fromageGB

This is the right forum, and there is nothing wrong with I/A players like myself using voidwood etc. As to the situation, if I was playing these methods then 5NT would be K asking if there was no prior Q ask. K asking is used to see if grand is there, and missing the Q you would not want to be in grand. Ergo, 5NT after Q ask is not K ask, but something else. With no agreement, I would take it as to play. Especially at matchpoints.

I don't think you have any chance of 1♥ being passed out when you have this sort of hand, not strong, and so distributional, therefore I prefer 1♥ to 2♣. The problem with 2♣ when you have a hand like this is that you may find it very difficult to show both suits later. Permute the other 3 hands and you may find the bidding goes 2♣ (2♠) p (4♠) and then what? At least if you open 1♥ you can rebid ♦, at the 5 level if necessary. Better to keep the 2♣ bid for hands with overall strength and less distribution.

Hey, some bridge clubs are free, if you go online!

Very good points, Mike, and I am sure many would say double is penalty. However, I do have a partner who likes things very simple, and won't countenance nuances depending on the circumstances. We have a meta-rule that a double underneath the opponent's bid is takeout. This is very useful in many circumstances, and probably occurs more often played that way than as penalty. This hand is an example.

As this is a request for better methods, how would you find out about the diamond holding when going for a slam in hearts?

I double for takeout if it is, ie sitting under the NT. If partner bids ♣ I convert to ♦ and hence imply ♥. Don't fancy defending.

I like it, I'm getting good at "almost made it".

I don't often want to compete to the 3-level with a 4-4 fit over a minor, and think 3♥ would therefore be 4 card suit game invitational strength. The double? On the face of it, 2 good possible meanings - game values with 4 spades, and maybe just less than game values not necessarily holding spades, ie penalty. If 2♣ promised a major, then I would think the former has more weight, otherwise the latter.

If partner is weak, as the opponents are likely to be bidding or doubling, I think pass is best, hoping that you can bid 2♦ next time round. If partner has a strong hand and you have no agreements on the meaning of 1♣ 1♦ 2NT 3♦, then that would be better if partner understands it as a weak takeout, but you would be badly placed if he bids the equally likely 3♣ or 2♥.

Don't think I have come across the idea. You mean a takeout X when you have a 2 count 1444 with singleton in their suit? I can't see why you would want to take it out to a poor fit possibly at the 3 level. Maybe there are better uses for a X.

Expensive bridge in your neck of the woods, unless the £ has risen dramatically. £2 to £3 here. Love the hands where we open 1♣ and we get to use some of our more unusual transfer stuff. It's fun. Hate it when opps can't see that transfers over 1♣ when balanced is exactly the same principle as them transferring over 1NT, and think it shouldn't be allowed.

Too many questions in one post - I suggest you separate the circumstances out, and tell us what methods you are playing, what 1♣ and the replies mean.

One the the good things about a forum is that you can follow a discussion. Maybe you won't read this, but it seems to me that any losers you have in spades and diamonds are likely to be losers whatever contract you play. So on that basis, as both are the 4 level, there seems nothing to gain.

I am attempting to decipher the bidding. If 3NT is natural, and not a spade cue when 3♠ would be the "serious 3NT" when hearts are trumps, then there is no good fit. North has black suit lengths equivalent to South's reds, and the strength to go with it, more strength than South.

I think the problem with 3♠ is that it gives an easy X to opener to invite a 4♠ bid. 4♥ immediately removes that option. Having said that, if partner overcalls on much less than a full opening strength, I would be happier with 3♥.

Cyberyeti is right to raise the possibility of kickback, because this is the IA forum, and if you are playing it 4NT can be spades voidwood. But go back a bit. I take it the 2♦ limited opener's hand to say less than 17, so what is 3♥? If responder had 3 hearts he could just bid game or ace ask. If responder has 3 hearts, 3♥ is therefore inviting a cue bid, and 3♠ is the standout continuation on the hand. That wasn't bid, suggesting that cue bidding is not in the curriculum. So probably 3♥ shows just a doubleton, in case opener had 6, and 3NT is a suggestion to play. Therefore 4NT is inviting 6NT if opener has a 15 count. If I was in this situation I pass.

I'm at a loss to see what the problem is. I think we need to know what your replies of 2♠, 2NT and 3♣ used to mean before MSS, how you want to play MSS, and what causes a problem. If you played 2-under minor transfers, are you happy switching to 1-under?

I'm going for 1♠. Let partner bid 1NT if he wants to. I would have thought that having this as 4xx5 rather than 4xxx would be a partnership agreement rather than the expectation. Mind you, I'm all in favour of finding 4-4 major fits rather than miss them and play in 1NT. I'd rather look for them, then play in 1NT if not there. The problem with checkback is that partner is probably more likely than not to be less than invitational.

I think it depends on whether you are playing a wide-ranging 1NT rebid (eg 12-16). If you are, I think it is probably better to open 1♣, rebidding 1NT over major, but if a 1NT rebid is 15/16, you are a poor 14 for that, so open 1NT. The advantage of 1♣ is the possibility of everyone passing, or partner bidding a minor.

I'm an adherent of the school that says opener rebids his major (after a 2 over 1 GF) unless strongish (say 15+ hcp) and this does not show additional length. Without that strength you don't bypass 2M to support, bid NT, or a new suit. A friend wants to play that a bid of 2M shows a 6 card suit, and without that you make a natural rebid such as 2NT or 3m. Looking for help here - how does that work? I can see it working if you open 1NT with a 5 card major, so a 2NT rebid after a 2/1 can be made with a 12-14, or with an 18+ that will take further action when responder signs off in game, but this question is in the context of always opening 1M on a reasonable 5 card major, regardless of strength. In this case, how does the bidding handle the portrayal of strength? I can see the situation arising that you end in 3NT with both parties having a 16 count, and neither feeling strong enough to take unilateral action. Advice welcome.

Not with you here. I can't imagine bidding game after making a game try which is denied. Why do that? My choice is a game try (say 3♦) and pass 3♥ if that is partner's decision. Surely this is better than 4♣? (I would argue that it is better than 4♥, too.)

Why did 4♠ score better than 4♦X ?

I pass and vote diamonds to make this not unanimous. The argument is that opener may have initially mis-sorted his hand, and really does have longer diamonds. Why else would he bid this way? I don't like the idea of playing in spades and starting with diamond ruffs.

Whoops - sorry, I take it all back. I wasn't having one of my better days! I would hope the forum does take a bid of the fourth suit as forcing, and therefore both stronger than it might otherwise be, and possibly uncertain of direction. Over 1NT, 2♣ therefore asks for clarification and further description of responder's hand. Thanks for the correction, and my apologies for misleading anyone.

At MPs I pass. Partner can have many hands that won't make game, and I am not playing long suit game tries. After post #4, I make whatever game try I have.