fromageGB

Absolutely clear : 1NT = transfer to clubs. Then follow with 2♥ or 3 if pushed.

No And the name of the automaton is Fluffy !

Presumably you start this method with a 2♣ opening that is forcing? Then your 20 count is still opposite a possible yarborough. This does not help.

Can't oblige, but I can offer 2NT as 21/22 in a sound NT ladder ! That's with 1NT = 15/16. If you don't mind a 3-point range 1NT, then 2NT = 22/23.

This is a very valid argument. Of course you cannot prevent partner placing a yarborough on the table, but you can make it more bearable by not having silly opening bids. Not so long back, many people round here were opening 2NT on 19/20.

Place four North-American textbooks round a table and observe carefully. More common than you think. I play the 5656 2NT convention in response to a weak 2M open : weak 5, weak 6, strong 5, strong 6.

What to rebid depends on what you think partner knows. If it is a random partner on BBO then you should assume they play common agreements, and you can happily bid 2♦ as the minor that has not yet been mentioned. This is assumed to be forcing, and opener will try to make a descriptive rebid, such as spades with 3 card support. You can then decide on a spade, club, or NT contract. You have the strength to try for a slam. If it is a friend with whom you have started together, and you have no agreements, then you must find some bid that you think is forcing. Clearly bidding spades will not be forcing, and would 2♦ be taken as forcing? If not, you might want to bid 3♦ and then keep bidding something else when partner keeps raising. You should reach slam by that point and he might stop. If he is from a UK background, he might take 2♣ as forcing, even though he has bid the suit. If you think none of these will work, then PhilG's scorned advice might do it. Many beginners say 4NT is always ace asking. Failing that, you could bid 4♣. This is not going to be passed and may be taken as ace asking. If he bids 5♣, bid 6♣. It should be emphasised that the best way forward is an exploratory bid such as new minor forcing, to determine first what the contract denomination should be. Then you determine the level.

Or english. 2♦ with no agreements.

Yes. You can't see 13 tricks. Not only is partner expecting to ruff spades and have some ruffs in your hand, he may not have all those kings you anticipate.

The first question I can give no input on, because I always play forcing next step and like the benefits it gives of additional possible sequences that enable responder to better describe his hand. 15+ or 17+ ? It all depends on the rest of the system. If 2♦ over Gazzilli 2♣ is any 8+, then 17+ conveniently sets a GF whatever opener rebids, but you may have excluded rebids at the 2-level to mean something else, such as a <17 with a club suit. Someone who uses 17 should reply to this. I dislike wide-ranging rebids and whenever I can like to portray an opener hand as being in the ranges 12-14, 15/16, and 17+, so for me 2♣ is 15+. Over 2♦ (with the same 8+) I then rebid at the 2-level with 15/16, not GF, or at the 3-level GF with 17+. I think you need to consider what your objectives are to decide this.

Well it would be 1♦ if not playing balanced♣/unbalanced♦. As 1♣ is the 1NT opening for different strengths, I have no compunction with either.

we are delighted to open 1NT or 1C on this shape. What's wrong with doubletons?

1m 2M certainly weak JS, but the question is really 1M 3m. No method comes up often, but I would be reluctant to lose my 3m bids as types of major support. When you have those hands they are vital bids, but if you have the invitational minor hands then you can do other things, as suggested. My chosen option is keeping 1NT forcing, and deciding on those hands whether to GF in the minor or rebid 2NT. I think the game in a minor is probably only really viable if opener freely bids the minor himself in sequences after 1NT.

No and no, but haven't had the time to spare that you imply!

It depends on how you cue bid. I agree with Helene/Wank that 3♣ is a shape bid, while cue bids start at 3♠. (Actually, I play 3♠ as a "non-serious 3NT" and slam-investigating cue bids start with 3NT for spades, but no matter.) If you play cues to show whether a suit is unguarded or not, then you need only one level of bidding. If you play cue bids to show aces/first round controls, then kings/second round controls, you need more than one level, but if you do this, do you need bids > 4♥ for ace asking? Isn't ace asking redundant?

Bridge with random partners is a lottery, and you are not likely to develop judgement quickly. Much better is to find a partnership with someone on a similar (or better!) level and take the time to discuss methods. If you agree to open all 7 counts, it can work because you know what partner may have, but I would argue that it may not be effective. If you agree never to open without 12, at the other extreme, that will work better. But the rule of 20 is an excellent choice, and when playing with randoms I would stick to that and assume your partner has that for his own opening. My preferred simple modifications to this are not to open an 11 count with a 54 shape, and to open 1m on a 12 count 43 shape.

