fromageGB

I came across a new one last night. They bid 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ pass. 8 tricks, and a top for them. Both of them explained afterwards that it is not forcing.

I take your point that your earlier idea has merits, particularly in my view with game invitational minors, but it is more complex than some prefer, and may conflict with other established system ideas. As you say, it is the integrated system fitting together that counts more than any particular method. My approach is to have the slam invitational possibly broken minor one-suiter start with minor suit stayman 2♠ to ascertain the degree of fit. I have less need for the game invitation as I use a 2 point NT range, but agree that you lose this possibility with my simple approach. Other simple approaches may give you one or both game invitational minors but at the expense of wrong-siding when you play in a minor. This makes it possibly preferable to dispense with showing the minor, and just bidding 2NT as a natural invitation in ♠->♣ and ♣->♦ framework. Right-siding is important when one hand has a long minor and hence short in the majors.

We are drifting away from N/B here, but I disagree with this. Super-accepts can gain when you are borderline slamming, but it doesn't happen often, of course. However, the problem comes when you want a weak takeout to a minor, and partner does not bid it, forcing you to play the hand. This happens OFTEN. (Comparatively!) So wrong-siding is the big downside of this method. This is why I like NT->♣ and ♣->♦, to get the weak takeouts always played correctly, and ♠ as minor suit stayman. You can use this with a borderline slam 5 card minor to see if a fit exists, and if partner bids ♣ when you have the diamonds, you can always find out if he has diamonds as well. This seems to me to get the benefits of super-accepts without the drawbacks.

The freedom of choice of what bid to make with a given hand is one of the joys of the game. If someone arrives in a better, or worse, contract than you it is commonly because their judgement is better or worse, or their methods are more or less suited to the hand in question. Either way your result is a valid measure. For the scoring, how you bid is as important as how you play. You are lucky to be in a position to be able to compare your methods with others. Check the multiple contracts for each hand afterwards, and see if you can distinguish a difference based upon known methods of pairs. If there is a consistent superiority to one method/system or another, let us know!

While on this hand I would prefer a 2♣ 2 over 1 response, I have no trouble with J2N either. The key point is that South has to show extra strength, and North checks for aces. If your methods don't allow extra strength to be shown, then it is not so easy. For example, in my methods we use non-serious 3NT. (When hearts are trumps, spades takes the place of NT.) 1♥ ... 2♠ (4 card support, 13+ hcp, ie Jacoby ) 2NT (no shortage, how about you?) ... 3♠ (no shortage either. Non-serious, ie no significant extra strength) 4♣ (serious cue bid, very good hand for the hcp. More like a 17/18 than a 16, with those aces and kings) ... 4♦ control 4♥ (OK, said my bit. Pass if you like, I can't go further.) ... 4♠ (Ace ask. The doubletons may provide ruffs, clubs may be set up, I have the top spade.) 4NT (1 KC, or 3 without) ... 5♣ (Formality, really, given the strength, but which?) 6♣ (3, and this is my cheapest king (ie denying ♠K)) ... 6♥ (12 tricks visible, 13 if opener has 6 hearts, but can't find out, and anyway a possibility that one of the clubs may need to be ruffed on a very bad break) ... (If opener had bid 5♠ with the ♠K, I'd bid 6♣ to ask about that one, with 13 tricks in the bag if it's there, and 6♥ on the club finesse if not. Or safe 6 without a diamond lead.)

I think when 1NT has a 3 point range most people will feel happier with an option to invite, as I would, so I would not suggest discarding it. However, if the 1NT range was reduced to 2 points, with the 17 point hand opening a minor, then I agree that you can quite happily get by without an invitation opposite 15/16. The trouble with that is that you do need to decide how you are going to find say 5-3 major fits opposite a 19 count (if 17/18 rebids 2NT) so again that is not suitable for someone starting out. No, keep the invitational 2NT, just have compulsory minor transfers.

I for many a year played the simple approach to 4-suit transfers. 2♠ = compulsory transfer to clubs (so weak or strong) 2NT = natural invitation 3♣ = compulsory transfer to diamonds. This worked fine, and I would recommend it to any who doesn't want anything more complicated. The suit is always played by opener. I think the only reason to change is if you want something like minor suit stayman, or to investigate slams if opener has a decent support, but that is outside the remit of novice and beginner methods.

One unusual bid I am just starting to try out in response to a 1♣ open is 2♣ "stayman", invitational+ with 44xx both major 4 carders. Playing transfer walsh we have before lost a fit when 4th seat comes in with a bid like 2♦ over a major transfer.

Similar to my methods with one partner. When RHO opens 1♣, X means "I would have bid that", ie a 1♣ open that could be a doubleton. Similar I suppose to a balanced takeout X, and system is on. Wouldn't call it with long clubs.

Agree with all of this. Few people have convention cards at clubs, and if they do, looking at them when it might influence what you are about to say carries UI, in my view. If partnerships announce the meaning of calls, the UI is not there at all. As for UI on the other side, on partnerships that get something wrong, that is very rare in comparison, and if it happens then they are constrained in their continuations. Moreover, it makes for a much steadier flow of the game if things are announced. No need to take time to look at the card, no need to take time to ask questions. Just get on with the bridge.

