fromageGB

And there's also "I might be hacked, I might have all my passwords stolen, and I might be part of a botnet, but I'm not aware of it". If you are lucky enough to have multiple computers, then I'd keep the fastest for windows running nothing but games (if that is your poison) and anything that you must have that is written for windows only, such as scorebridge. Reformat an older computer by installing a linux distro and use that for serious stuff like banking and spreadsheets etc. In the browser do not keep cookies except on bridgebase and banking sites, and make you do not have java or flash, and have ghostery. If you must use flash for BBO then have that in a separate browser used for that web site only, or better, use the windows box if you have one. Etc. If you are lucky enough to have a 3rd computer spare to install as a dedicated firewall, then bully for you, but otherwise I'd have a software desktop firewall as better than nothing, and your own NATS internet router that you set up with MAC and IP addresses etc rather than accept an ISP offering. Do not have any curtains/thermostats/fridge/cat etc controlled via wifi. There are easy linux distros that can be used just like windows. Ubuntu is designed for the person who does not know anything about what's under the hood, and it works fine - you can even have a "windows look-alike" feel if you wish. Other varieties of linux give you more control if you wish to learn, but ubuntu's defaults are OK. Try it on a USB if thinking about it.

I can't see how a "values" double helps, and this is not really a penalty double, is it? What does a double mean to you? The meaning of the (2♣) does not matter unless you have agreements for doubling an artificial suit or for cue bidding their suit(s) so presumably as you did not ask, you do not have those agreements. A simple approach is transfers, and transfer starts with a double. This means you cannot penalty double, so if you have a hand with a long and good holding in the opposition suit you have to pass, and opener reopens with a takeout double if he has a poor doubleton (which is quite likely in these circumstances). You could then pass, of course. So on this hand you can easily start with X, a transfer to diamonds. If it gets to partner, he bids 2♦ and now with a good hand your best bet is to bid 3♣ to show stops. Let opener decide whether he wants to bid 3NT or 3♦. Incidentally, this if in NT would get the spade lead coming round to opener, not through him.

A 12-14 1NT open? Such innovations should be patented.

Yes, I can see that responding 1♦ on zero hcp puts a big risk on a 2♥ rebid, but surely if opps have 27hcp between them, it is unlikely you will get to be bidding 2♥. Disagree that 3♥ is almost forcing; for me it is no more nor less than an informative balanced 17/18, and I do indeed bid 4♥ on a balanced 19/20. I'm a simple soul. Of course this is geared to responder having points, 5+hcp if only 4 hearts. If you do play 0 hcp for a reply then you may well need a lot of artificiality and a mixed 1♥ rebid.

If you have only two bids for three possible combinations of 2-suiters then you inevitably have one of them where the "undisclosed" suit is ambiguous. Which bid you choose for this does not matter much, but having three bids for such 2-suiters is in my view much better. Playing with only two bids you inevitably are put in the position of : (opening) partner-2-suiter (responder bid) ... and while you have a good fit for one of the two possibilities you can't stand the other, so have to keep quiet. Bebop, you could try 1) cue bid of opener's suit = top 2 of the other suits 2) 2NT = bottom 2 of the other suits 3) 3♣ over ♦♥♠, or 2♦ over 1♣, = the extreme 2 suits Variety 3 might mean giving up a WJO in that minor, but if you have a hand of that type that you want to bid on, you stretch to either a simple overcall or a double-jump. The advantage is that whatever fit partner has over your 2-suiter, he can support. Depending on local regulations, you can even have a bid of variety 3 that means "the extreme suits, but if I rebid this suit it means I have a single-suited WJO after all." I don't play that, but it is legal in the UK. (Note that the bid for the extreme suits - eg 1♥ 3♣ with clubs and spades - will always be one of your suits and can therefore be passed, so don't do this one with a very strong hand.)

"Could be short 1♣ with transfer responses" : there have been a number of discussions. Try googling site:bridgebase.com twalsh or site:bridgebase.com "transfer walsh"

I don't see many uses for 30-50 microNewtons even if it does work. I'd need something like 1,000,000,000 of these quantum vacuum plasma thrusters under my bonnet/hood, assuming they are massless.

Well, that's simple, but many times responder is going to bid game or otherwise regardless of what you do, so simple is very good at giving away information. Unfortunately you can't avoid it in the transfer suit.

Enjoyed that one. watch Sometimes I can make a play like a world champion!

When I heard yesterday that a Russian chess player killed himself falling from a balcony, I thought he must have lost that last game. Glad to see otherwise. Surely the speed-play rating differences will tell, now, and it's a bit meaningless. Pity they don't play the golden goal rule, or some variation on that such as a clear +1.

Vampyr said it. Take away a Q then I would favour a 9/10 mini-splinter if you play one, as showing the strength and shape is now more important. This is better than making a generic game try that is typically more balanced. When you have the hand you have it is far less misleading to upgrade it to a 13 count and bid 2♠ or 2NT or whatever your GF 4-card raise is.

Yet if your 1NT open is a 2-point range, so that there are no invitations, it is worth super-accepting on a 4333.

Or with my methods you can play that 1NT=15/16 (a 2-point range is better) and 1♣ is long, or balanced 12-20 excluding that 15/16, again never needing to go above 2NT, and you ALWAYS have 4+ hearts for a 1♦ reply, and never miss a spade fit. If you really want to play a weak NT and miss those major fits when you are 12-14 then you could shuffle those ranges of mine around.

