fromageGB

I think in this forum we are not playing checkback, XYZ, or other uses of 2♣, so if 2♣ can be interpreted as natural (4144, 4054, so it can be) and is not 4th suit (it isn't), then it is natural. Being natural, it is weak, as a strong version can bid 3♣. That being the case, as North my choice of 3rd bid is 3♦.

What we need this day and age is convention cards on (electronic) tablets. At the beginning of the hand it is completely blank other than your names. When the opening bid is made the section of the card appears that describes the opening bid. You overcall, and your tablet then shows your actions after opponents open. They reply and on their tablet appears their actions after opponents overcall. All beautiful and logical, but then we need a way to blank out memories, so we start afresh and unknowing with the next hand.

Still on the tangent ... This seems somewhat inconsistent. So you can base your bids you are about to make only on what has already happened, not what might happen. Fair enough. In the course of bidding you can ask what alternative bids mean for something that has already occurred, but you cannot ask what future bids might be. This is consistent, perfect. By the same logic, though, we should not have a convention card at all, as these bids have not happened. You should not be allowed to know what they may be about to do in future circumstances. So something needs changing, somewhere. But who said the laws were logical? ;)

I play 15/16 NT, but if I was in that situation (or the equivalent for me of AQxxxx and a J) I would just transfer to diamonds. Yes, I agree with you that 2-under transfers have their uses, but at a cost of MSS. You can do the same in the majors (why not?) at a cost of Stayman. You always have to make a choice when there is a trade-off.

No , nothing exciting, we play 3♦ as a simple "pick a major" with 55xx or longer. The 3♣ transfer to diamonds is either weak, so opener will not transfer-break, or strong, in which case he will follow with a major shortage, or 3NT, or 4♥ ace ask if unilateral, or 4♦ cooperative ace ask in the Zelandakh style. We don't give opener the ability to "show interest and try for 3NT" because (a) responder can be very weak and (b) opener has only a 2 point range. (I don't like wide-ranging NTs.)

As this is the opponents' bidding, and there have been no alerts, they will have agreements and I don't think you can deduce what they are. Certainly opener will have 4 diamonds, but beyond that I would not like to guess. If they are playing the common idea of opening 1♣ with balanced hands not the right strength for 1NT then opener can easily have a 3343 shape. If responder bids 1♦ rather than a 4 card major (which can be shown later) when he is strong, then both parties can have a 4 card major - 2♦ is not the last call in this case. This means opener has at least 2 clubs and 4 diamonds, and no 5 card major. Strength could be up to 17. Responder has 4 diamonds and no 5 card major, and is at least a 6 count but unlimited.

I've given up on the penalty double, not because it never happens, but because it is a trade-off for having new suits both weak and stronger, with both a preemptive and an invitational major raise. So X and all suits up to the major as transfers. It's also simpler for us as we do the same a level lower, not playing a takeout double.

On the original point of minor suit stayman or 4 suit transfers, why not do both? I play 2♠ asking for 4 card minor, 2NT&3♣ as transfers to ♣&♦. Simple, and both are used weak or strong.

I voted 2♥ to keep in the spirit of the question, but in fact with one regular partner I bid 2♦ as a good raise to 2♥, and with another (both 1♥=5 card), X to show a good raise to 2♥. However, if 2♠ is passed round to me, I will protect with 3♥. Maybe I shouldn't at IMPS, but MP habits die hard.

Once, in one of my bored phases at work, I went round prising off and swapping over the key caps for M and N surreptitiously. It was surprising how long it took some people to notice.

Mangled terribly, partner

In that case you have no problem opening 1♣ on weak hands. In the first case you rebid 1NT as discussed, and over (2♠) X presumably he would not make that X unless strong enough for a 2NT from you. It is therefore invitational strength, so if you have a 14 with good spades you can bid 3NT. I see that over (1♠) you are distinguishing heart lengths. That certainly has benefits, because you can't show everything over "high" interference. However, with 2♦ to show 5 cards, you are not distinguishing between strengths, so presumably with invitational strength he will raise support to 3♥, but is stuck if you rebid 2NT. The approach I have taken with one partner is to make compromises in the other direction. We show the invitational strength (and whether 4 or 5 card) but we cannot distinguish between 4 and 5 card when weak.

With regard to the disagreement that needs resolution, I am sure most here will agree with you, as the strong hand will usually have a good continuation. What that is depends on your use of the simple completion, NT rebids, etc. What I would suggest is that you both think about using 1♣ with all balanced 12-14 hands. Are you opening 1♦ on a 2344 shape just in case LHO bids a spade? What do you do when opponents pass and partner has hearts? You seem to have lost the ability for him to show the length and the strength. Say a 9 count 5 card suit that leaves you probably struggling to find the right contract? For your problem hand where it goes 1♣ (1♠) X (p) then it obviously depends on your agreement of what partner's bids mean in this circumstance. If he is showing exactly 4 hearts, then I would be happy to rebid 1NT. Not having a stop in their suit is not a disaster at the 1-level and it may be the best contract, and you have not distorted your shown shape, as you would on your alternative bidding. If the X is 4 or 5 hearts less than invitational then I would rebid 2♥ on a 3 card suit. Partner is aware that this may be 3, so will not normally continue if he has 4. (We have other bids for invitational+ hands.)

