The valuation of South's 9/10 hcp is an assessment of course, but he has already shown a shortage and has nothing useful outside his two top tricks. Over South's 3♠, opener could have discovered singleton or void, or cued or ace asked, but not here. As to changing suits after support, we have an agreement that you can suggest a major after agreeing a minor, but not the other way round.

I think it is a mistake to be basing your methods on the success of other people using different methods. A 1♣ open easily ends in game as my post shows. Moreover, I would say 3NT is a poor contract with it seeming to depend on dropping a singleton Q or K when you get a spade lead. As to interference, I do not believe there is much difference. A hand that overcalls 1♣ can overcall 1NT most times, if you are prepared to relax your standard and not go looking for games over opponents' strong NT, but look for a fit. As I said, I could overcall 1NT here but not 1♣.

The point being that I would be delighted to double 6♠ for +800 when the limit of our hand is 5♣. But maybe we are not looking at the same hand, for I see no "void here, void there".

While I would open 1NT on a 2245 I go with 1♣ when I have 6 non-solid, and unopposed we are likely to end in 5♣ with a start of 1♣ 1♠!, and treating South's hand as too good for a mere 2♣, so rebidding 3♣ or 2♠! depending on partner to show strength. Knowing of 6 cards, North will push to game especially at IMPs. As West I would not overcall 1♣ (but would double 1NT to show both majors), but East may double 1♠. However EW bid no higher when S bids 2♠+. As West I would not bid higher to avoid pushing them to game. Edit : PS - no error message

3♠, no question. P may be a powerhouse and you have good cards.

On hcp count 12 opposite 15-17 looks marginal slam at best, so first I consider if I can envisage hands that are likely to make. My soft cards in all other suits do not augur well. AAAKK would be enough, but impossible as that is 18. AAAKQ is possible but only 11 tricks if the wrong K, so regardless of scoring style I am not looking for it. At IMPS, I am happy in 5♣ as that is safer, so will simply transfer to clubs (2NT for me (1NT=15/16) but with your 15-17 I expect you bid 2♠. When I follow with a simple 3NT that gets across the message that I think clubs might be safer, as otherwise I would bid 3NT directly, so on this hand partner bids 5♣. At MP, I do not want to be among the few not making overtricks in NT so just bid 3NT. Should my hand be a bit better, such as major K rather than Q, then again I will bid 3NT in MP, but at IMP the slam is more of a chance so I will look for it. I can stop in 4NT or 5♣ if I need to. The way for me would be to bid 2♠ asking for a 4 card (or good 3 card) minor and over 3♣ affirmative then ace ask with 4♦. Over a 2NT denial or 3♦ then I bid 3NT. Certainly envisage hands, and if in doubt downgrade Quacks.

I had not given mine! 1♣ - 1♦! 1NT(17/18 denies 4 hearts) - 3♣(5, GF slam hoping) 3NT and opposed : 1♣ - 1♦! (2♠) 2NT(17/18) - 3♣(not necessarily slam hoping) 3NT Not a sniff of slam.

Ah! I guess I am in the mafia camp as for me it is majors first (cheaper). Should opener not have 4 card support he describes his shape and then I will see where to go.

1♥ The benefits of "2/1 GF" apply to a major, but not a minor. Over a balanced club you want to describe your hand, and over an unbalanced diamond your priority is to find your fit or hear opener's shape. 1♥ is forcing if you want to play "natural", and I have no problem with forcing to game after that, so you do not need a GF bid. 1♦ 1♥, 2♥ - this shows 4 card support, and a common gadget after major support is 2M+1 to ask for strength. 1♦ 1♥, 2♥ 2♠, 2NT - his step1 shows 12-13. (Step2 would be 14/15, etc.) As opener is unbalanced the most important thing to find out next is his short suit, so next step asks : 1♦ 1♥, 2♥ 2♠, 2NT 3♣ - There are 2 suits it could be, so using "low/high", step1 shows short suit in clubs. Normally the next most important thing is to discover whether singleton or void, so next step would ask for that, but here with my clubs I am not bothered. I can see a 29 count excellent fit so slam may be possible, but I am concerned about my spades. I need to cue to discover a stop before ace asking. The concepts of "non-serious" and "grand slam try" do not apply when partner is well defined, so the 3 bids below game can be assigned as 4M-3 / 4M-2 / 4M-1 for controls of the "low", mid", high" side suits. I bid 4M-1 to ask for control in spades. "Control" is any of void/singleton/A/K. If partner does not have that control he is forced to sign off in game, but if he has control he is forced to deny a higher control (if there were one), or show his ace response as if asked with the normal 4M+1 ace ask. 1♦ 1♥, 2♥ 2♠, 2NT 3♣, 4♦ 5♣ - 2 steps above a 4♠ ask shows 2 crucial cards (AAAAKQ) so I know he has spade control and 2 keycards. We are missing an ace (or trump Q), and if an ace I do not know whether diamonds or spades. A missing diamond ace is of no concern, but nor is spades as we have KQ, and any other losers in that suit can be thrown on my clubs for a ruff. 1♦ 1♥, 2♥ 2♠, 2NT 3♣, 4♦ 5♣ , 6♥ 6♥ is looking solid.

