fromageGB

There is a way to explore at a lower level, but it is obviously not "natural" and needs partnership agreement! Many play 2♣ as not necessarily natural, or 2♦ as potentially strong and therefore forcing to some point or other, but without an agreement, I can't think of any reply other than 3NT. 1♥ for example will always end in heart game if opener has four, regardless of what you do (legally) next.

Methinks "3-cd major" was meant literally, and interpreted as "3 or more".

Standard has to be ♣ = clubs. Anything else is a specific agreement.

I think this just boils down to preferred system. 1♦ from me, but if the question was phrased in a way that meant no specific understandings or methods, then the results may be more meaningful.

One does not use the last of those three conventions playing with two over one, but more commonly when playing solo.

In which case, if partner may be 17, I agree at IMPs. (I hate these very wide ranging rebids though.) If you make any bid, presumably partner is going to bid something with a 16/17, so whether ♥ or ♠ does not matter in that sense. ♥ is better in that it will push him to NT if he has ♦ stops, say a 5134 shape. Conversely, if he is weak, ♥ is worse because he will pass in a bad fit while you have a much better club fit. As you are assuming/hoping he is strong, I'd go with hearts. If I'm forced to play this wide range method at MPs I'd probably tank for a long time before coming down on hearts or pass. Thinking that he can't be balanced (if his 1NT may include a 5 card major), if he is 16/17, presumably he would have rebid spades on a 6xx4, so the options left for the 2♣ rebid are very limited. This pushes the odds way back into the weak category, so having tanked, I'm passing.

Call me a wimp, but pass is better than 2♥ in my view. I don't want to play in hearts opposite a 5xx5 or 5xx4. The yellow box says "3+ clubs", but I understand a non-forcing NT may be passed if opener had 3 clubs only. While opener may have a 15/16 hand in these methods (I assume) surely a 12-14 with clubs is more likely? Even if partner is a max 16, NT does not look too good to me with a diamond lead marked. Pass. I'm unenterprising on this.

Don't forget this is in the context of a 15/16 included in a 1M open, so after 2♣ 2♦, a 2-level rebid is not GF.

I think it depends on what, in standard methods, 4NT would be in place of 5♠. If this is ace asking in spades, then with 3 top spades he might have done that. 5♠ is therefore a hand not that good. But is AKQxxxx,xx,xx,xx good enough to ask opposite a random 17 count. Not really, so he could be like this. Is the addition of a Q or two ace-asking material? Yes. So I will not worry about 7♠/NT, and accept the invitation with 6♠. I am expecting a loser in a major.

