fromageGB

I'm on your side here, and an added advantage is that 1♠ allows partner to declare 1NT with a balanced hand, which, with my values in the minors and no ruffs, may play better than 2♥. But I'm sure there are arguments the other way, and it might also depend on whether you play a forcing NT. If you do, then you probably have a non-constructive 2♥ raise going via 1NT. That puts a brake on opener, whereas if 1♠ then 2♥ guaranteed better values (or values in spades), it can help opener's judgement.

A 3 point range is a bit awkward, and I would say a 2NT rebid when partner is negative should ideally not be more than a 2 point range. This is one big advantage of Kokish, rebidding 2NT in two distinct ranges. Like many I play 2♣, 2NT as 22-23; 2♣, Kokish 2♥, then 2NT as 24-25. A 2 point range allows responder a sensible game decision. If you want the benefits of Kokish (and there are others), why is apparently everybody so enamoured with 2♦ positive and 2♥ negative? Playing them the other way round gives you Kokish. When responder is positive (or not double negative { hey, that's a real double negative :P } or whatever your terms are) you can afford a bigger range as obviously you are now in a GF situation and you still have range-splitters (aka quantitative) available for slam decisions. I can see a positive 2♦ gives you fractionally more space that a positive 2♥, but do you really need it all, to the extent of scrapping Kokish?

While I am happy with normal to very good {1444} hands opening 1♣ if the shortage is diamonds, and 1♦ otherwise, and they handle the 3-suiters well in my view, you do need something else for the game forcing hands - or a trick short when you might miss game if partner passes your one open. Building them all into 2♣ is awkward because there are so many other hand types that need to be covered and you are at a high level. When I played a multi-2♦, and did so for many years, it was a strong option. That was OK. However, now I have switched to a 2♦ opening showing both majors, it is easier to handle 3-suiters naturally. If you have a minor shortage you just start 2♦ then (when partner shows no great interest in a major) unexpectedly bid the minor. If you have a major shortage you start 2♣, but while it is still not ideal, at least it can be managed better, as the shortage has to be a major and you can show your major first, then use an unusual rebid to show the 3-suiter. So my thoughts on 3-suiters are that they need to be shown, but they don't all have to start with one bid. If you have an essentially natural non-strong club system without many relays/negatives and the like, build them in where they best fit.

I'll go for something creative. With one partner at the moment we are trying transfers over their natural NT, and it seems to be working out so far. So X = transfer to clubs. Opener is then better placed to handle a 2♠ rescue from the weak hand, and if he doesn't bid 3♣ I pass.

If I am vulnerable, lay the hand down and claim 4 tricks, then spend the 5 minutes at the bar. If I am not vulnerable, do as most seem to, hope RHO has A doubleton spade. Cross to a club, lead to ♠Q then duck a spade.

I am not sure what the question really means. If is specifically asking those who would double with this exact hand (because they think it is too strong for an overcall) how weaker they would be with this 45xx shape to not double, but call something else, I don't think we have heard an answer. I would have thought that anyone who would double with this hand would also double with a weaker hand of this shape if they were too strong to pass. If it is just asking "on this hand do you double or bid hearts", then that has been answered by a 2 to 1 majority. If it is asking "forget this hand, but what is the boundary line between an immediate overcall and doubling followed by a bid", then a typical 18+ seems to be the boundary, or a useful 17.

As this is not posted in the experts forum, I feel entitled to make a comment! Certainly standard here is immediate = Michaels, delayed = natural, but if the club could be short, as I guess is the case, my preference is for an immediate X to say "I would have opened that". We then play system on, ie transfer walsh, so that copes well in finding major fits when it also acts like a normal takeout double. In this case, my rebid is 2♣ to deny a potential major fit (if partner showed one) and to show 6 clubs. Seems right to me.

Making 5♠ the king ask presupposes that you have an agreed treatment that can make use of the additional space. If you do not, then you can achieve nothing with 5♠ that you cannot with 5NT, and therefore 5♠ becomes a "what's that?" bid. In this case I would read it as a proposed alternative place to play, leaving the decision to partner. While it does guarantee enough for slam, maybe opener has had prior experience of responder's "trump queen showing" responses.

Don't forget we both speak English, while American is a different language. Languages evolve, and it is the duty of the young to attempt to change things, however misguided or unguided they may be.

As a player who has never played a relay system, the contradiction between these two parts strikes me as amusing. :D

I play the same as mgoetze, even with a forcing next step! One possible exception: our responder may have a 16+ with 4 cards in the other major (I guess if you play non-forcing NT it is 13+) and with that responder bids 2 OtherMajor over the 2♦ relay. This does not need to have clubs as well. This is in fact not different in essence from the rhm method. Another note to add is that my preference is for 1M 2♣ 3m to show a strong 5-5, with a weaker one bidding the relay first.

deleted

I am more than a little wary of clicking dubious links to an unknown domain from an unknown contributor. Can you show your point directly?

I voted for 2 extra on the premise that you would not be in a supporting situation without having an 8 card fit, thus making 10 in total. It is hard to imagine not knowing partner's length, though.

I don't see boxes in either the original post or yours, I see chinese/japanese characters. Pasting them into LibreOffice shows it to be "WenQuanYi Micro Hei" font. I guess the answer is simply that you do not have this font on your pc.

I don't understand this. Let's say it is after 1♥ (2♠). Why not bid 3♦? If you have diamonds, you bid 3♣ as a transfer, thus distinguishing between NF and GF flavours of diamonds, which you cannot do by bidding 3♦ naturally. So in place of using 2NT as a good heart raise, use it as a transfer to clubs, and again that has the benefit of being two-way. Why prefer 2NT=♥?

Of course, I was trying to see if I agreed with the play in total, not just declarer's line! So for a serious answer, I probably would have played A♦ rather than ♠9 on the previous round, but I don't suppose it matters. Mike's line, and I would play ♣9 on East's eventual lead, because it's much more satisfying for it to bring out the Q.

I probably spent 4 minutes without reaching the end. I have no desire to make movies, but was curious as to how comprehensive it seemed (very) and how complex or easy it would be (simple enough but would take practice). Seems a good idea at first glance.

Very good. I was holding my breath on frame 15. North had made the opening lead, and the question was "What should East be thinking at this point?". I clicked the arrow, thinking ... Should I put the kettle on? Pour another glass of wine? Replenish the bowl of peanuts? Maybe an opportunity was lost, here!

I always use just hcp and adjust a hand between ranges according to quality of suits, etc, with 18 as the nominal reverse etc minimum. So a "good" 16 or 17 hcp is uprated to that value. But I don't use a formal method. How does your work? Is it similar to this Bergen points ? My 1NT is 15-16 so I open with any 12, or an 11 with a 6 card suit. This seems normal round here. Failed to get the link right : www.clairebridge.com/textes/bergenpoints.pdf

I think it depends on the strength range of opener's 2♥ rebid. For me it is a max 14 hcp, so I pass. If it could be stronger, then I think 3♥ is called for.

I play transfers so if the majors had been the other way round, I could have transferred and passed. As it is, 2♠ is forcing, so I pass and see what happens. 2♥ could be the correct contract.

I would take a look at my other 6 cards before I made the opening lead.

Suicidal

Can you explain to a Bridge World non-subscriber? - I thought "double" was not a bid - Carol is deceased, or failed to bid?