fromageGB

I can't really see what you are trying to do here. It seems basically pretty normal but with a split on strong hands between 3 card support and fewer, the former rebidding 2♦. Is it really necessary, as there is room over 1NT for responder to find out, and is it worth sacrificing the natural bid for a strong xx46 shape ? (If this is in your 1♦ opening, it must be tricky to subsequently describe.) Another problem is the 1NT rebid being 0-2 hearts, because if both long club hands and balanced hands are in this one bid, it must be forcing, which does not seem a good idea to me. Yes, there is space to figure out the best place to play, but this is quite likely to be 1NT. This is completely different to the Gazzilli scenario, where there is a fallback contract of 2M, which is reasonable. I am also not keen on a minimum club/major two-suiter being forcing to the 3-level when there is no fit, as it must be if the 2♠ rebid could be an invitational raise. Sorry, but to me it does not look very good so far.

Simple transfers : 2NT-♣, 3♣-♦. After a transfer, we have 4m+1 as immediate ace asking, 3M GF showing a shortage and asking for NT/minor judgement, and 3NT as a suggestion to play but showing a 6 card minor. Responder raises 3m to 4m as a conditional slam suggestion ace ask. Opener's response to this is first step denial, but acceptance shows aces as if to a 4m+1 ask. We also use 2♠ MSS with only one minor if we want 4 card support to justify looking for slam, as we have no transfer breaks because transfers may be weak. Edit : if opener has 4 cards in both minors he bids 3♣. If responder follows this with 3♦ he must be slam thinking in single suited diamonds, needing 4 card support, so opener can raise diamonds for responder to ace ask, or convert to 3NT without four diamonds. On a related note, we use the 1NT 3M replies as GF both minors with void major.

2♠ MSS then kickback over a 4 card 3m, and over 2NT 3♠"pick a minor" then kickback. Stop in 5m if no good. Edit : I think a method that uses a "general slam invitation" is prone to opener misjudgement when you have an extreme hand such as this with 2 singletons.

I'm with Barmar on this one. While the idea of a relay-like bid is perfectly acceptable and almost normal when the bid is forcing, as responder I would frown upon Ken's sequence of 1♠ 1NT 2♣("natural", nonforcing) Pass if declarer is inventing a bid with a singleton, and likewise be horrified by whereagles's "slight underbid" of 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ Pass when the room is in the making 4♠.

It must depend on agreements, as surely if you play huge range NT (I don't) then there must be a way of differentiating between a bad 14 and a superb 17 (an effective 6 point range?). So I cannot make any sensible suggestions having started 1NT. If I had seen all my honours before I opened, the bidding might go 1♦ - 1♠, 3♠ - 4NT, 3keycards - 5NT, 6♣(cheaper of 1 or 2 Kings) - 6♦(got this one?), 7♠(yes).

If one of my partners bid 3♦ I would assume not solid diamonds, but something in that suit. 2NT would be a good diamond stop, and 2♥ 3 card support. If he bid 3♣ I would take his clubs to be better than this. The answer for me is a clear 2♠. This does not show an extra spade (we would open 1♠ on 5xx5, so while 2♠ would also be the bid with 5xx6, as the bid is forced I don't think it guarantees that. Not only does 2♠ show where the values are, but it allows room for 2NT from responder which can then be followed by 3♥ to describe the partial fit.

Maybe that's why I am not an expert; I never trust myself in a grand slam unless I can see 15 tricks.

If your keycard reply showed the number of keycards (out of 7, AK in each suit plus the trump Q), and you had all of them between you, then the next step could be the side Q ask. I have 4 step responses to the side Q ask; none, lower ranking, higher ranking, both. For this to work and keep below 6♥ on the wrong reply, this hypothetical responder hand would need to hear 6♣ or lower as the keycard response. Over 6♣, 6♦ is the side Q ask, and "none" puts you in the small slam, while the hoped-for 6NT lets you bid 7♥. I don't play this over exclusion myself, but have it as part of the 3-suited open continuations, where the bidding starts lower. If you played it over exclusion, you would probably want to have compacted responses with an assumption that when teller has opened he will have a minimum of 2 out of the 7 - he can't have 0, and 1 is unlikely in this case. Your step keycard responses here could then be 2or5, 3or6, 4or7. The bidding could go 5♣ 5♥ showing the 3 you need to make the complete set of 7, 5♠(side Q ask) 6♦(1, the higher ranking), 7♥.

Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?

I give the simple answer of one, but I can see that there is a case for playing 6 ace responses, as partner is likely to be {445}x shape, so two might be your agreement. Edit : If that is your agreement, I play a 3-suited method of ace asking that also counts the Q of trumps in the initial response, so that makes 3 key cards. Putting them all in one bid, when you know all 3 suits are important, gives room for a side suit Q ask when this can be important for a running suit and the 13th trick.

I think it makes sense to show length, so if I have not shown my length by a raise, then I play our normal hi/lo style. If partner knows how long I am then I have the luxury of showing whether I have an honour, but that is a lower priority. (But with Axx I start with the Ace against suit contracts.)

Yes

It seems playable, where Keri, to me, does not. OK, critics, what's the downside? Where do we find details of the other bids?

It would work very well if this was given as the procedure to be adopted. But rather than wafting around their noses, why not place your stop card right in front of them where they place their bids, leave it there, make your bid, then take it away after 10 seconds ? If this was the stated method of use I believe it would "stop" any problems.