We didn't pick you up in a rubber dinghy, did we?

What medical costs? Do you not refuse treatment to those not wearing a seatbelt?

Does anyone play an opening method that has S rebidding 3NT on a count with a maximum 25? Seems strange to me. Minimum 25 !

Default what? If you mean the idea of playing opener's initial rebid of 2♠ does not show 6, but shows a hand without extras, and RESPONDER's default bid is 2NT, then default is not the right adjective in the method I prefer. Responder does not automatically rebid 2NT, but that is the bid he makes without a shapely descriptive natural bid. With a xx55 (shdc) he would rebid 3♣, xx7x rebids 3♦, and a 2NT bid denies such excessive shape. It is a space-saving waiting bid to let opener describe his shape, such as 3♣ on this hand, or diamond support without extras on a different hand. The is no unraveling involved for NT. If you as responder have support for opener's suits you make it, if you have good stops in all other suits you bid NT if you have that sort of shape, such as 2452, or you can bid the 4th suit if needing help there, or rebid your own diamond suit with additional length or if you are not sure where to go. A NT contract just happens when there is no fit worth taking further. On the given hand, 1♠ 2♦, 2♠ 2NT, 3♣ 3♥ (needing help for NT) now allows opener to give you more information, which is obviously 3♠ for a 6 card spade suit. Responder with 2452 has an obvious 4♠ bid, but a 1453 with better hearts would be bidding 3NT, or maybe clubs with poor hearts. Unraveling is a result of having the space to describe hands better.

But not my understanding. With the 2♠ rebid not showing 6, but merely a hand that is not strong (which would be needed for the 3-level) and a WAITING FORCING 2NT as opposed to a suggestion to play, you can bid a second suit (eg clubs) and then rebid 3♠ genuinely to show 6. You are beneath 3NT, so that contract has not been ruled out.

But surely when you have already had a third suit unnatural bid of 3♥ you do not need another?

Absolutely. It looks like a clear 4♠ contract. On this bidding you may not have definitively shown a 6 card spade suit, depending on methods (hence my previous preferred bidding) but you would prefer 4♠ to 5♣, and cannot bid 4♦.

Yes, I would bid it differently. For me the key is the strange 3♥ bid. Partner knows I do not have 4 hearts, and he does not have a good 5 card heart suit, because if he was a red 55 or longer he would bid hearts first. It seems to be showing values for a NT bid if I have that sort of hand, and his shape seems like 2353 or 1453. I do not have that sort of hand to play in NT. Two singletons make a terrible NT contract, with perhaps a loss of 4 or 5 hearts. 4♣ is my only option. At the same time, I resolve to discuss with partner the benefits of a waiting 2NT that would have let me bid 3♣ in peace. Having said that, over a continuation of 3♥ from partner (needing some help in hearts) I will bid 3♠, but if he then bid 3NT over that I will pass 3NT, having I think explained my hand in 4 bids. If over my 3♣ he was happy enough with his hearts for a direct 3NT, I would again bid 4♣. I don't know where we are going, but a 6115 will never play 3NT willingly. One thing for the partnership to discuss is "is 2/1 GF literally true", or can we stop in 4m in a situation like this. 4♣ could be the right contract, and if he then bid 4♦ I would want to pass.

If it is 5 card in practice, you do want to push to 3 in competition, so it all depends on whether you want to let them in easily or preempt to the level you want to be at. Of course if they pass, 3M on a 12 opposite 7 will be going off sometimes. I play 5 card majors, and while I don't play Bergen, with 7/8 and no shortage I bid 3M-1 which amounts to the same thing, and I think it pays off. Of course if you are not rigid about 12 hcp with a 5 card major, you may want to bolster that raise.

I have never seen a hand so unsuitable for NT when partner has not bid hearts. He will assume you have them. Is there a problem with bidding 3♣?