fromageGB

My way is probably not standard, but I like to ignore minor holdings (playing an artificial 2♣ anyway), and concentrate on the majors. Similar to yours above, but reverse the NT/♦ meanings. 1NT = any 12-14 without something to say in the majors 2♣ = most 15+ hands, those not qualifying for a specific bid > 2♥ 2♦ = 4 spades 2♥ = 6 hearts So I don't bypass 1NT, which is a useful natural bid. Of course it's all a matter of judgement. With a low side suit doubleton and a good Hxx there's nothing to stop you treating it as 4 spades. Incidentally, you could say that another advantage of KI is that you can play in 1NT more often.

It will be a 4-3 fit on a good day.

Played it for quite a while now. Love it. Getting across the length of the 5 card spade suit in one hit is worth far more than the rare times you get problems. If RHO is going to X 1♠ to show spades, the chances are he is also going to double a non-KI 1NT to show spades. I have a regular other partner who does not like KI, and we sometimes find ourselves making the wrong guess when responder has 5.

1 Simplicity? I wouldn't have thought that xyz was any simpler than stayman and transfers over a strong 1NT rebid, or an invitational+ 2♣/♦ (confirming 5 in the shown major and showing or denying 4 in the other major) over a weaker 1M completion. 2 Constructive easier? By not showing strength in the initial opener rebid, you make it more complex for opener to show strength later. And it makes the completion forcing on responder to bid again he has a 7 count. (Fewer +80s, more -50s :) ) Playing a weak completion also enables you to play in 2M with a 6 card suit - we play a raise of the completion is a 6 card suit 9-12 count. Again, with a 4-4 fit and game invitation declined we also play in 2M. 3 1NT by the stronger hand? Assuming a weak hand with a single 4 card major, then - not knowing your exact sequences - I can't see much difference. If responder has hearts we can bid 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT, so this has the same result. When responder has spades you will also (presumably) play 1NT by responder when opener has 3 card support, except on the rare occasions responder has a less than 7 count and you choose play in a 4-3 fit. Unless, of course responder keeps the bidding open (in case opener is strong, as you say) by bidding 2M and deliberately playing at the 2 level in 2M with only a 4-3 fit and a possible combined 19 count. Not my choice. 2(Different 2) Pull? There is no actual pull, as responder passes the completion with a less than invitational hand. Whether you know there is a 2 or a 3 card fit has no bearing; in my experience a 5-2 fit with a 5 card suit in the weak hand is better played in that suit by the stronger hand than 1NT by the stronger hand. As of course is a 5-3 fit. It probably comes down to preference, but having played both ways, I find it better defined to show strength rather than length with opener's first rebid.

Thanks, Zel, but maybe you can give me an idea of what your terms mean? I am thinking a positive is an A, or a K, or two Qs. A negative denies any of those. What would you say is a positive, semi-positive, and double negative ?

I don't see this. (Which is the biggest problem of the 2♥ negative in my view.) When partner gives a negative and I am a 24/25 count, I would like him to bid 3NT if he has a Q or so, or pass 2NT without. We can do this with a 2♦ negative, using a Kokish 2♥ to give 2 ranges of 2NT, but if 2♥ is negative then I have to decide whether to bid 3NT myself. If partner has zilch, then 3NT is not good. Yet if I include these strengths in the 2NT rebid, I don't want him bidding 3NT with a Q when I am a 22 count. With a GF in your own hand over a negative you would I assume jump in the second bid, so rebid 4m as a GF. Partner is not going to want to cue bid, so just picks the appropriate game. I assume this is the same with a 2♥ negative. Now with a GF ♠♦ the bidding goes 2♣ 2♥(neg) 2♠(forcing the next step) 2NT 4♦, because if the last bid is a non-jump 3♦ this can be passed. The choice of which suit you use as a negative has no bearing on the method you use to distinguish GF and non-GF. Mikeh's point was that with a ♥/minor very strong but not GF 2 suiter a 2♥ negative pushes you to the 4 level. With a 2♦ negative you get out at the 3 level. Of course you could choose to say that a non-GF 2-suiter does not show his second suit over a negative, but sometimes you might miss game (or better score) in the second suit. I don't like the idea of opening 1♥ on a near game 2 suiter. Too many times you will miss game. Yes the other way round you can pass 2♥ negative, but equally you can pass a 2♦ negative, so this has no bearing on the choice of negative. This sounds a good idea : 2♦/♥ for negative/positive (or vice-versa!), and with long suits and (your choice of criteria, semi-positive or Barmar's negative) 2♠= natural, 2NT=♣, 3♣=♦, 3♦=♥.

Equally, if 2♦ is your (double) negative, then opener can pass it. So this is no argument. You only gain a level when opener's suit is hearts. 2♠ and up is the same in both methods. I agree this saves that one bid, but I do not see it outweighing the loss of precision on the balanced NT hand, nor the loss of the ability of the hearts and a minor non-GF 2 suiter to be able stop in 3 of the minor after a negative. Gaining that level when opener has hearts and you have support makes it easy to bid 3♥ to then start cue bidding, I agree, but this is not so important. Assume your methods are that over opener's first suit you relay the next step (to allow him to bid a second suit for example) and you break this relay to show a positive with a long suit and no initial support. After 2♣ 2♥(pos) 3♥ 3♠ = waiting relay (no initial heart support), or long spades to be possibly shown at next bid 3NT = long clubs 4♣ = diamonds 4♦ = heart support and more than just one trick 4♥ = heart support but no more than the A or K you have already shown then the equivalent of the 2♣ 2♦(pos) 2♥ 3♥ is 2♣ 2♥(pos) 3♥ 4♦. You have shown heart support, shown you are better than just game, and invite the ace ask.

