fromageGB

I have now recorded a libreoffice macro so that I can type something like "bid 3;h and lead the ;c5" and then when the document is completed just run the one macro to convert everything to coloured suit symbols, but I find I don't like this approach. I like the suit symbols and colours to appear as I type, because it is much clearer to read as you are composing.

Libreoffice is the same. If I do want to write about about play, such as "play the ♥5" it comes out as "play the ;h5" (yes, I also have ;h for when there there is no preceding number, but use ; rather than ! as it saves using the shift key) so what I do is type "play the ;h 5" which appears as "play the ♥ 5" and then go back to delete the space. I think to do this properly without 52 autocorrect entries would require a macro. I'll experiment. If I follow the the to-be-replaced entry immediately by a punctuation character, interestingly the punctuation itself (as well as any subsequent character) reverts to the default writing colour. What we need is a keyboard with a non-spacing invisible punctuation character! Incidentally, 3;h does not substitute, which is why I have the 28 autocorrects, as I use those frequently.

Rather than use an additional character when writing, such as having to type 3!h for example, I find it easiest to have 3h and the other 27 combinations put separately into autocorrect. Now I can just type 1s 2c etc as normal, and it comes out in colour as 1♠ 2♣. (Libreoffice, but I'm sure it would be the same in word.)

If a non-American may reply, then I think the point of it (if you have the bids not otherwise utilised) is that if the 5-3 major fit is found, it is better played by the hand that has longer minors to receive the lead.

Thanks cyber, it's good to hear of ideas that might not be considered as standard, makes you pick on holes in your own methods and try to plug them. I have no MSS after stayman, and while I play strong NT and smolen, I'll suggest we use a 3♦ rebid for MSS, as this is going spare at the moment for us. It certainly helps to hear of other takes and ideas around a topic. A saner response than the raw numeric requested, and indeed the poster surely welcomed such a reply by the inclusion of a "something else" category that obviously needs explanation if chosen.

The question implies this is undiscussed. If it had been, there is no question : if you were playing Kaplan inversion you would have discussed this. So it is therefore not natural. A NT continuation would be natural, so therefore it is either heart related or minor related. I rule out the heart-related, because undiscussed, partner can simply raise to invite game. Regardless, I bid hearts with 7 cards, but assume I have just 6. You have presumably discussed what 1♥ 3m means, and also 1♥ 1NT 2♥ 3m, so if they are both natural, you probably have one of those as weak and one invitational. In this case I can see no meaning for 2♠ as anything other than both minors, opener taking his choice. An unusual 2NT where here 2NT would be usual, and 2♠ is decidedly unusual. Just pick your minor. If you were playing 1♥ 3m as heart support of some sort, then the other interpretation of 2♠ would be a single suited minor, weak or invitational, whichever a 3m rebid would not be. This is in addition to the "both minors" interpretation. My opener rebid must then try to cater for both interpretations. (A) If the "unbiddable minor holding" was weak, then I could bid 3♣ for pass or correct, but equally I could bid 2NT and let partner play. When you incorporate the possibility of it being both minors, then with that I would want 3♣ to be preference. So my eventual opener rebid would be 2NT if I have a preference for diamonds in the 2-suited possibility, and 3♣ otherwise. (B) If the "unbiddable minor holding" was invitational, I would do the same if I chose to decline a game invitation. However, I cannot do that if I would accept a game invitation, so with spades covered I bid 3♠, and otherwise bid 3♦. Play with me at your peril! Luckily you will be discussing this afterwards, so will not have to agonise again.

True, but maybe "systems on" does not have a minor takeout. The combination of "system on" and "delayed system on" perhaps gives the best of all worlds, eg immediate 2♣ with a 4 card spade suit, and pass then 2♠ with a 5 card, if you have no specific counter to a non-penalty double. Edit : Of course you could bid an immediate 2♥ transfer with 5 spades, but perhaps you were hoping to penalise a minor if they bid one, so passed first.

