fromageGB

I am no expert, but there are many treatments around. My impression is that these days it is more normal to have 4 card support completing at the 2 level or higher, and 2 or 3 card support completing the transfer unless stronger than the 1NT open, when you then rebid NT. Continuations are the thing, though, and some use XYZ while I prefer a different use of the responder minor rebids as XYZ can wrong-side contracts. Design your own continuations. Major considerations (pun intended) are how you describe 44xx, (54)xx and 55xx shaped hands of the 3 strength ranges - weak, invitational, and game, and distinguish between them. Similarly when you have just one major, how you show whether your single major is 4, 5 or 6 cards in length, and in all cases, whether weak, invitational, or game forcing. You can, if you try, do all this, with major fits played by opener, and with a major fit game invitation declined playing at the 2 level. How do you want to play the 1♠ or 1NT response to 1♣? You get more flexibility by the use of the 1♠ response as a relay to discover whether opener is (semi)balanced, or has long clubs. Then after a 1NT rebid, you can have various continuations to show different invitational or better hand types. Use the 1NT response to show a holding that otherwise is difficult. For example, 1♣ 1NT for me shows a (54)xx hand which is weaker than invitational. Opener bids a 4 card major if he has one, else rebids 2♣ for responder to then transfer to the 5 card major. One thing that is overlooked by most is the impact on the strength of the NT open. If you have good methods of finding major fits after a club open that you cannot do after a 1NT open, unless you are at least invitational, then you prefer to open 1♣ than 1NT. (At least, I do.) So my 1♣ open followed by completing the major transfer or replying 1NT in response to the 1♠ relay is 12-14, my 1NT open is 15/16, and 17 and higher start with 1♣. Why include the 17 count in the 1NT open when you can easily show a 17/18 hand by the sequences 1♣ 1♥ 1NT, or 1♣ 1♠ 2NT? Having a 15/16 NT with a 2 point range means that you no longer need a 2NT response (or responder rebid) as game invitational, which means that you can use stayman with weaker hands than those playing 15-17, because you can follow with 2NT to play if there is no major fit. Another impact of the benefit of opening 1♣ on (semi)balanced hands is that you can then open 1♦ on hands that either have 6 diamonds (and rebid them) or have a singleton or void outside the diamond suit (rebid something else). The implications of the shortage 1♦ open can make bidding and play simpler, and because you are putting other hands into the 1♣ open that would in normal methods open 1♦ means that you get the benefits of finding the major fits when they exist. So there are many related items here, and how you choose to handle these things, and the relative importance you assign to different aspects, affect how you choose to play transfer responses, and the continuations you use. Because it is a "system philosophy" thing, I don't think there is or should be a recommended package of bids. Sit down with your partner, decide what your objectives are, and design the sequences to suit.

I agree with mgoetze on this. The use of Gazzilli is to show the strength of hands that open 1M, and has no bearing on the strength of the NT open. If you have a rebid after Gazzilli that shows a balanced hand, there is no reason why you can't play 15-17 NT and have that bid showing 18+, even if with less balanced hands you have 16 or whatever for the use of Gazzilli. The strength of NT is irrelevant to Gazzilli, it is just that you obviously have balanced rebids after Gazzilli with a different strength to your NT open if the latter includes 5 card majors. Of course, if your 1NT denies a biddable 5 card major, then there is no connection at all.

I play support doubles at this level, and they do not promise extra strength. However, for me they do not show specifically 3 cards, but show one card fewer that would normally be needed for that bid. So in this case, I would be happy to bid hearts with 4 - ie at the 3 level, having a minimum 8 card fit in a suit lower ranking suit than theirs. So with one fewer, as I have, I double. Other considerations : I have a long suit, opponent sounds like he has a long suit, so it is highly likely partner has more than 4 in his suit. Bidding clubs destroys any chance of hearts. Moreover, I am short in opponent's suit and am delighted to be able to ruff in my hand, in the short trump hand.

I often find myself agreeing with Ken. :)

Thanks, I should have thought of that. Brain showing signs of rapid ageing.

