fromageGB

When I play Vertigo X as 4M5m or both majors, my advancer bids are (in simple form) 2♣ = denies a 4 card major 2♦ = 4 spades denying 4 hearts 2♥ = 4 hearts and NOT denying 4 spades, but equally can be void in spades. 2♠ = to play, at least 5 spades. So as doubler if I have 54xx I have to pass 2♥. In a more complex statement, as advancer has to cater for all possible doubler shapes, the replies given above are not absolute. 2♣ effectively means "bid your 5 card suit (pass if clubs)", so does not categorically deny a major. I gave an example earlier where the sequence is (1NT) X (p) 2♣, (p) 2♦ (p) 2♥. As the 2♦ bid guarantees a 4 card major, the 2♥ is to play in the major, such as a (43)15 advancer shape opposite a (4x)5x doubler. Ben, I am interested in your reversed Vertigo, where 2m is 4M5m, and X is 5M4other. What are your advancer's replies to this double?

I agree with Adam. I am not concerned about the game hands, let alone the slam hands. I want multiple bids that show the hand types I have, and my objective is to compete the part scores. Admittedly I have a lousy memory, but I can remember only one time there was a possible (missed) game our way, and many, many times there wasn't. This may be a matchpoint opinion, but I value frequency more than game tries. If you lump ALL "competitive" hands into one bid, yes you "compete" but you have no hope of reaching a sensible contract.

You are correct. In this and in the other major/minor instances you can't be assured of getting to the best fit, but you normally get to a reasonable contract. Sometimes you don't, and with one partner I play the Vertigo X as just majors for that reason. This gives up on the 4M5m hands, but the 5M4+m hands still start with 2 of the minor, and I really like that aspect of the defence, it works well and has good obstructive value, particularly, perhaps, as the major is unknown.

I just don't get this. Perhaps I have misread what you play, but if "X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way" then it seems hopelessly useless. As advancer I have 4153 shape. I don't want to play in your 4 card major if it is hearts, so I can't bid 2♦. I can't bid 2♠ natural as I don't want to play in a 42 fit or worse. I am not strong. So I bid 2♣ to ask for your 5 card suit. Is that right? You bid 2♥, your longest suit in 2542. What am I supposed to do? Rescue with 2♠ so we can escape to your second suit and risk playing in a 4-3 club fit at the 3 level? With standard Vertigo with your 2542 shape it goes (1NT) 2♦ (p) p. Advancer knows your minor, so there is no problem. (If advancer's hand was 4135 he still passes, if 4315 he bids 2♥.) It seems to me that when your double is as vague as this, there must be many times you have no way of finding the correct contract. If overcaller's reds were reversed, ie 2452, then that is a Vertigo X, and advancer's 4153 : X 2♦(showing 4 spades and denying 4 hearts) pass 4315 : X 2♥(ostensibly 4 hearts maybe 4 spades) pass (advancer prefers a 4-4 or 4-3 major fit to a possible 5-1 diamond fit) 3145 : X 2♣(denies 4 card major - "pass or bid your 5 card suit" 2♦ I can't see how your one bid(call) of double for any major+minor, of any lengths, can be useful. Edit - an alternative and better way of bidding the penultimate hand is 4315 : X 2♣(denies 4 card major - "pass or bid your 5 card suit" 2♦ 2♥(I prefer your major) as this leaves the possibility open of playing of playing 2♣ in a 5-5 fit.

Agree absolutely that 2M should be single meaning natural, and agree absolutely that it is important to know which of 2 suits is longer. This is a big problem with most of the defences showing a major and a minor, which could be 45 any way round. As partner, if it can be a 5 card major I may want to be in that, but if it is a 4 card major, then want to be in the minor. A practical problem with defences where a minor shows a specific major is that you cannot pass the minor as it may be the wrong one. In effect you have to go to the 3 level. I think it more sound that a minor bid shows that minor and an unknown major. With length in the minor you can pass it. This is why I play vertigo, and like it. Most of my opponents play weak NT, but I am still happy to give up the penalty double. Without the double (you have to pass with a strong balanced hand) declarer will not know you have such a strong hand and possibly not play so effectively, and having no penalty double means that they cannot escape to responder's 2 of a minor or weak 2 suited hands. (Of course, should partner reopen with a vertigo double then you have the option of passing.) With one partner I play vertigo where the double is either a 4 card major and a 5 card minor or both majors any length. With another partner I give up the 5m4M hands and have double as just both majors. Then you can always play in the best fitting 2M regardless of length (eg partner bids his longer major, but with equal length he bids 2♦ for doubler to bid the longer), and you can also have the option to play a response of 2♣ as pass or correct to 2♦ if partner hates both majors.

