fromageGB

We play count as you do, but haven't had a problem big enough to give up the benefits of learning the total distribution. With (say) K lead and Qxx on table we give count. Are you playing second highest from 4? If from the first card declarer plays partner can see that your play is consistent with 2nd from 4, then he will not continue. Of course you may not be 4, but if the bidding hasn't ruled out opener having the number of cards a doubleton from you would imply, then partner plays as if 4.

How many coughs does it take to show a (specifically) singleton (specifically) Q of (specifically) spades? If they can convey this information in a discreet way they must be geniuses.

and if it's forcing to game, is it really forcing to game, or if you decide to avoid 3NT and bid 4♣/♦ is that forcing?

Sorry, you are right as regards using a suction defence. My comments were relating to bidding 2♥ (natural) and having a minimum strength agreed, so that advancer may continue if suitable. Using suction, if you do bid 2♦ with a minimum agreed strength, for it to be useful method, the strength would be quite a bit weaker than the OP hand. I guess you cannot have an invitational sequence, but if you had advancer bidding a say game forcing 3♥, on general strength, it would need to be very strong, strong than the OP advancer. This deal would not find game, and the only deal that would would be where overcaller was minimal. Not very useful.

Thanks for the explanation. I am in the same strength range as their bid, but that does not stop me bidding when they open other than 1NT, and the contract is more likely to be ours than theirs. It shouldn't stop me now. If opponents having values deterred you from entering the bidding, then you will be passing far too often. The suit is an excellent suit. I would be delighted to open 1♥ on this hand, and as someone who opens a weak 2 on a 5 or 6 card suit, I would be happy to open 2♥ on this if I was a little weaker. Being stronger does not make the hand worse. If you need a suit better than 5 to the AKT to overcall, then your opponents get a remarkably free rein. I do sometimes overcall at the 2-level, and would like a suit of this quality to do so. Of course I risk a substantial penalty, but the risk of it being substantial is small. I can appreciate that you find the IMPS scenario more inhibiting, as it should be, but it is a question of degree, and I have not come unstuck too often to hold me back from bidding this. Of course, I recognise that Frances has considerably more experience and I am sure better judgement that I, but risk is an assessment that depends upon personal tolerance and is very difficult to quantify objectively. As to your last comment, I should add that I play against weak NT most of the time. Strong NT is rare, round here.

Definitely sit down with your partner and review your system BEFORE you book the flight. As a Brit, you first decide what you want to bid, then check the regulations, then go back and think again. When you get a legal but hampered system worked out, they then bring in new regulations which means you can now do what you originally wanted to do, but to revert that aspect now has impacts on the rest of the system. Actually it's great fun. The current regulations (as I write on 24th March 2014) are honestly a model of simplicity and clarity on the bidding side. I would much rather play here than in USA, from what I read. Let's hope that this year brings a restructuring of the mess on alerts and announcements.

If your goal is disruption, why should you not disrupt with a 2♥ bid? If your disruptive bid has a minimum strength associated, why should partner not make a constructive continuation if he has the values for that?

This needs justification! If it is so clear to you, perhaps you could explain for those of us suffering from blurred vision?

If you are wanting a standard default agreement for pick-up partners, then surely "ignore the double and play what bids or raises you have agreed" is the simplest and best. If you are wanting a "best practice" then I think it depends too much on what your methods are, as the style and philosophy you adopt for normal use should be reflected in use over the double. It probably needs multiple threads.

> A Benji 2♣ is classified as a strong bid, and all strong bids have to conform to ER25. Not quite true, as I read it. Any of 2♣ to 3♠ have to conform to ER25 and/OR various other choices, but none of those apply to this hand either.

If it is a pick-up or infrequent partner, then if I was playing Bergen I would assume it applies when passed, and also over a X. Surely you need partnership agreements to do anything else.

(a) Yes, I would bid 2♥ as soon as I heard the opening bid. (b) n/a © 2♥ 2NT 3NT (d) West did not bid 2♥ (e) Yes, because there is nothing in suction that says "don't bid". (f) Yes (g) No; I don't play suction over 1NT.

You are of course correct to believe as you do.

4th seat pre-empts are very effective, more so than in other seats. The opponents normally keep quiet.

