fromageGB

Pass like a shot. Because last weak a partner doubled 4♠ and I bid 4NT as a no-values takeout with both 55+ minors, at MP, and we went screaming off for a bottom while 4♠ was off one for an average. (He had a flatter hand though.) I dislike a 4♠ X as "optional", and think it should be one thing or the other to avoid problems like that. My preference is penalty.

3♦ and it does not rule out a major. However, I prefer a shortage ♦ opening if playing that, or a normal 1♦ if not, or I might treat it as a near-GF 3-suiter and start a different way. Though I am not keen on that, as it will entail ruffing clubs with my spade honours.

If you are bidding ♥ to show them, and ♠ to ask for a stop, what you you bid when you have good spades but nothing in hearts? With my partners, bidding ♥ shows them, inviting NT if partner has ♠, or some other bid if not, and (me) bidding ♠ is initially taken to be showing them, inviting NT if partner has hearts, while bidding NT shows both ♥+♠. Of course, either major followed by another bid over NT cancels that meaning, and then ♠ would probably be a splinter

As kenberg said, you don't need a rule on what sort of hand you had, as long as you know what partner will have to take 2NT up to 3NT. Mine will have a 9 or 10 count so I am happy to bid 2NT on a 16 count. If this is normally in your 1NT opening range, then it implies you have a hand that for some reason (shortage?) you decided not to open 1NT. That in turn suggests that if your shortage is in a major, and partner has denied a 4 card major, it may not be a good bid. You may be better off in a minor, or pass the NT. If it is not in your normal NT range, there is no problem. If playing 15-17 NT and no agreements on this situation, I would bid 3NT with 18, not 2NT. But this is risky, as it is unlikely to play well opposite 6 or 7. Combining with my second paragraph caveat, it may be better to use 2NT as an invitation with 18 (or a 17 you thought too good for 1NT) for partner to raise on 8 or more. Bid 3NT with 19. This is what I would effectively do with my transfer walsh sequences, where partner would initially bid 1♠ with this hand. I bid 1NT with 12-14, 2NT with 17/18, and effectively 3NT with 19.

Pass. Nowhere to go, happy for them to perhaps go off.

My assumption with standard bidding is that 2NT invites 3NT, that there is no difference whether you start with ♣ or ♦, and that 1NT will be in the 6-10 hcp range so that opener's invitation invites game with 9 or 10, so opener would have 16 to invite. As the 1NT bid shows clubs, I would still invite having opened 1♦ on a 16 count 4441 shape. However, over 1♣ my preference is to use transfer walsh, and 1NT has a different meaning.

Post duplicated itself - I think I clicked twice.

I don't have a weak JS available as I think the bids have better uses, so playing with a pickup will bid 1♠ and keep bidding ♠ until partner shuts up. However, no problem with my partner. We play Kaplan Inversion where 1NT is 5+ spades, and 6+ hcp, and a 2♠ rebid is 6 with 11+ hcp. 1♠ would be 0-4 spades, or a weak2 type of hand. The bidding will therefore normally be 1♥ 1♠ 1NT(eg) 2♠ pass. If partner has a stronger 15+ hand we play Gazzilli-like, and the bidding goes 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ pass. Of course, partner may go on to invite game in spades.

Given that we are where we are, I would ace ask, preferably with 4♠, and if with 4NT RKCB, hopefully with the agreement that 2 aces bids 5♥ with or without the Q. Partner will not be minimum, having started a cue bidding sequence. Mine is that hand that should ask, not his, as while I can find out about his trump honours and his AK of diamonds, he cannot discover my crucial minor queens. If we were not where we are, I would prefer an immediate GF 4 card support bid such as 2NT (or preferably 2♠) provided that it had a mechanism that allowed opener to show additional strength. Without this, you are in the dark and have to bid with hope rather than expectation. I think an initial 2 over 1 is OK, provided you have non-serious as part of your armoury, and a 2♥ rebid is GF! Unfortunately, neither is the case.

but unfortunately we are told that 2♥ would be NF.

I'm not impressed by this. For a start, when you do get a 2♥ open the suggested response 3♦ invitational provides no way of opener showing his length in spades. Whether 3 or 4 could be important in deciding whether a spade game is on, so responder cannot use the invitation with 5 spades unless very strong himself. Yes, he could bid the 2NT relay to discover a 4 card spade hand, but I would think you would want continuations (when opener does not have 4) to be GF. Another downside is that it does not allow you to open similar hands with the majors reversed (3-4♥, 5♠) unless you use a 2♠ open for that, which would need different responses as you need to discover the extent of the heart fit. You also fail to have a bid for a 5 card major without the other major. This is a problem for those that like to open weak twos with 5 card suits. Presumably you need to have 2♦ as a multi for 6 card majors, in which case I think this method is not as good as using 2♦ for both majors, any (54), or 4+4+ according to taste, and using a normal 2M open (5 or 6 card according to taste) for single majors. I much prefer the ability a natural weak 2 gives you to make a 3rd seat preemptive bid. Using 2♦ as the both majors bid gives you the room you need to resolve the hand if you want shape showing, or it allows a simpler response set, such as 2M to play, 2NT inquiry, 3♣/♦ invitation in the corresponding major, 3M, 4M to play.

