fromageGB

I have no absolute knowledge, but know many people who will open at the 1 level routinely with 11 points and a 6 card suit. "5-11" is incorrect in my view. Probably "less than 10" is correct for a 7 card suit, as many 10 count 7 card suits will open at the 1 level.

Thanks for the figures. I can't help thinking, though, that double dummy does not apply. When responder plays 2♥ it is inevitable that 4th seat leads a diamond through the NT holder's opening hand into the diamond bidder. Played by opener after a transfer, unless the diamond suit is solid, overcaller has to lead away from his holding into opener's possible tenace. If he instead leads another suit hoping to get an entry opposite, he has no knowledge of what suit to lead and can easily choose the wrong one, which enables dummy to discard a diamond on something in declarer's hand, or be otherwise to declarer's advantage. Double dummy it is easy - the overcaller leads an unsupported king and continues to partner's ace, or QJ, or QT over dummy's J. Life is not like that.

My agreement is that we open 5 card majors unless 7 in a minor, and this hand is powerful enough to treat as a reverse. Without the aces I would just open 1♥, but on this the bidding starts 1♣ 1♥ 2♥ in a transfer walsh style. I think I pass a simple preference, but otherwise rebid hearts and probably go to game somewhere.

I am not at all convinced by the takeout double brigade, but it seems to be that double DENIES a game hand. With a game hand then use the Lebensohl or transfer cue bid. However, when an opponent has a longish suit, then often so too does responder. And this is likely to be a major. Of course it is better to transfer and have it played by opener. But you can't do this if double is takeout. So weigh up the odds of having a 4414 or similar shape, and compare them with the odds of a 5 card major. No simulations, but I can guess the major wins. The other point is that you have no room to manoeuvre and will commonly be playing in a 4-3 fit. Fancy playing a 4-3 fit at the 2 or 3 level with a combined 22/23 count? I don't. I'd rather defend. So if you play takeout double then maybe the double is supposed to be passed by opener if he has 4 diamonds, I don't know. If he bids on with 3 diamonds you are likely to be going off as a sacrifice, so maybe takeout doublers don't do it vulnerable, unless a pure 4414. Put me down as significantly not convinced. The major transfer is worth a trick compared with not transferring, and more likely.

Similar to Cyberyeti, I use a kickback variant 99% of the time, but find minorwood the way to go in a sequence after a strong 2♣ when opener then announces a 3 suiter (eg 1444). With our simple methods, when 4♥ from responder can be to play, 4♦ is minorwood. In this situation only.

I agree that the purpose of national authorities should be to promote bridge in their areas, but there is no reason why it all has to be different. I would like to have a solid understanding of commonly accepted methods (even though in my own partnerships I will adapt and extend, or perhaps do something completely different) so that I CAN sit down with a pickup partner in a club in France while on holiday and have better than a better than basic game, one that does not often go wrong when you get to the rebids. I am lucky in that I have played 5 card majors in Acol from the beginning before I switched to 2/1 years ago, so I have a better intrinsic chance than someone without that background. It would help, too, for beginners venturing into online bridge, so that they feel more comfortable. As to whether the common system is natural, strong club, strong pass or whatever, I don't think it really matters. People will learn it, and be able to interact with anyone anywhere. And of course, if everyone was taught the same methods, he COULD play with other players in his own local club. It's just the switchover that is difficult.

Pretty unlikely, I admit ! But one can have daydreams. Chelsea could beat Barcelona on the return leg. Just because something is highly unlikely doesn't mean you should give in.

I think you'll find driving on the left helps. But I agree with 32519 that it is time for the national authorities to abandon their own parochial "this is best for beginners" methods and collectively choose a world-wide standard. If the EBU abandoned "standard english" I think it would help prevent the stagnation of bridge in this country.

I reckon a redouble is a useless bid. I can see that it can be good when you have a game/slam you think is going to make, but otherwise in a natural sense, never. Our simple agreement is that XX is always for SOS takeout. We would never make a natural redouble if there was a possible alternative contract available. The other minor uses we have is that after 1C (X) we play XX to show diamonds in a transfer walsh scenario, and as part of a takeout method for 1NT (X) if playing weak NT. Never use XX as support. Why give opps the chance to make more possibly useful bids? Just support. You should have different ways to support to show different strengths, but I don't think one of these should be XX.

Rubensohl seems to have bids at the 2 level as natural, with transfers at the 3 level. What does the team think of using transfers at the 2 level? After an overcall of our suit opening we normally play transfer responses, so it seems natural to play the same after an overcall of 1NT. The main benefit here is that opener's hand with tenaces and possible weaknesses is concealed, and the overcaller is on lead to lead away from his suit holding. A lesser advantage is that responder can show 2 suited hands without forcing to game. Surely this is better than bidding say 2♠ to play, with 4th seat then leading through partner to overcaller's strength? This implies the use of X as a transfer to the next step. While a scrambling takeout double is not a bad idea, is the benefit of a transfer better? After all, partner is not prevented from making a takeout double when you pass, and if he does not, there is likelihood of getting a good plus score when you have the values to make a scramble takeout to a poor fit at possibly the 3 level, with the inherent chance of a negative score when you and opener both have no length.

Oh dear. I thought we were going to be safe until the end of June :(

I don't see what this gives you that 2NT(or maybe 2M+1) = asks about hand strength and quality AS WELL AS showing a shortage 3 any (including clubs) = natural forcing doesn't. After finding about a shortage/strength/etc., you can then bid an asking bid in a particular suit. Do all three, not just one. After a natural forcing bid you can even bid game, too. Even in hearts. Simplicity it gives you, but at a cost.

