fromageGB

Let me back Felicity. I am 70, I have a long-term lung condition, and now that I have stopped rock climbing, paragliding and skiing, all of which were likely to kill me, I am now most likely to die of pneumonia. Until then I will continue to enjoy living. One of my clubs is trying to get hand sanitisers (aka gold dust), I am washing my hands at the club before I leave, and I think these are reasonable precautions. Probably ineffective, because I expect you are more likely to get it being breathed on by someone in the weeks of contagion before symptoms, but reasonable. What is the risk quantitatively? Miniscule. As the situations develops I may in the future be wearing rubber gloves or breathing round the edges of a scarf, but I fear authorities may close things down before then. Life is always a risk, and I am happy to accept it.

I do the same. We call it transfers. Except after a balanced 1♣ we use double for both majors and red suit transfers.

Not at all, but (a) the current agreement gives them the right to vote to unite with Eire, (b) Sinn Fein is a growing political movement in the south that wants unity, ( c) the UK practically insists on apartheid or segregation based on religion in the north, rather than integration : almost half of schoolchildren are taught in schools where more than 95% are of the same religion; 90% of public housing is segregated, (d) catholics breed faster, and while in the 2011 census the catholic/protestant ratio was 45/48, it is set to exceed unity in the next couple of years, I read. Given all this, and the impression I had speaking to people while over there, I see it as not inevitable, but likely. If the EU imposes border crossing checks, it will probably hasten the decision.

I am very happy for the EU to defend its position, and try to get as much benefit as they can. Boze is right on this. I am delighted the UK (shortly to be GB I feel) feels the same way and fights to get what we can. In 10 months we will be free, and we can make our own way. Certainly I would not give away our fishing rights as a precondition to negotiations, but the tactic the EU used last time with May in charge was the same : "everything must be done our way" and it worked then. You can't expect then to change spots. What we can do (I hope) is to refuse to accept it this time. And if the EU sticks huge tarrifs on importing UK fish I really do hope we do not do the same with French wine and cheese ...

> If you play a strong 2C is 22+ points OR 8.5 tricks, should you ALWAYS open 2C with any 22 point hand? Almost. Some hands will be 8.5 tricks in a suit but less than 22 hcp, so you should open those 2♣, and it's hard to imagine a single-suiter or two-suiter with 22 hcp that does not have 8.5. The exception could be a 3-suiter, say AKxx, x, AQJx, AKJx where you have 22 but you have nowhere near 8.5 and you do not like to rebid 2NT with that heart suit. You would open that one 1♦ I expect. Having said that, I think your requirements are too lax and I would prefer balanced 23+ OR no more than a trick short of game in your own hand. So that's 9 tricks in a major, or 10 in a minor. Therefore as no 2NT open or rebid should be more than a 2-point range, 2NT is for me 21/22 and you think of something else for your 19! As you can see, I disagree with Tyler and open this 22 with 2NT, and I am happy to pass that with a bare K. Imagine this hand with any K you like opposite. A club lead, and you can take only one finesse to set up a suit. I do not fancy the odds in 3NT.

That multi-2♣ shows both the 16+ and the 4 hearts, even better.

No, that's it in its entirety. It is just another convention you can agree with a partner. However, the benefits are large, because when you do bid 1M 2♦, or 2♣ then 3♣, opener knows you have a 5+ card minor, and when you are in slam zone 6m scores better than 3NT. On this particular hand, a rebid of 2♥ to show 4 cards and the 16+ count, followed by 3♠ over say 2NT, gives partner what he needs to know. Often it can be tricky to know both hands are medium strong that together make slam, when neither party is strong enough to look unilaterally. You will cue if he supports hearts, and otherwise when you bid 3♠ he is strongly encouraged to make a cue bid. However, if he just bids 4♠ (or non-serious 3NT), even though you are stronger than you have shown, I would pass on the view that if I were in his shoes and had 2 aces and the ♠KQ I would be making a cue bid.

Easy if you play a multi 2♣ as I do. 2♣ is always followed by a 2♦ relay and then : 2M = 11/12 hcp and 3 card support, passable. All other options are GF. 3M = 13+ and 3 card support 2♥ (after a 1♠ open) is 16+ hcp with 4 hearts 2NT = 16+ hcp with a hand without 4 hearts or a 5 card minor. 3♣ = natural 2/1 in clubs, 5+ cards The 16+ aspects are because I play a forcing NT, so a balanced hand up to 15 hcp can bid 1NT. If you prefer a non-forcing NT then your strength requirement for the bids may be lowered, but it sure helps when you get this type of hand. I feel that the solid gains given by the multi 2♣ more than offset the loss of the extra round of bidding when you actually have a 13+ with 5 clubs.

Yes, good idea. Weak NT destroys finding fits with partner.

The OP did not state what the scoring method is, and I think that it critical. Playing in matchpoints I will open 1H always, because missing the major part score can be awful if others are bidding it. Playing in IMPs I open 1NT - and this hand is OK for 12-14 NT (not really worth 15, is it?) or 15-17 NT.

2NT has with many players long been abandoned as natural, and in most places it would probably be safe to bid this and expect partner to assume some sort of support, and unless he gets excited by that you will rebid 4♥. However, if you have any doubt that it will be so interpreted (in a room of acol players?) then don't bid 2NT but bid 4♥ immediately. 2NT is better, if you have agreed that, as this shows a strength hand while 4♥ is usually played as weak and preemptive with 5 hearts. Over 2NT a better than minimum opener will explore slam, but 4♥ tells him to shut up. Search for Jacoby 2NT and discuss it with a regular partner.

