fromageGB

If you have a bid that means "minimum with shortage" then this is probably a maximumum hand for that, but maybe not too good. Upgrade it for the aces, not as far as "strong with shortage" if you have such a reply. What you define as extra values depends on the meaning of the other alternative bids. If you have a 3-range min mid and max available, I'd class this as mid. One reason you should not upgrade much is that you have few tricks. First round controls are not sufficient to make slam. If you have a method with partner where you use point count and can describe the exact length of the short suit, such that one party can measure your total count against a "30 point pack", for example, then you should not upgrade at all.

But the OP never mentioned Walsh. If Walsh does not apply, and we can ignore many of the above replies, then with the agreed XYZ to cover invitational and game forcing hands, I do not see the need for 4th suit forcing. I would play 1♠ here as natural and weak, up to 10hcp, for partner to pass or bid - possibly 1NT. This is perhaps the answer to the 2nd question : "no". Certainly 2♣ does not show spades, although you can show spades on the next bid. If the "minor first" shows 10+ points, and 2♣ shows 11/12, then it seems to restrict the 1♠ to exactly 10. I would say a very odd combination of agreements.

Obviously they are well prepared for the imminent reversal of the earth's magnetic field.

The username huangyizhe sounds like it may be Chinese. Am I right in thinking mahjong is played anticlockwise? Perhaps bridge is, as well?

I assume the 54xx starts puppet 3♣ and these are your opener rebids. But then you have to also invert responder's continuations over 3♥, for right-siding, so that 3♠ is a transfer to 3NT while 3NT shows 5♠. You have turned your little change into a bigger change. Most natural bidders shirk at opener bidding 3NT with 5 hearts, and responder bidding 3NT with 5 spades.

I go with 1♠, playing 2/1. Not perfect, but we open with 5 card and 12hcp, 6 card and 11, or 7 card and 10. I can't see how a 2♦ replying partner will get it wrong when I continue 2♠, 3♠, 4♠ (if nothing better happens). He will know it could be a 10 count. (Those tens look good.) There is no reason to expect partner to have a 2/1 in diamonds so opening 1♠ we may end up in a good contract. I don't like 4♠, there's no indication initially that it will make, I don't have 8. I don't like 3♠ because I think it is a shade too good to preempt. I am reluctant to pass, but that is an alternative.

Using very simple methods, where 1♦ shows long diamonds or a shortage (singleton or void) outside diamonds, and a natural rebid of NT after partner bids your shortage in a 3-suiter, it goes 1♦ 1♠ 3NT 6♣, or if you fear you may be missing 2 aces, 4♣ Gerber, then 6♣. But I think I am the only one in the forum who rebids a natural NT, and the only one who admits to playing Gerber. :D

Yes. Your X asks him to bid a major. I don't think your double shows any great strength, so if partner makes a takeout X on 3424 12 count, what else can he say? Pass is not good. Would you you really double again, and what if East raised to 3♦?

I was abbreviating the policy definition in my original post. In full, it is "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit" The bid of 1♠ specifies the suit, and if it means "5+" the definition is not "either length or shortage in that suit". Edit : I also did not give the WBF rider : EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

Sure, but I think you are interpreting "shows either length or shortage" as meaning "shows something that falls in one of these categories" whereas I interpret it as "may be long, or may be short, and responder does not know which. It could be either". A normal opening, say a standard spade, shows length. It does not show shortage. So it does not show length or shortage in my interpretation.

I would have had a little think, reached towards the spades and hesitate without touching one, pull my hand back for another think, then call for the King. Two reasons, I like a bit of fun, and the King because I have read jlogic's answer.

How about 150% to North? The first 50% for not overcalling 2♣. You may have been stronger for this bid, but it seems fine to me. I don't understand the concept that you need a high-values hand to make an overcall. The next 100% for not protecting with 3♣. Edit - I did not consider an initial 3♣ as that is conventional for me, but if you play it as a weak jump overcall, then 200% to North, as that is perfect for this hand.

It's not that left or right has the significance, but the Ace. I would bid 3♥ also if the bidding was 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ as I prefer (given a choice) to bid a suit with a control rather than one without. If the bidding had gone Pass 1♠ 2♦, then I bid 3♦.

