fromageGB

No, I am not saying that one method is better than another. Until you have experience and develop judgement, you do need some guidelines to follow. But these should be limited, because there is a tendency to follow rules to the detriment of logical thinking, and to the detriment of learning from experience. I know many people who learned guidelines and have not progressed, or not learned when they should apply and when they shouldn't. For example "I have to bid game because I have 7 losers" regardless of misfits or whatever.

Trying to piece this together, am I right in my understanding? Currently I play 2NT = 20-21 2♣ 2♦ 2NT = 22-23 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT = 24-25 but it would be better to invert this and play 2NT = 24-25 2♣ 2♦ 2NT = 22-23 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT = 20-21 ? That does have the advantage of being able to escape into 3♣/♦ when responder is bust and opener is at the bottom end, but I have not come across this. It also seems to have a problem after a 2♥ positive, so this is probably not what you meant. What ranges are you implying?

I am not entirely convinced this makes sense, though as you say it appears popular. So double is values, and declarer leaves it in unless he has extreme distribution. I agree with this, though I call it a penalty double, and this is what I would do with this hand. In my book, a penalty double simply says "I think they are going off if you have a normal sort of hand, and prefer to try for that rather than make a contract". But you also say that if you have a penalty double, you pass. Why? What do you call a penalty double? If you have sufficient tricks to make it likely that the 5♣ bidder goes down, then pass seems wrong. If you have such a hand, and partner with extreme distribution takes it out, then he is likely to make the contract. If you are suggesting a penalty double would he nothing except ♣ KJ987 (with no entries or useful tricks for a possible partner's contract) then fair enough, but that is an extremely unlikely scenario given the vulnerable 5 level preempt.

Maybe I'm more conservative than you, because unopposed this is not a limit raise for me, but 4♣ splinter. Yes, 4♠ rather than 2♠, as it surely has good chances, but with a 5♣ interference, vulnerable, I think 5♠ unlikely. 3 tricks in defence seems to me more likely, but it is just guesswork, as ArtK78 says. We just come down on opposite sides of the coin.

I have played "Kokish" in the context of "compulsory 2♦" and "negative 2♦ / positive 2♥", but never "negative 2♥ / positive 2♦". This last completely destroys the benefits of the 2NT distinctions, because you need 2 point ranges when responder is negative. When he is positive you are playing in game anyway, so a wider range is not so bad. Nobody has explained to me what it is about 2♦ positive that outweighs this benefit of 2♥ positive. For a bust responder, what you bid after opener has made a third (suit) bid depends on whether that is agreed as forcing. If not forcing, pass is the obvious bid, and my default with no explicit agreement. My assumption is that if absolutely GF in his own hand, opener can jump for his third bid. For a responder with a long suit, I like what I play with one partner. Responder with a 6 card suit (weak or strong) transfers instead of making the expected reply. Opener can complete the transfer if happy to play there (but responder can continue), bid game in it or ace ask, or bid a new suit forcing. You could alternatively use a transfer after an initial 2♦/♥, ignoring the Kokish puppet, as Frances suggests.

Some useful opinions have been expressed, but I do favour the "fewer rules the better" approach. When I learned, I was taught 4321 point count and formal adjustments never came into it. I still don't know what length points are, as it seems obvious that other things being equal, longer suits take more tricks. Rather than apply rules (probably in the wrong places), it seems much better in the learning process to afterwards ask the opponents "why was that not a good bid" when it seems you were in the wrong contract. Judgement comes with thinking and talking about what went wrong, or right (and getting specific input from those with more experience).

I voted for pass, given that double is negative, but would penalty double like a shot. Not guaranteed, but likely to beat our spade part score.

I would always bid NT if partner bid spades (but support hearts !)

Following these sensible beginner guidelines, yes. If you are strong enough to force partner to bid again, bid a new suit, for example. It you are not strong enough, no. Bid his first suit, etc, or pass. The is the problem addressed by such things as Kaplan Inversion and checkback. But come on, this is "expert-class" forum so we should not be discussing these obvious things.

So you spotted it! 5224 of course.

The reason I super-accept with a 4333 is that it does add trick potential when responder has a marginal 4432. You get a ruff in hand that is otherwise not found in the bidding. Of course, if partner shows a marginal 5332 by showing the doubleton, then you decline and stop in 3.

I agree with everything else, but not this (the first part). Well, I do agree with it in the literal sense "most of the time". However, it is common when responder has a marginal hand for it to be a 5332 shape (any doubleton). On these hands, if opener is 4432 with the same doubleton, there is probably no play for game. However, when opener has a 4234 (different doubleton), the doubleton in opener's suit provides the extra trick for game. So responder should be interested. I think it is worth discovering that fact. Rather than opener immediately showing the doubleton, the ideal is to let opener make a nondescript transfer break of 2M+1 and then let a marginal responder show his doubleton. (He only does this if game marginal). Then opener can decline game with a mirrored doubleton.