I don't like the sound of that convention (never come across it) because it loses bidding both minors. With no support for partner's major, I am sometimes happy to bid a 5 card minor, and even if it is a 6 card suit I would rather play at the 2 level than the 3 level. On the other hand, I am happy to give up a penalty double (and play this way with one partner) so any bid below partner's suit is a transfer, and X is a transfer to clubs. With both your examples covered by the convention I simply transfer to the lower then bid the other 5 card suit. Normally of course you transfer to a long suit and pass, sometimes you can show your suit and then rebid partner's major with a suitable doubleton.

I agree that 5-10 is too big a range, but when you split the range it is arguable that the weaker immediate raise is best, as it is more preemptive. But you can do it either way. Yes -100 may not be too bad, but vulnerable, I don't like it. Play a different system when vulnerable? Don't forget, if your side has a 17 count 8 card fit playing in NT, the other side has 23 and an 8 card fit and they are on lead. Prospects are more like 3 off than 2 off. Better in my view to pass the 4/5 HCP hands, and play in 1M If your style is to open 1NT on 15 and 1M on 11/12-14, you will be passing 1M 1NT as often as you bid on. That is why it is dangerous to include low HCP hands in the 1NT reply.

Can't say I agree with this. Partner is going to pass with any balanced or semi-balanced 12 or 13 HCP, and this is by no means crap. And when he does, playing 1NT on a combined 16 count is nowhere near as good as playing 2♠ in a 5-3 fit, or 1♠ of course. I sympathise with bluecalm. For myself I play 1NT forcing, and also put the 11/12 3 card support into the 1NT. Tricky. Playing 1NT not forcing I would prefer to alter the support ranges and bid 2M with the weaker support hands. This probably means altering your 2♣ reply to force a 2♦, to be followed by clarification that includes 2M to play. So with 3 card support 1M 2M = 3/4-6 HCP 1M 2C then 2M = 7-10 1M 2C then 3M = 11/12 This of course in turn means that with a normal 2 over 1 club hand with 3 card support you cannot just rebid 2M, and would probably need to put another puppet in there, such as OtherMajor over the 2♦. If this has no unmanageable impact on your 2♣ sequences, then that would be my choice. Second choice is not bidding at all on 4-6 HCP 3 card support, and hope if it gets to you again you can then bid 2M.

In a transfer walsh context, giving up a "natural" 2♣ responder rebid is a very worthwhile. However, while I have never played complex continuations (my partners and I prefer something simple that our ageing brain cells can cope with) it seems to me that after opener's 1NT rebid an XYZ structure is inferior to transfers. Transfers offer you more possible equences. It is easy to cater for invitational or better hands, whatever methods you use, but weak hands are the problem, and playing transfers gives you more ability to do this, and to distinguish different hand types. Frances Hinden's comments in the Hog's post a few years back are worth reading. An important issue here is that if you decide to play transfer responder bids after an opener's 1NT rebid, do you do the same after opener just completes the major transfer? You could make it exactly the same, but if you had a sequence after 1NT to show a weak 44xx, then if that hand can be shown by rebidding 1NT after the 1♥ completion, then you have a spare sequence that can be put to better use. Probably the reason that concepts such as transfer responder rebids are not publicised as the latest cutting edge developments in transfer walsh is because these sequences are inevitably complicated and detailed and reflect the partnership's feelings on many issues, such as the simple one of how important is it to show a minor in less than GF hands, as opposed to describing the majors better, and whether they are happy with having to get to the 3 level with some invitational-but-declined major fit hands. Consequently the methods are just suitable for that one partnership. I think it boils down to "get a like-minded partner and roll your own". And yes, I agree this is suitable for intermediates - unless your definition of advanced is "has non-simple agreements". But I think any growing partnership benefits from agreements, even if they don't recognise a lesser spotted squeeze when one flies past.

Are you saying responder initially replies 2♣ with a 12 count? I am happy to reply 1♠ with game hands (it is forcing), not just up to 11, and use a possibly artificial 2-bid for the 16+ hands, but the strength limits of your 1♠ has little bearing on the efficacy of using KI : a worthwhile swap.

If you play 4♠ as kickback then 4NT could be exclusion blackwood in spades. Doesn't seem likely though with the opponents' muted spade calls, and "pick a minor" is my guess.

For me certainly not strong enough for 2♣. I voted 2NT, but not convinced. Yes, we can find out about the 5 card heart suit if partner has game values, but if he hasn't, and passes, then I would much rather play in 1♥ than 2NT. Can I change my vote ? :D

You would prefer to dump JDeegan ?

Exactly.

