fromageGB

Thanks for this, it's the first I have seen as to any reasoning. My comments would be : 1) If a negative 2♥ allows you do drop out below game, a negative 2♦ does so even better. 2) Yes, I agree with this, but I was not aware it was falling out of favour. Comments (including yours) in recent threads led me to believe that 2♥ negative was being preferred. Assuming you bid a positive (A or K, maybe optional queens), OR a negative (denies a positive), and you use ♦ or ♥ as your only 2 (frequent/common) bids, then a 2♥ negative is bad because it interferes with Kokish, whereas a 2♦ negative does not. It is particularly after a negative that you need Kokish more, as you are not in a game force. Kokish gives you two ways to bid 2NT, and the split afforded in the strength ranges for these means that a negative responder is better placed to decide whether to pass 2NT or bid 3NT. If you have a negative 2♥, then it means you do not have Kokish and have only one range for 2NT. Another advantage of having Kokish available when you are negative is that it lets opener bid a 2-suiter including hearts. 2♣ 2♦, 2♥ 2♠, 3something can be passed or corrected. I think the argument for a negative 2♦ rather than a negative 2♥ is convincing.

Or a spade. Certainly possible, but I don't have the option in my methods of making a natural forcing ♦ bid and following it with 3NT. I want to bid 3NT, and I want to show the diamonds so partner can play there if he prefers.

My plan was transfer to diamonds and then rebid 3NT (neither shows nor denies a stop, but suggests a place to play, nor (with opposition bidding) suggesting a slam), which lets partner make a decision if they bid over that. I am content for them to lead a club, so do not mind a lead directional double, and that is the most likely lead anyway without a double. It may help partner decide to take it out to diamonds when he has nothing in clubs. I stop in 4♦ if he bids it. I think this is far better than 3NT direct, which puts me in a terrible place when they bid 4♣. Do I then pass, double, or bid diamonds? Much better to let opener make that decision, knowing my hand.

Jerdonald, you certainly would be recommended to change to this, or something similar, if you were to change. There is debate over the inclusion of Qs in deciding whether you have a negative or a positive, because when you have a weak hand the Qs may be worthless when partner's 2♣ is based on a more distributional hand rather than a balanced hand. When he has a balanced hand, of course your Qs are good, but after your negative you just raise 2NT to game with undisclosed QJs. When he has shown his suits, then you can decide whether your Qs are pulling their weight. Because of this, some play that a positive is an ace or a king. The other variable is whether you bid 2♦ or 2♥ with a negative. I prefer 2♦ as it gives more room to decide on whether game is viable, and if you bid 2♥ with a positive, then you don't need the room because you are forcing to game anyway. However, it seems to be a trend to make 2♦ the positive and 2♥ the negative. I don't really know why, and have not seen an explanation. Maybe two4bridge can enlighten us?

Without changing the system in a significant way, you can adopt Stephen's key points : > You definitely don't need a 2nd negative playing a 0-3 hcp step, your first bid was already double-neg! > new suits really need to be played as at least 1-round forcing My suggestion would be for responder to ALMOST automatically bid the next step after opener's rebid, then he can give preference or pass if that 2nd rebid is not a jump. The "almost" comes in when responder has something specific worth showing, such as a 6 card suit or 5 cards with the shown points in that suit. Edit - as Stephen said, if opener's first rebid is NT, you can pass that, but of course you can transfer with a 5 or 6 card suit.

I double, but also give consideration to 3♦. If partner's spades in a normal flattish distribution are not good enough to bid 1NT, this would work better than letting him guess the best contract.

Playing "systems on", 3♣ transfer to diamonds.

X. Transfer to diamonds. Why do I want to play "systems on"?

All this seems very strange, to me. I play KI, and the way I play 1♠ denies 5+ spades, and can be zero spades. Equally opener has denied spade length by opening 1♥. 1♥ p 1♠! X therefore, while it is still technically a takeout double of hearts, definitely shows spades. Consequently "punishing them" with XX when you have a 12 count and 4 spades is more likely to give them a top. If you want to keep things natural, and keep a possible 4-4 spade fit in the frame, you could say that XX shows 4 reasonable spades, but usually forcing, not penalty, when responder does not have 4. Personally, I would not want to waste the natural 1NT bid as a possible contract, particularly as my preference is not to open 1NT with a 5 card major.

Well, it is easy to deal with, as you can just ignore it and bid as you normally would. However, you have the opportunity to describe your hand better by agreeing meanings, much along the lines of glen's suggestion. I vary that by having 2bids showing length (5 if new) and not strong (typically up to 14hcp) with stronger hands bidding 1NT or XX (which can include a 5 card minor, forcing when bid later). (Gazzilli is off, 2♣ is weak and 5.) Crucial you have an agreement on 2♣ if you normally play it as artificial.

My point is that bidding 5NT announces that you are extremely 2-suited and want to play a slam. LHO can then more easily realise his side have a good chance in one of the other suits, as a make or a sensible sacrifice. It is easy for him then to double, forcing to a fit in his partner's best, if he himself does not have a good long suit. Contrast this with an immediate 7♦ bid, which may be and usually is single suited. Now there is much less of a chance of finding a fit with partner, so bidding is inhibited.

Not so good, though. Once you announce you have both minors and are slamming, you give plenty of room for opponents to cooperate and jump in. Start with a 7 bid and they will not know the extreme 2-suited nature of the hand, nor will they have room to discuss their fits.

