fromageGB

Would 4♣ after 2♥ be taken as a cue bid agreeing diamonds? And you bid 1st or 2nd round controls? Then I think 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 3♦ 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ 4NT 5♥ 6♦ is reasonable.

While this is a strong 1NT open, if I was playing a weak NT these would be my bids. At this point I have completely described my hand, and if partner is pushing them up a level I see no reason to turn a good score into a bad. Pass is easy. I have good defence.

When I did play possibly light 1M in 3rd/4th seat, we still used KI as responder, (as well as Drury type 2m) and did not find it a problem. If that is your normal method, why change? (We dropped light 1M when we switched to a weak 2M being possibly 5 card.)

The idea of opening 2♦ to show 18/19 balanced reminds me of the (still common) lunacy of opening 2NT on a 19 count. At least 2♦ gives you the option of playing in 2M.

If you are playing Twalsh with natural rebids, then all of these are 1♣ 1♦ 1♥(denies 4 card support, 12-14) 2♦. Aren't they? Unfortunately here for me, my 2♦ rebid has an artificial meaning, so on hands 1 and 2 I forget the hearts and play in 2♦. (My sequence 1♣ 1♠ 1NT 2♦). On hand 3 I forget the diamonds and show hearts. (My sequence 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT).

With regard to my above post, perhaps I should explain that 1NT is 15/16 (not 17) so there is no need to distinguish on grounds of strength.

I always super-accept with 2M+1 (eg 1NT 2♥! 2NT) when 4333. I don't think it matters being 4333 unless partner is a marginal 5{332}, in which case he will bid his doubleton. I just rebid 3M with a mirrored doubleton 4{432} or 4333, so he knows to pass with a marginal. Edit : more explanation : this is a by-product of avoiding mirrored doubletons with a marginal 7/8 5332 shape. 2M+1 = transfer break with 4333 or most 4{332} shapes, but with doubleton in the transfer suit I super-accept with 3M. That way he knows to pass with a marginal 5233 with mirrored doubleton in that suit. The transfer suit has to get special treatment because opener will play the hand. If opener always bid 2M+1, and responder had a marginal hand with doubleton transfer suit, and bid it to show that suit, this clashes with signing off with a retransfer when he is weak.

No. With a singleton diamond I open 1♣, and have 3♦ as a splinter when partner "transfers" to a major. This is agreed as 15-16 (1NT strength) 4 card support shortage bid. With any other singleton I open 1♦ which guarantees a shortage if I don't rebid ♦. Again a splinter is possible, but 1NT if partner bids my singleton major. Partner can find out if I have 12-14 or 15/16.

If you are going to falsecard, then I think you should make it obvious, so playing hi-lo = even, would 7 first with 732. But I don't go with the assumption that first opponent is falsecarding. It is usually the one with most of the missing strength, as he knows his misdefence is not going to cause his partner to throw a trick away.

I certainly play Twalsh in all seats, with the same continuations. It's not just the transfer that helps, but the ability to show the length and strength in the majors that you do not get with natural responses. As to opening 1♣ light in 3rd seat, I think this is risky when partner turns out to have an invitational hand (he invites because when you are stronger you may have game). However, it is preemptive, and 4th seat does not have the same options as he has when you pass. I did try this for a spell, by agreement with partner, and it did not seem to help. We reverted to full strength throughout. When I reverted I made a note of those hands I passed where I would have opened light, and looking at them afterwards came to the unscientific conclusion that steady in all seats is best.

I would rebid 3♥ happily, and don't like anything else. I think 4♦ is a bit committing. With the opener hand, I can accept 3♦ as not perfect, but better than most options. 3♥ is an alternative I would consider, but I don't like 2♠. I would never be able to get back to hearts after partner's raise.

Answering a bit more of your question, I would say that, 3♠ shows 4 card support but is not invitational. It is weaker than that. A absolute beginner might play 3♠ invitational, but 3♦ is much better, as it is an otherwise unwanted bid. This then frees the 3♠ to be pre-emptive, so would be 4 card (LTT). Without discussion, 3♦ may be 3 or 4 card support - I don't know what is taught. If you think the sequence (1♦) 1♠ (2♦) 2NT is natural and invitational, then leave it at that. However, 1♠ is rather undefined in strength, and 2NT is rarely a good place to play when they have an obvious supported suit to lead. If 2NT is therefore a spare bid, then to extend the LTT concept you can use both 2NT and 3♦ as spade support game invitational hands, one to show 3 card support and the other to show 4 card support. (The former would need to be stronger in terms of hcp.) Your specific hand is a 3♦ bid for me, and I would not make any change for vulnerability or scoring method.