How do you deal with it? Play an ace asking method with sensible replies. Then interference makes no difference to your information exchange, even to showing the Q. This needs a kickback-similar ace asking bid of the next step up from 4 of the trump suit. Ace ask (5 "aces") is 4T+1. The uninterrupted replies are (using the shorthand of "2+/-Q" meaning 2 aces with or without the Q of trumps) : step1 = 4T+2 = 0+Q, or 1+/-Q, or 3-Q step2 = 4T+3 = 2+/-Q step3 = 4T+4 = 3-Q step4 = 5T = 0-Q, ie zilch. Simply signoff in trumps. This is always the "minimum" bid. step5+ = >5T = 4 aces, and this is the king response Note that this is essentially step responses with steps 1,2,3 for 1,2,3 aces, but modified for the Q of trumps. Easy to remember. Count on your knuckles under the table. Again without interference, asker's follow-ups are : Over the step1 = 0+Q, 1+/-Q, 3-Q . first step = 4T+3 = "I am interested in the 1-ace scenario, as I have 3 or 4 myself" . . 4T+4 = 1-Q "yes, I have an ace, but no Q" . . 5T = minimum = 0+Q . . >5T = "yes, I have the ace you want, I have the Q of trumps as well, and this is my King response" whereas . second step = 4T+4 = "I am interested in the 3-ace scenario, as I have 1 or 2 myself" . . 5T = minimum = "sorry, no 3 aces" . . >5T = "yes, I have the 3 aces and this is my King response" Note that this does NOT have the ambiguity of RKCB's "0 or 3" that cannot be resolved. INTERFERENCE Assume they bid the step1 suit of 4T+2. Teller simply bids as normal, with X meaning "I would have bid that", ie the step1 reply, and all higher bids are unaltered. Asker continues as normal with no loss of information. Assume they bid the step2 suit of 4T+3. Teller simply bids as normal, with Pass meaning "I would have bid lower than that", ie the step1 reply, and with X again meaning "I would have bid that", ie the step2 reply. All higher bids are unaltered. In this latter case, (4T+3) X showing 2 aces, 4T+4 as normal asks for the Q. In the first case, (4T+3) pass, X from asker is the same meaning "I would have bid that", ie the "1-ace scenario" ask, with the unaltered replies, while 4T+4 from asker is the normal step asking for the "3-ace scenario". In both these cases of interference we have still conveyed the exact number of aces and the presence or absence of the trump Q. Assume they interfere by bidding the step3, ie 4T+4 suit, (or 5T-1), then we lose the ability to show the trump Q, but still convey the exact number of aces. Teller forgets about the Q and bids : Pass = 0 or 3 X = 1 5T = 2 >5T = 4, and is the normal K reply. There is no ambiguity in the pass for 0 or 3, because asker has a follow-on clarification of X = "is it 0 or 3?" with teller passing or bidding 5T with zero, or giving the normal K response with 3 aces. If they "interfere" with X, then this is not interference as you just reply as normal. The interfering bid, in 2 out of the 3 cases, has made absolutely no difference at all. You have full information. Only in the 1 case out of 3, where they bid the suit beneath trumps, have you lost the ability to find the Q, but you still know exact aces.

I think the normal approach would be a gazzilli that is usually 17+ OR a club suit : 1♥ 1NT, 2♥ = 6 card 11-14 1♥ 1NT, 3♥ = 6 card 15-16 1♥ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦(positive, 8+), 2♥ = clubs, 5+ hearts, 11-16 1♥ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦, 3♥ = 6 hearts, 17-21 or so 1♥ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦, 3♣ = clubs, 5+ hearts, 17-21 or so If you like to open 1♥ (or 1♠) on a hand that is balanced and in the point count range of your 1NT, so a 1NT open denies a 5 card major, then you need to have a method of expressing that hand after a forcing NT. You can't get any more bids out of the air, only a limited few are granted to us, so you can lower the 2♣ strength to 15+, and forget about a weaker opener rebidding clubs (as this suit is almost lost anyway, as you can't play in 2♣). You then have : 1♥ 1NT, 2♥ = 6 card 11-14 1♥ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦, 2♥ = 6 card 15-16 1♥ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦, 3♥ = 6 card 17-21 or so 1♥ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦, 3♣ = clubs, 5+ hearts, 17-21 or so 1♥ 1NT, 3♥ = 6+ hearts, 20+, self-sufficient hearts happy to play there opposite a singleton, GF in hearts asking for cue. Or something like that. Showing a 6 heart hand in 4 different ranges seems precise enough : 11-14, 15/16, 17-21, 20+self sufficient.

Wow, I don't know the programming languages and tools employed - I never got beyond html - but these are probably daunting tasks to someone just starting on website development. I had suggested linking an existing bid (and follow-on levels) by reference to the bid code number, to avoid entering the same data, but copy and paste is possibly better as it avoids potentially broken links later. What would be really nice is to be able to copy and paste with the ability to actually change the bids but keeping the same structure. Very useful for something where you have the same step methods but at a different starting bid. I can't see how you'd do that, though. Anyway, I look forward to learning about relay methods from the "Z club".

It seems very risky to me, with a good 6 card suit and only 15 hcp. However, I think all rebids are risky when you are not playing an artificial strength showing conventional rebid, so it may be OK in context. However, I would assume 17+. Bart as I understand it does not show strength, so while it may help on 6 card suits it does not solve the wide range rebid problem. Playing something like 2♣ gazzilli to show strong hands means that you can give a better definition to a 3♥ rebid. Typically this could then be GF with self sufficient heart suit, just not quite good enough to open 2♣.

