fromageGB

I think what we are concerned with here is the usefulness of having a shortage ask, which boils down to the probability of having a shortage when you have a weak 2, not the probability of having a weak 2 in the first place, so the point range doesn't come into it. Forget the multiplication by 9, that's confusing, caused by your confusion in post #21 where you multiplied 2.97 by 3. Keeping it simple, on your post #25's figures, corrected in manudude's post #29 for just 6 spades, rather than 6-13, the probability of a weak 2 in spades is 2.38%. Given this hand, a shortage in clubs is 0.57%. You could have a shortage in diamonds, and that is also 0.57%, and hearts is 0.57% too, so on the face of it the probability of any shortage is 0.57% * 3 = 1.71%. This is a bit of an overstatement, because the 0.57% that includes a shortage in clubs will also include rare hands that have a shortage in diamonds as well as a shortage in clubs (etc) so these are double-counted. So bring that shortage figure down from 1.71% to 1.68% (just a guess). The probability of a weak 2 in spades with any shortage = 1.68%. This means that the probability of a weak 2 in spades with no shortage = 2.38-1.68 = 0.70%, considerably smaller. So when you have a weak 2 (in spades or any suit, the suit does not matter), the chance of a shortage is 1.68/2.38 = about 70%. This means that a shortage ask is certainly to be considered, and can be useful. However, I believe it pales into insignificance compared with the trick taking difference effect of a wide point range, particularly a vast range such as 5 to 11. What might be useful is a combined method, where the 2NT inquiry commits to game opposite a top end, but depends on the right shortage opposite bottom end. eg 2♠ 2NT : 3♣/♦/♥ = shortage 5-8 hcp 3♠ = no shortage 5-8 3NT = AKQxxx no shortage 4♣/♦/♥ = shortage 9-11 4♠ = no shortage 9-11

I guess as 2♣ showed 3+, then the strength range from opener is pretty wide. I'm doubling for penalty. In the absence of that 2♥ bid I would bid 2♠ if it did not guarantee a 3 card suit, but haven't a clue what to do on these methods normally. What would the system call be?

I don't see a downside to 2♦. I am happy to bid a 5 card suit headed by AJ, with useful outside values. Partner is most unlikely to have the absolute nothing hand that would give me a minus 500, and it very usefully cuts out opener's 1♠ or 1NT bids.

OK, when you have a weak 2, you have a shortage considerably more than half the time, but knowing the shortage is surely less important than knowing the strength. A strong (relatively) hand will give more tricks than a weak hand, but the tricks you make by ruffing in the shortage suit are worth no more than the tricks you would make from length otherwise.

♥AKQJT9 were with RHO

I would happily go along with this approach. Seeing as the EBU seems anti-psyches (my perception, and that of others), I think it should go further and suggest that as psyches ARE a legal part of the game, recording is not public. And a space on the EBU convention card for likelihood of/attitude to psyching would be a help.

This is the crux. If you are not playing an artificial strong rebid after a forcing NT then certainly system is to blame. Gazzilli as I play it needs a 17 count, but the opener's 16 is better than some 17s, and qualifies. I, too, need a "good 7" to relay with 2♦, but again, with useful spades and the extra length in hearts, I would probably relay and then support hearts, accepting that it is game forcing, especially at IMPs.

You have a genuine spade suit, you have an opening hand. In normal methods it is therefore not a psyche, but a misleading distortion. I think this demonstrates that it is impossible to draw a non-arbitrary boundary between a psyche and a distortion, or adjustment. Playing a 15/16 1NT, if I downgrade a 15 count because of my feeling on the nature and position of honours and other high cards, and open 1♣, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid. Upgrading a 14 to open 1NT similarly, but "I" am sure 10 would be a psyche. But I would not like to draw a hard line.

Not "encouragement" in the literal sense, just suggesting that it can/should be done. Orange book 6C Reporting and Recording "6C1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may record any hand if he thinks fit." Sections 6 B and D go on at length about assigning colour categories, and give the strong impression that psyching is "BAD". The whole approach of recording is public (in a club setting), and the record in the register for all to see has an upsetting effect on a sensitive person to whom what other people think of her is more important than practically anything. While I have a thick skin, she doesn't, and many people think psyching is immoral, if not illegal.

I have a partner who gets so upset when I have psyched that she has banned me from psyching. It does detract from the enjoyment of making a misleading call and seeing a beneficial impact. Clubs are encouraged by the ebu to write your name in a special book when you do, and this gives a perceived stigma to both parts of a partnership. I think the game would be better if psyches were accepted as part of the game, with no classification into yellow, green, blue, pink, or whatever. There should be space on the convention card for frequency of psyches, eg never, rare, maybe once/session, common.

