fromageGB

Incidentally, many people after an overcall play 2NT as 4 card support and cue opposition suit with 3 card support. I prefer it the other way round because after 2NT=3 card 11+, if they come in at the 3 level opener is well placed to decide on a penalty double. After 2NT=4 and weaker, opener will always have to bid on. You have in effect given advancer a free opportunity to show support - just what overcaller needed.

I like my normal Bergenesque structure as it describes support sufficiently accurately, so I use it just the same over a double. What has the double done to interfere with your methods? As I respond 3♦ as 4 card support 7-10 hcp that would be my bid here, and if opener wants to ask if upper range he bids 3♥. Presumably your methods are similar, so I suggest using them over a double. Not seeing your hand, I assume that would enable the game to be bid. When the overcall is a suit such as 2♣ it cuts out the forcing NT we use for some 3 card support, so our style is to show both the length and the strength. (Strength shown below as typical hcp, but obviously modify to account for good shape, predominant quacks etc). With a partner happy with transfers : 1♠ (2♣) ... X = transfer to diamonds, weak or strong 2♦ = hearts ditto 2♥ = full strength raise to 2♠, ie 3 card 7-10 2♠ = preemptive raise, ie 3 card <7 2NT = 3 card support 11+ (ie game invitational or better) 3♣ (cue) = 4 card support, 9+ (ie game invitational or better) 3♦ = fit jump, 5 card with 4 card support, values for playing is spades at this level and no higher 3♥ = hearts ditto 3♠ = preemptive raise, 4 card <9 3NT natural 4♣ (jump cue) = splinter, 4 card support 4 other = fit jump, values for playing in 4♠ We give up the normal takeout double in favour of the transfer : responder is more likely to have a 5+ card suit weak or strong than the combination of responder having a 4 card major and opener with a 5 card major also having 4 of the other major. When the overcall leaves a suit gap, ie 1♠ (2♦) ... 3♣ by an unpassed hand = natural, forcing, but by a passed hand = fit non-jump Otherwise the same. With a partner who does not like transfers here, after 1♠ (2♣) ... X = full strength raise to 2♠, ie 3 card 7-10 2♠ = preemptive raise, ie 3 card <7 2NT = 3 card support 11/12 3♣ (cue) = 4 card support, 9+ (ie game invitational or better) 3♠ = preemptive raise, 4 card <9 We give up the normal takeout double in favour of showing support. Knowing the length of support, as well as overall strength, is useful in competitive situations. As you said.

For us it is an even simpler 2♥ rebid. Playing a "long suit or shortage elsewhere" 1♦, 1NT shows a shortage in spades and guarantees heart support, either 4 card (commonly) or 3 (less often), the latter being sufficient with the shortage. But back on topic, I like the idea of this program and look forward to its development. Unfortunately it is too far out of my line for me to make any useful contribution. However, I like bluecalm's idea of developing an open lead algorithm to feed into the analysis. It would need to be a weighted restriction on the analysis, such as 100% ♣K if leader has ♣KQJ, but more commonly along the lines of 50% low ♥, 30% ♠K, 20% low diamond. Might take a long time for 500 hands! I hate the deep finesse (or equivalent) double dummy results you see on hand printouts, as many times they are ludicrous in practice.

I play a simple Michaels (spades + a minor) but I don't like ambiguity, as partner can't compete over 4♥. I like the idea Zelandakh put forward of immediately defining the minor, with 3♣/♦ showing spades plus that minor. My preference would be 2NT as both minors, to ease memory problems, and X for any single-suited hand or 3 suited takeout. This would be a puppet to 2♠, to be passed or followed by a long suit, or 2NT for takeout. However, any such method to handle defined 2-suiters loses out when you have a single-suiter and your LHO continues with 3♥. Partner cannot support, and you do not have a unilateral 4-bid. It's a difficult decision, whether you want to abandon natural non-forcing minor bids. Is it worth it?

