fromageGB

As it is not forcing, I prefer to call it non-forcing 1NT. I believe the idea is that opener passes with a 12/13- count balanced hand, but will bid - who knows what - with 14, because responder could have an 11/12 count. Having said that, I would have thought when playing non-forcing you can still have an invitational 3-card support start with 2♣, and you will end in the major part score.

Playing with a partner with normal minor openings, I open 1♣ and over 1♠ rebid 1NT. This is no lie, because if you have no agreements on balanced or unbalanced openings and rebids, but have agreed that you do not open 1NT with a shortage, then by rebidding 1NT you are not excluding a 1NT opening strength when you do have a shortage. The wide range is unfortunate, but a 2♣ rebid would have an equally wide range, and 1NT is a better description of the hand, in my view.

1) 3♣ transfer to ♦ 2) no Assuming opener had a real reverse, I'd be quite excited by my hand. As Zel says, showing stops while you are still below 3NT is a good idea, so playing simple transfers after a reverse (2♠ natural forcing, 2NT and higher are transfers) I show my stop and then rebid 3♠ to emphasise the suit and lack of prime support. Over to partner. As to the West hand, I think if you have an unbalanced opener you should use it. For me it is a 1♦ open (shortage outside diamonds guaranteed if it is not a 6 card diamond suit) and then a 2NT rebid over a simple natural 1♠ response. This would show the shape (3-suited with singleton or void spade) and strength (17/18) of the hand.

I routinely downgrade a 4333 into 3-card support, and while the aces and kings are nice, the other 10 cards compensate. So I make whatever the 3-card game invitation is, in my case 2♣ then 2♠ over the 2♦ relay. Opener knows it is teams as well as I do, so there is no need for me to adjust because of that; we leave the push to the final bid. If partner wishes to make a try with 2NT, 3♠ or whatever, I accept and bid 4♠. If he passes, I'm happy.

It is difficult to play without agreements, but in their absence I would have thought all of 2♥ 3♥ and 4♥ were natural. If you have not agreed non-forcing free bids then 2♥ has to be the strongest of these, so therefore I would not bid that. However, I may not disagree with 90% of the club, because they may all play 2♥ as non-forcing.

It makes sense if playing the full movement meant 27 boards, and either the premises need vacating at the normal time afforded by 24 boards or the director was going out for a drink after the event with someone in the 8 table section.

Not convinced about using 1♦, but I use (and am very happy with) a similar idea of using X to say "I would have opened 1♣" with advancer making the normal transfer walsh responses. In effect, this gets you whatever a takeout double would achieve, but with whatever added definition you put into your twalsh structure. I have no restriction on major holdings though, although 2-4 are guaranteed in each major with twalsh. A balanced hand with nothing much often finds something useful opposite. I appreciate responder has redouble available, but while occasional bad scores can occur, good ones can, too.

I haven't come across it at bridge, but the expression "up to scratch" means "to an acceptable standard", so if somebody's performance is acceptable, particularly after a bad start, I can understand its use.

The redouble is never going to reach him. I don't play it, but redouble=spades seems good to me; while RHO probably has them too, it may enable partner to bid NT.

Or switch to an unbalanced diamond. When responder hears you have spade support he knows you have an excellent 3-suiter fit, or a fit in 2 suits and a cross ruff. Then he can bid 3♠.

Hey, let's not forget this is the N&B forum, and a weak 2 in diamonds is a simple and useful tool to have. It is a good default agreement.

This (the first part) is the argument for not having such a 2♣ or 2♦ bid, and I and many others agree with you whole-heartedly. But if you did have this, then it does not seriously risk getting too high when any opener non-jump rebid can be passed. Not sure about this. If I come across a 2♣ or 2♦ open that specifically means "I don't know where we are heading", I would be more likely to intervene. Your idea of a "contract uncertainty" split between two strong bids may be a better alternative than Benji, but then there are many contenders for the spare bid in a regular partnership if you have just one strong suit opening.

It is for such OP hands that transfer walsh responses were invented. But remove both minor kings from South, so it is a weak 44xx, and I just support double and miss the spade fit.

It might help if there was a hand and an auction ...

Not true. Say the cards 87654 are available, and of those 3rd seat plays 7 and declarer 5. They could be split 8764 and 5, or 76 and 854. In both cases there is only one card higher than 7 remaining.

Certainly, but I can't do it with a weak 44xx *. My 1NT shows a weak 54xx or 45xx, and without competition opener plays it in his 4 card or responder's 5 card suit, but after their 2♣ or 2♦ at least opener has a chance. We also play 2♣ as invitational or better with 44xx, as it is important to convey both strength and lengths for when they intervene (a double of 2♦ is for penalty) and play 2♦ by responder as 55xx any strength. I agree with you that showing both majors immediately is important. The other hands not covered are 45xx or 54xx invitational or better, and by showing the 5 card suit initially, and the other later (perhaps after interference), opener knows both exact length and strength. Edit : "weak" being defined as "less than invitational". * Perhaps I should change this so that after 1C (X) the 1NT shows weak both majors unspecified (ie {44} or {54}.)

If you are quoting this figure to a precision of 1 decimal place, presumably you need to have more than a 1000 samples generated?

Gnasher has to be right. Opener is balanced, doubler is balanced, responder is often balanced and wants to do nothing except let opener play the hand in 1NT. You need to get 4 suits and NT into 4 calls, so to combine 2 of them it seems sensible to have a relay that normally elicits 1NT and then allows clubs to be shown.

On the other hand, why confuse yourself with something that is completely different to what you would do without the X ? I don't see how this is better than XX = ♦, 1♦ = ♥, 1♥ = ♠, 1♠ = ♣, or better : 1♠ = relay (maybe NT orientated) and 1NT = ♣.

Forcing 1NT is not obligatory. I am teaching (in a very limited way) 2/1 with non-forcing. It has deficiencies, but different ones and arguably less severe.

If you are learning in a bridge class, you must learn whatever is taught, you have no choice. Switching to a 2/1 class if there is one would work better in the long run, but knowing SA is a good basis for learning other natural methods later. Besides, "system" is only part of what you are learning, you are learning leads, declarer play, defence, and many other things. Well, maybe you learn "defense". When you get a regular partner is the time to develop the bidding, but if the course hasn't finished by then it would still be worth completing your understanding of SA.

If you are playing Benji then I think by definition 2♣ is strong but not GF, while 2♦ is GF. Having decided to devote two whole opening bids to the strong hands, surely it does not make sense to have only a marginal difference between the two. This means that as 2♦ is GF, 2♣ should be 2 tricks short of game. Which in turn means that any 2♣ opener rebid that is not a jump can be passed, and the idea of a 2NT negative is wrong. But then I think the idea of devoting two bids to strong hands is wrong.

Essentially system on after interference, with the added benefit here of a redouble as a transfer to diamonds. So 1♠ is a relay that denies a 4 card major. Opener bids 1NT with the 12-14, 2♣ with 6 card, or otherwise whatever other descriptive bid he would make. With or without the X our 1♠ could be the start of showing a minor orientated hand, but the X removes the diamond holdings.

With your agreements, 4♣ has to say no stops, 4 cards, and denies 4 spades. It does not stop partner from converting to diamonds. If you had agreed to play this denial, it justifies what would otherwise be an overbid from responder.

With distributions round the table like this I am happy to act on the assumption that opener has more than 4 spades. If 4NT has not been agreed as something else, then I would think it would be ace asking. Our agreements are clear - it is ace asking. X is penalty, and we have no 2-suited takeout for the 5 level (not that this hand wants one).