fromageGB

The problem comes 3 passes later ...

If you are putting stronger hands through the 2♣ bid, then I don't really see the need for transfers. Reverse your diamond and heart meanings, and it's the same. However, if 2♣ is natural and weak, as in your case, then transfers give you the ability to show strength with a rebid. But you are then in the dark as to responder's game suitability. An artificial 2♣ rebid with strength (15+ or your choice) allows an escape in 2♥ or a natural 2NT or 3m, so seems better to me. And actually only your 2♦ bid is a transfer, which needs a 6 card suit, so not very useful.

I assume you mean a x5xx balanced hand with 5 hearts can't bid 1♥ 1♠ 1NT. We do. This is an important bid you don't want to lose. Playing 2♣ as artificial, we have already given up a natural weak club bid, so we do the same with diamonds and rebid 2♦ to show 4 spades. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea but we like it. An x54x hand rebids 1NT.

I originally interpreted "American American partner" as a partner originating from America playing our agreed system which was Standard American, in the same way that with my precision partner I would be playing precision (if I ever did). So if Bluejak played Standard American with the native American indian it would be his American American American American partner.

Would X and Y sum to 100? Maybe not - you can pass on (100-x-y)% so that opponents cannot assume a fit.

deleted, misinterpretation

I don't think denying a stopper is much use. Is partner supposed to take out to 4 of a minor on no fit when he does not have solid stops? So for me 3NT and X are bid with similar hands, but depending on vulnerability. When playing transfers, you can "just compete" by passing the response. For me, 1NT (3♦) 3♥ is ♠ weak or GF, not invitational.

I agree with the transfers and most of the rest, but when partner (opener) has a hand that has a minimum of 2 of their suit, is fairly balanced, and has considerable limited strength, I think there is a lot of merit in X for penalty. This is a completely different situation from a jump over partner's one of a suit open. It is also different in that while with a low doubleton opener may reopen with a X after a 2 level overcall, he will not be doing that with a 3 level overcall.

Thank you, Pran. I thought it meant "Sad Bastard".

This is what I play too. By a passed hand this is a FNJ, typically a x4{x5} shape 8 count, but by a non-passed hand it is natural and forcing.

Are these suits in the right sequence? I can't imagine anyone wanting to bid 3NT with Q9 opposite a typical singleton heart !!! But it's an OK hand for a minor, so 5♣. 4NT is not for me - partner has asked me to bid my best suit, so why not?

I agree with the 5 nice spades. But the hearts do not have full value, and the second suit is one I would not be happy to introduce into the bidding, and does not have much trick-taking potential. I see no problem with passing initially, and will of course invite or bid game if partner opens, and if the opposition open then I am happy to overcall in spades. Of course, if the 5 clubs ware headed by the KJ, and hearts were xx, then it is a different story.

I play these methods, so a simple obvious 3NT. But on the other hand, I would have passed initially.

I have the problem, playing both these conventions (it's a pity I don't play in tournaments in the USA because they are designed specifically for my conventions) that when I have a balanced hand with MORE than 10 points, which convention should apply? Should I open 1♣ or should I open 1NT? Advice welcome. Do I need a third convention to sort this out?

There may be a lot of holes but it's simple and workable. To me the key is whether 2♣ is GF or invitational. I have it as invitational so I need to show a major first if I have four, and can then bid 3♣ invitational, because otherwise there is no room to distinguish between genuine suits and stoppers. If 2♣ is GF I would be very happy to bypass a major initially. I am sure you can use available bids better for esoteric purposes if you have both the memory and the partner, but on a natural basis I think it's OK.

I think at this level is has to be a good hand. If partner's X was an orthodox takeout, it has to be playable in both minors, so a perfect 0544 or close to that. It partner's X was a good raise to 2♥ then it is ace asking.

As I play "forcing, not natural, not game forcing" I would still bid 3♦ over 3♣. If partner jumps to game with a 10 count then it may not be a disaster, and for once all the cards could be on the right side. I don't think there are enough bids available to show all distributions and all ranges of strengths to still stop at the 3 level :)

You may have posted it before, but I am sure many of us would be interested in seeing the 1NT 2C structure, if you would. If already on the forum, can someone post a link?

If you play that 2♦ as not forcing (NFB) then yes, it shows extra values as a support double. I think it shows 2 cards in diamonds, because 3 diamonds is a raise to 3♦, as you are happy bidding at the 3 level on an 8 card fit when they have a higher ranking 8 card fit. Perhaps we have the same idea after all. A support double shows 1 less than needed to support directly.

deleted

I thought it was standard. I think it means "we have more than half the pack, and I have one card less in length than I normally would have to bid your suit". Pass or bid accordingly. I have never seen this at the 4 level, but I'm sure at the 3 level it is not an uncommon agreement.

No, I don't like this. There can be many hands where I want to bid 2NT to find out more about opener's shape, and want to do this whether I have 13 or 17. So 2NT has no strength range associated. 3NT therefore has a special meaning such as 1 short in length to support opener's suit(s). (As gwnn I suspect.) When we get to a sequence such as .. 2NT 3NT, we play 4♣ artificial to show a hand about an Ace better than minimum, and have point count step responses.

I would like an extra spade, but I don't like doubling when I expect the 1NT bidder to have Ax Kx KQJTx QJxx. 2♠ for me.

I've never played this way, as I transfer to clubs then bid hearts. But I like the idea of the latter sequence being heart shortage, which presumably means playing the method you quote. I take it then, that 1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♦ is strong with hearts and diamonds x45x. At the moment, this sequence is for me "Stayman in doubt" with a 3433 shape. Has this convention now bitten the dust?

Our agreement is that it is forcing and not natural. If you bid 3♣ as expected, partner can pass. That would be the way he bids with less than an opening hand and long clubs. However, if you have a really good hand, you may want to bid 3C as forcing if you could. We have said that 3♦ means that you would not have passed 3♣, but want to go higher. It is forcing but not game forcing, and you reserve the right to pass 3♥ but would like partner to bid game if he is a 10 count or thereabouts. I also know someone who plays any bid higher than 3♣ as saying "I would have bid on over any lower bid, but if this is your suit, that's high enough". In that context, it is not natural (could be short) and is also not forcing. I think either way is playable. But I don't like natural non forcing. If I had that hand I would not have doubled initially.