Yes, it is worth something when it works out, the satisfaction of getting a whopping +50 rather than a -400, maybe an absolute top. But not more matchpoints in the long term. Look at it this way, and follow through the arithmetic. Suppose dummy has ♠A65 ♥A654 and declarer has ♠Q32 ♥Q82. You lead a small spade, and declarer wins 2 tricks in that suit, ie Q then A. In hearts he has 2 trick, as his Q is on top of partner's K. Total 4 tricks. You lead a heart, and declarer wins only the same 2 tricks in that suit, and when he plays spades, he will win only 1 trick as your K will cover declarer's Q. Total 3 tricks. Your spade lead has given away a trick. Of course there are many distributions, but you are very likely to lose a trick when declarer has the Q. Now look at matchpoints. Assume there is a 25% chance of the spade lead resulting in +50 when partner has spade values AND you need the tempo of the lead to get those tricks, 25% chance it makes no difference -400, and 50% chance of -430 when you give a trick away, while a passive lead such as a heart or club results in -400. Assume 8 results, the first 4 of the leaders choosing a spade, and the last 4 of the leaders choosing a passive. Scores will be +50, -400, -430, -430, -400, -400, -400, -400, and the english matchpoints correspondingly 14,8,1,1,8,8,8,8. A spade lead on average gets you (14+8+1+1)/4 or 6 matchpoints, a passive lead (8+8+8+8)/4 or 8 matchpoints. The passive lead wins. So more people will make a passive lead rather than an aggressive lead. Suppose 12 results, and 4 leaders choose spades, and 8 passive. Add 4 more -400s on the end of that list. Matchpoints are now 22,12,1,1,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12. A spade lead on average gets you (22+12+1+1)/4 or 9 matchpoints, a passive lead 12 matchpoints. Passive wins out just the same. Even assuming you are in an aggressive field, where 4 lead a spade and only 2 passive, the matchpoints are 10,6,1,1,6,6, and a spade lead gets you (10+6+1+1)/4 or 4.5, while a passive lead gets 6 matchpoints. Passive wins again. You will note that in all cases the ratio is the same, the aggressive lead getting 3/4 the matchpoints of the passive. The above assumes everyone is playing the same contract, as is often the case when it is 3NT. Other considerations come into play when you expect that you will be defending an unusual contract. It all depends on your goals and objectives. Do you want the excitement of some tops and more bottoms, or do you want a boring good result?

A rhm says. At imps, the cost of an overtrick by leading spades and giving a spade trick away is small, while the gain from being able to set up partner's hand should he also have sufficient in spades, to take the contract off when it would otherwise make, is high. Crudely, to gain a possible 8 IMPs it is worth taking a risk, losing 1 IMP when a 1 in 5 chance does not pay off. Conversely, at MP the attacking play gets you a 20% score. However, this crude arithmetic overlooks the fact that on passive play (heart or club lead) the contract may be going off anyway, and your aggressive spade lead lets them make it.

1♣, transfer walsh to find the major fit, easy for me as I play 15/16 NT. If I were to play 15-17, I would not like to open 1♣ and treat this as 18 if partner does not have a major, but a NT contract is better played by partner. Downgrade the club to a singleton, and open 1♦.

Playing this method I would say : (1) 2♣ is artificial, at least invitational, asking for shape clarification, and 2♦ shows 5 and denies 3 hearts and denies 4 spades. Bidding the major takes preference, hearts if both, as responder could then bid spades with 4. Responder's 2♠ over 2♦ shows stops for helping the NT game judgement, probably 4 cards, forcing to 2NT. As responder could have bid 2NT, it implies weakness in clubs if responder is just invitational. However, if responder continues with another bid, it sets a game force, in an unbalanced hand. His next bid patterns out (ie bids a new 3+ card suit). (2) Responder has a 4522 shape in a game force hand. The balanced shape is guaranteed, as he failed to bid the first sequence. Before I switched to an unbalanced 1♦ open I used to play this way.

always ♥

Not exactly true,because if trumps break badly there is nothing you can do. If your side suit breaks badly, dummy will be short, so you possibly can ruff one to make them all good. So pick the suit that is less likely to break badly.

One of my least favorite calls in bridge is the immediate 2(anything) as a bust. It wrongsides all anything contracts.

Playing the defence as above, I make a simple game invitation of 3♥.

As over a multi2D you play X = 13-15 balanced or 19+ , it makes sense to do the same over 2♣.

Sorry, I misread the question. Over a multi2C (as I now read it) I play as glen suggested : X = balanced opening hand 2♦ = 3 suited opening hand short in diamonds (well, implying 44xx in majors), a takeout of 2♦ 2♥ and upwards = natural or what they normally mean. We had discussed what the defence should be when we played the multi2C before the EBU decided they didn't like it, but it never came up. It needs to be simple and as systemically normal as possible, because of the infrequency. As we play a bid of the opponents' transfer suit as a takeout of that suit { eg (1NT) p (2♦=hearts) 2♥ }, this approach seemed obvious.

Do you really think that with distributions as they will be, opponents are going to be passive??? I would much rather get in quickly BEFORE they discover they have a 2-suited fit.

Not an instant decision for me. Playing Twalsh a 1NT rebid after partner's red suit for us shows 17/18, so I have to complete the transfer or rebid clubs. If we end in 3NT I don't care who plays it, but if we end in 1NT I want it to be me. While I play 1NT if he bids 1♦, if he bids 1♥ then it will be him that plays 1NT. I open 1NT. The extra club is an insurance if he goes to game, and it does not stop partner showing a 6 card major.

I don't take it as control showing, or showing length in clubs. I would like it to be game suggestion in hearts opposite a weak UNT, but I have known it used as "equal length in your suits". Possibly doubletons, where 3♦ may be a make and 3♥ goes off when partner is x56x.