It is for old people ; as said before it is run by old people with strong emphasis on deterring youth. No phones, no T-shirts, no innovation. But the main reason is that technology has made it obsolete. Bridge is essentially a pastime, and the number of recreational options available has exploded. Intelligent people in work now work longer. I used to finish in time to go home, have dinner, and go out for the evening. My son now gets home much later and would not have the time, had he the inclination. Maybe if bridge is to survive, it needs to have a perpetual scoring system so people can go to the club for an hour or so when they want, drop out any time, get the results by phone(mobile) alert when the computer has analysed the period they played. But the shrinking size of the playing population will never allow it. Maybe online bridge will be the only medium term survivor. Long term, bridge is dead. The few who take it up will no longer find sufficient like-minded fellows to form a viable club. They will adopt other social pastimes. The fewer that play, even fewer will be new people that start. I don't think it matters. I will be dead, too.

This is not my perception. Remember, we are not talking about all 1NT contracts, but only those where the bidding goes 1M 1NT pass, as compared with 1M 1NT(forcing)...2apples.

Agreed, but when 1NT does score better, responder has a singleton or void in your major, but no long suit to take out to. Most times I see 2M as the right contract, and my perception is that 1NT being better is comparatively rare. I am more than happy to play 1NT forcing.

Pass I'm with Quantumcat. I bid 1♠ with my partners.

I play 100% forcing 1NT mainly in matchpoint pairs at local clubs, and find it is no handicap at all compared with a field that plays 12-14 acol. Indeed, there are a number of advantages. We sometimes find contracts not normally reached, such as 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦/♥ pass when responder has a weak weak 2, as Barmar and Quantuncat said, and the better definition of spade support afforded by the forcing NT gets us more often to the right level. As MickyB said, you do things with the 1NT that you cannot do otherwise. For example, 1♠ 2♠ for us is a definite 7-10 exactly 3 cards, with weaker preemptive 3 card raises going through 1NT, 4 card raises with different bids. But of course, most times you just reach the same contract as the others. Yes, you can miss out on a 1NT contract that proves better, but this is rarer. There is another advantage in playing 1NT absolutely forcing in your case, because when teaching your girlfriend it is easier to have rules and guidelines. Playing non-forcing (some call it semi-forcing) in my view needs judgement given by experience. Even so, I do prefer forcing. MickyB also said that the 2♣ opener rebid often has non-natural uses, but this can wait to a later stage of playing. When I first introduced 2/1 to my partner she couldn't take everything at once, but now we have moved on. To comment on Chris's recent suggestion on converting to 2M, I would say this may be a treatment the partnership can move into, if you play a natural 2♣/2♦ rebid, but start her with the simple concept of always converting to the major unless there is an overwhelming preference for the minor. In summary - forcing NT is no loss in a non-2/1 field, but a gain. And I think better with a strong NT (I play 15/16) as it enables you to find 2M contracts not reached by others playing a 12-14 NT, when you are in the lower range.

Hey, no way was I serious ! Maybe I should have added a smiley :P It's a 1♠ for me, because I prefer my 2♣ to be a hand with a likelihood of missing game if partner passes a 1 open. This is not quite enough by that yardstick.

Good point if the additional room helps. I suppose if partner has no kings he bids 5♥, so you can afford to ask for kings missing an ace and a king, which you wouldn't normally (other things being equal). Is this what you would do?

I don't think that is a sufficient rule. Many the time I have thought something was obvious, but my partner didn't.

I prefer a 3NT open. Partner is likely to not have a fit, and if he did he won't be able to ruff anything. Also the remaining high cards are most likely to be shared between all the other three, which means you have the values for game. You are going to end up in 3NT anyway, so bid it now and not only do you have no bidding problems at all, but it gives away no information whatsoever. You might even get a spade lead.

Berwick IS in Scotland. For those that may not know this, there is a river called the Tweed, and those that do, know that "tweed" means "Scottish". Berwick is north of the river. More evidence - when the NEBA (northern England region) play southern Scotland we go to Berwick for an away match. More evidence - we never see people from Berwick in the NEBA regional events. More evidence - we can hardly understand a word they say. Luckily we have almost the same written language, and we use bidding boxes.