This approach of starting transfers at the cue bid seems to have some problems I would not rather have :- you have only one way to bid 2M as support, while playing transfers starting with X gives you two ways to bid 2M. I think this is a nice feature. one reason for having low-level transfers is that you can transfer and then bid again constructively. There is no room for this if the transfer is at the high level. if you play new suit forcing then the only way to play in your suit is to go a level higher. If you play new suit not forcing then the only way you can force is to bid at a higher level than the transfer would be, and lose room for constructive bidding. (Example 1♠ (2♦) X transfer (p) 2♥ (p) bid again, as opposed to whatever your prior methods were, such as 1♠ (2♦) X may be strength (p) 2♠ (p) 3♥)

Yes, I think trying to find a 4 card major fit when partner has at least 5 in the other major is not as useful as other possibilities, so I lose this : but that is why I play it only after a major open, not a minor. And don't forget, if he starts with spades, he will be able to bid hearts himself next if he has 4. I don't do it at the 3-level, that 3M-1 bid would be a jump fit for me. Of course he can invite after a transfer to the 2-level, he does not complete the transfer, but makes a trial bid. Tough. Whatever you play, you lose other things.

I've been using transfer responses for some time, quite happily, when partner opens a major. For 1♥ (1♠) I prefer X to be transfer to 1NT, or balanced misfit, and 1NT as transfer to ♣, ie transfers through NT rather than transfers around NT. It has the advantage of having overcaller on lead to lead away from his suit, and I am not aware of a disadvantage. NT can be raised, or course, giving you back your lost 2NT bid. It doesn't seem messy or pro at all, and it is the same simple thing in all cases : transfers start with X and go up to opener's major transfer to 2M = good (normal) 3 card raise to 2M (ie 7-10) or 4 card raise 7/8 (which will go on to 3M in competition) 2M = weaker 3 card raise, ie up to 6 count 2NT = 3 card support invitational or better (ie 11+) cue bid = 4+ card support invitational or better (ie 9+) 3M = 4 card up to 6 count 4M = 5 card up to 6 count bids between opener and overcaller suit = natural forcing (fit non-jump if passed hand) new suits higher than cue = fit jump It's good to distinguish both length and strength of support. Transfers to new suits of course may be weak or strong, so when such suits are available it also solves the problem of choosing one or the other. This is obviously simpler than some methods, but seems sufficient to me When it is a minor open, I don't want support distinctions, and want to show 4 card majors, so just play standard.

Second hand on Amazon for £51 in UK. Perhaps it's printed on gold leaf.

Yes, I disagree. You are putting I/A players down. I/A means looking for new ideas and better treatments, so this is the correct forum. If my feeling on what I/A means is wrong, then there needs to be a new forum between I/A and expert. The expert forum is deemed out of bounds to us by experts, so if we can't discuss ideas in this forum, where is there?

Or if you play transfer advances, bidding 2♣ again works. This is a transfer to diamonds; you rebid 2♥ suggesting some support, but not good, and a reasonable hand that does not mind if partner bids on. The trouble with 2♣ as showing heart support is that it deflects from the possible alternative contracts in diamonds or NT.

Yes, in your first sequence the method does give you the ability to make a reverse into hearts and actually play in 2♥, but in the far more common case of having a typical 3 card support double type of hand, you are committing to 2♠. Playing a normal support double, partner with just 4 cards in spades can choose to play in 2♦. This seems to be the winning argument.

2NT I think this (coupled with the earlier 2♣) describes the hand, in terms of both distribution and strength. I am not delighted to play in diamonds on a mere preference, and we are as likely to make as many tricks in NT. Partner will hopefully have passive stops in hearts, and I think this is a better contract. It also allows partner the opportunity to bid game with a better than minimum hand. 2♠ I would take as merely an unassuming cue bid (in the literal sense) and while forcing, does not describe the hand. Pass, while possibly being the only positive score, seems to be aiming too low.

That would be a wrong inference; what would you cue with Qxxx, QJxx, QJx, Ax ?