Whatever I say repeats what Zel has said, but let me put it in different words. If you are playing 3♥ as a suit-setting ace ask, then 3NT denies an ace and 4♣ by opener asks for a king. However, unless this 4♣ is a denial cue, this is seriously inefficient as he can't find a club K at low level, so 3♠ should be swapped with 3NT (then 3NT would ask for a king). This is easy if you play non-serious 3NT which is spades when hearts are trumps. You can then look at the action in a different way, and 3♠ is the usual non-serious bid. However, you could have signed off in 4♥ with nothing to show, but as you have bid 3♠ you must be denying an ace but will have king(s). After the 3♠, use your normal king finding method to discover the diamond and lack of spades. You are then at the game level, and at this point you wish you had methods to discover a diamond (preferably) or club Q. If you don't have side queen asks in your repertoire, now is the time to add something!

BBF? butt buddy forever, british baseball federation (yes, that surprised me!), belgian badminton federation ... ?

So you get the useful knowledge of a (usually) 4 card diamond suit, but how does opener show where he is in the 11-16 range? Say with a 6 card heart suit? I suppose if you include a 5 card major in your 1NT open, that avoids the 15/16 problem with a 5422 or 3532, but I must admit, I like to open a major whatever the strength, so I have to cater for those as well.

gwnn Don't forget, I play a forcing 1NT, so opener cannot pass with a minimum. Responder could have a 15 count balanced hand. This means that a weaker opener with a fairly balanced hand has to bid something. A 4531 12 count bids what? A 4522 bids what? This the downside of the forcing NT, but those who play it have to live with the disadvantages as well as the advantages. There is no "sensible" rebid, and I like to keep 2♥ to show a 6 card suit. So what to do? If someone has discovered a new bid, ideally coming between 1NT and 2♣, please let me know. There are different choices : (1) You could say that 2♦ is a genuine 4 card suit. That means every other hand, including the 12 count 4531, has to bid an artificial 2♣. This can be combined with a Gazzilli option of say a variety of 17+ hands, then after a 2♦ relay you could, for example, say 2♥ = any of the weak options without 4 diamonds, may have 5 clubs, but equally may have 1 club. Not much use in helping partner judge the right contract. And you don't want to bid higher than 2♥, as that is often the only resting place with a weak opener opposite a weak responder. (2) You could say that 2♦ is a 2 card suit. This is a compromise which makes that bid easier to pass when responder has more diamonds than opener has hearts, and means that 2♣ would be a 3 card suit if weak. (3) neither of those options are much good, in my view, in describing the hand, and both have the limitation that forces gazzilli followed by 2♥ to be a minimum hand, and this does not show a 6 card suit. So my choice is to abandon the attempt to show minors completely. Now 2♣ can be 15+, to be followed by completely natural bids after the relay such that a bid above 2NT is 17+, and a lower bid is 15/16. As a consequence, an opener 2♦ says nothing about the hand other than it is 12-14. No, I can show no reference recommending this treatment, and I did say I am not recommending it. But I do appreciate being able to show 12-14 and 15/16 with different bids, and think the benefits of this outweigh the loss of very poor (practically useless) definition in the minors. I am happy with it. I would be interested (jillybean permitting) to hear what others do in this 45xx scenario when playing a forcing 1NT.

For a start, let me say my preferred treatment is KI, so this particular 4513 hand goes 1♥ 1♠ 2♦, and this 2♦ says nothing about the minors, but shows a 12-14 with 4 spades. However, the answer I gave was a general one. If you are playing Gazzilli with a 17+ as most do, then the way to handle it would be to say 2♦ is 12-16 and guarantees a doubleton, to help the pass option, and 2♣ is most 17 counts, or 12-16 with at least 3 clubs. Over the 8+ 2♦ relay, the 12-16 option rebids 2♥, which can be passed, or perhaps converted to clubs etc. I don't like this, personally, as I don't think knowledge of 3 clubs or 2 diamonds is much of a help in determining the contract. So what I do (and I am not recommending this, it's just my preference) is not bother with the minors at all. 2♦ is purely and simply a denial of 15hcp. Partner can pass with 5+ diamonds, and opener would normally have some diamonds, but the contract is more usually 2♥. Not ideal, but I like the ability given by gazzilli for opener to define strength, and treat this as more important. A non-forcing NT would avoid this, but again I like the advantages given by a forcing NT, and choose to suffer this. It is rarely a problem. This is I think only marginally worse than the standard Gazzilli in finding a minor fit (where 2♦ could be a doubleton and 2♣ only 3) but I like the trade off it gives that 2♦ shows 14 max. 12-16 is too wide for responder to make a sensible bid, but 12-14 is manageable with simple game inquiries (eg 2NT, and 3♥ if not including this in your 2♣ response), or sign off in any suit. When there is a 2♣ 2♦ sequence, opener rebids naturally at the 2 level with 15/16 and bids at the 3 level with 17. So 2♥ is 6, 2♠ is 4, 2NT = neither. (1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ is 4 card 15/16). There are significant advantages in showing a 6 card heart suit with 2♥ as either 12-14, or 15/16. You can probably do better with more artificial sequences, as Zelandakh points out. Edit - I say 12-14, 12-16 etc because I will only open with 11 if a 6 card suit, and that rebids 2♥. I have weak 2s that manage the 5 card 11 count. (And other edits)

This is the way most people play it, some say 15 is enough, some need 17. I like 15, as it copes well enough. But with a 5 card minor such as the 3505 15/16 count I prefer to rebid jump 3♣, and with 17+ go through Gazzilli. The other exceptions I use are an immediate 2NT is 20+ unbalanced, and 3♥(same major) is suit-setting game force. An advantage of playing 15+ is that the 2♦ is limited to 14, which makes it easy for partner to sign off.

