fromageGB

Also you are perhaps overlooking the fact that the suction bidder does not just bid 1♦ but jumps to 2♦ or 3♦, to the extent of reasonable safety afforded by his hand. Advancer can pass, knowing that the initial bid has done it's job of taking away some of the opponents' useful space. Like Phil, I don't recall excessive poor scores using it over a strong club or an unspecified strong 2♣/♦, but I do recall many times that the opponents have not had the room to end up in the right contract. And, as a matchpoint person, I would be delighted by a big negative for every 9 gains.

I have never played Walsh but with Twalsh it depends on your continuation agreements. While I would be delighted to show the spades and then escape to diamonds, I cannot. I can show diamond game forcing after a major, I can show diamonds game invitational, but I cannot show diamonds weak. So on this hand I of course ignore the spades, and show diamonds weak.

Au contraire, mon ami. Phil was bidding 3♣ invitational, not 2NT = 3♣ to play. An edge to winston and fromage, you probably meant to write.

So you seem to be playing in 2NT with the 70% of the hands that do not have a spade fit. Perhaps your rose-tinted glasses also blotted out this figure : "2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%".

Perhaps you missed this rider : "But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit." Factor this in, and the probability is very poor.

I can't see any problem with Kokish, and making an obligatory 2♠ bid over 2♥, even if you have potential heart support. No need for relays at this point, just let opener bid 2NT (if that was his hand) then normal system on at this point. What IS needed, is a method of continuation after opener rebids 3♥. This must be game forcing, and must be single suited. Opener is specifying hearts as trumps. It will have a minimum of 6 cards. To my mind, the simplest thing to do is treat it just the same as you would in your 2/1 sequence when it goes something like 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 3♥. Hearts has been agreed at the 3 level in a game forcing situation. Just do what you would normally do there. For me it is "non serious 3NT" or serious cue bid. In the context of a 2♣ open and an unspecified "waiting" 2♦, non-serious 3NT shows no controls, and if you have a control you bid the cheapest. How you bid controls is whatever you normally do. Playing simply, 3NT is "non-serious" (no controls) and your first hand you bid 3♠ as your cheapest (only) control. Opener can then bid 3NT, and with nothing else to say you bid 4♥. The rest is up to partner. With your second hand you start 3♠ and then over 3NT bid 4♣ to show a control there as well. In the context of responding with a initial positive when a negative was available, I play "non-serious" with just one control (opener can cue to find it if he wants), and with 2 controls, bid the cheaper. Partner then knows I have another. There are different ways to cue bid, of course, but just use your normal methods.

I can't really see what the problem is, showing both minors after a 2♣ open, if you want to force to game. You need an agreement that if partner has immediate negative and positive responses available, a positive response is forcing to game. If you have an almost obligatory 2♦ reply you can treat it as negative : 2♣ negative 4♦ - a jump after a negative is forcing - something(4♥ for example) 5♣ 2♣ positive 3♦ something 4♣. No need for fancy systems. Having said that, I don't think the TylerE hand is game forcing, and I open 1♦.

Certainly you can, but I am sure the point is that a 5-2 fit is known (of course may be better), and that is usually better than a risky 2NT when the 5 card suit is in dummy. So look for the major, and if it is not there, your methods should allow you to play in 3 of the minor. As we have said previously.

duplicated

Herein lies the problem. 22hcp does not play perfectly in 2NT if that is where you are heading when receiving a reply like 2♦. And if opener fancies 3NT on his 16, 23hcp does not make a good 3NT. Even if partner has a heart stop, it is a probable lead, given the missing length, and you do not have sufficient combined strength to stop them regaining the lead. So if I take the gamble on trying 2♣, when it fails to come off I prefer the security of 3♣. My partner won't. With 4 spades, my partner would bid 3♠ or 4♠, not 3♣.

Give up on Microsoft. Works on ubuntu and chromium, but I am getting an error box message "playtrick TypeError: Cannot read property 'length' of undefined" when leading ♣10 at trick 5. On clicking "OK" I can continue by clicking on the next hand. Error repeats, but not on every trick. At trick 12 it did not continue after OK. Does this error message indicate anything?

Not obvious, but possible. Having recently given up on stayman then 2NT to play, I wouldn't invite. I prefer 1NT 2♣ 2♦/♥ 2NT transfer to 3♣ and pass. If opener has both majors he will bid 3♠ over 2NT.

Having started with a 2♥ positive, if opener bids a major, with support bid "non-serious 3NT" with just that one A or K, with 2 or more make a serious cue. With no support bid 2NT over 2♠ or 4♥ over 3♥. (If opener was 2-suited with hearts and minor he would bid minor first.)

Assuming 2♣ is not just an "acol 2" but at worst 22+ balanced or a trick short of game : 2♦ negative, denies an A, denies a K, no 6 card suit .. then 2♥ puppets 2♠, and 2♠ puppets 2NT unless spade support, opener's 3rd bid not forcing unless jump ; 2NT direct and 2NT via 2♥ both not forcing 2♥ positive, an ace or king, no 6 card suit .. then all is GF, except that opener may pass 4m raise, and 2♠ still puppets 2NT unless spade support 2♠ available for a specific hand type 2NT upwards = any strength transfer to a 6 card suit, but then rebid over completion is positive or has values. The initial transfer with a weak hand enables you to play in 3m rather than 4m if opener had a 2NT rebid, and might provide a game contract suit otherwise.

