fromageGB

No idea. I open 7♦ on the surmise that nobody is likely to have a major holding sufficient for other than a very risky 7, and that a 4-1-1 / 4-0-2 club distribution sounds more likely than a 5-1-1 / 5-0-2 diamond split. No doubt someone will tell us.

I am not familiar with the concept of "second negative". Is this is the context of an initial positive being some high value of hcp, with a subsequent split of a negative into an upper and a lower range? I guess it should be, but for me a positive is an Ace or a King, so I hardly need a second negative. I assume 2♦ is negative here (some play positive). I think the answer to (2), as blackshoe intimates, is that after a second negative a repeat of the initial suit may be passed, while a second suit may by agreement be forcing or not. On the given hand, I would want to play in game so if 3♦ is forcing I would bid it, otherwise the choice is between 4♦ and 4♥. The lack of a 5th diamond and the presence of a 6th heart makes it an easy 4♥.

I've never come across a delayed alert here in the UK, but I can see the purpose. While it is wrong to give reasons for an alert during the bidding (apart from being contrary to regulations, it may give unauthorised information) this does not apply when the bidding has stopped. So I can't see how an explanation as well as alert could upset anyone, even if not "required".

Playing non-serious 3NT or not, I would bid 4♦ over 3♥ on ♠ A832 ♥ T2 ♦ AQT7 ♣ K92 or 4♣ over 3♥ on ♠ A832 ♥ QJT ♦ QJT ♣ K92

East 100% to blame. He makes a game try, West accepts (of course). He did have other bids available to show a better hand, and East has no reason to go higher.

That's all very well, but for you to take advantage of your self-knowledge, you need to obtain details of what responder has in order to determine the best contract. You cannot do this in normal methods, and I suppose the relay enthusiasts would have to devise something to cater for this. Normally the strong balanced hand describes itself so that the unknown responder makes the contract decision. Describing yourself as "26-29" does not help much. Hence the need for narrow ranges.

On this hand, I don't, but as responder I cannot see opener's hand. If he has a normal balanced 25 count with a 4 card spade suit, say AQxx AQJ KQx AQJ, and I give him a choice of game or slam but showing ♦A ♣K, he will know the majors are too open for it to be much use. I cannot have anything there at all, else I would bid slam, not suggest. He can pass 5♠. All hypothetical of course. I can't do it, so I hope slam is OK and bid it.

Similar to Mikeh. I do have a GF/nearGF bid for a 3 suiter with a minor shortage, but would not use it with this hand because the diamonds are poor, and I have the ♣A singleton. Partner will not be able to put sufficient value on ♣K. So it goes 2♣ 2♥(positive, any K+) 3NT(25-27). Playing a standard sort of puppet it then goes 4♣ 4♦ 4♥(spades) 4♠ 6♠. It would be nice for responder to be able to show just where his values lie, to be able to stop in 5, but I do not have the methods. I pot the slam.

I am very surprised by this. I have been told by EBU directors that the only announcements allowed were those words quoted in the regulations. You can have "weak" or maybe by inference "zero to weak", but you can't mention the length or even the hcp range. I have had opponents upset that I didn't give sufficient detail as a result. I have long wished for a regulation that allows you to announce a possibly uncommon bid in your own words, where you are merely giving the information that is already on the convention card. "Clubs" on 1NT 2♠, for example.

There's no reason why you cannot play suction over a strong unspecified 2-bid, such as 2♣ or a benjaminish 2♦, and I have done and for simplicity am happy to continue to do so. The opening bids have much in common with a strong 1♣, but as the opening is stronger and the level higher, there may be more chance of coming unstuck. However, I have never been in a doubled bad contract. Opponents always seem determined to play the hand. Of course any interference can help them play the hand, and this can be important. It's a balance between giving information away and the disruption and loss of space you cause. The weak 2 in diamonds is a different kettle of fish. Natural and forcing seems simple and good. On the given hand, if 2♥ is spades or minors, I prefer 3♦, but it depends how free you are with the suction bids. There is no reason to believe opponents have game on, but they may have, and it may be best to let them play in 3♥ or 4♣ if they choose to bid it. But happy to play in 3♦ or ♠ if they let us. However, my bid is 2♠ if a vulnerable single-suiter can be 5 cards.

