fromageGB

If you are in England, think twice before making a weak 2 in diamonds part of the 2♣ open. At one time I used to do this until a club I played in decided to change from being a "level 4" to a "level 3" club. EBU level 3 allows a weak 2 in diamonds only if it also guarantees 4 clubs, which rather defeats the object. At least, that's how I understand it. Of course, in your work environment anything goes. But it it not a good idea when beginning to use methods that might hinder you when you move beyond that sphere.

I am unfamiliar with this method, the unspecified shortage and the shortage ask. If responder has SI and a shortage, you bid 1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♥ 3♠/NT asking 4♦ = shortage? I currently use 1NT 2♣ 2♠ 4♦ for that. What would an immediate 4m, rather than a delayed, mean for you?

I have no sympathy with those that open 1NT with a 5 card major :)

Never tried that one ! Might I suggest 1♥ 2♣! 2♦! gives you a little more room to unwind? A bid other than 2♦! should express a certain type of hand, such as 2♥ = self sufficient, no other contract contemplated, 2♠ = a 56xx, or 3♣/♦ = a strong hand 5 card minor.

Any method with a relay is confusing if one doesn't play that way. Do it a few times, and it becomes easy.

This depends on your methods. I think it perfectly playable to have a 2♣ response that is either a natural (5+) suit, or a balanced 16+ hand. Getting the strength across immediately is beneficial, as is the limitation of the 1♠ response. While it may have clubs, a 2♠ rebid shows 4 spades, and if opener without 4 spades supports clubs, 3NT denies a real club 2/1, with a good club hand making a cue bid. What is the problem with this?

I would ask "does it matter?" I am not aware of any police force or authority who will castigate/prosecute a player doing such a thing when he describes his overall methods as "acol".

Me too, but it depends on your definition of mainstream. Certainly the better players I know distinguish length, so perhaps mainstream amongst them, but the general players at the clubs just go on strength, I believe. Whether it is 4 or 3 - or even 2 - card support does not become known until dummy goes down. I like to distinguish length AND strength when partner opens a major, so with no immediate competition use a Bergen-like method with 4 card support, and direct and indirect raises (with a forcing NT) with 3 card support. In competition, because showing the fit immediately is more important, I forgo the possibility of a 4-4 fit in the other major, and play double as non-takeout. This gives after say 1♠ (2♦) and using transfer responses 2♥ = a normal 2♠ raise, 3 card support 2♠ = weaker preemptive 3 card raise 2NT = game invitational or stronger 3 card raise 3♥ = game invitational or stronger 4 card support 3♠ = weaker preemptive 4 card raise Fit jumps with new suits and cue = splinter. Adapting the idea for a partner who does not like transfers it becomes X = equivalent to s 2♠ raise with 3 card support 2♠ = weaker preemptive 3 card raise 2NT = game invitational or stronger 3 card raise cue 3♦ = game invitational or stronger 4 card support 3♠ = weaker preemptive 4 card raise Some invert the 3♦ and 2NT bids, but the idea is to show degree of fit primarily, and strength up to a point, but we do not distinguish between a GF raise and an invitational raise. So for us while a GF 4 card support woukd bid 1♠ (2♦) 3♥, if 4th seat bids 4♦ opener's pass is not forcing, as we have not shown game values. However 1♠ (2♦) 2NT (3♦) pass IS forcing, because responder has committed to 3♠ or X, and if 4th seat bid 4♦ a double is usually automatic, as responder has only 3 cards in support and has more hcp strength.

Yes, forcing. You have not clearly bid game on strength (rule 4) as the 3♥ could be a Yarborough. However, opponents have clearly denied strength. 2♠ must be limited, and opener has made no move, which he would with a stronger hand. This looks like one of those hands where both games may/are likely to go off, so happy to double unless I have 6 hearts.

Escape mechanism, certainly, as 1NT is unlikely to be the normal contract. So use pass and X as artificial. As spades is ruled out, we are considering minors only, so something like pass = equal length in minors, opener to pick one, X = club preference and 2♣ transfer to diamonds. You need it played the right way round, because with this inversion you need all the help you can get.

Helene and Ken, thanks. I hadn't thought of it that way, because my opponents always seem to have a major fit, but you are right.

It may be an expert method (?) but I am not an expert. I would be rather worried that when the bidding starts 1♣ (1♥) X, with opener having 11-14 balanced and responder having a 6 or 7 count, without 4 spades, we are onto an immediate bad score with no chance of recovery.

Interesting. So why is 3♦ not suitable?

