fromageGB

Partner is allowed to bid over 2♣, and I think we are unlikely to miss anything if he doesn't.

No hands, but looking for ideas on best to handle this situation where partner and I were on different wavelengths. The 1♣ opening is possibly a doubleton and is often a 12-14 balanced hand that can contain 4 card major(s). 2nd seat overcalls with a natural 2♣. What are your bids here as responder? One idea might be compulsory transfers (weak or stronger) starting with a double for transfer to diamonds, and in a similar manner to an xyz 2♣ transfer, does not necessarily have diamonds but could be the first move on an invitational hand maybe with a 4 card major which is then bid ? A less than invitational 4 card major gives up and just passes? Or a normal takeout X instead, but what sort of strength would you expect for that, and if responder has a 5 card major to bid naturally, how do you handle different strengths? What do you do in this position?

This is no different to the idea playing IMPs that if you are winning the match you don't bid something that might be better but has the capability of a large negative swing, you just accept a possible smaller negative for the sake of the overall result. In MPs if you decide to follow what you perceive as the field, you are accepting what you expect to be a probably worse score for the sake of not getting a significantly worse one that will jeopardise your position. Same thing. Not silly, just tactical. Like in a UK electoral method, voting for the loony liberals if that might keep out the even loonier left, in your constituency. Or apply your own adjectives and parties! The UK electoral method is like playing IMPS. What you do on 80% of the boards/constituencies has little bearing on the result, it is only the 20% swing constituencies/game-slam hands where your vote/bidding-play has any impact. This is why I prefer MP scoring, where every vote counts.

So keeping the idea of 1♣ (1♥) 1♠ as 0-3 spades, accepting that balanced responder hands go this route, could you use 1NT = clubs weak or canapé, 2♣ = diamonds weak or canapé? This would retain your standard style (but with a NT/spade inversion if your normal 1NT would be natural.)

After 1♣ (1♥) ... I play X = 4 spades and 1♠ = 0-3 spades, as you are thinking, because it is our normal twalsh bid and we like playing system on. I'm happy with it. After 1♣ (1♥) 1♠ (p) opener will rebid 1NT on a normal sort of hand without long clubs, and then we rebid : pass = to play, obviously 2♣/♦ = weak, to play ** 2♥/♠ = invitational with 5+ ♣/♦ respectively ... (a 6 card minor will convert a 2NT declination into 3m) 2NT = natural invitation 3♣/♦ = GF All of the above sequences are where responder does not have 4 spades. Where he has, it is just system on starting with X, so why not treat the strong 4x{5x} however you do normally with no second seat interference? Responder's bid of X takes no more room than his bid of 1♥ would. Not that it may be particularly relevant for you, but for us X = 4 spades exactly, less than invitational, because we play 1♣ (1♥) 1NT/2♣/♦/♥/♠ to describe other types of spade holdings, as the minors are indeed rolled into the 1♠ reply. ** If you were not wanting to use the immediate 2♣/♦ response as artificial, then it is of course better to have the weak hands bidding this directly, as it allows opener support after 4th seat raises.

13+ 4414 or 4405. Bid 2♠ and see if he moves.

There certainly is good rationale to do so; see Giangibar's post. It's funny how the weak NTers don't seem concerned about finding the right part score, though. I play 15/16 in a predominantly 12-14 field, and every week see the poor (but of course near average) results of playing 1NT when there is a major fit.

A stereotypical American attitude, but maybe more likely a credit card these days ? :P Sorry, couldn't resist, and I do admit that my Italian would not bear any scrutiny at all. I thoroughly agree with this post, and I too bid 1♠ when not playing transfer walsh.

This doesn't seem to allow responder to make a non-GF bid, nor allow opener to play in his 5-3 fit major. I'd be surprised if anyone has tried it, but I think it clearly does come in the "highly unnatural" category.

I don't think you can isolate the 1-suiters. It may be more practical to have a bid that shows a 1-suiter if you follow with a pass, but a 2-suiter if you follow with another bid, like a transfer method. If some complexity is allowed you can add the distinction of showing which major is longer when responder is {54}xx, but for real simplicity this might be too much for partner. However, playing this 1NT style you must be very experienced in being doubled, and would need to have thorough and hence more complex escapes that need to be remembered. If this is too difficult, maybe you should consider a different strength 1NT.

My partner will expect 4 spades for a double (or a hand stronger than this), and I don't think I have a great hand for him when he jumps in spades with a 4 card suit. (What "great rebid"?) On the other hand, if he should bid spades freely over 2♣ then I am delighted, and if he passes I am happy to play in 2♣. Perhaps it depends on style. While I may have only 3 of a minor for a X, there is a stronger implication of 4 for a major. My 2 level overcalls do not need to be solid.

Conversely, there is a good argument that a low-range opener should not show a singleton, as a low-range 2NT bidder is most unlikely to have slam. If you play that 3♣ is a low-range continuation, responder has the option of either showing a shortage himself or asking for yours, if he is mid-range. This is probably not classic Jacoby, but you don't have to stick to the original idea.

