fromageGB

If double and bids are transfers, then transfer to their major can show 4 OM, while transfer to OM shows 5+. This can save a level, as well as giving you a length distinction. Re side note - I hate having bids that never come up, so abandoned a natural NT in sandwich position and switched to Raptor, finding it much more fun as well as useful. The canape jump sounds like pushing to 3m unnecessarily. Combining these two ideas, you can't distinguish between a weak takeout and a strong one in the first bid, but does this matter? While game for you is possible, it may be pretty rare. Using transfers, you can always show a strong hand on your second bid if you want to.

It isn't, of course, if a splinter can be any strength. For some, splinters are split into different ranges to help in the slam assessment. For me in particular, a splinter is limited to a hand without the hcp for a 2NT bid, which is the mechanism we use to show a "strong splinter". You can draw the line as you wish. I would bid 4♣ with Axxx Kxx KJxxx x and 2NT with Axxx KQx KJxxx x. Other people have different bids for weak and strong splinters.

The topic of "someone in control" has been discussed recently. My view is that there are some auctions (of which this is one) that start off with both hands equal, neither in control, describing their hands. After 1♠ 2NT neither is in control. One has expressed 12 hcp, 5 cards, the other 13 hcp, 4 cards. Both pretty equal. They then make a further bid: 3♣ (= no shortage, no expression of strength); 3♠ (= club shortage, no expression of strength). Now opener can refuse control by signing off with non-serious 3NT, or assume temporary control (which may be usurped) by making a serious cue bid. After cue showing or denial, if opener bids 4♥ this is a relinquishment, expressing slam interest with additional values, but denying a powerhouse. Now responder assumes control by ace asking or another continuation, or by signing off in game. Bidding, in my view, is an exchange, sometimes a conversation between equals, until one party has enough information to come off the fence. Often, of course, you are off the fence with the first bid. But not this sequence.

I think you miss the point. After 2NT I show the club shortage with a 3♠ bid and NOBODY is in control. I have described my hand. Partner may expect a couple more in hcp, but I think he will be compensated with what I have. Certainly, if my club shortage made his hand better, HE can take control.

Once I show a GF with a club shortage, he is going to cue in diamonds even more than he will over a splinter. In fact, dare I suggest that he will NOT cue over a splinter?

My immediate reaction was 4♣, but before I pull the card out I change my mind. While 11 hcp is OK for a splinter, in my book A AK is just too much. I'm upgrading this to 2NT, as I rebid 3♠ to show a club shortage next. That gives much more room to investigate slam, and if partner makes a cooperative try after cue bidding, I can decline.

I always thought another standard, unmentioned so far, is that if opener's rebid is 2♠ it is a puppet forcing 2NT, to always allow room for opener to show a 2-suited hand. Depending on methods, "forcing" may be not literally true. I too break the 2♥ and 2♠ puppet when I have a 6+ card suit to transfer to. [Vampyr/barmar - please allow me to end a sentence with a preposition. This comes in my list of accepted rule-breaking.]

Surely the best use of NT ranges depends on what your initial response to 2♣ shows. You really want the 2NT and Kokish 2NT (ie 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT) rebids to be non-forcing when responder has a yarborough, while if you play 2♦ as some sort of positive (ie >x hcp) then you can afford to have the Kokish 2NT as 2 strength ranges (or initially unlimited), as it is game forcing (and depending on the value of x, also the direct 2NT). My preference is 2♦ as the weakest reply, with both subsequent 2NTs non-forcing, and am happy with a 3NT 26/27 rebid, or a wider 25-27 after a positive 2♥ reply. As you are normally safe for a higher contract with a positive and a 3NT, we play the same methods as over 2NT (puppet, transfers, minor suit stayman), to allow the hand types to be shown, but of course at a level higher. This is nowhere near perfect, as there is ambiguity, such as 3NT 4♥(transfer) 4♠ 4NT, which on the face of it can be either ace asking or natural with a 5 card major. But we accept this for simplicity, as it never happens in practice. (If it did, 4NT would be ace asking while a "just game hand" 5 card major would pass 3NT.)

Happy with 1♠. Given the long suits around, I would X and pass partner's 5♦, but hoping for penalty.

Yes. Pass at any.

4NT is still game forcing whichever way you play it :P

If you have a slam try, by definition that means if you decide not to, you can play in 5m. It seems strange that you would deny the ability to play in 5m when responder is a zero count 5008 shape, to quote a common hand type.

Surely this depends how you play (natural methods) the minor rebid after a transfer to the major. If 4m is perhaps a slam try, perhaps a game escape, isn't a 5m rebid, after whatever opener says, to play?

All ace asking except (2). A simple rule that many seem to play is "4NT is ace asking unless partner has just bid or invited NT with a 3 point range or more, in which case it is is natural." On this basis, (1) is natural if you play 10-12, ace asking if 11/12, and (2) is natural because partner has shown strength for 3NT but has not limited his hand. (4) is unusual, perhaps, because can a passed hand be so good as to go slamming? This may be an unusual NT with both minors. Maybe you should add an extension to the simple rule.

Or you can play 4♦ as Zel's cooperative slam try - opener bids next step if not fitting diamonds, and with support shows aces/keycards in higher steps. If a good heart fit is not ruled out by the 3♥ completion, you need to allow opener to correct the diamond contract to hearts.

Thanks for this Micky. Making 2NT 80% of the time is breakeven, as you say, and this is maybe about right when you have a combined 22/23 hcp. I don't imagine it's worse than that, so the argument is valid (or, rather, not invalid). However, it does indicate that it's 50/50 whether I bid Stayman or not, so there probably is no point. My gut feeling was overlooking the apparent fact that sometimes 2M and 2NT both make exactly, and on those hands playing 1NT wins. If this is 25% of the time, that levels the playing field. Don't put me down as a convert just yet, but I will try abandoning the Stayman with 7 or 8 hcp and see how it goes. Maybe as Chris Gibson wrote earlier in this topic, use Stayman then 2NT for a new specific purpose.

