fromageGB

Thanks, Gwnn, but I think taking up a cheap bid for the 3 card support puts too much pressure on being able to describe the hand for partner to choose the right contract when both parties are minimumish. Still mulling things over.

That's interesting, as I had a swapped scheme of a reply of 1♥ as either major, and 1♠ as a relay with any 11+! That worked very well, but it proved too memory-heavy for my one partner who tried it, so it's now simple for all three partners.

The 1♦ I am playing, and have for a number of years, contains a shortage somewhere if the hand does not contain 6 diamonds, and diamonds will not be the short suit. Diamonds will be 4+ 90% of the time by this definition, and can be immediately supported as such. I am playing this because it gives the best base for a 1♣ open with transfer continuations, in that life becomes much simpler when responder knows opener will have at least 2 cards in responder's major. It is also working well on the 1♦ hands, as responder is better able to judge where to go - particularly on weaker hands - when opener has rebid to show his hand type, which by definition has to be single-suited, both minors, or three-suited. Currently I may not be playing the best continuations, which is why I was looking for advice/experience.

No, I meant what I wrote : 1♦ is long, or has a shortage outside diamonds. 1♣ is long, or is (semi)balanced with no shortage except perhaps in diamonds. This is what I am playing at the moment, where by "long" I mean 6+ cards.

Playing a balanced or semi-balanced 1♣ with a 1♦ as the bid when either long in diamonds or short (singleton or void) in a major or clubs has been around quite a while now, and has more adopters. I am interested in how you play this. Given that the 1♦ open may contain a singleton and three cards in a suit, does a 1NT rebid identify that the shortage is in responder's major, or is it used for a support bid or somethig else? If you do not identify a short suit, how would you describe a typical 3-suited hand? If responder bids your 3 card suit do you raise, or how do you support? It seems that there are many ways to skin this cat, but I would like to gain an idea of the more common approaches.

Not true these days, as others have pointed out. Chop it down to "The purpose of preemptive bidding is to make it difficult for the opponents to bid". When you adopt more flexibility you include defensive hands too. It is a well known fact that distributional offensive hands on one side are usually partnered by equally offensive hands for the other side, and a "sound" preempt assists them in their bidding. Mix in some mixed hands, and it becomes much trickier for them to bid. You have achieved your purpose. When in 3rd seat my partnerships can be more flexible as to both length and strength. A jump opening is announced (EBU-land) as "weak to intermediate".

With one partner I would have passed, so would be in this situation, with others I would have opened 2♦. If this is my hand, I do want to play in 3NT if partner has a spade trick. (1NT is practically never 14 hcp in practice, because we play twalsh with 12-14 and as twalsh is so much better at getting to the right contract with 12-14, a poor 15 is more likely to be downgraded than a good 14 upgraded.) The question then becomes methods. Playing Lebensohl, the problem with 3♦ forcing is that opener does not know of your spade guard, and may not cooperate, as miamijd points out. If you play transfers, then it depends on what a double means. Playing X as asking for a 4 card heart fit, you can simply here bid 3♥ as ostensibly a transfer to their suit. Opener's normal continuation would be 3NT with stops, 4-something as a rescue denying a spade trick, and 3♠, completing the transfer, with a guard needing help, and then over this I can bid 3NT. Over 4♣ I correct to 4♦ to play. This is my method with one partner. Playing X as an "I would have bid that ie minor suit stayman", as I do with another partner, I am a bit stuck. This method is useful when you have both minors, but a "transfer to their suit" is the method of finding a 4-4 heart fit, and I can't do that. With this partner I think I would bid 3♣ compulsory transfer to 3♦ and follow it with a 3♠ bid which he should interpret as a request to fall back to diamonds if he does not have a spade guard for 3NT. I just pray his spade guard is not Kx !

No doubt all very confusing. My suggestion in a nutshell is : If your partnership is prepared at this stage to learn a variety of transfer walsh (probably not, and that can get complex with conflicting treatments) then go for it and this question disappears. If you partnership says "not yet" then if you play pairs (with matchpoint scoring) always bid 1♠, and if you usually play in teams (with International Match Points or IMPs [even though normal matchpoints are themselves international!]) then always bid 1NT. OK, that's big enough to need a coconut shell. Partner being not strong enough to use an artificial 2♣ or 2♦ for checkback or xyz over a 1NT rebid is much more common than the other way round.

And that's a different card game, as they say. Playing a forcing NT you are obliged to bid, and you can afford to scratch around for the best contract. Playing a non-forcing NT you can easily pass (depending on the hand), so if you did bid 2♦ it would be suggestive of a higher contract or a better contract than 1NT, and therefore a better suit. My forcing NT can be up to a balanced 15 count (ie no sensible 5 card suit 13+ for a 2/1, and no 16+ for one of the multi-2♣ options) and therefore there is no implied responder weakness and therefore no implication that opener bidding a second suit shows strength or solidity. It makes a huge difference, I feel.