Thanks PhilKing and gnasher for the "2 places to play" cue bid explanation. I think it is certainly apparent to all that playing Kickback when you have no clear rules on potentially ambiguous bids is a disaster that more than offsets any benefit. In my view the rules themselves are not really important if both partners agree them, but Frances and I move in completely different circles, so I would not recommend my simple ones to any new adopter! But don't play kickback unless you have had partnership time to agree something.

I don't think you should be unsure, because you shouldn't be playing kickback unless you agree metarules that cover this, as this is a basic situation. The rules themselves are not so important providing you agree them. By mine, 4♥ is ace asking in diamonds, because if I had a hand that wanted to play in hearts I would have bid 3♥ (forcing, or 4♥ if not) or 4♠ on the previous round.

More accurately, it is a disaster that arose because they were playing kickback without agreements on meta-rules. 4♥ is kickback on our rules. I don't really see this (3♦) X 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ as a spade-club hand. Is that some sort of equal level conversion that I don't play? So (3♦) X 4♦ 4♠ 4NT would be natural with a diamond stop and a club-heart hand? I would assume both are ace asking agreeing partner's suit. In answer to Chris's OP, my metarule here is that if it can be ace asking, it is. As X was a takeout implying some sort of spade support, an immediate 4♠ is to play, and 4♠ in response to 4♥ is ace asking.

Probably short in nuts.

An interesting question. I am sure it can get very confusing if you play both minorwood and kickback. My rule is that there is only one sequence (GF 3 suiter) where 4m is minorwood and any other time 4m is a genuine raise or preference, usually inviting game or slam. So 1♥ (2♠) 3♦ (p) 4♦ is a natural raise, and the meaning depends on the nature of 3♦. If 3♦ is a GF, then 4♦ suggests slam and leaves the decision to responder, but if 3♦ is simply a one round force, 4♦ to me suggests tolerance but no real game interest. 1♥ (2♠) 3♦ (p) 4♥ is kickback, and 1♥ (2♠) 3♦ (p) 3♠ (p) 3NT (p) 4♥ is genuine hearts. This utilises the metarule that if an ambiguous bid is direct it is ace asking, and making that bid by a more involved sequence is natural. Because if your diamond fit and hand was that good that you were slamming, why mess around with a 3♠ probe? So your sequence 1♥ (2♠) 3♦ (p) 3♠ (p) 3NT (p) 4♦ suggests to me a hand that is not sure whether the right contract should be 4NT or 5♦. You may not like my rules, but you certainly need rules !

This is a 1♠ open for me, and I would not like to commit to spades as a contract, so will not rebid 3♠. I play a form of Gazzilli, so this is a 2♣ rebid (forcing artificial). Partner with up to a 7 hcp hand will bid a long suit, which I will happily raise to game in clubs or hearts, or convert to 2♠ or 2NT which I raise to game, . With a better hand he relays 2♦ and I clarify mine simply with 3♠. 4-level suits from him are then natural. We have no meaning for opener's 2nd bids of 4-new-suit, and have no idea what would be best for them. The initial partnership assumption would be exclusion ace asking with self-sufficient spades.

Surely you could play both. 2♠ = MSS 2NT = transfer to clubs 3♣ = transfer to diamonds. This allows you to transfer when you have a 6 card suit, typically, and use 2♠ if you are considering slam with a shorter suit that needs a fit with partner. If you wanted a NT game invitation, this would have to be via 2♣, so I would not recommend it in those circumstances. But opposite a 2 point NT range ...

If you play 12-14, you get a warning from partner if you DON'T open this 1NT :P

His points and distribution are unknown. You don't need to know, as he has taken the decision to make a penalty double, and you have no choice but abide by it. There are other treatments, of course, such as a game invitation in NT (consider it as a transfer to 2NT), or a takeout to another suit, as he might make with a 1444 distribution, but I think these would require agreement. With no discussion and an unknown partner, I assume penalty.

Without any agreements I would assume he had a very strong hand with both majors, and wanted you to pick 4♥ or 4♠ as the contract.

As helene-t. 4♦ from opener would admit slam suitability and let responder initiate kickback.