fromageGB

I think what 3♠ shows depends on the strength of the 2♥ bid. If this has to be invitational strength, then perhaps 3♠ is game forcing, because a weak opener with 3 spades could bid just 2♠, the same as he would with a doubleton. On the other hand, if 2♥ could be weaker than that, then the jump to 3♠ would be an invitation with a stronger hand. For opener's first rebid, I would say it was normal to bid 2♣ with a 3226 shape, but 2♠ with a 3xx5. But others may have a different view on normality.

Many thanks for the reasoning. I am not happy with an unlimited 2NT, because with a K (that's a positive for me) and a J, I would for example be bidding game, but then if stronger I would need different methods not thought about, and going higher than game may be risky. I suppose this is what you were implying. The idea works with the old double-positive. But then, I could keep opener NT range rebids with Kokish. Perhaps what it boils down to is that a 2♦ negative gives better decision between part score and game, while 2♦ positive gives better decision between game and slam. I think I may be changing my stand, here. Time for a rethink!

If 4♥ denies the heart control, what does opener do with a heart control?

Thanks. I have added www.internetslang.com to my bookmarks!

3a Pass. If my partner has 5 spades and not a powerhouse he would not have doubled. If he has 5 diamonds he will bid them now, and if he is 4x4x then he will bid diamonds as I would have bid spades with 4. 2♦ from me would be inviting 3♦ if opponents continue. 3b (no redouble) 2♦.

This version of 3NT is different, possibly a "serious 3NT"? It makes the bidding more complicated when the missing control in the bidder's hand is not clubs. Imagine it is a diamond control he is short of, and bids 3NT. He is stuck when opener with both minor controls bids 4♣. If he bids 4♥ to show that control, opener can see all controls but he is not the one who wants to ace ask, so perhaps he bids by giving his response to an assumed ace ask? Could this be then taken by responder as being a sort of exclusion ask? When the bidder of 3NT is missing only the heart control and opener bids 4♦ what does he do? Bidding a one-under-the-one-wanted cue bid is simple in comparison, as is a denial cue bid.

ldo - means what? Not in the BBO abbreviations, and I don't think I have come across it.

Cue bids never cope with all hands without penalty (being lead-indicative or whatever). Certainly the north hand on the opener's bidding deserves a cue bid, and one option is to play that 3NT is a one-under denial cue bid showing slam interest without club control. After opener's 4♣ showing club control, you could ace ask. 3NT here is not a non-serious 3NT because opener has limited his hand with a passable 3♠ bid. In a different sequence where he had given spade support in an unlimited bidding sequence, 3NT would be non-serious, so now playing one-under cues, a first cue bid of 4♥ shows no club control. Where the bidding has been limited, and you want to make an invitation to bid slam but do not want to unilaterally ace ask, the one-under method allows you the option of bidding 3NT to deny the club control, then over 4♣, which shows the control you are missing, you can bid 4♠. This cannot be a sign-off when partner has bid the missing control (you would have just bid 4♠ rather than 3NT) so it is a cooperative slam try, showing all controls but needing extras from partner. If he does not have them, he can pass. Alternative methods also work on this hand. A simple denial cue bid method works (I think) in pretty well all cases. On this hand it goes 4♣ 4♥ (opener has the responder-denied clubs and the opener-bypassed diamonds but does not have hearts). However, this method does not have the cooperative slam try capability and perhaps gives opponents too many opportunities for lead-directing doubles. Adopt the ambiguous 4♥ cue bid without a control at your peril.

The problem is that partner passes a 1-bid and you miss game when you are a trick short of being GF. One-suited or two-suited. If you open these 2♣ GF you have the alternative problem of going off in game.

Although why this is more common has never been explained to me. I prefer 2♦ as negative because that facilitates the Kokish 2NT that gives the point range clarification that is needed when responder has little, but not needed when has the positive. 2♣ 2♦(neg) 2NT = 22/23 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠(forced) 2NT = 24/25 This makes responder's judgement of game easier. Conversely, 2♣ 2♥(neg) 2NT must have a wider range as it is the only way of rebidding 2NT, so responder has a bigger guess. Edit - typos

Pass, of course, unless that 2♥ was forcing. Have to ask an acol player. If it was, 3♥ with a minimum open. Support is usually the best option with 3 card major support and an outside shortage.

I can't see how you can make a 2/1 GF without going off in game on many opener hands. 1NT seems the only bid to me. Continuations depend on agreements, but whatever they are, they will be better than immediately forcing to game.

Be fair, there is only one poster who thinks the idea has merit. From Free's silence, I assume he too has given up on the idea. But ideas I like to hear, because as someone wrote elsewhere recently, it makes you question your own ways and see things from an angle you may not have considered.