On the contrary, I think the EBU regulation is much more nightmarish. Playing in England I often come across doubles alerted when they shouldn't be, or not alerted when they should. Am I supposed to take the regulation inference, and get a bad score when the double wasn't meant that way? If I call the director he will say I had the opportunity to ask and failed to do so. No, I ask all the time if I am uncertain of the player's methods. I think the idea of not alerting (always) is better, or a regulation that makes sense and everyone can remember, such as "alert if it is not penalty or an expectation that the contract is failing". Better still if you you had announcements, so that alerter's partner can say "takeout", "shows spades" "penalty" "lead directing" or whatever describes it.

Call it what you like, I do get confused over terminology. I don't see where the "Good" comes into "Good/Bad" and I still don't know what is meant by "mixed" raise. However, I explained the use. As to whether you think this is a good or bad idea, it's a question of preference. With a strong hand I might like to make a bid showing strength, inviting game if not absolutely forcing, and with a weaker hand I like to bid to play. I get more mileage out of that than I would a natural 2NT, I think. If you have a good minor suit and a strong hand, it is a bit unilateral to X, then rebid 4 of the minor. An immediate bid of 3m gives more options. With a balanced 16 over hearts, I think I would probably X and pass a simple minor or bid 2NT over spades, but over spades I would wish I was playing natural 2NT, then pass or X.

OK, I can live with it. I suppose I could even learn to use the "home" and "end" keys in place of scrolling.

OK, maybe it isn't for you and (I am sure) others. I don't play 2NT as natural, but Lebensohl. Forces 3♣. Using this, (2♥) p p 2NT p 3♣ p 3♦ is to play, while (2♥) p p 3♦ is forcing. I reckon the hand is too good to insist on playing just in 3♦. Out of curiosity, if you do play natural 2NT here, do you play 2NT response to partner's takeout double as Lebensohl ? (I think many do.) Why one and not the other? I would think the case for natural 2NT is stronger when partner has shown some strength and implied the other suits with a takeout double, than it is in this position where you would have to have a lot lot more. I think the strength distinctions given by Lebensohl are more important.

Unfortunately things like Gazzilli have their price.

One thing that bugs me is that when I am posting, I often want to have another look at something previously said. So I have to scroll all the way down the bottom of the page to open that window. Then I click back on the first browser tab, and have to scroll all the way up again to get back to continue with my post. So much easier if that "open review window" was right there where I needed it. Does anyone find it as frustrating as I do ?

Agree absolutely. If any bid can be suggested by the hesitation, it would be spades, never diamonds. 3♦ is forcing, if partner bids spades, I am happy to rebid 3NT.

As the odd one out, I vote "other". We play system on over a Dbl, which means that with a strong balanced hand I bid normally and don't XX as some might. Doubling opponents for penalty at the 2 level is rarely profitable, and there is no other reason for a classic strength redouble. This means XX assumes the default meaning of SOS - "whatever you do, please bid a different suit if you can". I have a weak hand, and if partner has another suit, it is likely to play better than hearts. Moreover, if I had bid 1♠ and partner bids 1NT, I have no way of showing both minors, and I would rather play in 2 of a minor than 1NT. With my minors, everything parter has is likely to be sat on by my RHO, so even if partner has a strong hand game is not such a good idea. And redouble does not stop him bidding 2NT strong, or, indeed, 1♠ if he has spades. All considered, this seems like an excellent hand for the SOS redouble if you play it.

Both cue. For me 3♠ demands a cue if I have one, but as we bid 1st or 2nd round controls, a splinter is a cue. 1♠ 1NT 4♠ itself is DNE for me, so as responder I would think maybe he is just short of a 2♣, kicking himself about opening 1♠, and forgetting about the existence of the 3♠. (This sort of thing happens in my partnerships.) So with a pretty good 1NT I cue.

The trouble with BadNT (when is it ever good?) is that it does not convey your shape, the fact that you are able to compete in hearts. For me Quantumcat hit the nail on the head when she analysed partner's possibilities when the opponent bids over whatever you say. BadNT doesn't do it, but Support Double (if you play it) does.

My 2NT is unlimited, so of course there is a need for both parties to be able to show extras, having discovered a shortage if there is one, but I am happy using non-serious 3♠/NT Of course, those playing quantum bergen have no problem, but then identifying opener's distributional features beneath the ace asking level may be tricky, when you have the stronger 3 bid replies.

As lalldonn said. The usage arose because of a perception by city people that those who come from rural agricultural areas such as North Dorset (think "the Wurzels" if you are familiar with iconic English pop music) are crude and unsophisticated. Not true, I hasten to add. Well, not absolutely ...

Nice if your opener rebids allow it. Unfortunately for me, 2♣ could be a game invitation with 3 card heart support, so opener cannot bid higher than 2♥ on a minimum sort of hand. For example, if he bids 2♠ a simple soul like me would sign off with 3♥ with an invitational hand, or bid 3♥ with a game support to enable cue bidding. Unluckily those two bids are the same, so I can't do it. No doubt you can, with more complexity.

I agree in general, but do you have a way of showing a 5 card spade suit if starting 2♣? I don't, and I prefer a spade contract if opener has 4 of them.

Obviously depends on what your agreements are. For me, 2♠ is decidedly constructive, typically 7-10, and 3♥ shows hearts, good hand but not game forcing. 3♥ is a clear bid on this basis. Pass if 2♠ could be weaker.