I am surprised mainly because with a forcing NT the default contract is often 2M. Assuming opener rebids diamonds on a 4 card suit and perhaps sometimes on a 3 card suit with nothing better to say, if partner with no diamond fit is typically going to rebid 2♠ on a doubleton, why do you need to rebid spades immediately? If he rebids 2♥ then without heart support you can now bid 2♠ to show 6. Accepting the vagueness of an opener minor rebid when playing forcing NT, responder is not going to raise or pass the minor unless he has genuine reason to do so. Therefore in my view there is no need to hide a 4 card minor. Of course this is complicated if you play 2♣ as artificial, where 2♦ may therefore be forced to distortion, but the OP posited "standard" and hence no Gazzilli etc. If your normal method in principle is to rebid 2♦ on a 5332 shape I see no objection to it being a 4 card suit.

Looking at both hands I think it would be difficult to avoid losing 5 tricks, so the answer to your first question is "no". Looking at N in isolation, it's 12 hcp so before I see partner's opening, it is doubtful to be GF, and when I do see 1♠ I downgrade it further so definitely not. Conversely, if he opened 1♥ it is a definite yes, and it certainly is a 4+ card support GF of 2NT or whatever your bid is. Over 1♠ I make a forcing 1NT and in reply to a continuation of 2♦ I am happy to bid 3♦. Increasing N's strength to GF by adding say the ♠Q then the bidding is likely to go 1♠ 2♥, 2♠ 3♣, 3♦ 3NT, getting to your 3NT game which might not be right, but plausible. If S was stronger it depends on how you play the 2♠ rebid, but he might bid 4♦ or 4♠ over 3NT asking for game preference and you would bid 5♦. If his first rebid was 3♦ rather than 2♠ you may play that as 15/16+ and if you were correspondingly stronger too then you could jump to 4♥ to agree diamonds and ace ask to be in the slam, or maybe you do that with 4♦. Key points are how you play opener's rebid after a 2/1 and whether certain bids show strength or not. I do not know what is "standard" here, but I find it easy to play that rebidding the major does not show extra length, but rebidding higher than that does show extra hcp strength. S would then with a 15/16+ 6241 shape might be intending to bid 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 3♠ if you repeated hearts rather than agreed diamonds.

You seem to have answered your question. If 4♠ has any chance, the bidding goes 2♥ 3♠ 4♠. Otherwise it goes 2♥ 2♠ pass.

Of course, but I think many that did like his rail/postoffice/utilities/wages/benefits policies. The reason Labour lost was mainly the fact that Labour reneged on Brexit, and that was because of the London elitists who thought that people outside London do not matter. Yes, Corbyn was defective in that he was not a firm enough leader to stand by his beliefs, but subtract that and the Hamas overtones, and I think a younger leader with the same policies would bounce back with a vengeance in 5 years. But that isn't going to happen, I guess. Put your mind to how it could happen. PR would enfranchise me and 90% of the population, but no main party that actually decides new laws would destroy its means of power.

Just because Catalonia wants to leave, it doesn't mean the government will let it. Things will change if Boris does not give away our fishing rights in the spring. A resurgence of the fishing industry will change many a tune.

If this is typical bidding, I am not surprised ! :rolleyes:

I can't see how it is a psyche, as it is merely an inquiry. I wouldn't try it here, though, as you are too likely to receive an unwanted 3♠ response, and following with 4♣ would be taken as a forward move rather than a rescue. System-wise, if you have a strong option for the opening, you cannot pass if there is a prospect of game opposite a strong option, and there certainly is here. "Scrap your multi", I would say, or have an obligatory 2♥ with a hand not interested in a heart game if a weak2.

This is a basic position that all partnerships will discuss very early on. My agreement with all partners is to raise with 3 cards and a side singleton or void, except where there is a specific method to show 3 card support.

I'm not going back through all 170 pages, but recent entries seem all about the veracity of global warming rather than discussing solutions. OK, you don't need solutions if there is no problem, but assume for sake of discussion that climate change is happening, adversely, with a large and ever-growing human input of greenhouse gasses. What should "we" do about it? There seem to be some odd ideas around. Is it really going to make any significant difference if we use LED bulbs rather than incandescent, or electric cars rather than oil-based fuels, or have wind turbines rather than coal power? I think not. The problem is the number of people in the world. Yes, you could make an impact if you shot all cows and pigs and we became vegan, but it would only delay the inevitable. Pursuing economic growth, which seems to be most peoples' strategy, is the wrong way to go. We need less (or negative) growth, and fewer numbers. Nobody seems to be talking about how we should bring down the world population to a sustainable figure. It might even be sustainable at the current level if we take action to stabilise it. But if we don't stop world population growing, you might just as well power your incandescents from a diesel generator, and enjoy the heatwave.