I'm in the camp of opening all such balanced hands 1♣ regardless of being stronger or weaker, and regardless of minor length (eg even with 3253 shape). The benefits of the continuations make is easy to happily not show the lengths. The concomitant advantages of playing an unbalanced 1♦ and the inferences that gives in the bidding is a hidden benefit. Our method of coping with 4th seat interference is that (barring support for responder) a pass by opener shows the weaker range, whereas a bid other than 2♣ shows the stronger range.

I think the general idea playing 2/1 (I don't, over a minor opening, so someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that with a x4x5 shape if you decide the South hand is GF, you bid 2♣ first, the longer suit, then you have plenty of time to show the 4 card heart suit later. If you decide it is not GF, you are not allowed to bid 2♣ so must start with 1♥. Therefore when you follow by raising partner to 3♣ it is just invitational support for partner, and does not show 5 hearts (nor 5 clubs). If the hand had 5 hearts and 4 clubs, and was deemed a GF, then you start with 1♥ (not GF at first), but when partner rebids something like 2♦ you then bid 3♣ to show the shape and set a GF.

The bots were running on battery backup and couldn't keep pace.

Maybe a contrary opinion, but I do think you should go ahead with something on these lines. There does need to be greater awareness of the ethics of UI : a partner of mine spends a good deal of time trying to prevent needless questions in the course of bidding, rather than wait to the end, and it is a hard job. As to the detail, perhaps put in a disclaimer that these are just typical example situations, and that in all cases the director should be called, and he may reach a different conclusion depending on the actual circumstances.

Doing it this way you can then X as a two-way bid, showing 3 card support in a weaker or stronger hand. If you want the direct major raise to be "preemptive" (you haven't said how you use it), then you can use X to show a "full strength" raise to 2M. If you bid again, it shows an invitational+ hand. 2NT then retains its natural no-support meaning. I'm sure it helps in competition to know that partner has 3 card support (or not) rather than your "3-". Does this use of the double get caught by your "adds complexity" argument? Double to show support is no more complex than X to show spades, or an unspecified 4 card suit. If you were playing 5 card majors it is probably more important to show 3 card support after 1♥ (2m) than it is to look for a fit in a second suit, not showing immediately your fit for the first. If it goes 1♥ (2♣) X=4 spades (3♣) p (p) you look a bit silly going off in 3♥ when 3♣ goes off. But if partner had 6 hearts (he can't bid again over 3♣, when there is no support) you equally look a bit silly not bidding 3♥. Without the complexity of transfers, X can be used instead for 3 card support.

The point is that many people (now, not 30 years ago) reckon this is not a big enough hand to warrant a response. If 1♦ is a generic sort of hand with more diamonds than clubs, then if you do bid, you can easily find yourself in a hopeless contract. If partner expects an "X" count, and you have "Y", where X>Y, then you can get into a bad contract which damages partnership morale. For example, he rebids (maybe immediately, maybe delayed) 3NT on a 19 count 1354 shape, and your hand is useless. So you have to draw the line somewhere, and agree it with partner. Fine if you agree this is a normal hand with which to reply, but then he knows and will not go overboard.

Given the system description it seems a clear pass to me. The hand is crying out for partner to be playing "unbalanced diamond", when 1♠ is a wonderful reply.

As has been said, it depends on partnership agreements. If 1♥ is a "sound" style, and partner is prepared for this to be a 2♥ open, then there is no problem at all. Similarly if 1♥ can be "aggressive" then this is obviously too strong for 2♥.

I don't play 2♠ as showing 6, but if I did, this would be my choice. You have plenty of room to show 3 card heart support when partner bids 2NT or 3m. Show your shape when you can.

I think Free hit the mark when he said you need to bid constructively as it could be your hand. We have fun with a double of a nebulous club meaning "I would have opened that", and use normal transfer walsh continuations, which gets the benefits of those constructive takeouts. If they are using transfers, 4th seat can overcall a transfer with a transfer!

Of course it does, silly me. Isn't life complicated?

As nobody has torn holes in this yet, continuing with the bidding, presumably partner would not rebid 2NT but would bid 3m with a 6 card suit or a xx55 (and of course, opponents bid a major on these) so 1/3 of the 23% can be ruled out. That makes the chances of 4432 distribution 12%. Further, let us say that when opener has this shape opponents will bid 10% of the time, when he has 4 diamonds in a {4432} 30% of the time, and when he has 5 diamonds 50% of the time. (I know plenty of people who would not overcall with a 5 card major unless they have 10 hcp, or 12hcp over my 2♦.) So on these assumptions, the chance of partner having a 4432 with the bidding as it has been coming back to you becomes 16%. So 84% possibility of 4 diamonds or more. Do I get a coconut?