I think this is a downside of a non-forcing NT. There is a good/bad side to any choice you make, as nothing is perfect. Yes, seriously, as a MP player, I would be extremely unhappy to be in 1NT making 90 or 120 when others are making 110 or 140 respectively. And while 1NT rather than 3M seems sensible, on the whole, 1NT compared to 2M is a big no-no. It seems a mistake to have one method for both IMPs and MPs. As a player with a limited memory (and partners ditto) I have to choose one suitable for the game I play most.

The lead of the 4 when playing attitude implies to me that it is probably a 5 card suit, so it's 50/50. However, I will feel silly if I lose the J to Q, and the return to A fells my K, whereas going up with K from doubleton, and losing, does not seem so bad. Purely psychological.

I use them after a major open, and a sequence such as 1x (2y) or 1♠ (2♦) is far more common than 1x (1y). I see no reason why they could be thought hard to work. We play double and all bids up to 2M as transfers, any strength if to new suits, and "transfer to 2M" is not a transfer per se, but shows a normal "full strength" raise. For us this is 7-10 3 card support, or 7/8 4 card, with stronger hands shown by 2NT (3 card) or cue (4card), and weaker hands shown by direct M bids if wanted. What's hard work about that? Rather than complete the 2M "transfer", of course opener may make a trial bid etc. Bids above 2M we play as natural (apart from 2NT and their suit) with a suit bid that could have been shown by transfer being a fit jump. Easy to use, and if you also play Rubens transfer advances, you can adopt essentially the same meanings, modified for overcall strength agreement (eg if you overcall on a 3 count, your raise bids need to be much stronger). If extending this to jump overcalls, then of course the support bid meanings would need to be modified, and there is the question of whether X is penalty or takeout or transfer.

I don't really understand this comment, as the method is nothing like Drury, and not a psyche control. If opener rebids anything other than 2♦ it is GF, and if responder is any hand other then the 11/12 3 card support it is GF. For example, 1♠ 2♣,2♦ 3♣ is GF with a club suit. Yes, a psyching opener could choose to pass 3♣, but if you were playing 2/1 without this convention the bidding would go 1♠ 2♣, pass. As this gets you out at a lower level, then basic 2/1 is more of a psyche control than this is. I am surprised your jurisdiction allows such blatant psyche control methods as basic 2/1. :)

By the expedient of putting it into the 2♣ bucket response. For me (with a forcing NT) this is a normal club GF, any hand with 16+ without a 5 card suit for a 2/1, or inv+ with 3 card support. After the 2♦ relay (on all but distributional hands) the 11/12 3 card support bids 2M which can be passed. (Any other rebid is GF.) OK, you may have a different meaning for the 2M rebid, but this is easy and useful.

Back to the original question, here in the north of England (that's north of Leeds, by the way :P ) SAYC is unheard of and, like in the Midlands, >95% play a variant of Acol. Strong 1♣ seems to be dying out, but then, so are we all. All the teaching of which I am aware is of the Acol promulgated by the EBU.

In my transfer walsh partnerships, after (1♣) X (p) we play system on, with X meaning that overcaller would have opened 1♣. Transfers work well for us. To answer your questions, there are no differences in this situation to normal twalsh (as we play it), so a jump to 2M is 6 card weak (max 8hcp), transfer completion raise is 6 card 9-12, and 1♠ is a relay with balanced or a minor. For Steve's weak 54xx or 45xx we use the 1NT bid. We can't show spades in a weak 44xx without a free run, as another X from overcaller would then be 3 card heart support, not a negative for spades. 1eyedjack : at the 1 level you have shown your major even if opener competes, and when you have a strong hand you show it in your continuation anyway. I see no downside here. Whereagles : one reason I like this is that there is absolutely no memory work. Completely untouched normal continuations. I agree with Zel that this is not ideal, as it would be advantageous to have advancer declare, but like you the memory overload for me that something different would entail is a deterrent. Maybe after a 1♣ open overcaller should give his response to an assumed 1♣ open by advancer !

Not necessarily true. I play 2♦ as negative (but"new-fashioned" negative : no Ace or King), and 3♦ is a relay for opener to clarify hand.

Beatrix, you will learn with experience that this is an extremely ill-judged comment. Zelandakh is one of the most helpful, knowledgeable and respected members of this forum. He is one of the best in understanding concepts, and showing how they can be used in different circumstances. You would do well to read his contributions and learn from him.

You will be using Word, so I probably can't help you as my libreoffice may have different font colours. FWIW I like : clubs = green ; position in the drop-down font colour array 3,1 (along,down starting with 1) html color (html can't speak English) "#008000" diamonds = orange2 ; 6,11 "#dc2300" hearts = chart11 ; 2,14 #ff6633" spades = light blue ; 2,2 "#0000ff" as these to me look the right intensity on both screen and paper, with a clear distinction between the diamond/heart colours. Any answerers with Word ? BTW if you are happy with a double fingered/handed shortcut key action, such as alt-q, then macros do give the colour, as has been described. Edit : html colours added, and these will be the same in all software

I have tried echognome's idea of assigning a macro for each coloured symbol to a key, and this is clean as it works with any trailing or leading characters, but I cannot assign them to useful keys. For example, as my keyboard has function keys in groups of four, it would be good to assign F1=spades, F2=hearts, F3=diamonds, F4=clubs. However, while I can do this for F2/3/4 I cannot reassign F1 from its meaning of "help". Similarly there is a reserved key in each of the other blocks of four. While I could use shift in conjunction with an F key, this is not convenient, and I'll stick to my 28 autocorrects.