fromageGB

2♣ is fine and my bid too with a regular partner, but without agreement on continuations I think it liable to be taken to be a 5 card suit or longer. I would then take 3♣ as insisting on clubs as trumps. Once you go down this line it could get irretrievable when you have different interpretations of the bids. It all hinges on that "no discussion on anything". I think 1♠ is safer.

No, I'm sorry I confused the issue, my 1♦ is not standard. No, given the methods, I'd bid as you. If it was a club open, then you'd be in diamonds, but I wouldn't be in five unless pushed.

I wouldn't like to start with 2♣ without having agreements, and would prefer 1♠. In the given sequence, after 3♠ you are committed to a club contract, I would have thought, and I would have bid 4♣, not being strong enough to go higher, let alone in a suit in which I do not have second round control. In the sequence, after 5♣ I pass.

Hey, if you are going to open 1NT on a singleton, then you have to accept disasters when you get them. I would have opener 1♦, and if south bid 1♠ as west I bid 4♦.

Wouldn't happen to me, as 3♣ forces 3♦ and may be weak. However, assuming the transfer is at least invitational, then I read 3♠ as a maximum agreeing diamonds with a spade ace, denying a heart ace. 4♥ is unambiguously ace asking in diamonds. I don't see the point in 3♠ being a natural suit, but perhaps it is with the inv+ method. If so, as Zel says, you need additional agreements. Compulsory transfers are easier!

To the first question : I play a kickback, and if I was in this situation and wanted to ace ask after partners 45xx shape shown by the 3♠ bid, I would have done so at that point. The fact that partner now appears to be 46xx is not going to launch me into slam mode. I don't read this as a slam suggestion. So 4NT is to play, and I am probably a sound 3154 with excellent minors. Not that I would bid 4NT even so, but that would be my interpretation. I have no lupine agreements, and don't know how that would affect things.

But it's these situations that cause the problems in the OP. It seems to me that a combination of two4bridge's and zelandakh's suggestions fit the bill, and is easy. If you have agreed the minor at the 3 level then 4m is a minorwood that can also be used when you need partner's coooperation, with the reply of 4m+1 denying interest, when then 4m+2 insists on asking for aces. Any bid lower than 4m is a cue bid. When - perhaps because of opposition bidding - you have not had room for minor agreement at the 3 level, 4m is simply a suit preference or competitive, while 4m+1 is ace asking (kickback). The only problem with this occurs when the kickback suit 4m+1 happens to be a suit already bid, so can be construed as natural. Your meta-agreements will probably determine that this is therefore natural, and you have no way of asking for aces in partner's minor. However, this is a rare occurrence, and I can live with it. Normally 4m+1 is kickback agreeing the minor. The first method - minorwood then 4m+2 to ace ask after partner's lack of interest - suffers if you use the standard RKCB responses, as a simple 2 aces can take you too high. I would suggest a "1234" response structure as in green aces. Alternatively, if your style of cue bidding is that partner is not obliged to cue too, and can bid 4m to deny interest, then there is no problem as kickback can then be used to insist on slam hunting.

No, I was talking generally Certainly (or a Drury), if 4th seat passes. But the danger is that when he doubles, partner may raise preemptively on a 4 card suit, and you go for a big number.

Hey, I like this, nice and simple, and avoids unnecessary risks in 3M. Easily adapt this into my methods - I'll have to check that it is allowed in the UK. Much as I dislike the fetters imposed by my national authority, I think they are perhaps less draconian that those in the USA. Thank you for sharing. Edit 4/6/12 - this is allowed by the EBU at level 3 - which in effect means all clubs and anything but novice events. :)

Well, actually, no, I don't really agree, though I think I see what you are getting at. Certainly if you are going to psyche in this situation you should be bidding a suit you would be happy for partner to lead. But if you open 1♣ that will not cause partner to lead from an inappropriate holding because he thinks you have them - he knows it could be a low doubleton. Your holding in clubs is just as uncertain as your holding in any other suit. It is no different whether you are light or not. As for opening 1♣ in the given scenario, the advantage over any other suit open is that partner is not going to do anything rash. He will only jump the bidding with a weak hand and a 6 card suit - this depends on your twalsh methods of course - and you have no objection if he does that. Even a 12 count that downgraded and decided to initially pass will still only respond at the 1 level.

I think maybe we are at cross-purposes. What I am saying is that if your methods are to open balanced hands - that are the wrong strength for 1NT - with 1♣ even though that may be a low doubleton, then that opening suit will not influence partner's lead.

I'm not happy with 3♣, the hand is too strong. Need more info on partnership agreements, Is it a support X? Does it guarantee a better than minimum hand? If the latter, I am tempted by pass, or 3♦, correcting 3♥ to 4♣.

No, I don't often open light, but I can't see how you can play 2 systems, one for when you open light, one for when you open soundly. If your 1♣ open can be a low doubleton, by system agreement, it cannot be lead directing.

The whole point is that when opening 1♣, which is maybe a low doubleton, there is no lead direction implied at all. Partner will make a good lead or a "safe" lead or whatever he would have done if you had passed. This is certainly a borderline open any seat - I am not persuaded that it is worse 3rd than 1st - and my partners have opened hands like this. I like a 12 count, but this is very tempting, and I may do it normally if one of the tens had a higher honour. In the scenario given, I do open, but only if playing twalsh.

Quite safe to open 1♣ if you play transfer walsh, because partner is not going to bid high unless it is safe to do so. Certainly I will bid this if I feel LHO has a good hand.

As, I said, not my methods and with this hand I would not start 1NT, but your comments only apply if you have not agreed a follow-up forcing call, and even if you haven't they don't apply if you use a Kickback variant.