I expect you could use Raptor, but I do play (1♥) p p 1NT as natural. With a Raptor hand I may X or I may bid 1NT with no stop. Whatever you would do if you have never heard of Raptor.

I'm sure I had over a thousand posts before I learned to click on the yellowed bids :D

Zel, it would be good if you could expand the explanation of fixing the system in this regard. While 4♣ is a transfer to diamonds, what is the bid for transfer to clubs? Many people think that you want to offer a choice of games (3NT or 4M) when you have a 5 card major, and after a transfer to spades use 3NT for this. How do you transfer to clubs? 4♦ shows clubs? But then what continuations, as you are already rather high to ace ask if a suitable hand is shown, perhaps with 4♠ continuation.

I don't like the 2♠ gadget, but that is probably a comment on my lack of understanding of strong club systems, or other people's optimism. I can't see how this hand is worth anything more than 3♥. Yes, my diamonds are worth 2 tricks, but partner must be anticipating that to warrant a force to the 3 level. The rest of the hand is rubbish. My rule of thumb is a conservative 26 count when there are no ruffs.

I really like a "bad 2NT" agreement, so 3♥ would be my bid. Without that, I am not sure it is forcing, so don't risk it. Maybe I bid 3♣, and over partner's 3♦ bid 3♥, which has to be forcing. If he bids 3NT I rebid 4♦.

Partner has to have something good on this hand. 4m seems a bit committal, not helpful to partner. I pass and lead an obvious top spade for a probable penalty, as a minor game may be too risky.

If opener shows his exact distribution before responder decides on the contract, the defence will be delighted if opener is declarer. This is probably worth at least half a trick to them. Without knowing the method, it seems to me that this would be a more likely outcome than not. As opener is often the declarer, and this is usually desirable, most people would prefer to invert the process so that dummy describes his hand, and declarer's is unknown.

The idea is that 1NT shows a 4 card major and a 5+ card minor. Strength is up to you, whatever you would play for an overcall, but I play it with a 10 count minumum when in second position. This is how I play it, simply, - others may have different treatments. Over a minor (say 1♦) you therefore have 5+ of the other minor,♣, and the major is unknown. Partner bids 2♥ as pass or correct. 2♦ can be used as an artificial reply of some sort, maybe just a simple request to bid the major, or a game invitation in both majors. Over a major, you therefore have 4 of the known major, and 5+ of an unknown minor. Partner bids 2♣ as pass or correct. We use a reply of 2 of their major as game invitational in the known major. In the sandwich position, when they have bid both a minor and a major, it obviously shows 5+ and 4 in known suits. One of the advantages of Raptor is that other overcalls are better defined : if you bid a minor, you are denying 4 cards in the major; if you bid a major, you will have 5; if you X you are denying 5 of a minor. When in the sandwich position, a takeout double shows 5-5 in the other suits (edit - or 4-4) because you failed to Raptor, and with only a 4 card minor you may well have preferred to bid a 5 card major. I like the method when they have bid a major, and it is economical in space. We have abandoned it over a minor, partially because you are forcing to the 2-level to find the major, and therefore have to return to 3 of the minor if it is the wrong one, when the minor fit is not good. Additionally, we play transfer walsh, and over a 1♣ open, a double - meaning "I would have opened 1♣" - is better at finding fits and describing major lengths, with "system on" (eg (1♣) X (1♦) X shows hearts). We now play natural 1NT over a minor. Edit - over (1♦), if you were playing a 2♦ reply to 1NT as a request to bid the major, a 2♥ reply would probably be a natural unilateral declaration in hearts.

I think that may have been generous.

Further thought on the idea of using raptor and transfers including NT led me to think that there is an argument to swap bids around on case beneath 1NT, so that the transfer to 1NT showed the 4 cards in the other major (also denying 5 of the other minor). This enables partner with no 4 card support to complete the transfer to play in 1NT if he prefers this to bidding his minor. Raptor can be the transfer to their minor. This scheme then looks like : (1♦) p (1♥) ?? X = 5+ ♠ 1♠ = 4 ♠ {transfer to NT = 4 cards other major} 1NT = ♣ 2♣ = 4 ♠ + 5+ ♣ {transfer to their minor = raptor) 2♦ upwards = unspecified here. This also looks quite neat because when they have bid hearts (as here) your 1♠ to show 4 of them means that partner with an appalling hand can pass, denying opps the chance of punishment.

Taking the (1m) p (1M) case, you transfer to their MINOR to show 4 cards other major. This keeps the bidding lower, and if partner does not have the other major he can either bid naturally (so your 4 card transfer acts as a takeout double) or complete the transfer to their minor to either show a stop or show a weak balanced hand. In this scenario where you are beneath 1NT, you have a choice of transferring including or excluding no trumps. ie (1♣) p (1♥) 1♠ is transfer to 2♣ (ie 4 spades!), with 1NT being natural/raptor, or is it a transfer to 1NT (natural or raptor), with a 1NT bid being a transfer to 2♣?