Doesn't seem a good idea to help identify good leads for opponents. And not just good leads, but knowledge of your (concealed) hand and shape all through the play. Transfer breaking is useful when partner has a marginal game hand, and when he does, the diamond knowledge may not be much help. When he doesn't, and will pass, or would have bid game anyway, it is a definite downside.

Mmm do I misunderstand? (1) You would not lie about not having a 4 card major (2) Playing 5 card majors you open these hands (with a 4 card heart suit) 1♥ (2) contradicts (1)

I almost completely agree, but when you bid a four card suit and partner does NOT support, then in some situations you are obliged to bid again. The obvious thing to do is describe some other feature of your hand, so these definitions are a bit shaky. Maybe replace the first with "with a four card suit you bid then suit, and if bidding again when partner does not support, show your balanced shape or partial support".

If your just starting with the 2NT bid GF 4+ support, the thing to do is work out what you should be bidding next. There's no point in having all that space unless you are going to use it effectively. List what the useful things would be for either partner to know about the other's hand, such as strength rage, singleton/voids or not, good side suits, trump length, etc, and put them into some priority order. One bid may combine 2 elements. Decide if you are going to have an equilateral discussion, or if the description is going to be of just one hand. There are different ideas on what happens after 2NT, and some are better than others. Plan your priorities.

If 1♦ guarantees an outside singleton or void if there is no ♦ rebid, it is difficult to see how you can go wrong. Especially if opener rebids 1NT when responder bids his short major.

I like this idea, too. By playing the same over both majors - completing with 12-14 and 2 or 3 in the major - I wrong-side a 1NT contract when responder has 4 spades. The ♠/NT inversion is a good idea. Hell, I play 2♠ as jacoby-type over hearts, play KI, play 3♠ as non-serious, 4♠ as ace asking ... why haven't I though of ♠/NT inversion for this sequence? :blink:

If it's the negatives that suck, do you mean when responder has a very weak hand? I don't think that is true, because 8 for a positive leaves a very narrow range for a negative. You can't really get smaller. I like the idea of non-gazzilli opener rebid (over a forcing NT) being 11-14 and that's how I play it. The 4 point range is plenty to be able to handle with an invitation. In the OP style of non-forcing 1NT, I would have thought that a free bid of 2♣, not being 16, would either be accepting a game invitation, or have 5 clubs. One or the other. Do you really want to bid clubs with 4 and a 12 count when you could have passed 1NT?

OK, you may have meanings about 2NT (mine is the inverse of yours, showing 15/16). I use a rebid of the opening suit, 2♠, for 12-14 and 17+. But the point remains that 3♠ is not a jump, and while opener knows spades are trumps, he won't imagine it is 4 card. You can only jump in the rare cases where your suit is at least 2 beneath his, and opener is 2 suited with the intermediate one. I suppose opener with 12-14 would then bid 3NT non-serious after 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠, and responder can start action with a serious cue bid, but it is tricky to get opener to take control. You are probably better off starting with 2NT. At least that way you have the advantage of knowing if opener has a shortage before you get to this point (depending on your Jacoby methods), and with your "9 cards in the 2 suits" hand, this could be very important. 2NT also avoids two4bridge's problem hand.

This is a good idea I could adopt. If I could remember it ! I bid the same up to 1NT but have not gone beyond that point. However, it does not work if you have 4 spades, or if you have long clubs I guess. Just ♥♦? I suppose you could bid 2♣ and 2♦ naturally, but then that loses any other sequences you may have following a puppet to 2♦.

On the other hand, while it is nice in theory to have an unknown hand as declarer, if it starts with 2NT it is responder who has the outside length and will be able to count to 13 potential tricks, so he is the one who is better positioned to make the decision. If responder can describe his length via a 2/1 and still get opener to know about the 4 card support, then fair enough. As opener, I would assume a delayed spade bid is just preference, and nothing to get excited about. Edit - after 1♠ 2♥ 2NT, it is difficult to jump to 3♠.

You have given responder the ♦Q, and I would have thought the response to 4NT would have been 5♠. Removing the Q from your hand gives a diamond holding of ♦KJxxxx with a Q elsewhere, and then I would argue that 3♦ was not a good bid. Maybe I am inventing a bidding sequence to suit this hand and not others! As I said, reasonable, maybe not perfect.

Since someone recently told me to click on the yellow boxes to find what the bids mean, I do that. I don't play this way, but would have thought 3♣ is a perfect description. Game seems remote.

I don't have any such holdings. I will always start with 1♠ 2NT (13+) and take it from there. We then show shortages and strength, so whatever holding I have should put me in a reasonable position to explore slam.