I hope I never have the misfortune to pick up partners who rebid 3♥ on this hand. It seems a clear pass. As to other points raised, with a partner not playing Flannery that does not like Kaplan Inversion, with a 4522 hand after 1♥ 1NT, I rebid 2♦, as 2♣ is artificial 15+. Partner will not pass with fewer than 5 diamonds, and even then only with a heart shortage. I am happy-ish with this.* With a partner playing Kaplan Inversion, also not playing Flannery, when it starts 1♥ 1♠ (may have 4 spades) 2♦ shows 4 spades, and 1NT denies. I am much happier with this.* As to the "impossible 2♠", it is not impossible if you play KI as I do. 1♥ 1NT(5+ spades) 2♦ 2♠ is 6 card 11+, while 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♠ is 6 card up to 10 hcp. (You could reverse these.) (For us an immediate 1♥ 2♠ is not wjs, but 4 card support 13+.) With the non-KI partner, 2♠ really is impossible, and will never be bid. If you can't remember KI you would never remember what it might mean ! * The astute will note that these methods do not let opener rebid a natural 2♦. But as we can't bid a natural 2♣ either it seems reasonable to use it these ways when limited to a 14 max.

Important points, and expanding on this, the defined narrower ranges make it easier to decide when game it there, and that they (depending on treatment) allow a 2M bid to be invitational, and left when there is a fit but a minimum opener, rather than get to the more risky 3 level. For example (transfer walsh style in a 15/16 NT context) : 1♣ 2♠ = 6 card 5-8 hcp. Opener can pass, or move further with the 17+ hand 1♣ 1♥(=spades) 1♠(2 or 3, 12-14 hcp) 2♠ = invitational 6 card 9-12 hcp. Opener with 2 spades can pass, or invite with 3♠ on a good 14, but can invite with 3♠ on any 3 card fit 12/13, or bid 4♠ with 14. If your WJS is American, it is difficult to see how, when you have the stronger hands, that the ranges can be narrow enough to allow meaningful investigation and yet still allow play at the 2 level opposite a minimum.

I play a weak JS in response to a 1♣ open, and that is assumed to be 6 cards 5-8 hcp. I must be a European ! It would be interesting to see the results of a match between Europeans and Americans playing nothing but prepared hands of this type.

Simplicity is important for me. I like everything the same as in other sequences, or as far as it is possible, with common principles that are applicable everywhere. So as we play transfers after other things, with a "stolen bid" X, we do the same thing here. It is "system on". Without interference over 1NT we play 2♥ = transfer to ♠ 2♠ = minor suit stayman 2NT = transfer to ♣ 3♣ = transfer to ♦ 3♦ = 55 majors so they are exactly the same bids. Except that you no longer need to show both majors with 3♦ so this transfer acts like a classic cue bid of their suit in normal Lebensohl, used for 4 card majors. When choosing to change to a method such as Zel suggested or one like mine, I think it depends on what your bids mean in uninterrupted sequences. I would prefer to keep them as similar as possible. Comparing these two, mine has compulsory transfers to both minors, which makes competitive bidding easier, and minor suit stayman, but it does not have an invite+ in spades, on the face of it. This latter could be important, perhaps, if you play a 3 point 1NT range. I play 15/16 only, so am happy to have no invitations in a major. If you wanted one, you would X to transfer to spades, then raise to 3♠. And a game invitation in diamonds is impossible without raising to 4. Just a note on the ace asking bit - as 3♣ in both suggestions is categorically diamonds, if you follow with pass it is to play, and if you follow with 4♥ it is obviously ace asking.

I don't think you can make assumptions, as different people do it different ways. You just agree when you start that a free bid is ... one of the options. GF is very unlikely. The normal strong way will be to X first and bid later, maybe with a cue bid thrown in if absolutely GF. You can't discuss everything before you start, though. When it goes wrong, then you agree what it would mean next time. Without agreement, assume a free bid is forcing you to speak, but if you make a weak sounding response he could pass. Similarly, you have to agree whether playing Bergen raises. But if they do, they probably do not do it after competition, when the minor bids will be natural. In my view, if you are learning 2/1 it is MUCH better to have a regular partner to discuss things with, who will play the same way. There are many ways.

Sorry - deleted - wrong forum

There is a world of a difference, though. After 1m 1M, 2NT = 18/19 because an unbalanced 15-17 with M shortage can bid 1NT. That is not the case when partner responds 1NT. It may not be wise for a 15-17 M shortage hand to pass when responder has 3 cards in M at the most.