I would agree with you that a range ask of 2♠ is a bad decision if you want to combine it with something else. If you play that it could also be a takeout to clubs, then after a 2NT reply you are completely botching the hand by playing 3♣ from the wrong side. Much much better to play pure transfers, which can be used weak or strong. Then 2♠ could be a single-purpose range ask, or better still, use it as asking for a 4 card minor which is what I would do with the OP hand. If partner has one (bids 3m)I would just immediately bid 4m+1 ace ask, otherwise drop out in 3NT. That minor suit stayman means you need to do something else with a range ask, so you could start with 2♣ for majors followed by 2NT natural invitation, or rethink your 1♣ structure. The whole system has to fit together, but if your 1NT is a 2-point range it makes life easy all round when you have no invites anywhere.

South at fault for the 4♥ bid. Do you really want to play in 4♥ if N has the same hand but xx in place of ♣KQ? I wouldn't.

The sort of thing you would expect the Guardian to say, without looking. Try the Telegraph. Much more uplifting.

Maybe closer, but I have too many spades and too defensive a hand. For me, no to both. If partner passes 2♠ I'm happy; and equally happy if he doesn't.

But remember this is REVERSE Beethoven. So you throw away the good symphonies, and as the important ones are the later ones, they are the best ones. Hence, by the inversion, their signal is weaker. The mnenomic says it all.

It seems I am in a minority here, but I agree with ... If the 1♦ open is not balanced it could well be that opener has nowhere to go after 3NT, and OP was just plain lucky. My opponents tend to lead the suit in which they are long and have top cards against a NT contract, whether or not you show a weakness.

I think you are playing reverse Beethoven. If the odd numbered symphonies are better, why discard them?

As always it depends on system agreements. What would North reply with a GF hand with 4 spades and 5 or 6 clubs? If he always bids 1♠ then now 2NT is natural and best. If he could bid 2♣, then you need to bid 2♠. Having said that, 2♣ is often a multiway bid, to cover a number of awkward hands, such as an invitational or GF hand with 3 or 4 hearts as well as the natural 2/1 in clubs. I play that it could also be a 16+ hand with no 5 card suit for a 2/1, therefore my reply is always a relay of 2♦. Without any agreements, 2NT is safest.

Nobody seems to have mentioned double as a transfer, which is my call. Show the spades and assuming opener completes, raise to game. Opener, having a perfectly ordinary 1♣ open, on a different hand may not complete the transfer but rebid a 6 card club suit, and that too I would raise to game. The OP asks for developments after 3♥ from 4th seat, and opener with 3 spades will bid 3♠. Over 4♥ I am happy to bid 4♠. I see no reason to go higher.

Compromise. Throw both away, play transfers instead, and you have the best of both worlds. You can assign meanings to whether partner completes the transfer or breaks it, and if the transferer is strong enough to bid again then he can do things like show a 5 card suit on the way to a raise, or a force, to offer alternative contracts.

In a situation like this where presumably you have half the pack or so in terms of high card points, never distort your bidding violently just in case the other opponent bids. It completely misleads partner, who will then inevitably take the wrong decision and give you a bad result. Just bid whatever your normal agreement says you should bid. If this takes the bidding higher than if opponents had passed, then other factors come into play, and passing might be right. Here, if your partner is showing both majors 4+4+xx then bid a 4 card major yourself, as 2♦ does not interfere. If your reply would have been 2♦ as a major denial, then pass is correct, or double for penalty if you have diamonds AND partner has shown strength so that you know you have, combined, considerably more than they do.

This is a very neat idea. Unfortunately too complex for me and partners, but something along these lines sounds the right way to go if you can cope with it, restructuring as gwnn said.

And yes to you, I agree wholeheartedly with practically everything you say in your post, except maybe the choice of this one bid. 1) 3-suited by this definition is not uncommon at all; it is not just a pure {1444} but also a {1345} with a 5 card minor. The problem with a cheap rebid of 2♣ on a 3-suiter is that it shows only a second suit and there is no way a weakish responder can bid or discover the hearts. After 1NT to show all three suits, responder can bid any of them to play, which is the advantage of that option. The other problem is that when bidding ♣ as your cheap suit, you will be taken to be the xx55 type of 2-suiter and be completely misleading. 2) I'm thinking responder only accepts the transfer if less than invitational, and is prepared to be passed by a non-strong opener. With better than that, or no fit, responder will make some sort of break. Of course, and I thinking opener's second bid should be the transfer to your major, showing 3 only. A relay break can then ask for a stiff. 3) I found the idea of this on the web but don't see the purpose myself - I was hoping for a comment by a practitioner. 4) 99% agree. Found this one, too, somewhere. To my way of thinking opener has to describe. 1% disagreement - I think a relay can be useful less than GF. A common example is a non-specific trial bid, another the next step after a "2-under" sort of bid, another the artificial 1♦ 1M methods.

I reckon I might have bid the same as you, and it worked out well. Unopposed you may well have been in the slam. To answer your question : 1NT - 2♠(minor suit stayman asking for a 4 card minor) 3♦ - 4♥(4m+1 asking for keycards, basically) 5♣(3 steps = 3) - 5♥(denies ♥K) 6♦ This is how it would go with us, with S checking kings as the perfect maximum can make grand. (Minor suit stayman does not preclude checking for slam in clubs on 3 card fit if opener denies a 4 card minor.)