Depends on the Drury and the soundness of the opening, of course. I would not like to play this in 3♠ opposite a flat 10 count, so I show a 4 card raise by bidding 2♣. If partner has a genuine opener and bids 2♦ I can bid 2♥ to show a lower end 4, and if he has a hand that wants to invite game he makes a 2NT trial bid and on this I show a short/no values suit with 3♦. That should find game if there is one. I could treat it as an invitational 4 card raise and rebid 2♠, and that could be better judgement, but what I would not like to do is commit to the 3 level without hearing that partner has a sound opening.

Strength range (ie weak/strong) AND feature/shortage are both important, and as the suggestions show, you can combine them. However, maybe if you have to choose between feature or shortage (singleton or void) then it is more useful to show a shortage. In a weak hand there is never going to be a feature with significant strength, and responder if slam seeking can always use a specific asking bid to see if there is an ace or king in a particular suit, before going above game. Conversely, in a hand with a long suit there is quite often a shortage, and knowledge of it can make a significant impact on a game or slam decision. It could be a 30 point pack. So shortage is more useful. If you have a weak 2 that may be 5 or 6 cards, then it is more important to show which of those than it is to show a shortage. Ideally you want to show (a) 5 or 6 (b) weak or strong © shortage or not. That is 8 options, and to identify the shortage suit it is 16 options. Naturally you can't do everything lower than game ... However, if you accept that responder will not make the 2NT asking bid over 2S unless he is going to be in game opposite a strong 6, then it is possible to safely identify (a) 5 or 6, and (b) weak or strong, and © identified shortage when it is a 6 card suit. By "safely", I mean stop at the 3 level if one of these is the wrong one. You can do this with the first 4 step replies, and still keep a 3NT response as AKQxxx. So show both strength and shortage.

Don't like the rule. I like a simple "no more than a trick short of game (given not abnormal distributions) and this falls short. Don't think this responder hand is 4♠ or a Bergen. If not playing fancy splinters, surely you must be playing ordinary splinters : 1♠ 4♣ looks automatic, and ace asking gives 6♠. If you have a void showing method it gives you the chance of 7♠.

Thanks. I think this works well. You can get some bad ones, such as advancer with 4144 bidding 2C and playing there when doubler has 5314, but nothing is perfect and this won't happen often. (Even if responder then bids 2H, you can't assume doubler has spades, because he could be 2524 for example. So your 9 card spade fit remains lost.)

No guess needed. We agree it is system on, so do whatever system says. Even with a pickup you will have agreed whether 1♠ shows 3 or 1♠ shows 2 or 3 in a weak NT. Otherwise you will come unstuck on board 1 ! Anything else would need to have been discussed.

If you have a direct bid that shows both majors then system on has no problem. I used to play 1♣ (p) 1NT = weak 44xx and of course did the same thing after (1♦). Now I play 1♣ (p) 1NT = weak (54)xx, and when the opponents come in with (1♦) extend that to be maybe 44xx. Partner will bid a 4 card major over (2♦) if he has one, or pass for me to transfer to a 5 card suit if I have one. If it goes 1♣ (1♦) 1NT (pass), opener rebids 2♣ with no 4 card major, or passes if he has diamonds and poor majors. Over 2♣ I can pass, or transfer to a 5 card suit if I have one. I don't think this is any worse than standard without system on. If you play 1♠ as 5+, but without the intervention use it as a relay normally to 1NT, which can then be followed with "other things", then using it as natural loses the ability to get opener to play in NT when you are happy with that, and loses the ability to show "other things". It doesn't sound that beneficial, as usually "X = 4+♠" together with possibly a support double, works ok. Of course you show minors in transfer walsh. I see no reason why the normal one-under transfer can't be used for the majors as normal, so the XX is a completely free option. Normal methods allow me to show invitational or better hands with 5+ minor, and a direct 2♦ is a less than invitational 6 card suit, but I cannot show a less than invitational hand with 5 diamonds. The redouble plugs that gap.

FAO benlessard You seem to have missed this. When it goes (1NT) X (p) ? to you, what do your bids mean when X shows 5M4m? I can't figure out sensible continuations that can play in a fitting minor when there is no major fit.

Absolutely system on. Why abandon the benefits of playing twalsh just because someone makes a call that doesn't interfere with your bidding one iota? In fact it gives you the ability to transfer to ♦ (with a redouble). So I would take it as spades without thinking about it, and have no qualms bidding 2♠ with 4, or doubling with 3 after 4th seat's 2♦ (eg). First time partnership or not.

The leaving, or the coming back ? :D

Hoping this is not a threadjack, can anyone tell me how to assign key/key combinations to coloured suit symbols in open office? I've given up Microsoft, and haven't figured it out yet.

Yes, what does he know about the way our minds work? I play 3M-2 as 7-10 and 3M-1 as 11/12, but I still call it Bergen when talking about it (not as explanation to a question after an alert, of course). Maybe if we have a "treatment" of someone's eponymous convention we should call it something different.

Surely the problem is that partner should have not overtaken the 9? If you have another one to lead, then fine, and if not you lead something else. I can't see how not overtaking loses.

I am very happy to go 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ with 3 card support and an outside shortage. Without that club singleton, of course it would be a different hand with different bidding, and I don't support on 3 without a shortage, but if you don't agree that you support with 3 and a singleton you have nothing else you can bid. 2♦ is not to my taste. 1NT and 2♥ are worse.