It is in mine and normal methods - the range 12-14. I see no downsides.

That is on the conservative side, agreed. So you would agree that my "9 card fit 23 count" should bid game?

I'd be interested to see some statistics, but it is a common opinion that you need 26hcp for an 8 card fit, with 3 hcp or 1 additional card equating to a trick, so game is 26/8, 23/9, and 23/8 makes 9 tricks etc. As for "balanced", the method I gave excludes a {5332} opposite a {4333}, or a {4432} with a mirrored doubleton. Try different-suit doubletons, though, and you will usually see an extra trick.

This is not how I play with two majors now, but with one major, to show 5+ cards when opener rebids 1NT=17/18, say 1♣ 1♥=4+spades 1NT, 2♥ from you is a compulsory transfer to spades that shows 5+ and may be weak (pass 2♠) or strong (you rebid 2NT with 5 or 3♠ with 6). There is no point in my view in having an invitation over a 2-point range NT bid, so I would play these latter rebids as game forcing, probably slamming, as you could just bid game yourself. In other words, bid it just as you would if partner opened a 17/18 1NT. If you did make an initial "1red" reply when you had both majors, and opener bid 1NT, then you would really need to be strong enough to play in 2NT on no fit. Initially transfer to the 5 card suit, if you have one, then over 1NT you can bid 2♣ as "stayman" to show that you also have 4 cards in the other major. Opener will bid that major if he also has 4 cards, failing which he will bid your initial major if he has 3 of them, so you will always find a fit. This is simple but has some problems, the biggest of which is that the "stayman" rebid (2nd paragraph) means that you cannot bid 2♣ to play. With a 4 count 1426 (or maybe just 5 clubs 2425) shape I want to look for a major fit if there is one, and play in 2♣ if not. My style now with both majors is to show them both immediately with replies of 1NT/2C/2D which means that the 2♣ rebid after the 1NT sequence we are discussing, has to be natural and to play. The main reason for showing both majors immediately is that it makes is so much easier when 4th seat opponent gets in the action. I find this lets me show all hand types and shapes exactly, as well as being able to play in either 2♣ or 2♦ when opener simply completes the initial major transfer on his 2 or 3 card 12-14. See the current thread My link and message me if you want more detail or discussion.

Rather than the above methods, I play a different transfer break. For a 9 card fit you would want to bid game on a combined 23 hcp, and responder will transfer to 3M or 4M if the total is obviously above or below, but in borderline cases I think it helps to look out for "mirrored doubletons". 5323 opposite 4234 is likely to be game, as opener can ruff a heart, but if opener has 4324 this is likely to earn a trick fewer as he has no ruffs. Whether or not you have values in the doubleton is irrelevant. Anyone else do this? The simple concept is a transfer break of 2M+1. Responder will always transfer to 3M or 4M if not borderline, or not {5332}, but if a borderline {5332} he bids his doubleton, and opener makes the decision. If opener is a {4333} then of course he declines game on hearing of a borderline hand. As you will realise, this falls down when responder has a borderline doubleton in the transfer suit, as he needs the bid of 3M-1 as a transfer. Opener therefore bids 3M as the transfer break with a doubleton in the transfer suit, and 2M+1 with any other, or a {4333}.

Bidding a forcing 1NT with Gazzilli is OK. The advantage of 1NT, then giving preference to spades on possibly a doubleton, is that the opps may not know how good they are strength-wise, and that they do not have a known assumed fit. A 3-bid (bergen or otherwise) is crazy.

I reckon it must have been Farage that swung the vote ...

A fair point on the face of it, but if opener has a natural 2NT rebid then you will not be playing in NT. I don't think the idea of showing a void is likely to be successful anyhow, but I would prefer this method to that of CDH.

This sums it up for me. The OP was requesting comparison between Acol and SAYC. One way of looking at it is that in Acol nothing is defined, while in SAYC, practically everything is defined. Agree "Acol" with a random partner and you will be tearing your hair out at the mixups. Agree "SAYC" and you will have a more balanced blood pressure.

My feeling on the 2♣ issue is that it is when responder has hcp values of some sort then you need all the space to explore both the strain and the level, while when responder has nothing it is simply a question of strain. Opener decides level. Therefore the positive response - waiting response if you like - should be 2♦, and the negatives can bid higher. If you wanted a separation between void or not when bust, it would be better to swap your diamonds and spades bids. Rather than a CDH convention, a CSH? However, rather than that, it may be better for responder to simply bid his void, if spades, as this will probably not be the trump suit. How about 2♣ ... 2♦ = positive 2♥ = negative without void 2♠ = negative with spade void 2NT = negative with other void. Over the 2NT, opener may bid his suit and responder bid the next if opener has hit his void.

Well ... I think the counterargument is that at a "nice friendly" club that we are informed is the U3A, it is quite normal to encourage and offer advice to less experienced players. Wrong in degree rather than principle if it became an "ear-bashing", but there again I have seen my partner make a mild helpful suggestion to an opponent who, obviously upset at going wrong, turned on him.

What I find interesting is that after this high court decision has been upheld by the court of appeal, it will be the EU court that ultimately decides whether we can leave the EU ! Well, not really, but in a case like this the legality of their jurisdiction is arguable. Incidentally, the reason I referred to "bigwigs" is that I do not think I have seen a bigger one :