As you yourself said earlier, after 2♣ opener DOES usually bid 2♦ to ask. This is essential if you have different options in your 2♣ bid, so it is not solely a GF with long clubs. He will do this whenever he does not have a 55 distributional hand. This means that with any normal hand opener rebids 2♦, and you explore the best contract. Whether opener has 4 hearts or not does not matter. What does matter is that when he does, you find the heart fit.

I think the problems here are that : 3♥ is too high for much useful slam investigation. It would work better if you used the Jacoby 2NT bid, and adopted one of the suggested sequences of continuations you can find on the internet. This means that 3♥ is then available as a weaker pre-emptive bid. This is as Vampyr gave above. 2♥ is really cramming too many options into one bid. Presumably the length may be 3 or 4? The huge range makes it very difficult for opener to know what to do when the 4th seat bids something over 2♥ - For just one hand it could be right to double for penalty, to bid on, or to pass, and he does not know what is best. He has to guess. If you could narrow the options - perhaps putting the 6-8 hands with 4 hearts into the now vacant 3♥ bid - his guess is more accurate. Acquiring another free bid and using that would make it even better.

This is my preference. By playing the first card in normal tempo, but not facing it, you are obviously not "hesitating" but thinking about the whole hand. However, this does show declarer that you have something to think about, and he might make a correct decision based on that. Better to play a reasonable tempo while still thinking, even if the first card is obvious take 4 or 5 seconds over playing it while you contemplate later action.

To complete the picture, I should say that a 13+ 3 card support starts with 2/1 if there is good 5 card suit, but without one, 2M+2 is 13-15 and 16+ starts with 2♣ (normally opener follows with a 2♦ relay)

I think you pays your money and you takes your choice. But whatever, you need to keep both preemptive and constructive raises, the latter in different degrees of strength. My choice at the moment is to have a forcing next step (1♥ 1♠ or 1♠ 1NT) and put 0-6 hcp 3 card raises through that, with a direct 2M a full-bloodied 7-10. The forcing next step also covers 11-12 3 card raises. With 4 card support I like Bergen, but use the red suits when spades are trumps, and have the 3M-2 cheaper bid 7-10, where there is room for a next step invitation, and 3M-1 as solely 11/12. Yes, that hand my well bid game anyway, but it's good to get the strength across when opener has a good hand. A 13+ goes via the Jacoby 2NT bid, or, rather, 2M+1. After opposition overcall I am an adherent of transfers up to 2M, so 2M is a preemptive 3 card raise, and 2M-1 ("transfer to 2M") is a constructive 7-10, while 2NT is 11+. With 4 card support 3M is up to 6, 7/8 transfers like a 3 card suit but then rebids 3M if partner does not invite or trial, and 9+ cue bids the opposition suit. This is of course invitational+, and responder can bid game if opener doesn't. The important thing is to show both your length of support and strength, so that partner can make the right judgement as to game, or action after further competition. We also play fit jump, and if a passed hand, fit non-jump, with good suits and support. I am not saying this combination is best, and it won't suit everyone, but I am giving it as an example if the sort of functionality you should be looking for to suit your system and methods.

Good question. I don't object to including some GF hands in the forcing 1NT, and do it myself, but you have to be careful the continuations allow you to get to game without missing a slam if opener happens to be strong. This is too strong for me to do that - opener with a 14 count will rebid weakly, and I cannot investigate slam safely. I bid 2♣ with a 2♦ relay available to find what sort of hand I have. I don't understand those who would bid 2♣ and follow with 2♠, as it seems criminal to miss the possible heart fit. I rebid 2♥ to show a 16+ balanced-ish with 4 hearts. If partner does not support, I can always support spades then show extra strength. With a hand in the 13-15 hcp range of this shape, I am perfectly happy to bid 1NT initially. Partner's continuations distinguish between 12-14, 15/16, 17+ sort of hands, and if we have a heart fit, he will bid them. If he is balanced, 3NT remains a possible contract, and it will be played the right way round if I bid 1NT initially. I agree with the comment that J2N is better reserved for a 4 card support hand. It would be too variable otherwise.

This question is intended for those who play (maybe sometimes, in only some partnerships) transfer walsh In the context of a natural system such as 2 over 1. I'd be interested in seeing what the general methods are when deciding between a 1C open and a 1D open. Can you just "bolt on" transfer responses to 1C to whatever you did before with the minors, so that your 1D bid does not change? I was asked this by people thinking of adopting transfer walsh. On my part, I quickly changed the 1D open so that this shows either a long suit (6 card in my case) or a hand with a shortage (singleton or void outside diamonds), and as a consequence diamonds may be longer than clubs, but I am sure many play it with no change to the diamond open. What is usual? What would you recommend?

I think a weak NT is a bit like a psyche. When you have only 12-14, the expectation is that partner is going to pass, as (unless he has a long suit) he needs to have a hand almost as good as yours if he is going to bid. So you are gambling that this is the right contract. Yes, you preempt the opponents, but you preempt your partner more. I play a 15/16 NT in a typically 12-14 field, and the number of times our 2M contract beats the 1NT is significant. Like any psyche, sometimes it works - sometimes it doesn't.

I have one regular partner with whom I play KI, and another regular partner who hates the idea, so I can easily say I think it helps greatly. I recall a number of recent times when with no KI we have missed a 5-3 spade contract when responder is weak. Admittedly, if we were playing an artificial opener rebid of 2♦ that showed 3 spades that would not have been a problem, but she likes that to be diamonds. I think the other benefit of KI is that when RHO comes in, you are in a much better position to support.