fromageGB

Can you explain what you mean by "short diamond" in this context where you also say 4+? I play that a 1♦ open is defined as having a singleton or void outside diamonds, or 6+ diamonds, 11/12 to 22, no 5 card major. It is always 3+, most usually 4+. A 3-suiter will have max 20.

I note the comment "will elicit 4♦ if partner is 5-5". That being the case, I assume 3♦ can be shorter [edit - of course it is 4 :yellow boxes!], so I am not enamoured by my diamonds. It sounds as if partner could be semi-balanced. That being the case, with my lack of decent strength I'll go 3NT. I expect partner will continue if shapely. I think this lack of clarity at the 3-level is a system weakness, or the system needs better explanation.

Although I double, I do so a little reluctantly, certainly with far less enthusiasm than others. I think we may be in a no-fit situation here, with the points evenly balanced, and we may struggle in a phantom sacrifice. Maybe poster #5 has had plenty of experience of this.

Link above not working, so in a nutshell a reverse is not a jump, but a bid of a new suit such that for partner to put you back into your first suit, the bidding needs to go to a higher level. For example, 1♥ 2♣ (opponents silent) .. then 2♦ is not a reverse, but 2♠ is. However, this does not apply to a 1-level bid. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ is not called a reverse.

If the South hand qualifies as an opening, then maybe North needs a stronger hand to warrant a reply? B-) Seriously though, if S did miscount and opened 1♦, playing without agreements I think N is not good enough to make a 3♣ force. I would quite happily pass partner's preference to spades. (After that spade preference, yes, 3♦ is forcing.) A partnership having bidding situations like this discovers the need to have agreements, and I don't like the idea of an ill-defined 2♥ being inv+ and wallowing around at the 3-level uncertain of fits, and uncertain of what bids may then be construed as forcing after that. You need comprehensively defined continuations. My own style is homegrown, but an inv+ hand is announced by a 1♠ bid where there is twice the room for exploration.

Further bidding depends on methods. Playing with a random partner with no agreements, uncertain whether 1♠ would be taken as forcing, 2♠ from N, 3♥ 4♥ all natural. South continues : 4NT 5♣ - ace ask; 0 or 3 (I assume 3041 is the standard default) 5♠ 5NT - K ask, as 5♦ would be Q ask, and 5♥ signoff; ♠K shown by NT as you must keep bidding below 6♥ 6♥ - uncertain whether partner would take 6♦ as natural, or an SSA general try for heart grand. With a partner you are familiar with then you will have your agreed methods.

And the probability of this hand is ...? While I do not have an instant odds calculator in my head, I'm willing to wager that it is less than 50% :)

I thought it was standard to open 1♠ in 2/1 then over a minimum reply rebid 2/3NT (2NT for me) to show 20+ and a hand unsuitable for a NT opening (eg 2NT or 2♣), which therefore implies unbalanced or a 6th spade. What you have will be shown on your next bid of course. That will do me. In methods without such agreements, then maybe other openings come into consideration, but if partner passes a 1♠ open you are going to be hard pressed to find an entry in responders hand to make 10 tricks.

Expanding a little, 5♠ over 5♦ would be a King ask where asker does not have the Q (hence the 6♥ denial, as asker is looking for a grand) while if asker had the Q himself he would bid 5NT to King ask. (An assumption, I don't play these methods.)

But on this hand (1♦ open), you almost certainly do have a fit. Partner could easily be 2-suited and you have a lovely club fit. Opener may not wish to rebid 3♣ if you pass and LHO bids 2M. If partner is 3-suited, then you have a 2-suited fit with cross ruffs. I bid my normal reply as over a RHO pass.

If advancer bids 2♦ on a hand where his major lengths differ by one ({43}/{32}/{12}) you have a 50% chance of ending in the wrong contract when overcaller is equal length (eg the 4-2 rather than the 4-3, or 5-2 rather than the 5-3). Using X allows advancer to bid 2♦ with equal length, but 2♣ with a length disparity of 1. Now overcaller can bid 2♦ with equal length to let advancer choose. OK, if you have a better use for X that cannot be handled with a 2♣ bid, then it is a price you may wish to pay. I don't.