Also 4) a pass is forcing if we have bid game on hcp strength rather than distribution, and they bid above game. Example 1♠ (p) 3♥Bergenesque 11/12 4 card support (4♦) 4♠ (5♦) pass! Pass is forcing, saying "I am happy if you double, and I am happy if you bid on".

My agreement (but unwritten) is that a pass is forcing if 1) we are in a game forcing situation but below game - your GF bids need to be defined eg 2/1, responder jump shifts, 4sf 2) where we have made a bid that commits to particular level - eg 1♥ 3♣ Bergenesque 3) where we have made an asking bid and we are beneath the level of trumps. In a non-asking situation, (a) pass is ambivalent or with nothing specific to say, (b) double suggest penalty is better, and has length/values in that suit, (c ) a bid is a positive preference for this action. In an asking situation, (a) pass means "I would have made a bid lower than the interference", (b) X means "I would have bid that", (c ) a bid is the same bid that would have been made without the interference. An example in an asking situation : 1♠ (p) 2NT(J2N)"have you a shortage?" (3♦) pass = would have bid clubs = no shortage X = single or void ♦ 3♥/♠ = uninterrupted shortage in hearts/clubs. I am not in favour of the OP "bid shows weakness in non-asking situations" because it is those hands where a penalty may be more beneficial.

So don't tell us everything, just the bid you make to show a 13 count xx45 when partner has denied a major with 1♠ or 1NT or whatever your balanced hand response is ?

Very sensible, but my partners would call this "a sometimes convoluted system of retransfers later". They would be bound to get mixed up and making the wrong bid is critical. Fine if you both have memories, and you don't feel Alzheimer's is fast approaching.

I would have thought that the bigger danger of wrong-siding NT is that there does not seem to be a bid for a balanced less than invitational responder other than 1NT.

Having had some difficulty losing the other major when responder has both majors and 4th seat comes in the bidding, and also having partners who want simple and essentially natural continuations, I am now trying out an idea where all responses below 2NT (apart from 1♠) show majors. 1NT is a weak(ie less than invitational) {54}xx, 2♣ is invitational or better 44xx, 2♦ is 55xx any strength. All NT or minor hands go through a 1♠ relay, where opener typically shows 6 clubs or rebids NT. This approach is geared to MP where it is important to find major fits, and to play them all right-sided. Seems to be going OK so far.

Do you play 3♦ as invitational, but no stronger? I guess so, if it may be passed, and therefore I would read 4♦ as still game invitational in diamonds, but hates NT. Void in a side suit.

Mais oui, however this time there is no transfer available. I, too, am thinking of changing to "constructive but not forcing". Something for the partnership to discuss. Thanks to Codo/the hog/MrAce for the replies.

Yes, that was my idea. You do not distinguish between 0 or 1. However, 3 and 4 are distinguished by the fact that you will bid again to show them (the pass is forcing). You would not bid again with 0 or 1. This is OK but for the 0 or 3, if partner is unable to deduce the correct number from the bidding so far. If he passes the double, you miss the slam when you have 3. I know that is the inherent problem with the RKCB method, but with the normal reply of 5♦ at least you have the option of bidding beyond partner's sign-off to show the 3. Maybe an alternative is to pass with 0 or 3 or 4 and double with 1, thereafter showing the 3 or 4 with the first 2 steps over partner's sign-off or double ?

In a 1430 context I don't think DOPE meaning odd or even steps is much use. If X shows either 1 ace (ie first step) or 2 aces/KC (ie 3rd step), how is partner going to make a judgement when it is so close? It doesn't make sense. DOPI makes no sense either, if the level is such that when you bid with 2 you are committing to a slam, if partner needed you to have 3 and was going to settle at the 5 level if you had only 2. A simpler method is make the normal reply that you would have done without interference, if the bid is possible, but if they bid too high for that then X = "I would have bid that" and pass = "my bid would have been lower". My ace responses are different, but if you play an ambiguous 1430 then to cater for the fact that you might have 3 or 4, let the double be restricted to no more than 2. Say over partner's 4NT they bid (5♦) and you have 3 aces. Your normal response would have been 5♦ so now with no aces you would X ("I would have bid that") but with 3 aces you pass. This is forcing, so when partner now doubles for penalty, or bids game, you bid further, which now shows you did not have 1, but 3 or 4. Of course, you can bid artificial steps to distinguish between 3 and 4 if you wish. No need for these shenanigans if your normal ace responses are unambiguous.

I play 1♠ as forcing, and also play 2♣ as forcing. So I pass. To those who play 2♣ as non-forcing : what do you do with a better (say invitational values) hand?

Some parts of the system have merit !