I love this method. You have 4 card support - raise him. Similar hand but void in his suit - you are that much stronger, so raise to game.

An idea I think that would be useful is this: when you look at a system, you see a list of available bids, with the bid itself, such as 3♥, in a "circle". If you click on that circle, it then shows you the subsequent bids that can be made after that. However, if no further bids have been specified - maybe because it is all natural or seat of the pants from there - the click gives you an empty list of bids. Be nice if you could see back on the first list whether there was anything further defined, say by having the circled bid as is with a blue background if there is no follow-on, and the background within that circle as say pale yellow if there were further bids. If you clicked on a blue circle nothing would happen, unless you were signed in as the author of that system, when of course it would give you the subsequent entry definition screen to add bids. Helpful to people browsing other systems, because they know where they can delve deeper, and helpful to the author, because one of the problems with creating hundreds of branches is that you lose track of which ones have been completed or just left hanging.

Steve2005 mentioned Gazzilli, and this solves the huge range rebid that exists in just about any simple rebid, as well as the 1NT. And it's not just minors : what is your rebid range for 2♥? If you want to slash that range, you need a type of Gazzilli. It comes with a cost, the cost of better expression in minor rebids, but many consider it beneficial. While playing in 1NT has no great downside to playing in 2M in IMPs, when you are playing MPs that small difference in score becomes paramount, and if you can happily have two different methods, I firmly believe 1NT should include a 5 card major in IMPs, but deny one in MPs.

Blackwood or RKCB isn't the point, any partnership will know what they play. The important issue in my view is to have useful agreed follow-ups to Jacoby. Surprisingly many hands (not that Jacoby happens often) would like to know of shortage in either hand, and whether that is singleton or void is crucial when ace asking. Certainly an area for regular partnerships to look at once they have the more frequent bids buttoned up.

Good point - if Jacoby guarantees 4 card support then opener without the Q but having 6 cards can pretend he has the Q, on the 10 card fit. Start with Jacoby whatever your methods.

Thank you, that does help. No other snags so far.

If your Jacoby continuations allow partner to show specifically a void in spades, then this is a better start, as it gives that extra option. Discover that, and then if no spade void, ace ask as above to end in 6. If he has a spade void, then you can bid 7. I would recommend having the ability after Jacoby for responder as well as opener to show a shortage, then to be able to discover whether singleton or void beneath game. It is very useful.

If you have the ability to show a shortage after bidding Jacoby, then I would do that. However, standard common continuations do not have that, so if you start with Jacoby, partner with poor spades will be unable to judge that suit. In this case you are so strong that you will be driving the contract, not him, so this is not really a consideration. A splinter is a possibility, if you do not have agreements on strength limits, but again you will be making the decisions, so it is not necessary. Without the Jacoby followed by shortage, ace asking is fine. With an ace missing you will stop in 6, and with all 5 aces you will ask for kings and can see potentially 13 tricks with 5 hearts, 3 clubs, 3 diamonds, and 2 spade ruffs, assuming no useful unknown Qs or Js in his hand. Yes, there is no problem with immediate asking. (Not being able able to potentially count to 13 would be a deterrent.) With the South hand and standard RKCB it would therefore go 1H 4NT, 5S 6H.

I think it would be helpful if "pass" was allowed as a "bid". While often not needed, as pass is an obvious choice, it is sometimes helpful to explain what type of hand will pass, as opposed to bid again. It shows that pass is an option. For example, you may have 2♦ transfer to hearts, to which the reply is 2♥, but pass is an option showing a 6 card diamond suit. If you don't show the pass, it may be thought that 2♥ is obligatory.

Nice idea When adding a new bid as a follow on to previous bidding ("create"), it would be a good idea to show previous bidding so far as a reminder of where you are. On that page, "back to list" gives a 404 error.

B, but I look forward to your system where n=1 that is just as effective as A. In practice, I don't think this is a valid question. A will always be better than B for opening hands, and B will always be better than A for preempts, if the systems are properly designed.

The question answers itself : pass is an option. There is nothing in this hand to suggest game is likely in any contract.