Of course people play weak takeouts, but we are talking about finding 4-4 major fits after opener bids a weak (12-14) NT. As I used to play it, and people still do, the only way of doing this was Stayman, and when partner does not have the right major, bid 2NT. However, this is the only way of showing a game invitational hand with a 4 card major, so opener will certainly bid 3NT with a good 13 or 14. If you have a 9 count, you are likely to be getting a very poor score. Consequently, a balanced 9 count with a 4 card major, or even a 10 count, will pass 1NT. Let alone weaker hands. Contrast this with the easy 1♣!(may be doubleton) 1♦!(hearts) 1♥!(only 2 or 3) 1♠!(puppet to NT) 1NT pass of Transfer Walsh or 1♣ 1♦ 2♥ pass if there is a major fit. If you have a method of responder showing a balanced 9 count with a 4 card major over 1NT, so that you end in 2M with a 4-4 fit, or 1NT with no fit, then I would be interested in hearing of it.

Maybe so with the way you play it, but for some, 1NT then 2♥ is definitely more limiting than 1♠ 2♥. If I have 3 card heart support for both these, then the first has a maximum 6 count, and the second has a maximum 10 count. This means that a strong opener (maybe he is playing 17+ for Gazzilli so hasn't yet shown strength) may invite game in either major with a 2♠ bid after 1♠ then 2♥ but not with 3♥ after 1NT then 2♥.

This can't be right. If partner raises spades on 3 cards, then surely you would only bid spades with 5? I have played with a number of partners but all have a way of managing your problem. This uses 2♦ as a 3 card spade support bid if a natural 1♠ could be 4 cards, or with KI 2♦ as 4 card spades when 1♠ is 0-4 spades. I guess if opener wanted to rebid 2♦ showing diamonds (very old-fashioned!), then you might have a point, but even then I would probably prefer a 5(+)-2 heart fit to a 4-3(+) spade fit, and would not respond 1♠ on only 4 when I had a doubleton heart.

Not sure that I understand what you are saying here. That is the problem with "terminology" when the terms are not defined. It took me a while to work out what a "limit" raise was, when in my terminology all raises have limits. When it comes to 3 card support raises, I see them as 3 strength ranges - preemptive (say 4-6 hcp), normal (7-10 hcp) and game invitational (11-12 hcp). I would expect partner to look for game over any of these if he had the appropriate strength, so you can play at the 3 level in all of them. (Of course the game invitational 3 card support is probably already at the 3 level.) In the context of a forcing NT, the 3 card support ranges would normally be bid by 1NT then 2M 2M 1NT then 3M The first sequence would also be followed by a typical 6-10 with 2 card support.

As I said, I bid 1♣ with 12, so the strength distinction is not so important for me in right-siding. What is often overlooked, though, is that when responder has a major or both majors, you are getting a minor lead, and it is much better for that to come round into the hand that has maybe double the length in the minors. Lead into length is as important as lead into strength.

