fromageGB

Aristotle probably would, if he spoke English and had access to the web site on his (clay) tablet. Did he play bridge? As this is an English language discourse medium, it perhaps behoves us to use the language correctly if we can, to avoid being misunderstood by those who are not native speakers. I learn bridge ideas from this site, and am grateful to the contributors. I am also happy to learn from those point out a common misuse of the language, and am enriched as a result.

I feel happier with a 2 point range. Then as responder I don't need the fine judgement to decide whether to pass, bid game or to invite. 3-way decisions are tricky. With a 2-way decision you just toss a coin within your pocket and feel whether it is a head or a tail. The maths of doing this to select a 3-way choice is probably beyond me, and anyway, if I fumbled in my pocket for that length of time, people might get the wrong ideas.

um, to invite partner to bid game if he is at the good end of the range? Most people do. There is often a trick difference.

Pass or X. While 2NT natural is a good bid, we have come unstuck bidding a suit with a fairly wide range of values, and have chosen to sacrifice that to play a sort of Lebensohl, 2NT then a suit being an opening hand, with a direct bid being about a 17-20 count. This does help in deciding on game or partscore. There are probably more sophisticated methods!

An interesting (lack of) bidding situation, and dummy was not as I expected. My 7NT needs diamonds 3-3 or the club finesse in addition. Not too good! But then, it is not often I am lucky.

No, I don't think so. If I bid 2♠ and he bids 2NT, then he is saying that he is very happy with his hearts. If he had an uncertain or weak hand, he would pass/3♣/3♦. Therefore, over 2NT, I may have sufficient playing tricks to go for 3NT. If he has a couple of heart stops, as anticipated, perhaps all I need is split honours in spades or for him to have one. I think the point is that whatever the expected range and heart holding for the 1NT, the confirmation of 2NT denies a poor hand.

No, I don't think so. If I bid 2♠ and he bids 2NT, then he is saying that he is very happy with his hearts. If he had an uncertain or weak hand, he would pass/3♣/3♦. Therefore, over 2NT, I may have sufficient playing tricks to go for 3NT. If he has a couple of heat stops, as anticipated, perhaps all I need is split honours in spades or for him to have one. I think the point is that whatever the expected range and heart holding for the 1NT, the confirmation of 2NT denies a poor hand.

Where's the mis-click button? I'm going 7NT. "Few agreements" must include ace asking, but not showing voids. Partner is bidding 6 without knowing of the spade ace, and with a void somewhere. He must have 7 or 8 spades and a couple of kings outside. Or a powerful 2-suiter missing the ace of the suits. I think I have enough to bid on, and I am certainly not going to be setting the hearts up, so there is no point in bidding spades rather than NT. I suspect I have 13 top tricks. It may be IMPS, and the extra 10 points won't count for much, but there's nothing worse than bidding 7♠ and having the opening lead ruffed. Particularly likely if partner has the 2-suited hand.

With my teams partner we play 2NT as Lebensohl, with a hand that has a suit just like this. I pass his 3♣, of course. 3♣ from me initially would be quite a bit stronger. So not unanimous!

I don't think 3♥ necessarily shows a heart shortage, but of course it is likely on this bidding. GF certainly. I agree with you that X is penalty, not takeout (probably a minority view). Takeout to what? Partner has denied 4 spades, in my book, and if I wanted a choice of clubs or diamonds I could bid clubs. So penalty. The others, yes. 2NT is invitational, but surely it will be will a couple of hearts, hopefully a useful one. Not this hand. Over 2♠ what options does responder have? He can rebid NT if really happy with stops in hearts, bid a club suit which he probably has, or give preference to diamonds if not too keen on other bids. This seems the best option.