Playing with a random pick-up partner, 1♠. As the poster said, constructive. Not my methods, and twoforbridge's post seems a better method. Is it standard, though? I am not aware of it. Edit - I am not espousing any method, just offering my interpretation of the post. Personally I would bid 1♥ to show spades.

I would have thought that - provided you have a partner you are learning the same thing with - two over one would be the best way to start, whichever part of the world you play in. It seems simpler to me than others I know, more logical and defined by consistency - "rules" if you like. Even if others around you play something different, it is not that different that you cannot understand what they will be doing, and many things will be common. When the time comes, you would find enough common ground to be able to play with a 5 card major player of Acol, SA, SEF or whatever.

Allow me to translate : 1♣ - (1♦) - X The double shows both Majors, yes? . . Yes, 4-4 both majors. (1♥ and 1♠ would be 4 card) 1♣ - (2♦) - X Still BOTH Majors? . . Yes, assume 4-4 both majors, but it could also be 17+ hcp with an unspecified long suit. 1♣ - (2♦) - 2♠ ******* What is 2♠ here? Does it promise a 5 card suit? . . Yes Perfectly normal where I live.

There is no cue bidding method that gives me everything I want** in all possible hands, so you have to allow compromises. (** what I want - to know that no suit is "wide open" in a way that lets the initial "serious" bidder make a concluding bid that lets partner know all suits are "controlled" but that the serious bidder needs additional strength from partner to go on to ask for aces) You could use denial cue bidding, where the bidding progresses 3♠(non-serious) - 3NT(serious, denies spade control); 4♦(have spade and club control but not diamonds) - 4♦(have diamond control, but while no suit is wide open, I do need additional strength from you to justify a slam) [[ as opposed to an immediate 4♠ ace ask if the hand was a bit stronger]]. That works OK on this hand. But on other hands with this method you do not have the ability to ask for additional strength. Or you can use one-under denial cue bids, where bidding the one under trumps shows that all suits are controlled, with the possible exception of the cheapest one. This method goes 3♠(non-serious) - 4♦(needs help, has clubs and diamonds, no guarantee about the spades). This method always allows extra help to be asked for, but (as in this instance) sometimes leaves a control ambiguous. If your style was that the 2♥ rebid denied extra strength (say restricted to 12-14) rather than show 6 cards, then you do not need the "extra strength" aspect, and you would not use this method. "Fred's method" is OK on this hand, as it shows controls as well as asks for extra help (opener would ace ask/respond if he had extras, rather than bid 4♥) but it does no more than denial cue bidding does, and the latter method avoids disclosing controls when there is no slam in the air. So "Fred's method" is worse.

Thanks. I'm playing 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M as 4M-5oM (as I think you meant), and I have no other way of doing that. But what is the "smolen problem" that seems to have eluded me? I can see you may have other ways to bid that major hand and therefore may prefer to use this sequence for the minors.

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

Playing 5 card majors, I believe both minors natural is not the way to go. Not actually disasters, but pretty pointless. If a "natural" minor guarantees 3 cards in the suit, then it is not much use as a bid. I think you might as well play longer diamond and short club, or unbalanced diamond and balanced club.

No one seems to have bid 2♥, which is my choice. For me this is a takeout of hearts, and while I would prefer partner to bid 3♣ I will accept the rare 2♠.

Cut the snide comments; I am sure that the vast majority of users have agreements that tells when it applies. And if someone is considering playing something new to them, then I would encourage them to ask questions when they are not sure. Not commonly realised, this is very true. Kickback was invented before Rubens; he just extended the idea.

In which case you can never use MSS as a minor escape. I have used it to play in 4m, and would not like to give that up. Edit - if you are a 65 minor hand that is slamming, the method I posted works fine - just ace ask immediately over 3NT.

I agree that advancer should advance if he can, but even so, it is better for overcaller to bid as high as his hand warrants.

Same as lowerline, I play 3♠ minor suit stayman, and with this hand would ace ask (kickback) over a 4 card minor. Over 3NT (no 4 card minor) we play 4NT "pick a minor" if we wanted to play game, or 4♣ pass or correct to play in a part score, or on a stronger hand 4♦/♥ is ace asking in the minor beneath. For the stronger void hand, we have 4M as a slam invitation with void in that suit.

1M (overcall) : eg 1♠ (2♣) 2♦ = ♥ 1♣ (P,X,♦/♥) 1♠ in a transfer walsh context, though technically this is a relay where 1NT is the common reply. 1 any (1NT natural) : eg 1♣ (1NT) 2♦ = ♥

4 card majors, natural minors, mini NT, weak NT.

Never having been selected for my country.