Much as I feel reluctant to take issue with Ken on this (or anything) I feel the need to defend opener's 3♣ rebid. 2♣ is a bid made with a normal 5+ GF, and even if you do play that a strong responder with no 5 card suit (eg 2443) can also bid 2♣ and you have a 2♦ relay available so responder can bid his shape, on this hand opener has no interest in finding anything out about responder's possible hand. Moreover, he has a highly descriptive bid of 3♣ available. This conveys where his strength is perfectly. This does not stop responder bidding any suit or NT. I will agree that opener will commonly have 4 cards for the 3♣ bid, but it is not guaranteed, and even if responder does have 4 himself it would be a strange decision to prefer the club game to a major or NT. As Ken says, 3♣ is somewhat preempting the auction but with this hand your are not concerned about that. And opener's range is defined as 15/16, so hardly "wide as can be" : I would say it is a pretty descriptive bid. Of course if you did not play the version where an opener rebid above 2M was strong, then it would not be my choice either. But if it is 15/16, rather than spelling "disaster" I think it spells "accurate description to let responder decide where to go".

I don't think it time to dump 2NT. But maybe this hand is not the one for it. I like 2NT with GF 4 card support if I have nothing else useful to say, or if I would be interested in hearing of a shortage in partner's hand, or telling of a shortage in mine. But here I have no shortage to show, and if partner is short in any side suit it doesn't particularly improve my hand. Conversely, I have a reasonable 5 card suit to show that does not stop me ending in spades, so I choose 2♣. QJ9 are useful values. On the actual hand, partner in response has nothing else to say other than club support. For us an opener rebid above the level of 2M shows 15/16 so 3♣ fits. Now as responder I am entitled to get excited : a 2 suited fit and outside aces. A 28/29 count slam seems quite probable. 1♥ 2♣ 3♣ 3♥ 3♠(the non-serious 3NT) 4♠(ace ask) 4NT(1, or 3 without the queen) 5♣(which?) 6♣(3, and this is the cheapest K) 6♥ is not unreasonable. But on another hand, I may be interested in finding or telling of a shortage, or not have a decent side suit, so I will keep 2NT in my armoury.

I'm no expert, I just enjoy the game, but X for me is as the others say. Takeout orientated at low levels, more-than-expected-values orientated at high levels. It doesn't show a diamond stack, so I pass with nothing much to say, and bid if I have. Here I am very happy to bid when partner has values. Having said that, some people at some local clubs are prone to way over-preempting. If I know the offender, I am more inclined to pass. Incidentally, I just read the newbies tips, and it says "if you run out of arguments post a cat". Has Mr Ace run out of arguments?

> What I really want is some comments on the rest of the opening bids given that I want to play transfers. OK, comments. Before you get to opener's transfer rebids, my thoughts on the immediate responses : > 2♦ = 6+ either major, 5-8(9) points I found it was too high when responder bids 2M with weak 6 card opposite a shortage, as I used to do. Admittedly with 2♦ you have the option of playing in 2♦ when you are long in ♦, but with a misfit I would prefer to play in 1NT. Make it 7+ and it's good. > 2♥ = 5 spades, 4 hearts, 6-9 points Again too high when opener has the hand with both minors only. > 2NT (semi)balanced invite May get a problem when the opposition reel off the first 5 tricks in your shortage suit when you are 3 suited. If this could be incorporated in the 2♣ response then at least opener can play in long diamonds, or perhaps bid his shortage to allow responder to escape from NT if his holding in the shortage suit is poor. As to the transfer opener rebids, I have never played them, but see no problem other than weakish opening hands with a shortage in that major. After 1♦ 1♠, what do you do? It seems that all possible replies mean something else. If you are supposing that you will want to play in 2♣ with a 1444 opener opposite a 5323 (and many similar configurations) then it's not something I would choose. And if responder is supposed to pass your 1NT transfer when he is 5233 then you are in trouble when you have the 2155 hand. By not playing transfers, you have an extra bid, of course, to handle this.

My system would be stuck on this distribution. I'm happy with the 55 in the majors, but then I don't have a follow-up bid that can show 5 diamonds.

It does solve problems if your 1♦ open shows any hand with 6+ diamonds, or any hand with a singleton or void outside diamonds. That way with 1♣ 1M you will ALWAYS have at least 2 cards in support. 1♦ can handle a 1444 shape as easily as a 4144 - see the sister current thread on the 1♦ open. If you want a natural treatment with transfer completion showing a weak NT, email me and I'll send my notes if they can be of any help.

