fromageGB

Sorry, I don't object to the use of the word "adequate", that is a good description when coupled with the connotation "but not the best".

My objection is the use of the word "adequate". 2♠ usually gets more matchpoints than 1NT when there is a 4-4 fit, and while 1NT is "adequate", 2♠ is "better". At IMPS there is not much at stake here, and the side benefits of the implications when you do bid spades according to your methods may be more important. However, at matchpoints, give me the higher scoring contract any day. Another advantage of finding the spade fit (if there is one) is that when 1NT is passed round to the protective position, it is easier to find a say 2♦ fit/sacrifice than it is when 2♠ is passed round. I think at part-score levels, being in a major has the advantage here.

While there can be benefits in having the ability to show an unbalanced hand, I think your last sentence may not hold true. Opponents have an 8 card fit to lead, and unless partner is strong in general values, I would expect a spade contract to score better. You may be 4333, but partner will be ruffing the second or third round.

Obviously it is not a lie. Bidding 2♣ first in this style does not guarantee 5. When opener rebids 2NT, now responder's 3♣ guarantees 5 and is GF (even if 2♣ was not initially GF).

Stephen, thanks for this, it's an idea I will think through. You could be right.

1. Bid the major. Do this whatever the strength unless you have some specialised bid for strong hands. 2. 12 and no 4 card major is an immediate 2NT playing this way. 3. Yes. I would expect 13+ Perhaps better is 11/12 for the invitational 2NT, as a 3 point range is too wide for opener to make a unilateral decision. 10 hcp then bids 1NT. Many expand the idea to include 2♣ being any hand without a 4 card major that is invitational or better. This can have either minor the longer. This is useful if you don't want to play inverted minors, or if you want the 2NT bid for something else. If not just invitational, you of course make a game or forcing bid later.

Not sure I agree here. When both opponents have passed, a bid of 3m over 2♠ is not likely.

Playing matchpoints I would rather find the spade fit, so it would be a weak spade holding that enticed me to bid 1NT. In fact transfer walsh in the spade/NT inversion style probably has the best way on this hand. 1♣ 1♦! 1♥!, then if responder has 4 spades he bids 1NT for you to bid 2♠, or else bids 1♠! for you to bid 1NT.

OK, sorry, let me expand on the logic. Probably everybody round here playing 5 card majors would play 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ as "to play". It is a preference bid. Maybe at IMPS it makes little difference, but at matchpoints there is a big difference between 90 and 110, etc. If I have a random 6 or 7 count, and a 43xx shape or a 42xx shape, I bid 1♠ in the expectation that 2♠ on a 4-4 fit will score marginally better than a 5-3 or 5-2 heart fit. When partner denies the spade fit with 1NT, then I think the 5-3 or 5-2 heart fit will play better than 1NT on half or less than half the pack. So I bid 2♥ as preference. It is not invitational. Your logic is built on the premise of bypassing the better 4-4 spade fit. This is certainly playable, more so at teams and has benefits and disadvantages. But it is conditional logic. It is equally logical to look for a spade fit, and then 2♥ is logically to play. And then 3♥ in invitational - depending on your "checkback gadget" agreements.

Logic, Jim, but not as we know it.

The problem for me in opening 1♦ is that partner will expect better than just 1 probable trick in defence, and may double them in 5♠ after I bid 5♦ over their 4♠. We are then in disaster scenario. So I open 4♦. I don't think it good enough for 5.

Forgive me for posting in the expert forum, but I like to put up an opinion for experts to shoot down. 4♣ has to be a control, and having already shown a positive for the GF pass, it is likely to be stronger than a minimum GF, which may just raise to 4. So give partner 2 controls on a good day. It seems to me that it could still be clubs or reds, but in my experience of suction a single suit is more likely, so if opponents have the ♣Ace I place the Ace on the left and slam is on. I am happy enough to ace ask at this point. Stymied, yes, but even if it is not a good day, I am reluctant to bid just game.

I play in a club where room layout usually gives rise to two howell movements (amalgamated) with the better pairs predominantly in one section, through habit. I prefer that section because results can sometimes be random in the other, when you cannot make judgements as to what opponents bids might indicate. So put me down for the "sit NS if EW are stronger" camp.

I guess it depends on scoring method and whether other tricks may be developed. If they could, at matchpoints I'd be tempted to duck to the King, and assume/hope East has the Ace of clubs as part of the hand warranting an overcall on a lousy suit.

