fromageGB

That's a relief. I was getting worried.

Yes, I am a little further along the spectrum, but not that much. I do open weak 2Ms on both 5 card 6 card suits, and while I would open 2♥ with the OP hand, I would prefer to do so without the diamond Q. Playing this with 2 regular partners, I have found that it is better than break-even at MPs. I don't do it at IMPS. While a weak 2 has length defined, of course, the length is less defined than a normal weak 2! It is more a matter of wishing to compete, and wanting to keep the integrity of a 1-level open. Sometimes the results are painful. Exponents of the style don't mind looking foolish occasionally, as long as they can more often feel vindicated. My position in this thread is to suggest the style for Liversidge's consideration in 3rd seat, as an alternative to passing or opening 1♥.

Read this in connection with the current thread on WJO. You have the agreement that there are no rules or expectations. 2M is an advanced WJO, in the same meaning of "advanced" as used with "sacrifice".

Another alternative is to open a weak 2M with 5 or 6 cards. This hand qualifies. Perhaps only do this when partner has passed, otherwise keep to 6 card. The big advantage is that you have have completely normal meaningful bidding when you do open 1M, without distortions caused by grafting in Drury or somesuch.

I think there is no norm. Traditionally the bid was a long suit headed by some top honour(s) with few outside defensive tricks. A hand where you will get a good number of tricks playing in your suit, but maybe none in theirs. A hand where if partner is on lead, you would be happy for him to lead that suit and underlead a K or Q. A hand where partner can consider a sacrifice, as you have described your hand to be suitable for one. Vulnerability affects it in that the effectiveness of a sacrifice depends on the relative scores, so NV may be weaker. However, there seems to be an increasing use of very variable WJOs, and this is an example. They are more risky, but they have the advantage that the variability works both ways. The opening side cannot assume what sort of hand you have. Hence you can make a WJO on a 5 card suit with considerable outside strength, maybe an opening hand if partner has passed, or it could be a traditional type. Opponents are in the dark as much as your partner. If you want to try this way, first agree with partner that for the purposes of an opening lead he completely ignores your bid, and that he does not raise unless he genuinely thinks his bid will make.

I don't think so. I would not WJO with this, but if you did play this style, you do it because it is disruptive in itself and it is not an invitation to preempt further. You interfere with their normal bidding and that alone is the objective. As to being ridiculous, again no. If the style is understood by the partnership, it works. You have a low ODR, but opponents are not going to let you play there. You will be doubled occasionally, sure, but more times that not you remove some of their descriptive ability. You may cause them or tempt them to bid a non-making game while others play part score, or it may deter them from NT. Anything can go wrong. Your belief is that the declaring side will go wrong more than you will. They do it to me, too.

Climate change seems to be triggered by USA foreign policy. The influx of migrants to Europe from North Africa this year is already progressing at a higher rate than it was last year. Who shall we shoot up next? No wonder O'Barmy does not agree with climate change mitigation.

You may not know that the UK has a visa system for residential entry from countries other than the EU. People are accepted if they have skills deemed to be in demand, and are not carrying Kalashnikovs under their burkas. By EU law, anyone from the EU can choose to come to live in this country, whether there is work for them or not. If the existing visa rules were applied to them, three quarters of them would be refused, according to the Oxford University’s Migration Observatory Study commissioned by the Financial Times. Very many are coming in, and the numbers are putting pressure on services that are already under duress. If the population increases, our population density increases. It is already unpleasantly high in many areas.

And thus the situation of very many people in this country. Democracy is flawed - there should be an issue awareness questionnaire on every ballot paper, and appropriate pass marks must be achieved for the vote to count. You don't need to be able to write essays on the subjects, so an hour or so should be sufficient time to cast your vote.

Nov 9th. No sooner, but no later, either.

I don't think this is anything to do with weak NT. I play 15/16 NT, and 1♦ 2♦ 2 any is forcing, but this is with an unbalanced diamond, not a better minor type.

OK, breathe again. He knows nothing about Europe so we can ignore what he says, and vote leave after all.

My feeling is that showing a shortage is more useful than showing a side suit. Yes, you are likely to have both, but if you want to bid this with weaker hands that may stop in 3M, then your side suit will not be strong nor solid enough for opener to rely on for running tricks. So why bother with the side suit? Knowledge of the shortage is more useful. You could swap those meanings. If you did, then your side suit showing 3M-1 would have stronger hands, as it is GF, presumably with some agreed solidity in the suit. But now there is no point in using 3M-1 for a GF bid that gives wasted space : 3M+1 is sufficient. This means that you now have 3M-1 spare. You may care to use this as the strong splinter in that suit. This allows you utilise the next step up as a relay to find out whether singleton or void, useful for interpreting later ace asking, which you cannot do after 1M 4M-1.