Assuming a basis of a 5 card majors natural system, I think it depends on what you like to have as a minimum for an opening 1♥/♠. Then primarily use the 2-bids to allow you to open majors with weaker hands. It also depends on whether - to distinguish them - you need to have strong bids spread over two different opening such as 2♣ and 2♦ or whether you can manage with all near game force bids funnelling through a 2♣ bid. The 2-bids form an integral part of the system and cannot be considered in isolation. The other factor that has a big impact in your decision is the restrictions/regulations imposed by your regional bridge authority, and perhaps by your F2F clubs. I am not an adherent of 2-suited 2-level openings unless the two suits are defined, so for me, as an example, it is quite easy. I am happy to have almost all strong bids start with 2♣, and I like simple methods that I (and my partners) can remember. I like a 1♥/♠ open to be "rule of 17", ie 12 hcp with a 5 card suit, 11 hcp with a 6 card suit. So 2♥/♠ is a hand I want to open somewhat preemptively which is weaker in hcp. With one partner it is 6 card, but with another it is 5 or 6, and the latter works out OK. Not so precise for accurate competitive bidding to the level, but you get your spoke in more often. You could experiment with this. So that leaves just the 2♦ open, and you could play this as a multi (sort out the overlap with the 2M open, maybe by strength, maybe by length. Or maybe this allows the 2M open to show a 2 suiter). With one partner it is a natural weak 2, and I am happy with that, but with another it is a weak 4+4+ both majors, which I find more fun and useful. Some people play an almost obligatory 2♦ response to a 2♣ open, which allows that to be used in place of the natural weak 2♦

I disagree with this. If opener fits the major, then we have not gained but broken even. I don't see a gain at all (compared to field) for stayman, but I do see a loss when there is a major fit if you don't stayman. This loss is bigger than the loss caused by using stayman in allowing them to double 2♣. To quote the Pavlicek statistics (in the absence of any relevant to matchpoints), a 4-4 major beats 1NT three to one.

Yes, the field misses the 4-4 major fits when it is 12-14 opposite 10 max, and they play 1NT to my 2M. I have no problem with that. :) I am talking about when it is 15+ and I open 1NT while they play in 2M. These are the times I want to bid 1NT 2♣ 2M pass, or 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2NT pass, etc. Certainly the 12-14 occurs (beneficially) more often, but I want equality on the 15+ too, playing in 2M , or 2NT tick when others are in 1NT+1. While 1NT making scores better than 2NT-1, 1NT making is a bottom compared with 2M making. A different story at IMP teams, of course. We do have insurance that Stayman then 2NT is 7 or 8 points, so 2NT usually has a play, but we concede potential defeat when responder is a 6 count. If responder is weaker than that, then we are usually OK because 1NT is usually as good (or bad) as 1suit passed out. Edit >1NT might play as well or better some of the time when you are successful in finding the major suit fit. Some of the time, but infrequently. Frequency is king, at matchpoints.

For a long time I have played stayman followed by 2NT as always to play. This was developed because I live in a 12-14 world, where if your 1NT is 15+ you find that on the 15+ hands everyone else is finding the 2M/3M fits when partner does not have enough to invite. You need to be able to use stayman then stay in part score when there is no fit.

This is not my experience, I think 25 is OK for 3NT. I would agree, though, that 24 is a definite loser. This means you need 2 different systems/treatments for IMPs and matchpoints. At matchpoints it matters not a hoot whether you are vulnerable or not. And there is less need to bid risky games.

I agree with this. While some hands are distributional, say with a long solid suit where it makes 3NT if partner happens to have the appropriate stops (and you cannot find out) so you decide a gamble is justifiable, there are many more hands that are balanced. On these, NT makes a number of tricks according to general strength. If partner has a range, then it can be advantageous to discover where she is in this range. It seems foolish to spurn the 2NT invitation. Of course if you prefer to use the 2NT bid to mean something else, then that is a compensation, to a degree dependent on usefulness. But then it would be better to have a narrower range for your 1NT open. 15/16 works for me.

Not all auctions allow you the ability to discover combined strength and controls (or their absence) sufficiently to ensure that ace asking is safe at the 5 level. Nevertheless, if you are going to ask for aces, it makes sense to use a method that allows you to stop when 2 keycards are missing, so kickback does solve that problem. > "An additional problem with swapping from RKCB to Kickback in order to avoid playing in a poor 6H opposite two key cards + trump Q is that if partner has some holding worse than two key cards + trump Q there is a good chance if not certainty that 5H is too high." This is not true, as RKCB and kickback are the same in that regard - ie this is not an additional problem.

@ Barmar I am further enriched.

It is certainly sensible to use 4♠ as ace asking in hearts, and 4NT as the same with a void in spades. Indeed, we use "4T+2" as ace asking with a void whatever the suit bid happens to be, if it is a suit that has not been bid naturally. For example, with 3 suits bid, 1♥ 2♦(GF) 2♠(may be weak or strong) 3♥(suit agreement) then (1) 4♠ = ace asking in hearts (2) 4NT = ditto with a club void. Where only two suits have been bid, we use the next 2 bids above the normal ace ask as voidwood, with one of those natural if possible, and the other being the fourth suit. For example, 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ (1) 4♠ = ace asking in hearts (2) 4NT = ditto with a diamond void. (3) 5♣ = ditto with a club void.