Off topic, but I use this to play. Rather than show a minor second suit, as responder I transfer to it. If my second suit was the other major, I would smolen or jump diamonds conventionally. OK, I have a spare bid, transfer to the major then rebid 3♦, but there is no meaning put on this yet. (BTW I play 15/16 NT with no invitations, so major transfer then 2NT is GF (slam try) transfer to clubs.) Edit - the 3NT rebid denies the 5332, as that is shown with the 3 other major. No reason why these cannot be transposed. In fact I could incorporate my spare bid to show whether the doubleton is in spades or a minor.

Simple for me. While bids other than 3NT or 3M are patterning out, I do use 3NT as non-serious. 3M is therefore a spare bid, so is used as a one-under denial cue bid. In spades, 3NT is a weak bid. 3♠ is a cue bidding hand which denies the ability to make a club control bid. In effect, it asks for the club control. 4♣ shows clubs and denies diamonds, 4♦ shows both minors and denies hearts, 4♥ shows all controls and a better than minimum hand but one that requires partner to have extras as well, or one that thinks it better if partner were to ask for aces.

Given that 2NT is invitational saying nothing about shape, I think you should convert to 3♥. With a part-score, a 5-3 fit is a big winner over 2NT. When there is known game strength it is more optional, with perhaps 3NT proving as good when the total hcp increases, but with 26+ I prefer the major generally. Here, however, you are known to be marginal, and if you decide to bid game, it is a gamble. Consequently, I gamble on the 9 tricks of 3NT rather than the 10 of hearts. FWIW on the topic of 5332 shapes, I play responder rebidding 3 of the other major as game force with 5332, then with a 3334 opener converts to 3NT.

Adjusted losing trick count is better than just counting straight hcp, as it takes into regard shortages. Having said that, I use hcp with aces worth more and queens less, as Zelandakh above shows how, and make a "judgement" adjustment upwards to a higher band if there is a potentially useful shortage. I have no experience of adding "points" for singletons or voids. What you do with your point coint depends to a degree on whether you are playing 4 card majors or 5. 5 card majors help tremendously in the "law of total tricks" evaluation. If partner opens a 5 card major, overcalled with a minor, I will bid 3M with a 4 card suit and less than 8 points. To show 9+ I would cue bid (showing 4 card support). With 3 card support I will not bid 3M at all, but 2NT with 11+. (Note this is the other way round to the common method given by Stephen Tu above. I think this is better, but agree which with your partner.) But if partner may have opened a 4 card major it can be risky to jump to 3M with 4 cards. I am not sure whether I would - it is so many centuries ago that I played that way, I have forgotten. If 4th seat bids over partner's raise to 2M, you may have lost the ability to make your normal trial bid, so for me X acts as a game invitation. Finally, if I open a minor and partner bids a major, overcalled by 4th seat, I would NOT assume he has a 9 loser hand. It could easily be 10. Either way, I would rebid as normal, passing if my bid would have been lower than that, with X acting as 3 card support of unspecified strength ("support double").

I'm of the group that thinks 3♣ is normally an unspecified game force, may be anything other than a direct 3NT hand, commonly diamonds in a hand too good for a simple 3♦, or looking for a club holding in partner's hand for NT. Following the cue with a bid of 4♥ I would assume was a hand too good for an initial 4♥, that is only marginally short of a 2♣ open.

I don't know, but I'm drawing trumps.

As I voted for 1♣ I must give my rebids and reasons. With partner playing a weak 2M that might be a 5 card suit, I do not think I am missing a major game. If he : passes : I'm happy 1♦!(=hearts) : 3NT 1♥!(=spades) : 3NT 1♠!(relay) : 3NT 2M : pass. 6 card, but too weak for a weak 2.

Pass. Looks like partner could have made a takeout double if he had a hand where game would be probable with this hand. Yes, we may miss a game or a good partscore, but we avoid being stampeded into a disaster.

The figures quoted rather emphasise my point. Even at IMPs a 4-4 major fit is 2 to 4 times better than a 1NT contract. At matchpoints I need to find those fits.