Unless you are playing in a club that says you must play "standard English acol", there is no reason why you shouldn't play whatever you want. Most people seem to have just 2 calls for 2-suiters, 2NT=lowest 2 other suits, and cue bid = any other two. This seems playable, but you can get too high when looking for a suit that is not there. This is inevitable with any method where the suits are undefined. There is also a deficiency in that partner cannot make an immediate pre-empt to make it more difficult for opener. You should consider whether it is worth giving up a cheap natural jump bid in clubs, or diamonds if they opened 1♣. If (1♥) 3♣ is for you currently a strong bid, you could always bid 2♣. If it is a weak jump overcall, you could agree to lessen your standards for a simple 2♣ overcall. You then have available the method TyleE was suggesting, which may or may not be called Questem: Cue bid = top 2 suits 2NT = bottom 2 suits 3♣ (or 3♦ over 1♣) = the extreme 2 suits. I find this very effective. It is easy to remember, and the bid for the extreme 2 suits has the merit of being passable, as the bid is itself one of the two suits.

Legal even if you forget about the rule of 25 (if you knew it !), because you have enough points to open at the 1-level, and you have a clear 9 tricks. 8 would have been enough.

My 2NT does not ask for a singleton either, but I call it Jacoby-style 2NT in conversation to imply a game forcing 4 card support. Of course, when asked after an alert I don't name it, but describe it. I think if you play such a bid, you are likely to play splinters as well, and have agreements as to when one is used rather than the other. Strength is normally the distinction, I think, with 2NT stronger. However, many play splinters without a Jacoby-type 2NT, and I think if you could poll typical club members many more would play splinters than 2NT.

While 3NT = any void splinter (or 3NT = any singleton splinter) is a sensible way of distinguishing between voids or singletons, it is usually the case that opener's slam interest depends more on what suit is short, not the exact nature of the shortage. Thus I prefer to play 4♣♦♥ as a natural splinter with either singleton or void, as this is less revealing when for opener it is the wrong suit. There is room to ask whether singleton or void over 4♣♦, but not over ♥ which is why my alternative expressed in post #4 is for this suit alone to have its length distinguished by the 3NT response. This is certainly less revealing, but it may not be suitable if you want the space (if any) between the splinter suit and the trump suit to be used for other purposes.

I agree with Stephen, but more so. I think that playing matchpoints it is very poor to bypass a 4 card major when potentially partner is not strong enough to bid over 1NT.

Aren't you a bit stuck for a bid playing canapé when you have 13 cards in the same suit?

I'm afraid this is not the case. By our 5 axioms, all bids lie on the plane. Alerting regulations that are up in the air (other dimensions) have no relevance to real bids. But that's probably true anyway!

As the reply takes up so much space, it needs to have such a descriptive meaning that partner can always pick the right contract. That of jogs fits the bill for me, as long as it also denies 4 of the other major, precisely 2 card support, strength, no shape and poor in controls. A mini-splinter forcing to game is not a mini-splinter in my view. (If it is, then is your normal splinter slam-forcing?) Choice of games is no good either, as by the time you have chosen, you are beyond 3NT. You could alter aspects of the "well-defined" option, as it could be stronger, or different support length, but you need to keep it tightly defined and a meaning that is best removed from other sequences. Of course, playing a forcing NT gives you more options, as you can then also bid 1NT then 3NT. Edit : With a forcing NT, I have 1♠ 3NT as void heart splinter, and 4♥ is singleton splinter. 1♥ 3NT is a void diamond splinter. You could also do this with non-forcing 1NT if you put the jogs hand into a semi-artificial 2♣ reply. Knowing whether a splinter is singleton or void is useful.

Your bidding is as I would with a random partner. I don't think that 2♠ says "no other spot" ; partner may have just 4 spades and 4 or 5 diamonds, and while willing to give 1NT a try, prefers a better diamond fit to a poor spade fit.

Try being a bit more flexible. Use shapes other than a circle and there is no problem, or if you like circles, have "natural" as inside a circle and "artificial" as outside the same circle, with "conventional" as an overlapping circle.

I fully agree with the desire to split the ranges like this. This seems to be a problem for standard methods, including mine, in that say 17+ is a 3x rebid and 11-16 is the range for 2x. The latter is too wide for comfort.