(*I added the brackets insert) The problem is that this 3♠ possibility is a huge downside. Overcaller may have a decent fit with you, but as you haven't told him what your suit is, he cannot support. If he has "extras" you say he can double, but you may have no fit and yet you are doubling them into a good game or forcing yourself too high. This is why it is important with no support to show your suit immediately. Showing it by transfer gives more options and has other benefits, but if you have an aversion to transfers, surely a "no interest" 3y is a better bid than 2NT.

First what would it mean if overcaller actually bid hearts? As (1♠) 2♥ for us may simply be 5 cards and a 10 count, the continuation (2♠) 2NT would be 3 hearts and an opening hand, so invitational or better, while a "transfer" of 3♦ would be 4 card support and invitational or better, ie a strength 3♥ bid as opposed to a weaker fit bid of 3♥. In the given sequence we would treat the double as guaranteeing 4 hearts, so advancer needs one more. Therefore for us 2NT is 4 hearts and an opening hand (ie invitational or better) while 3♦ is 5 card hearts and invitational or better. It may be more common to play these bids the other way round, with 2NT being the longer support, but I prefer it this way as the longer support cuts out a shape showing opener new suit, which could be useful to them in more distributional hands. (If you are going to 3♠ you may as well show clubs if that lets partner better make the decision of 4♠ or not over a possible 4♥.)

I play it as showing 6 cards, and the hcp range is 9-12 as a direct 1♣ 2M is 6 card up to 8hcp, and a 13+ hand will be bidding game. As 9-12 is a 4 point range, opener can bid anything (eg feature or 3M) to invite the top 2pointer to bid game. Works for me, as other sequences show 5 cards.

Sorry, I read it too quickly. 2NT responder rebid could be used for any GF {5431} but I think you may be running out of space. Assuming the 5 card suit is a major, for example, shown initially, and you then rebid a 4 card suit (3NT if clubs?) opener will not know what the short suit is. You will need to use 2♦ for some hands, and even then I don't think you can show the shape. More importantly, a 3NT contract being played by a hand with a known shortage tends to make the defence a little easy :-) Perhaps this 2NT is not a good idea. If there is not a major fit, and if opener does not show a long suit, hide the singleton and just let NT be the default if not slam strength.

Hearts and a minor. With both majors you rebid 2♠(forcing) followed by 3♥(non-forcing).

I am not a fan of XYZ nor a user, so my comments may be ignorant, but it seems to me that XYZ has been designed for natural majors rather than transfer majors. You have all that extra room, and I am sure you can do something better. Do you never want to play in responder's 5+ card minor when he has a minimum hand with a non-fitting 4 card major? How do you handle weak both majors 44xx or {54}xx? Q1) Your relay breaks obviously kill the idea of playing in 2♦; your 2M breaks seems to achieve little given that by definition you are in game strength with no chance of slam. Maybe any break shows diamond shortage, if this is not included in your unbalanced diamond, so that an escape from 3NT can be made when responder has poor diamonds. Q2) My feeling is that opener giving away info about minor length is not a good idea. Presumably if responder had a GF with a minor he could bid 1♥! followed by 3m. Q3) Opener isn't going to have a 4135 or a 4315 or 4153 if you are playing unbalanced diamond.

I think Mikeh's comment on 2♥ is right. My choice of method that works well is to have 2♦ response as definitively at least one ace or king, and 2♥ denies that. (Forget long responder suits for the moment.) Now while 3 hcp may be sufficient for a 2♦ bid, a 2♥ bid can be made with a number of QJs, so it is not necessarily bust, and can show this later. The key thing in slams is controls, and this is the basis for fit developments. Over 2♦ opener bids his suit GF, or his 5+ card major if 2-suited, spades if both. (We use a 2♦ open inter alia for 3-suited hands.) Responder bids the next step to deny 3-card support, and now opener can try a second suit if any. With 3 card support responder skips the first step and bids steps equal to the number of ace/kings, so over 2♠, 3♦ is two ace/kings. A relay asks for extra values essentially shown by suit or denied with trumps. As the number of ace/kings are known, opener has the advantage of perhaps knowing there is no point in looking for slam, and if he does ask for aces, then he instantly knows how many kings there are, and again can decide to go no further. After a second suit has been shown at the 3-level following an initial step1 denial, it is initially assumed to be trumps and all steps show ace/king numbers. If responder has a 6+ card suit he wants to bid, he replies to 2♣ by bidding 2♠/3♣♦♥ as a transfer. Opener can accept that as trumps by completing the transfer, then responder bids ace/king steps, but with any other bid he prefers to play in his suit (responder then steps). The method is simple and useful. After a 2♥ ace/king denial, we prefer any 3-level opener bid to be passable.