I agree that 8 playing tricks is not a sufficient strength for 2♣, as you can open at the 1-level and most probably not miss a game if reponder passes. (But you do need to agree forcing continuations after a 1-open.) Equally, needing a game in opener's hand without anything from partner makes 2♣ too restrictive. Many play a practically obligatory 2♦ response, and now you come unstuck if the opening hand is not GF but the bid is. You need to accept that sometimes you will go off, and this is unavoidable because if you try something like "if opener makes a cheap rebid it is not forcing, and jumps if GF" then the jump destroys your slam finding ability. A simple compromise is that the opening is either truly GF or a trick short of game, AND ~20 hcp or more, or ~22/23+ balanced. So this will be 9/10 tricks depending on long suit. Respond 2♦ with an ace or a king in any suit, respond 2♥ otherwise. 2♦ sets up a GF. Over 2♥, as responder is not likely to make an opening hand that is not GF suddenly become slam material, that less-than-GF hand can bid in a non-forcing way (say a rebid at the 3-level (simplest)) and this can be passed, or any other bid is GF. Responder with any number of queens and jacks responds 2♥ initially, but with general strength can bid game if opener does not force. Aces and Kings help slam decisions, so it is good to know of their presence or absence immediately. This simple 2-way response can then be extended to more complicated treatments later, if desired, but a simple method to start with is preferable, I think, if perhaps your partner's other partner may be persuaded to play the same method to avoid confusion.

Thanks for the thoughts. My mini-splinter has the suit identified at the 3 level, though, NOT game forcing, so that is not a problem. It is of use in finding a game rather than slam (unless partner has a powerhouse that he has not had yet). I'm thinking that the 4-level splinter should promise 3 or 4 controls with values (ie not just a bare 7 count) while an 11/12 hand with a shortage but without 3 controls should bide its time with a forcing next step, waiting to see opener's strength / hand type. If opener is minimumish then bidding game, else splintering at that point.

Yes, I have had a hand where the knowledge of the strength (11/12) and the shortage enabled opener to find a slam, so I'd say it was useful. Quite often it is 3 or 4 controls, though of course my mini-splinter (9/10) could also be that. Rather than splitting the bids by hcp it is probably better to split them by controls, but have not played that.

deleted

If your 1♦ excludes unbalanced hands that are short in diamonds, then a different variety of "natural 1NT" is a 3-suiter short in responder's major, if the major is a natural bid. This is how I play it opposite natural. As this is the non-natural forum, let me also add this : actually my preference is for a less than invitational hand with either (or both) majors to respond 1♥!, and 1♠! is any invitational+ hand. Then I play 1♦ 1♥! 1NT as a 3-suiter without spades, and 1♦ 1♠! 1NT as any unspecifed 3-suiter.

Transfers always give opponents an extra bite at the cherry. Yet they are used in many situations, because the transfer bidder believes that the benefits of a much fuller description (here allowing you to show both long clubs and heart support rather than having to choose just one), or allowing multiple ranges of strength to be shown, or putting the overcaller on lead, completely outweigh the extra bite for opponents.

2♠ if that is the transfer to clubs. 2♠ if that is minor suit stayman.

Please unconfuse me. If a 4 card LR is a "mini-splinter", what is a full-bloodied "normal splinter"? Of course it depends on what you mean by a limit raise. I assume LR is a typical 4 card 11/12 count, and if that has a shortage, for me it is a splinter. My mini-splinter is a shortage in a 4 card 9/10 count, and I do use 2M+2 for that (2M+1 being the GF). And what is this limit raise that is included in the 1NT response ???

If "mixed raise" means 4 card support and less than invitational strength, in a typical 4423 shape, then having 3M-1 for this allows no inquiry as to strength. This makes it limited. If say 11/12 is an invitational raise (that you bid 3M-2 (or 2M+3)), then "mixed" can only be 9/10. Why not combine these to have 3M-2 as 9-12? Now you can have 3M-1 as the clarification request from opener if he needs to know - ie responder continues 3M if 9/10 or a feature >3M if 11/12. This frees up the 3M-1 bid for another use. But if your 4 card 11/12 raise is currently 2M+3, what is this "limit raise" that goes into your 1NT reply? I am a bit lost in the terminology.

The idea of 2M+1 being a 3 card invitational raise with a side suit has merits, but I don't like 3M-1 as a 3 card raise without a side suit, if that is what is meant as "mixed". Voluntarily going to the 3-level is unnecessary and may be too high on bad breaks or finesses. Taking the J2N raise a level higher than normal (rather than 2M+1) gives you less room for investigation, and here you lose the ability to find out whether the 1♥ 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 4♦ short suit is singleton or void. I'd think about using a final 3NT for that and forgetting "interest" when minimum 5 with no shortage. Similarly 1♥ 2NT 3♦ 3♥ 4♦. There is no room there either for responder to be able to show a shortage if he has one when opener doesn't. This is useful if your immediate splinters are limited - my 4 bid splinters are 11/12 hcp for example. With 13 I start 2M+1. This seems quite playable though. In answer to the final questions, - what you can put in a 1♥ 1NT response is restricted by it being non-forcing. I don't like any raises in a non-forcing 1NT. - 3 card invitational raises fit into your artificial 1M 2♣ if it puppets a 2♦ relay, with the 2M continuation being passable. - I would prefer to show a shortage rather than a side suit. After all, if you do have a shortage you will definitely have side suits, and knowing the shortage helps opener evaluate better in my view, compared with showing a non-fitting side suit. Edit - what does "mixed" mean in terms of trump length and typical hcp?

If I may post a dissenting opinion, I think PhilG007 is an asset to the forums. While his ideas are not always mainstream, he sometimes does provide a point of view which prompts you to reflect more on the situation under discussion. If that results in reaffirmation of your previous thoughts, so be it, but you may have gained from the reanalysis. I welcome suggestions and different approaches, and hearing about pet gadgets - such as a penalty double... You can't blame PhilG from replying to personal criticisms. Let's douse the flames.

Yes, certainly 3♣ as a fit jump is playable, and I play it, it is just that I think I would rather not voluntarily go that high on this hand.