If you wanted an essentially natural method that distinguishes between 3 and 4 card major support, you could try After 1♦ 1♥ O bids 1NT = shortage in ♥ Raises = 4 card support 1♠ = either 4351 or 4x6x shape <18 count and then ... . . R bids 1NT = denies 4 ♠, less than invitational and then ... . . . . O bids 2/3♥ = 3 card support . . . . 2/3♦ = 4x6x . . or 2♣ unnatural forcing, otherwise. And then ... . . . . O bids 2/3♦ = 4x6x or . . . . 2/3♥ = 4351 shape, for responder to then bid ... . . . . . . 2/3♠ with 4 cards . . . . . . pass to play in hearts . . . . . . 2NT denies 4 ♠, does not want to play in hearts, invitational After 1♦ 1♠ O bids 1NT = shortage in ♠ Raises = 4 card support 2♥ = 3451 or 18+ x46x shape and then . . R bids 2/3♠ to play with 3 card support . . 3♥ = GF 54xx shape . . 2/3NT not wanting to play in spades and then ... . . . . O bids ♦ with x46x shape With this, responder has the choice of whether or not to play in the major opposite 3 card support. When responder is 45xx you can always play in the 44 fit rather than the 53 When responder in 54xx you will play in the the 53 rather than the 44 unless responder is GF. Don't think my partners will take the memory strain, but I think it's sound, and it is natural.

The way I play the 1♦ IS "natural systems" as I am a simple soul whose memory can't take complicated agreements. It works well enough for me. My definition of the 1♦ open is a hand with 6 diamonds, or a hand with a singleton or void outside diamonds - no other hand type. This means that 4 diamonds is not guaranteed, as a (41)35 shape opens 1♦. Nevertheless, over 90% of the time it is 4+ diamonds, so we support with 4. Responses are 1♥ = 4+ hearts, 6+ points but not a 2/3♥ bid 1♠ = ditto spades 1NT = up to 10, no 4 card Major, no 4D, therefore 3334, or 5 clubs. This makes it very easy for opener to bid clubs if it is not his shortage. 2♣ = 11+ with no 4 card Major (either clubs or diamonds may be the longest suit) 2♦ = 4+ <11 2M = 11/12, 6 card suit precisely 3-bids weak preempts with 7 cards (5 if diamonds) Opener's rebids are simple. He will have one of 3 hand types ; 6+ diamonds, 10+ cards in the minors (2-suited), or 3-suited. With the first we rebid 2♦, the second rebid 2♣, the third support partner's major. A 3451 shape supports immediately even if it is the 3 card suit, because the shortage and consequent ruffs compensates. And it keeps it simple. If responder's major hits the shortage, we rebid 1NT. (This makes more sense to me than specifically showing 4 hearts.) This 1NT guarantees 4 cards (or 3 with ruffs) in any other suit, so there is no problem in responder bidding another suit to play. A raise of that 1NT to 2NT is game invitational 11/12, and a rebid of the major is NOT to play (do you want to play opposite a void? - this is why I am not keen on your proposed 2♦ response : better to play in 1NT in my view.) but a NT game invitation for opener if he is 15/16. This means 1♦ 1♥ 1NT 2♣ is not checkback etc, but to play. A response of 2M as 11/12 with 6 allows a weakish opener with a singleton to pass, and other major holdings go though 1M. Your suggested (semi)balanced 2NT response sort of commits you when there could be a gaping hole in your unknown short suit, I feel, so my 2♣ equivalent allows both a 2♦ get-out and showing majors that have stops, to allow a sensible NT decision. While I could never cope with your non-natural rebids after 1♦ 1M, it seems to me you have no bid for the 3 suiter with a shortage in that major. 1NT would be nice ! .. which means you could bid clubs with clubs? And diamonds with diamonds? But then it would be "natural systems" of course :D

I think it shows a minimumish hand with diamond stop(s). But I suppose it depends on the meaning of the 2♦. If you play that an opvercall is normally a 5 card suit, and a cue of 2♦ shows a good 3 card support, as is probably common, then I think 2NT describes the hand perfectly. "Careful, I have only 4 hearts". I don't see why it should be a game try. If the 2♦ shows 4 card support, then I think 2NT should show a balanced game try with diamond stop(2) suggesting that 3NT may be better than 4♥, and of course this hand is not good enough for that. If 2♦ is completely vague as to meaning, or shows a diamond guard, then 2NT means a minimumish hand with diamond stops.

If you are thinking of playing less frequently (or putting less effort into the agreements) with one partner for the sake of trying another, I think the answer is "it depends". While a good idea in principle to have a variety, as others have said, in my view it is a mistake if your current partner (that you would be partially dropping) is better than you, you are learning from him, and you are both putting in the effort to get comprehensive agreements and trying out different ideas. A good partner that you get on with is worth keeping.

MGwood sounds like a useful system; I don't have a bid for that hand. Could you please direct me to the web site so I can learn more about it?