Another point is not to worry about the fact that it is you playing the hand in NT, because NT will (probably) not be the contract. I assume you play some sort of 5 card stayman or puppet over a 2NT open? Then partner will not have bid 2♣ 2♠ with a balanced hand, because he would open 2NT or rebid 2NT for you to use that inquiry. He should be single-suited or two-suited, and by bidding the next step (2NT here) you enable him to freely bid his second suit. This "bid the next step when opener rebids a major" is considered compulsory by some players, because it facilitates partner's hand description, and is not done with only a very weak hand, but can be strong. If you don't want to make the 2♣ followed by a suit bid being game forcing, although that is easy, you can agree with partner that if he does NOT have a game force hand without help, you can pass his third bid at the 3-level. This means if he he does have game in his own hand he has to jump or reverse on the third bid. This is playable, having the advantage that you can happily open 2♣ with a trick short of game, and the disadvantage that there is less room for slam investigation. A better alternative might be that a 2♦ reply is artificial denying an A or K, while a 2♥ reply is artificial showing an (any) A or K. Over 2♦ he then has to jump in the second suit to force game, but after your 2♥ he does not have to because your bid sets up the game force.

I can't really see the point in having a theory that tells you what the right contract is when you can see all the hands, but can't be applied at the table. What I want is a method I can use looking at my hand and the bidding. In an unopposed auction, Bergen does a fair job, and is easy for average players. Where it particularly falls down is on hands with shortages, and like others I prefer a method that as well as showing length of support and strength ranges for balanced hands, also shows shortage support hands in various strengths. As Zel says, showing the latter and letting partner make a judgement is better than a unilateral decision.

After partner's 15-17 NT, You bid 2♣, RHO bids 2♦, passed to you. [hv=pc=n&n=s632hat85dk5ckj75&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1n(15-17)p2c(Stayman)2dpp]133|200[/hv] You have no explicit agreement on the meaning of South's pass, but an expectation that it denies a 4 card major.

The choice is yours when you decide what system to play. If you think pre-empting your opponents is worth pre-empting your partner, you choose to play a weak NT. If you think sound partnership discussion to determine the best contract is the way to play, at the expense of giving opponents an easier ride, then you play strong NT. (Because a weak NT hand is far more frequent.) Playing strong NT against a club field of weak no-trumpers, you see this clearly. Many a time you play in the 2M contract that others cannot find, and occasionally your opponents can get to a contract that others don't. So the answer to damitail's question is that it is a personal philosophical choice, and you need a partner with the same preferences !

This needs discussion. Double could show some clubs, penalty if opener has clubs, with a 5+ side suit to play in if opener does not have clubs and so bids diamonds. Equally it could be pure takeout, for opener to bid regardless of whether he has clubs, ie responder has club shortage. Pure penalty, for opener to pass always, is not likely. I like Zel's suggestion (choice 1 of the 3 above meanings of X), and West's given hand is a good double on this basis.

If you play Gazzilli (or some artificial bid that is normally used for strong openers) then you need an agreed meaning for 1♠ then 3♥, such as 15/16 55xx which nicely separates that from the 2♣ sequences, but in the absence of artificial methods I think the 3NT bid was wrong. 4♥ is a better bid with any 3 cards, when you have a shortage outside. Your quick controls in the minors are just what partner wants. To the follow-up question, I think the normal version of gazzilli has opener using the 1♠ 1NT, 2♣ 2♦, 2♠ sequence as the way to show a natural non-strong-hand club suit. This assumes your 1NT may include a 5 card major, as it gets impossible to show everything otherwise. At MPs I prefer a 1M open always, and can't show a weak 4 card minor. But there again, playing normal methods, does 1♠ 1NT 2♣ show a 4 card suit? I think not.

Looks like a double T to me.

What's that?

I preface this comment by stating I have never played IJS, but if someone asked me to, I would say that 3♥ was a natural rebid, and I would expect something like a 5422 shape. When I give preference to spades rather than NT, he takes me for a 2236 shape without good diamonds, and on his 5413 shape he correctly puts me back to 4♣. This has to be to play. Non-forcing, therefore, in the absence of agreements. If opener has good hand, he can always bid game or slam or ace ask, as I have described my hand pretty well, or if he wants to force more out of me and still keep a slam option - have I got 3 card heart support? - he can bid 4♦. 4♣ must be to play.

Certainly I bid 3♣. I suppose it depends on what standards you adopt for a reverse, but this hand is nothing exceptional. I am not familiar with the use of Lebensohl after a reverse, preferring transfers, but if this 2NT would imply a 4216 shape 5 or 6 count, then 3♣ has a better chance of making than 4♠. Surely a better responder club hand would be bidding a natural 3♣ forcing. Similarly if Lebensohl 2NT is used as a precursor to playing in 3♦, then you look really silly going off in 4♠ when 3♦ is the only making contract when partner is a 6 count 4333 such as Jxxx, xxx, Qxx, Kxx.

He probably plays other times with a partner where 2♦ is the positive reply, so he is just bidding his weak hand naturally. It happens. No problem, move on to the next hand.

I take it to mean that partner does not want me to even think about what it means, as he wants me to pass. Being a good partner, I switch my brain off and just sort the cards ready to put down when the lead is made.