With a natural diamond open, 2♣. You want to imply you may not have anything in hearts, and that you are not balanced. With 1♦ showing an unbalanced hand, 1NT for us shows a 3-suiter short in partner's suit : perfect.

When you have hearts over a 1♦ open then there is no room for a trial over a cue of 3♦, so that bid does have to be tightly defined. However, if you do play that all non-jump advances from opener's suit through the one beneath partner's are transfers, then you do actually have 4 ways to get to 3M, so they can be as tight as you like : transfer to 2M then bid 3cue transfer to 2M then raise to 3M jump cue bid 3M directly I suppose logically the weaker hands need to bid more pre-emptively so you should allocate the strength ranges in this sequence, strongest first. For those playing transfers, does a simple transfer then cue have any particular meaning for you?

Picking up on swr103's point, a good time to look for (or consider) a moysian is when you are ruffing in the short trump hand. On this deal it is obviously the wrong way round, playing in hearts, hence 1eyedjack's comment that a moysian in diamonds is better.

We are talking random partners, and obviously no agreements such as non-serious 3NT. I would simply assume that 2♠ could be weak or strong, so 3♠ while not limiting the hand, does not imply slam interest. As opener I would cue with extra strength, and 4♠ without. Your partner's method is obviously how he normally bids, but I personally would not assume that dubious style. Equally, he should not assume that you play his style and are denying all controls (if that was his assumption).

I'm with kenberg on the jump cue (eg 3m) after partner's major overcall as being game invitational or better with 4 card support, but I play the simple cue as a transfer. With the constructive (if that means weaker than game invitational) 4 card raise I just bid 3M. One of the benefits of transfers in this position is that it also gives you 2 ways to raise to 2M. But I am sure this is not a majority view. To answer the OP's question of "points", assuming you have a flattish hand you can agree the strength depends to some extent on what you would usually expect for a minimum overcall. If you agree that you would typically expect a 10 count to overcall on a 5332 shape, then your range for the game invitational cue could be 11-13, and a direct 3M therefore weaker. As this still leaves a wide range of values with which you would want to bid 3M, the 4 card support bids I play with a regular partner are direct 3M up to 8hcp, invitational cue (in our case at the 3-level) 11+(unlimited), and with 9/10 we transfer to 2M then raise to 3M. I do agree with the OP's concern over expected strength, because unless you have an understanding here, it is difficult for partner to know where to go. Having 3 ways to get to 3M on normal hands makes judgement easier. If you often overcall on a 7 count, it may make sense to increase the strength for the raises.

I play support doubles with both weak and strong NT, and see no problem with either. Of course you need an understanding/agreement of whether or not it could be minimum opening strength, but I find it useful with both types. The trouble I have with the standard definition "3 cards" is that sometimes it may be more, sometimes fewer. Yes, 3 cards in the simple case 1♦ (p) 1♠ (2♥), because with 4 card support you bid 2♠, but if you also play it over a jump, such as 1♦ (p) 1♠ (3♥), then for me the support double shows 4 card support. You can also use it when LHO has bid, eg 1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (2♥) and then this could be 2 card support, because if you had 3, you would be happy to bid 2♠ if responder is showing 5. On this definition, it is not a specific length, but "one fewer than the length you would be happy to raise with directly". This then brings into play the question that if you would be normally happy to compete to a level one higher than normal when your suit is lower ranking than theirs, does the support double show that length or does it show one fewer? However you play it, I think you need to discuss it with partner first. Not so easy otherwise.

Last time I played, I got round in 72 - but I don't know what par was for the 9 hole pitch and putt. ;)

This doesn't seem to be an argument for teaching standard american, as isn't this the same in any natural system? Does knowing SA help you any more that knowing acol or SEF? Bidding after passing, or after an overcall, can and should be taught in conjunction with any basic system.

If you agree that rebidding 2♣ could also have the same range, then this has exactly the same problem. Opening 1NT with a shortage solves the strength problem, but not many have this agreement. Or they don't disclose it.