Do you mean this? If 4♦ is GF, is this not stronger than 5♦? I might drive to a slam over 4♦ but not 5♦. On the given problem, 5♠

I agree with you that X should be better used than penalty. I agree with mgoetze that your double is not good - not only ineffective, but you lose the preemptive effect of a 6 card major. The problem with your "both majors" bid of 2♣ (along with many other defences that do this) is that you cannot pick the best major when overcaller is {54}xx, if you allow 9 cards. If you care to combine these and have X with both majors, you solve all these issues.

Jerry My previous reply is based upon your ace asking being "5-ace" asking, where the King of trumps counts as an ace. If you don't already do this, then I suggest you do so immediately, as it is so important. If you are not playing RKCB because you do not like the ambiguity of the condensed replies, such as "1 or 4, I leave you to make this vital guess" then there are other 5-ace methods that do not have any ambiguity at all, and show the exact number.

The scenario is 4NT ace asking, with hearts trumps and a reply of 5♦. 5♥ from opener is a signoff, and any other bids commits to a small slam so by definition must be checking for grand slam. Asker will not be doing this unless he can see all the aces, so the first question is "is the first available asking bid an ask for the trump Q, or is it an ask for side Kings?" There is really only one answer - Kings. You can't look for a grand slam without being able to find Kings, so you lose the ability to ask for the Q - which will often be held, and may not be necessary if there are ten trumps between you. Whatever, you have lost the ability to show the Q by your choice of asking methods. What is the first available asking bid? It has to be one higher than a signoff in trumps, so in this case, 5♠ is the King ask. 5NT (without any other agreement) would be to play. Over 5♠ King ask, you reply to show your specific King(s). There are 3 such Kings, ♠, ♣, ♦. Remember you are committed to 6, and partner is looking for 7. You show specific Kings because it may be just one (or two) that will let partner be able to count 13 tricks, while the wrong one is useless. You can easily do this. No kings, sign off in 6♥. You obviously do not have what partner is looking for. All 3 Kings, bid 7♥. You obviously have what asker wants. With 1 or 2 kings, bid your CHEAPER king. You bid a specific King by bidding that suit, such as 6♦. To show the club K you bid 6♣, and this is "cheaper" (a lower level of bidding) than 6♦, so if you have both minor Kings, you bid 6♣. To show the spade K, if you bid 6♠ this takes it above the level of 6♥, so you can't do that. You show the spade K by bidding 5NT. This is the general rule, you show the King of the asking bid suit by bidding NT. Note that 5NT is cheaper than 6♣, so with both black Kings you show spades first, as it is cheaper even though it is higher ranking. Having shown your single K or cheaper of two, that may be what partner needs to know, and he can bid 7♥ (or 7NT), but if he also needs to know if you have a more "expensive" King, he bids that suit. 5♠ = "What Kings?" : 6♣ = Club K, denying spade K. 6♦ = "Do you have this one as well?" 6♥ = "No, sorry" 7♥ = "Yes, we are in luck". You do have what partner wanted, so bid the grand slam. Asker can of course convert a heart contract to a NT contract if he wishes. Note that in the above example, if asker was really interested in the spade King, over your 6♣ he would simply sign off in the small slam as you have denied the cheaper spade King. Discuss this with your partner, and I hope you get a hand soon to put it into effect. The key is that a bid "one step" up from the trump signoff after aces have been shown, is the specific K ask.

Yes, it's the minor rebids that are the problem with the method. Short minors are not very helpful in determining the right contract, and many have given up the 2♣ in order to show strength. My situation is worse, because as a predominantly MP player, and English with it, I prefer to open 1M with a 5 card major regardless of strength. This means I have to cope with an extra possibility (15/16 hcp) in the rebids after 1M so play Gazzilli on guaranteed 15+ and have an artificial 2♦, and as a result both minors are gone at the 2-level. Sometimes it would be nice to play in 2m, or have this as a natural start to a higher contract. However, I can't see me switching to NFNT even temporarily. I wouldn't know what to do with the other hands that are put into the FNT !