OTOH, if you are playing non-serious you are likely to have an agreement that 3NT is never to play. I am also in the camp that thinks a 3♣ bid needs a 15 count (typically), and would take 3NT over 3♠ to be non-serious : opener is just 15 or 16, over to you, partner. When partner is unlimited, 3NT after explicit spade agreement is always non-serious for me, and having already made a bid of 3♣ showing an expected 15, 4any would be a serious cue bid (of whatever style) with say 17+.

Hey, that's clever. Thank you, I never knew of that feature. I apologise, and please consider that comment withdrawn. I will leave it in place because there will be others in my former state of ignorance.

I have completely missed this post. Where does it say it is a good raise to 3? I assumed 2NT is a GF 4 card support, and see no reason to assume otherwise. If you play any 13 count with 4 card support is a 2NT, then North is worth 13 - not a flat 3433, and prime values. At least, I wouldn't object if partner treated it as such. I will also comment that if ending in 5♥ describes the hand to a T, then you need different descriptive methods. South should know that North is a minimumish hand with no extras, so should not go beyond 4♥. Why risk being in 5H-1 ?

Not my example, yours. Mikeh was talking about it being unsafe to drive beyond 3NT in the sequence 1♠ 2♦ 3♣, and you seem to be suggesting that 3NT should be non-serious here. Hence my comment. :P

No, I am not saying he has no clubs. But you have no reason to suppose he has more clubs than spades! It's just not my style to sacrifice at the 5 level on a 5 card suit with no known fit. I would have more sympathy with a 5♥ sacrifice. Either might prove better than 4♠. But that game is not a certainty.

And it's more than safety. (1) If opener has described or denied strength by his first rebid it helps responder make a slam seeking decision. (2) If opener rebids just 2♠ on a weaker hand with perhaps only 5 cards, responder can bid 2NT forcing as a relay to discover opener's shape, so both strength and shape can be shown with this treatment.

1♠ 2♦ 3♣ 3NT being non-serious? Are you being serious?

A question for the lexicographers. As I doubled the first time, this is a call, not a bid. At my second turn to speak, if I bid 1♠ is this truly a rebid? Or is it a recall?

Long hearts, too short or slightly too weak for a weak jump overcall. On this hand I am in a minority of one as I double for the first call. This means I would have opened a potentially short club. If partner bids 1♥ twalsh style I rebid 1♠ and let him decide whether to pass with 5 or bid 1NT with 4. If I had passed initially, while I have sympathy with the 1NT voters, I would pass. 1♠ could be the best contract. If LHO is going to bid 2♣, neither pass nor 1NT will stop him.

3NT is a 2 point range for me, and there is no point in quantitative. Presumably the 2♦ is not a negative. 4NT after a transfer to hearts is ace asking if that is your ask, but I would prefer it to be a heart slam invitation if opener has 3 or 4 card support - opener responding with aces if so, passing if not. If you want to ace ask regardless, use kickback 4♠. Baron being a request for 4 card suits upwards? After Baron, 4NT has to be to be straight ace asking, I would have thought, as presumably you would bid 4♠ looking for a 4-4 fit game there, and would not use Baron unless you had a 4 card major.

More silliness? Partner has no clubs, and made the weakest heart support bid possible. I think -800 is not unlikely.

I don't think you can cater to find a 3-2 distribution in 2 side suits. However, the hands do not excite me enough to go slamming. With my partner we would bid 1♥ 2♠ (the "2M+1" equivalent of your 2NT, GF 4 card support) 2NT (no shortages) 3♠ (no shortages either, minimum hand - the "3M+1" non-serious 3NT) 4♥. I would think the majority of balanced 12-14 hcp responder hands would not give good slam prospects.

Yes, at any level, ie below or above game. Extend this to any bid in other sequences that shows game values, but not a distributional or pre-emptive bid. Only to the level to which your bid is forcing. If I make a bid that is forcing to the 3 level, I don't play a forcing pass if they interfere at a higher level. eg 1♥ (1♠) 2♠ (3♠) pass is not forcing as I promised only enough values for 3♥ (ie invitational). But if you make a bid that shows support and is forcing to the 4 level (you are already at the 4 level) eg 1♦ (2♠) 3♠, then forcing pass applies I would do this regardless of vulnerability, as in rule (1), if the game is not a distributional raise. Be aware, that having decided your rules, it affects your judgement of how to bid a hand. If you decide that a fit jump to the 4 level (eg 1♥ (1♠) 4♦) sets up a forcing pass if next hand bids 4♠, then you have to be much more careful/restrictive in making such bids, and will make them less often. I prefer to say a fit jump is a pre-emptive raise, so does not create a forcing pass situation, and bid it more frequently.

Having seen all this, if I was in ACBL land I would certainly never use the word "relay", as they don't know what it means. Also note that you are not allowed to use Gazzilli if playing 2 over 1. The sequence 1♠ 1NT 2♣ is an opening bid, responder makes a relay, opener makes a relay. The sequence of relay bids following an opening of one of a suit is the very definition of a relay system.