May I ask you to elaborate a little? 2♠ = to play 2NT = transfer to clubs, to play or better 3♣ = transfer to diamonds, to play or better 3♦ = transfer to spades, invitational or better 3♠ = 6 card GF ? If this is it, I could happily take this as a base. It meets my needs, if I extend the 2NT bid to alternatively mean other things, such as the 4 spades takeout, which can then be shown by using the possible rebids over 3♦.

I play twalsh, and as said above, bid 2NT over a natural forcing-for-one-bid 2♠ from responder, assuming from the OP that it was forcing. However, I am in three minds as to how to handle WJOs here : (1) Natural and forcing is easy, together with a values (penalty orientated) double. However, over a non-jump overcall I like 2♠ to be non-forcing, and if they have a normal WJO in hearts, it is quite likely responder may have a similar hand in spades, and it is a shame to lose that. (2) A negative free bid (NFB) that is non-forcing misses out when responder wishes to double them for penalty. Double for me is a hand with some values and hearts, no long suit, not good enough for 3NT (or prefer to double), where the knowledge that opener also has a couple of hearts means that you do not expect their contract to make. This is not uncommon. (If opener does not have 2+ hearts, he will have 6 clubs and take the double out to 3♣.) If a "GF with 5 spades" hand is forced to double when playing NFB then you miss out on this. (3) In some other circumstances I play transfers over a WJO, starting with double, but not after a strong NT, and as we open 1♣ with a weak NT hand, it should not apply here for the same penalty reason. Thoughts, anyone? I am leaning towards NFB with a forcing 2NT response. A GF hand with a 6 card spade suit can make a forcing 3♠ bid, and a 5 card (maybe 4 card?) spade suit can start 2NT and see how it develops. The "natural 2NT hand" will double for penalty. Is this workable? Any idea of how bidding should go after the forcing 2NT?

I would open 1♣, but I am happy rebidding a natural non-forcing 2NT. If you like, you can have an ongoing partner making a checkback bid like 3♥ to show or deny a stop there, so you can have some protection if you are going to 3NT.

The Telegraph is saying today that "Plus, Turkey will get early, visa-free access to Europe by June, and may be waved through into full membership of the EU, which means 75 million Turks will be entitled to move to Basingstoke." I used to live in Basingstoke, but it was smaller in those days. I think we will have to bulldoze it and build those skyscrapers Mike777 wants.

3♦. But I prefer pass to 1NT. If I am sub-minimum I like a get-out in partner's major.

Where did you see that £60M/day? And you are implying this is what we get OUT??? Figures I can find are these : Budget statement March 2015 was that the projected net contribution for the year was projected to be £9.9 billion (US billion, times 10 to the 9), revised in July to £10.4 billion. This is a net £28.5M / day payment IN, not out www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf of Jan 2016, itself quoting ONS and other sources of Nov/Dec 2015, section 4 says that gross contribution = £17.8B, rebate £4.9B, so net contribution after rebate is £15.3B, but then we have public sector receipts of £4.4B, giving net contribution of £8.5B. That's payment IN of £23M / day. The fullfact organisation also says net £8.5B, ie £23M / day net payment. One of the papers said £35M/day net payment. Hence my conservative figure I gave earlier of over 20M. It seems that £23M/day payment IN is the best figure. If you (or other people) are turning this into a £60M payment OUT, then you must be assigning fairly arbitrary and gigantic figures to the "benefits" of not having to bother to make our own laws, or of finding cheap labour for us.

Yes, that was a deliberate wry quote. I have never appeared on HIGNFY.

For those (> 99.99% of the population according to a recent survey of 3 people) who have never heard of TTIP, try this for a taster : http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

"What has England done for the UE?" How about giving it net, ie payments less receipts, well over 20 million UK pounds each and every day? £20,000,000 seems pretty big to me. This shades into insignificance the amount the EU is contributing to SE Europe (Greece etc) to help manage the mess its EU dearly held policies have caused. (The EU has decided to put about a week's worth of net UK contributions into this, to last for the whole year.) I did hear a net contribution figure of £35M per day, so it may be more than £20M - does anyone have a better figure? How about taking in all the unemployed people from all the countries of Europe and giving them state aid worth 10 times that they can receive in their own country? (OK, "all" is a slight exaggeration, I am sure there must be some who have stayed at home.) How about giving it control over everything we do, so that whatever our highest courts say can be overturned? Facts and figures seem difficult to come by, but it is early days yet. The "Brexit with Boris" movement will no doubt get into swing in the coming months, and help here. The arguments for leaving are many : Allow us to make or own laws Let us control our own national borders Let us catch a fish occasionally ... The argument for remaining seems to be "it might be risky to leave". I love Europe. I was completely in favour of joining the common market. I have grown to detest what the EU has become, subsuming everything to its self-aggrandising political ends. Maybe I should vote. Maybe we can have gallons back in our fuel tanks! Maybe we no longer have to argue for years before we can have the right to buy bendy bananas!