In a similar vein I play twalsh to end up playing in a 2-5 fit when others play in 1NT, also to good effect. I'm sure many other twalsh players can corroborate.

I play 2/1 GF with 1NT forcing, against a MP field where many play in 1NT, and while I do not keep statistical records, I am very happy with the situation. 2M seems to be much better when points are equally divided, less so as strength increases towards game level.

It depends on the meaning of the cue. Maybe most people use cues as a mechanism to determine that there is no suit with xx(+) opposite xx, and once that has been discovered, embark on plain ordinary ace and king asking with no adjustment. If you are playing first round control cues, and know partner does not have a void, then it makes sense to exclude that ace from the reply.

Au contraire, I can understand a pass at IMPs, where there probably no game at stake, but at MPs I reckon that's losing tactics.

As Zel says. it depends on other things. You say 2/1 so I am assuming 5 card majors and a 1♣ that could be a doubleton. If I was playing a natural 1♠ 4 card response, after 1NT I would prefer transfers, as they generate two benefits : right -siding some contracts, and the ability to show other things with a third bid. Giving the details, as you requested : Opener assumes a weak hand opposite with spades and the suit implied by the transfer, so having already described his hand he pretty well has to complete the transfer. I call it a transfer, but technically the 2♣ bid is not a transfer, but a puppet, as it does not always show diamonds. 2♣ normally gets a diamond reply. Responder then bids : pass = weak 5 diamonds, 2♥ = invitational 4 or 5 card, 2♠ = invitational 5 card without hearts, 3♦ = GF, 2NT = what? If you play a natural 2NT invitation after 1NT, going via the 2♣ "transfer" could be an invitational hand that wants partner to prefer a 3♦ contract to a declined "pass" if he has some diamonds. Similarly over the 2♦ reply, 3♣ could be an invitation to 3NT that prefers to play in 3♣ rather than 2NT. 2♦ is a transfer to 2♥, passable with a weak 5 hearts, but any followed by other bid is GF with hearts. You can say 2♠ is 64xx, 2NT is 54xx (assuming a 44xx starts with a 1♥ response), 3♥ is 55xx. 2♥ is a transfer to 2♠, passable with a weak hand, or any other responder bid would be GF. You could say 2NT shows 5 spades and a 4 card minor (slam seeking?), 3m shows 5 spades and a 5 card minor, while 3♠ shows 6, and 3NT shows 5 spades and no 4 card suit. 2♠ is a GF transfer to clubs, say 4xx5 shape or better, which you have to be careful to remember, as it is not a natural rebid. While this may seem more complicated than a simple checkback, the concept of transfers is simple to grasp, and once you have the idea, it is adaptable to many bidding situations. These include response to a major or 1NT after opposition overcall, "response" to partner's overcall, and others. The downside of the suggested method is that it does not distinguish between responder's 54xx and 55xx when he is invitational, which a simple checkback can handle, though the 2-way cannot. None of these can show a weak 54xx hand, but to do that you probably need to play transfers earlier, in response to the 1♣ open. As with any transfer method, continuations are the subject of partnership discussion. The ones suggested here are all natural and simple.

So what would you suggest in these circumstances, other than X and 2♠?

As manudude.

It needs an acol player to answer this ; I don't know if a 3♣ rebid by responder is forcing. I guess even if it is, opener must jump to 4♥ as 3 could be passed, and over 4♠ ask for aces with 5♣ if you play this as exclusion in diamonds, or 5♦ if not. 6♠ is a likely punt.

Now discussed, and we are happy to overcall at the 2-level rather than double to show that suit, and think 1NT more frequent as well as more useful played as Raptor than natural, so we have : X = takeout with 4 other major, denying 5 card minor their major = 5-5 minors (with transfer reply if opener does not bid) 1NT = Raptor (4 other major + 5 minor) other suits (including 2C) = natural