Please explain what you mean by "SI" - undisclosed additional values? Perhaps West has limited his hand by the 2♦ bid. Some play that a stronger hand rebids > 2M, so 2♦ can show a maximum 14 count. In this case, if East has stretched his initial bid, he knows it is safe to stop.

Good strategy. When you want to lead a major, lead your Qxx rather than KJxx when 1) partner is likely to be as strong or stronger than you 2) your suit is not long - partner's may be longer 3) you have no entries if you start with your suit and declarer holds up 4) your suit is leading away from a tenace All the above apply with this holding. Seems standard to me, but I was amazed at the number of contributors who lead ♥

I wouldn't need to stop, because I wouldn't even start. My rules are a 2/1 is a 13+ hcp unless an invitational 3 card support or a game in my own hand. SO I start 1♠ 1NT. After opener's 2♦ rebid (maximum 14 hcp) I rebid 3♦ as invitational. OK, with ♥Q as well, I do 2/1 and can't stop.

If opener rebids 4♥ this has to be 5+5xx, and if he rebids 4♠ it must be 64xx. Now to look at the spoiler ... ... having seen it, I agree with Zelandakh ; many hands will not bid 4sf with 3 hearts if the diamonds are well stopped, because if opener has 10+ cards in the majors he will probably bid again. (PS. Can't see the hand or bidding, just a rectangular grey blob in a big white square, with comments underneath ???)

I expect partner to have about an 8 count or less, and I would be horrified if he overcalled with that, so I certainly don't rule our a 5 card spade suit. In my view a spade lead is less likely to give a trick away that a heart lead, and more likely to set up tricks.

agree

An invitational hand with 5 spades would bid 2NT then 3♠ - at least I did when playing Lebensohl. This seems like he wanted you to play the hand, so he is essentially 3 suited with short hearts, wants to bid on rather than let them play, and was frightened of a second double because you might take it for penalties. He can't be a game hand with 4 spades because that hand bids 3♥. So, to play, but happy for you to bid a 5 card minor if you have one.

Perhaps we are looking at different rule books, because that's practically what mine says : "After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender ..." - 2007 rules effective England 1/8/2008 By any interpretation "throughout" means "during but not beyond", and "play period" is explicitly defined. Well, maybe not explicitly enough ! "... ends when the cards are removed from their slots ..." but whose cards? We know the questioner's were withdrawn, but maybe her opponent hadn't taken his, so her play period had ended but his hadn't ??? I agree that while law 20 does not require an answer, courtesy requests one.

There has by definition been no irregularity, as this would have to have attention drawn to it during the play period, which, as has been noted, has expired. And of course, as there has been no irregularity, there is no rectification.

Surely not. You can't ask next week. The play period ends when cards are taken for the next hand. I (not a TD) would say that the question is not allowed by 20F2.

Partner could have shown a spade game based on controls/values, but this shows a game based just on 5 spades and little in the way of controls. Slam is very unlikely, therefore, but 5♠ doesn't need much, and X is losing to an uninterrupted 4♠. 5♠