My argument is essentially that partner needs to have a game invitational strength in order to bid with other than a long suit, and as a consequence, major fits are not found. While of lesser consequence at IMPs, I play the vast majority of my games in matchpoints, and the major fit is key. Hence I prefer to play twalsh to find those fits, and have sequences that show the exact length(s) and strength range. With 1NT, partner is silenced half the time. The effect is even worse with a weak NT. If the power of the 1NT comes from its definition of balance and strength, then twalsh has the same power. If the power comes from its preemptive effect, then this is a 2-edged sword. Moreover, I think people are overcalling 1NT more often these days, and coping with interference over 1NT is far less effective than with that over 1♣, where you have "system on" for the majority of calls.

My preference is 15/16, but I thought the answer of 15-17 was closer than "other". It depends on what your methods are to a degree, but after 1♣ I complete the major transfer with 2/3 cards and a 12-14 balanced hand, rebid 1NT with 17/18, and 2NT with 19. (You can of course play 1NT as 17-19 with invitations, but if responder needs 19 for major game he is better able to play at the 2 level with a 5-3 fit opposite 17/18.) As 17 is quite capable of being managed with transfer walsh, it makes sense in my view to reduce the opening 1NT range to just 2hcp. This means more hands go through the beneficial treatment of twalsh, and fewer through the partner-preempting 1NT. Of course the 2 point range also means that you have more bids available in response if you do not need invitations. In terms of splitting the range between 1♣ and 1NT openings, you can put the NT at the bottom, but it seems to add clarity when there is a big break in the ranges shown by the twalsh rebids. Another reason for the break in the middle is that 12-14 is more common than higher ranges, so I want this to open 1♣ to put fewer hands into the 1NT open. Technically, as the higher the range for the 1NT open the less partner-preemptive it is (there are more game investigations/bids), I think it would make sense to use transfer walsh for the ranges 12-14, 15/16, 19, and have 17/18 opening 1NT, but this is an idea I have not bared to my partners.

I have never knowingly come across this, and it seems strange, to me. So the idea is for responder to bid 2NT with a game invitational hand, and a minimum opener denying the values for game to make a bid at the 3 level with no fit other than a 4-3? I suppose it leads to interesting contracts ...

Anyone can have an optimistic blur of the eyes. Unfortunately, pulling out a 3NT card in place of a pass card is unlikely to be "mechanical error", so I doubt if the director will be happy for you to change your mind. Just hope it works out!

If you have another bid for weak long clubs, think about trying 1♣ 1♠(relay) 1NT(12-14) 2♣ as transfer to ♦ either to play, or follow with another bid if invitational+. Obviously transferring the NT is better than responder playing NT. This frees up 1♣ 1NT for whatever you can't normally show. For me, that is {54} both majors less than invitational. Of course if opener has a 6+ card club suit rather than the normal (semi)balanced hand, then it starts 1♣ 1♠ 2♣, and then you don't need to show a weak diamond hand. And 1♣ 1♠ 2NT is stronger than your opening 1NT, anything else a normal reverse.

Maybe it depends on what you use the bid for. I now use 1♠ as a relay for opener to describe his hand, and this is often the starting point for a NT contract at any level, and also used to show minors as weak or invitational. While it usually is no benefit, sometimes it is (eg right-siding NT, or for responder to make a game invitational hand with a long minor where opener can decline and play in either 2NT or 3m), and very rarely does it seem to lose out to the rest of the field. However, the main advantage in transfer responses for me (particularly at matchpoints) is the ability for responder to show his exact length in his majors, and his strength band of weak/invitational/game, with often the ability to play in a fitting 2M when the game invitation is declined. This has found good contracts others don't reach, and occasionally you get 2M tick while others are 3M-1. 1♣ 1NT as a weak {54} in the majors has proven very effective. (Opener bids 4 card major, else responder transfers to the 5) On other things that seem to work well : - I like 2♦ open as 4+4+ both majors, usually weak. These keeps 2M as natural, and 2♦ has also been passed successfully - 1NT = 15/16 (17 goes via 1♣), which gives extra space because responder does not need an invitation