I don't play xyz, and in it's absence take both OP sequences as game invitation with 3 card support. With a "checkback gadget" available, it depends on the gadget. In the first, I think it very important to go for a 4-4 major fit rather than a 5-3, so will always look for it. When denied by 1NT, assuming this is a fairly balance 12-14, the 3♥ is logical, and, I would have thought, standard. Maybe if 1♥ 1♠ is always 5 card for you, I hope you have a bid somewhere to show 4 card. If not, you can use KI to distinguish 4 and 5, and then 1♥ 1NT(5+spades) 2♦(max 14hcp) 3♥ is again invitational 3 card support. Agree with MrAce. In the second, providing 2m is not a Gazilli/Riton type bid, then again logical and standard. Even if it is, 3♥ is again logical, as it conveys the hand pretty exactly, but I don't know if it is standard.

I don't play any checkback, so can't speak from solid knowledge, but I thought the use of 2♦ response to 2♣ invitational check, was that this is a negative denying support. By using 2♦ as the invitational check, you have lost a vital bid. Bidding partner's suit would now mean that you may or may not have support, and if responder has a 6 card suit he will not know whether to bid game or not. No? Of course responder may not bid this way with an invitational 6, but in some other manner. Other bids could then be impacted. However, the point is that it is a useful bid that has been lost, and when responder has a slam going hand I would have thought that the extra space you save by bidding 2♣ rather than the (I assume) alternative 2♦ is a drop in the ocean compared with all the space you have anyway.

15 opposite 6, playing 3♥ with an 8 card fit and a combined 21 count? Not a system I would choose.

I never raise on 3 card support unless I have a singleton or void outside, so 2♦ rebid always on this hand. You can always support hearts later if needed. I like partner to be able to rely on this when he makes his next bid. Apart from style, if 1♥ is unlimied, you seem to be giving up the idea of a diamond slam if you do bid 2♥. Partner will never know your diamonds are so good. After the 2♠, 3♦ would confirm only 3 card support.

I agree with what Cherdano is saying. I don't place much faith in DD simulations because normally real life is nothing like DD. If there were single dummy simulations, then that is a different matter.

Certainly I agree with you that it's better to put the unbalanced strong hand into 1♦, but I am surprised you are surprised on the last sentence. With a weak NT I think it better to put the unbalanced hands into 1♦, and bid a 1♣ that says nothing about the comparative length in the minors, to get the same benefits of major suit definition. Guaranteeing the 1♦ open as unbalanced or long, at all strengths, has advantages too.

An alternative that includes compulsory transfers, if you are prepared to give up the penalty or takeout double, is, over 1NT (2♥) ... X = spades 2♠ = minor suit stayman 2NT = clubs 3♣ = diamonds 3♦ = "transfer cue bid", so GF with usually 4 spades 3♥/♠ = ?? maybe stopper ask 3NT = to play If you normally play this method of showing minors after an uninterrupted NT (ie minor suit stayman, simple transfers) then this method needs no memory. All the transfers are compulsory, and responder is potentially a weak 6 card suit. If responder bids again, it can be invitational ie 1NT (2♥) X (p) 2♠ (p) 2NT, or with a rebid at the 3 level, GF. At least, I play GF. I guess you could play the minor transfer as invitational, then if partner declines the invitation he completes the transfer, and you then cue bid to make it a GF. The transfer cue bid does not show or deny a stop, but opener completes the transfer if he has no stop. Now 4 card suits are bid up the line, and responder can bid NT if he has a stop. If opener has a stop, he does not complete the transfer, but bypasses it and directly bids a 4 card suit or NT. So if after their overcall all I wanted to do was ace ask in diamonds, the bidding is 1NT (2♥) 3♣ 3♦ 4♥ response ...

Obvious - if you think of it ! Thanks Maybe the pinned "useful abbreviations" thread should have just one entry, editable by everyone, to keep these all in one place.

OK, everybody wants COG, but what's that? The bridgebase search of course refuses to tell me, being an abbreviation, and otherwise it is a pop group or an obscure organisation. COG bridge, on the other hand, is in Scotland or Canada apparently.

I wouldn't invite with this hand, but would want to play in a contract. Takeout X is good. Having invited, 3♠ must be GF but not hearts, so will be a hand with good minor(s), I think. I bid 4♣ and if he corrects to 4♦, I pass. edited after posting - reread the OP

Having a 15/16 NT puts me in the happy situation where 2NT over a major is to play and not an invite. So I do this with sufficient values but not a game hand, regardless of minor shape. I wouldn't do it with a typical 4-6 count without 4 diamonds, but I have done it without diamonds and say 0-2 points, at matchpoints as a preempt, but I don't remember it as successful.