Whether Twalsh with a weak NT or a strong NT depends on what your prime reasons are for using Twalsh, and what your philosophical opinion is of the 1NT open. I use Twalsh particularly for the benefits of finding and describing the major fits. When you open 1NT with say 12-14 you need partner to have 11+ before he dares open his mouth (or pull out anything but green). This means that you miss many major fits. OK a weak NT is preemptive, as its proponents like to say, but it preempts your partner too. This means that in my view 1NT is a bad opening. I want to open it as little as possible, and 15-17 means it occurs much less frequently than 12-14. The use of Twalsh means that you do not have a problem showing 17/18 as distinct from 19 when you open 1♣, so taking 17 out of the reckoning restricts 1NT to 15-16, improving the situation even more. As to the ways to continue after a 1♣ open, there are probably as many treatments as there are players that use Twalsh. There have been a number of threads on Twalsh discussing options and you should be able to use the search facility to find them. If you wanted my specific treatment I would be happy to send you my notes if you email me via my profile. As to the use of the 1♣ and 1♦ openings and how many cards they guarantee in that suit, I started Twalsh years ago with standard minors, but found that it is better for the 1♣ opening to guarantee at least 2 cards in each major. This makes the major fits better,and the exact length can be shown as well as the strength (ie does responder have 4, 5 or 6 when he is weak, invitational, or game forcing?) To achieve this, it means that 1♦ is either long (6+) diamonds, or has a shortage in another suit. This approach, which has a number of hidden benefits, fits well with Twalsh.

but you want the writing facing inwards, so write on the back of the note.

Another treatment is that the non-serious 3NT is serious, but denies the holding of the cheapest cue bid, to allow partner to show it.

Just an update on the LibreOffice setup. Now I have been doing bridge notes using the coloured substitutions, I certainly am finding it easier to just type 2c for example, rather than messing around with the shift key or capitals. If I want to write " 3D film " the capitalised version is not substituted. Works well. If you really did want literally 2c, such as for a section heading in lower case, then you can get that by typing 2 c then later going back to delete the space.

OK, I have an answer of sorts for LibreOffice, the new OpenOffice. It uses auto-correct. It can't do it for symbols embedded in text, such as 3♥, but you can set it up for the texts complete. So create on a page 1♥ 2♥ 3♥ etc, using "insert / special character...", selecting for your font the subset "miscellaneous symbols" and choosing the suit. This is then black, so select/highlight it with mouse drag and change the colour as you want it. Then for each combinationtext such as 3♥, highlight it and "tools / autocorrect options...", replace. The selected text will be in the "with" box and will look black. Enter the characters you want substituted (such as 3!h or maybe just 3h is better), in the "replace" box, and click the "new" button. Then when you later type 1c 1s 2h it appears as 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ in full colour. Tedious to initially set up, but better than inserting or copy/pasting characters each time.

Love this ! I assure you, you are missing out on some of the fun in life :D

How about 2♦ negative, then pass if opener does not make a forcing bid? For example, you can play a simple 2♣ 2♦ 2M puppets the next step to allow opener to bid a second suit or NT. If the second suit, or rebid of the first, is at the 3 level, you can pass. Simple and pain free.

I think this is bad. It means that unless opener has game entirely in his hand he has to open a 1-level bid, when his passing partner will have more than enough for game.

Ken, what you said about it being good if 2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 3♦ shows diamonds, and 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♣ shows clubs, applies just as forcefully to using 2♥ in place of 2♦ as the bid that shows an ace or a king. You can play 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3♦ shows diamonds, and 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ shows clubs if you like. When your sequence 2♣ 2♥(negative) 2NT occurs, and responder has to make a game decision, is your 2NT 22-23 hcp? Does 2♣ 2♥ 3NT show 24+? A little risky, as you are unlikely to have any play whatsoever opposite nothing. Playing the 2♦ as denying ace or king, and having opener's 2♥ normally puppeting 2♠ (you can have exceptions for exceptional hands), gives you 2♣ 2♦ 2NT = 22/23, 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT = 24/25. You have the room for better definition when partner is a poor hand - which is when you need it. Another advantage of the puppet bids are that it allows opener to show both suits in 2-suited hands and still stop short of game when opener is less than GF. I am still waiting to hear why most prefer 2♥ as negative. What advantage does it give?

Missing options : none of the above, or a variety of other bids to chose from. So no vote from me, I open 2♦ artificial. Without agreements, 2♣ then 2NT.