Don't agree. Length is defined as 3+. Shortage is 2 or fewer. The relevant HUM definition is "shows either length or shortage". So it seems clear that a 1+ or a 2+ is a HUM. However, the quoted WBF notice makes this an exception, being designated natural (if non-forcing), and this seems right to me. If your methods apply length or strength constraints to certain bids in any natural system, then it is inevitable that other bids are affected. It does not make then unnatural, or artificial. For a bid to be artificial, there has to be more to its definition than "the definitions of other bids prevent me from opening anything else". My own definitions of length and shortage are not those of the WBF, but I agree with the "natural" concept. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be alerted or announced.

These are interesting problems, if you look at the replies. So far we have had Q1 One vote each for X, 5♠, 5♥ Q2 One vote each for 4♥, 6NT, 4♦ !!! We need more votes to get a consensus.

If you are playing this method, then I think you need to have a separate bid, perhaps 3♦ as invitation in both. I would say the risk of going one off when you have a rare double invitation is less than the loss of being able to invite in the more common hearts alone. Perhaps 2NT or 3♣,with transfer replies so that the 1NT opener is on lead.

Q1 : 5♥. The hand is looking very good in spades, and I would not discourage partner from attempting 6, unlikely though that may be. 3♥ initially may have been better, to give partner a chance to show strength. Q2 : I think you are saying North has a good, strong hand. Definitely 4♦. Q3 : with the others, 3NT.

Just to explain my "other" to Q1, I play transfers after the overcall, up to 2♥. So 2♦ is a good raise to 2♥. 2♥ would be weaker. You may have other methods for this, maybe X, but I don't think this hand good enough for a stronger bid.

For me, 1♥ 2♦(GF), ♦3 3♥ is choice of games so on this hand I am happy as South with a club singleton to rebid 3♦. Then North ace asks. 1♥ 2♦(GF 5+) 3♦ 4♥(ace ask) 4♠(one or three of five) 6♦ As South opened with no more than one ace, North takes a reasonable gamble on having ♥K and being able to set up hearts if needed for club discards. Failing that, discarding on a spade may do, or there may be no club losers. But it is a gamble. It is not sufficient for North to bid 4♦ because he cannot expect South to be able to see 12/13 tricks if his hearts are not solid. Playing in diamonds, North has to ask. Easier if South rebids 2♥: 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠("non-serious 3NT") 4♣(serious intent, asking for a control in diamonds) 4♦(A or K - never singleton or void in partner's suit) 4♠(ace ask) 4NT(one or three) 5♣(♥Q?) 5NT(yes,and ♠K) 6♥ edit - but this, too, is risky as Cyberyeti points out. Not a perfect slam hand, but I think the North hand too good not to try.

You have a 9 count, partner has a 12 count, you have 3 diamonds in support and jump to the 3-level - and he may have only 4 diamonds? I never did understand Acol.

Should HUMs and brown stickers be banned by the authorities? It seems to me that it never works, people burying their heads in the sand and attempting to adhere to a frozen concept, rather than letting it evolve. By all means have a system of rules; rules define a game and while they may change, they should not prevent different approaches. It is as if the national football (soccer) authorities said "you must play a 253 formation" in 1890 and time stopped still. Nobody was allowed to try 442 or 4231, or develop the game to where it is now.

I fully agree with this, but to separate by strength or by void/singleton with simple 4-level splinters for 2 of the suits you can simply use the next step as a singleton or void ask (or strength ask) prior to ace asking. It is only the suit beneath trumps that needs the split in the splinter bid itself. This is my 3NT usage as in #14. {Edit : so my 1♠ 3NT is a heart void}

For me a balanced game hand with 3 card support starts 2♣ (multipurpose GF(except invitational when responder rebids 2♥), and with normal hands opener rebids 2♦ relay), then rebids 3♥. 1♥ 3NT is 11/12 splinter with void in diamonds (4♦ would be singleton, using both bids to make ace asking easier).

Deleted, response problems

Deleted, response problems