It would be nice to see a global summary from admin - who has the most people ignoring them, and where do I rank in this list? Perhaps I should ask for replies from those ignoring me ... B-)

While I play transfer responses after our major open has been overcalled with a suit, I see no reason to disrupt and abandon our perfectly good major responses if they double. I just ignore it. With a minor open again I see no reason why you should distort your bidding and am happy to ignore the double again. This means redouble is specifically inviting a subsequent double, and a 1-bid is forcing while a 2-bid is not. However, playing transfer walsh, system is still on; we have methods to handle 4th seat bidding, and redouble shows diamonds.

In that case, why not play compulsory transfers? 2NT transfer to 3♣? If playing kickback as you suggest, a suit bid now shows a shortage (a void if you follow this with ace asking), 3NT could be to play but warning of no values outside your suit in case opener wishes to run, while 4♣ could be forcing and inviting opener ace ask, or you can ask yourself with 4♦. There are many alternatives and opener plays the hand in all of them. I would certainly want opener to play the hand. If you need or desire 4 card support, maybe with a shorter minor suit, then you can have 2♠ as minor suit stayman. Even if you are single-minored, as you do not have to have both. If he denies 4 card support by bidding 2NT or 3♦, you still have the option of playing in NT or the minor (3M to transfer to the corresponding minor?).

For the 19 count balanced hand I rebid 2♥ which at this point is either that, or a natural heart reverse. Responder relays with 2♠ and the reversing hand rebids 3♣ while the balanced hand rebids 2NT. You are now where you are with the 17/18 hand, and the same methods apply. Perhaps not perfect, but 2NT gives more options than 3NT. A strong opener with clubs simply rebids 3♣, but you are probably thinking of finer graduations. The 3-way NT strength rebid comes with a cost, but it has benefits, and you pick your relative importance.

Absolutely nothing, though it is a question of degree and where your personal boundaries are. A good idea in my view. My personal problem is that my newer partners are (like me) long in the tooth and can't cope with too many new things at a time. While I will suggest a change to the 2NT open, I have thrown a lot at them that they are still not fluent with. My "lifelong" partner had reached her "tolerance for change" saturation point a while ago.

It's not the strong hands that are the problem. I'm thinking of a 12 count opener and a 4 count responder laying themselves open to penalty doubles. I suppose this is no different from a very weak responder running from a weak 1NT doubled, but you are deliberately exposing yourself to extra risk for perhaps little gain. Even when not doubled, your -200 is not usually a good score.

I play a 15/16 1NT, so use after 1♣ use a 2-way split with 1NT=17/18 and 2NT = 19. Not the same range as yours, mainly because I judge my partners not adventurous enough to make that 19/20. But it works, and I have had no problems with it. Edit - responses to this 2NT for us are exactly the same as over 1NT, just everything shifted a level higher. No problems. Edit - I would suggest though that you are getting into dangerous territory if you extend the 2NT rebid to be any stronger. If it could be a 21, you are effectively insisting your partner responds to 1♣ on a flat 4 count. No experience of that, but I don't like the sound of it.

1♣ 1red completion = 12-14, 2 or 3 My reasons for completing to be 2 or 3 card support 12-14 and 1NT to be 17/18 are that it makes it very east for responder to use stayman and transfers over the 1NT with major holdings in the same way as after a 1NT open, and everything is easy. Transfer with one major 5+, and if both majors bid 2♣. Intuitive and instinctive. After a major completion use 2♣/♦ artificially to show invitational or better hands with both or one major, and you get a fit with game invitation declined played by opener at the 2 level. This is a good use of the low-level opener continuation, as well as allowing a weak 5 card major to show that hand effectively by passing the completion.

It'a an argument, but I would not be wanting to bid spades at the 4-level, nor would I want my partner to compete that high if he couldn't open a weak 2. Better to keep quiet about the spades, in my view, and let the distribution be a surprise for declarer - hopefully a nasty one.

In this forum, I suggest it is a strong balanced hand, say a 19 count? If playing 4 card majors it suggests a 3433 shape or close. If 5 card majors a {5332} hand with 5 hearts. Responder should revert to the major with a bit of shape.

This is too strong (or too weak) for a Michaels, by my reckoning, so I want to bid both suits. For two reasons I bid diamonds first : I am expecting to bid spades next, so this keeps the bidding lower; and I would like a diamond lead if responder ends in a contract.

As always, it depends on your methods. In mine, we do not have a natural responder's simple other minor bid after our 1♣ or 1♦ open, and after a major open, our simple minor responses are GF (or 2♣ possibly artificial) anyway, so the concept cannot apply after our open. If our first bid was an overcall, then advancer's double would be a transfer, so the concept does not apply here either.

The OP mentioned Gazzilli, and if this is in play then depending on your agreed strength requirements for the 2♣ bid, this need not be a problem if it needs a 2♣ from opener to make game.