Yes. The first line is usually fine, bid 3S. The second is twisted, but with possibly the correct answer. 18 means : 1) if they make 10 for 170, we make 8 for 2 off, and this is usually bad. Only OK if they don't double and we are not vulnerable 2) if they make 9, for 140, so bid 4H and we make 9 for one off, and that's OK for a better score unless we are vulnerable and they double 3) if they make 8, for one off, we make 10 and get our game : so bid game as it scores more Assign weights to the 3 lines, maybe 60% for the 9-9 trick split and 20% for each of the others, and see what the expected outcomes are for making the bid as opposed to passing or doubling. All lines may lead to the same conclusion, but vulnerability must be considered (no point in -500 when they would otherwise get +170), and the indications of high card strength (if you have all the values you bid game anyway, and if they have more than you the expected penalties become severe). The third line is twisted and with possibly the wrong conclusion. The legal thoughts are : 1) 18 means if they make 10, we make 8, and unless adverse vulnerability that's OK, so bid 4S 2) if they make 9, we make 9, so by bidding 4S I am trading a positive for a negative. At any vulnerability, so don't bid it. 3) if they make 8 we make 10, so while our game makes, double perhaps scores better at this vulnerability The fourth line is definitely wrong. 1) If 4S makes 10, 5H is going 3 off for 800 or 500. OK only if favourable vulnerability, bad on all other. 2) If they make 9, we are trading a positive for a negative 3) if they make 8, we are trading a positive for a negative You have to do the sums, and it depends on vulnerability. Assume they are going to double you when you overbid (they always double me). It also depends on your expectation of the hcp split between you and them (eg do you have 6 or 10 hcp opposite partner's opening?), and if you know from the bidding that they have values sitting on top of yours, or vice versa. The expectation is only 9 tricks - 9 tricks if points and positional values are equal. If not, instead of considering the results for 10-8, 9-9, and the 8-10 trick split, you need to work out for example the results from 9-9, 8-10, and 7-11. This now brings in the possibility of your 3S bid pushing them into a very good game they might not otherwise bid. While you should consider all the expected scores from the expected permutation of trick splits, and assign weights to give your the overall expectation of success, a rule of thumb is if all is equal : a) bid to your legal level if you have the higher ranking suit, b) bid to one higher than your level if needed and you have the lower ranking suit, c) double them if they bid higher than you. Also remember that you can only estimate the total number of tricks. While you may know you have a 9 card fit, theirs might not be. And that doubling opponents in 3H does not go down well with team-mates if it makes 9 tricks.

Mike777 hit the problem on the head. When you are going to cue, you have to anticipate what you think partner might say and how you will accommodate it. In one regular partnership we have agreed that a serious cue bid is " one-under denial", where the one under trumps shows all controls, but needs partner to have undisclosed values, or in some circumstances might deny the lowest control.

I think my first 2 doubles have conveyed my strength, and partner has failed to double this last bid. It looks like everything is the wrong side and they have as many values as we do. Pass.

OK with invitational hands, but too complicated for me - but of course necessitated by the fact that suits are unknown. I like simplicity and the ability to get in immediately with a preempt in either suit. And I hate the "pass or correct" where you end at the 3 level when you have no good fit.

I play a 3♣ response to 2NT as any weak hand not 55xx (which bids 3♦). Over 3♣, 3♦ says "no preference - bid your 5 or best 4". So you end in 3M regardless of whether your invitation is 3♦ Ekren style or 2NT my style.

It's a rare hand that wants to play 3♣, so I prefer the slam-seeking heart fit. Probably equally rare, but more beneficial when it happens ! I can't see that this gives you anything that 2NT doesn't achieve, as your responses will not be higher than 3♥ with a weaker hand, and if opener is a weak 44xx you have missed a 2NT contract with either method.

Maybe it depends on what your 2♦ 3minor means. The trouble with 4m as a slam going hand (the same trouble as when starting 2NT) is that it leaves no room for cue bidding. I am thinking that it may be better to use 3m as the possibly slamming hand response. Over this opener can bid 3M in the agreed major with a weaker hand (still allowing a slamming responder to start a cue bidding sequence) and a stronger opener can make an immediate cue bid. Of course you may prefer the stronger hand to make the first cue bid, eg when playing one-under denial cues, so a weaker opener can bid the major and a stronger opener bid the next step. Do you really need 3m for anything else?

If you take the view that transfers are natural systems, this is a minimumish 4 card support :P

I think that the answer is simply that in this shortage scenario you should never immediately ace ask. We have a "compulsory" non-serious 3NT/serious cue bid after a shortage, and when you cue the diamond partner knows you have either the ace or a void. Even though playing "1st or 2nd round controls" you don't cue a non-ace singleton, as partner knows that already. Then when partner ace asks, ignore that ace. He therefore knows how many keycards you have. This doesn't work if the shortage is clubs, as a serious cue bid will leave you no room to show it. However, switch to serious 3NT here (or in any GF situation) and it's OK, or you could agree that 3M is serious and 3NT non-serious.