Years ago when I first started playing Twalsh I completed the transfer with 3 cards exactly, and with 2 rebid NT - with no indication of strength. Then I switched to completing the transfer with 2 or 3 and a weak NT, and bidding 1NT rebid with 2 or 3 and 17/18 (our 1NT open is 15/16) and much prefer this. After completing the transfer we play responder passes with a 5 card suit and a less than invitational hand, and even if there is a 5-2 fit it scores better than 1NT. Of course, responder having passed (showing 5), when 4th seat comes in with a 2m, 2M from opener now shows 3. After opener's rebid of NT, which shows strength but could be 2 or 3, we play transfers from responder to show 5. This could be weak, but may not be, and opener bids 2M with 3 card support, or 2NT without. You have the values for 2NT, or course. On other points raised in this thread, we play : 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ as 4 spades in a hand that is 4xx6. It denies a 4315, as that hand rebids 1♥, because if responder has 4 spades he will bid them. He cannot be a weak 45xx shape. However, a 4306 opener will convert 2♣ to 2♥ at MPs. 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ is the sequence where responder shows a less than invitational hand with 4-4 in the majors. (When responder is invitational with 4-4 (or just one 4 card major) we start with a transfer to 1NT then 2♣ stayman.) However, the mgoetze/jlall idea of reversing the 1♠/1NT responder rebids is a good one. 1♣ 1NT is for us a weak 5-4 in the majors hand, opener bidding a 4 card major if he has one, else 2C, whereupon responder transfers to the 5 card major. Incidentally, we play that 1♣ guarantees at least 2 cards in each major. If you don't do this, many sequences would be suspect (eg 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ pass, for example).

At the moment I play 2♦ as a waiting bid with no separate bids for positive or negative, but I see the advantags in changing to a Barmar type method (4 posts back) with 2♦ positive and a 2♥ negative. However, one thing nobody has explained is why 2♦ should be positive. Why not 2♦ negative, and 2♥ positive (eg A, K, or QQ) ? It seems to me that bidding 2♥ as the game force here is practically as good as the other method. You still have stacks of room. The big advantage of having 2♦ as the negative is that opener can still express meaningful NT ranges, ie 2♥(forcing 2♠) 2NT = 22/23 Direct 2NT = 24/25 If you have 2♥ as the negative, then you no longer have the Kokish option, so 2NT has to be a big range. Yet it is when you are in a non-GF situation that you need to have a precise 2 point range, so responder can decide if game is on. When you are in a GF situation you can afford a wider range, as it it forces to 3NT anyway, and the 4NT/5NT slam seeking bids narrow it down when needed. It also solves the Mikeh problem, as now with a non-GF 2 suiter over a negative you can show 2♥ then 3m non-forcing, or 2♥ then 3♥ non-forcing. Of course, over a positive 2♥, 3♥ is forcing anyway. So why not 2♦ negative, 2♥ positive?

I agree. I didn't invent it, and that's not how I spell my name :D

There's a lot to be said for a natural 1NT, as there is not much point in having 2 calls (X and 1NT) to show the same hand. Using a bid of 2♠ to force to the 3 level on a misfit when the points may be equally balanced seems too drastic for me, so I am happy for it to be natural. A 1♦ open is commonly a 3 card suit, but it may be long diamonds sitting on top of me, so there is a bigger argument for having it mean something else. If you have this as your only artificial cue, maybe it should mean 2 suited with better/longer clubs than hearts.

Drop the adjective "semi-forcing"; a bid is either forcing or it isn't. (A pet hate of mine :ph34r: ) But Free's point is very valid. Personally I don't agree with any method that takes the bidding so high when there is no fit. Take a 6 card major, which replies 3M. How can you have any sensible discussion to end in a realistic contract - ie a fitting suit and the right level? How does opener show length in either or both minors? As a natural system it seems so unworkable as to be untrue. If it supposed to be an artificial relay system then far too many bids are used to show far too little information.

A good point. I hate the commonly used term "limit raise", and think "invitational" should be adopted universally. Any normal raise is a limit raise, and an 8-10 limit raise is limited to the range 8-10. Values will of course differ : to some an invitational limit raise is 10-12 for example, but the descriptions "subnormal", "weak", "constructive", "invitational", and "GF" can be understood by all. (I think.)

I would not like X here (or any ♥♣ 2 suiter were such a bid available) because when partner leads to a ♦ contract I don't want him (under)leading a club honour - it has to be a heart lead.

Undiscussed as stated, a splinter, and even though I prefer transfers, I do not want this to be a transfer to 3NT. Splinters are more important. If I wanted to play in NT, I certainly want the overcaller to be on lead and to lead away from his hand, but I can quite happily X, then raise to 3NT.

Is this a legal call, or some physical action? I seem to be having language difficulties again.

The decision on what to bid on this hand depends to a great extent on what you expect from a 2-level overcall initially. I see from the other poll that my 2-level overcalls are lighter than most, who may demand a 13 count if 2335 shape? If that is the case, then maybe a delayed 2♣ is only slightly weaker, or as whereagles says, a high count mild 2-suiter. In this case, a 3♣ bid would be essential, I think.

I voted "pass" before reading further. Surprised to see so many votes for 3♣. I am very happy partner has managed to push them up a level, so leave it there. This is definitely not our hand, partner failed to bid 2♣ first time round, so he has probably no more than a 10 count, possibly fewer, and only 5 clubs, having failed to WJO. So we have definitely less than half the pack, and only a 9 card fit. The doubleton diamond looks bad, my spade is sat on, and I see no reason to sacrifice. Another factor is the possible damage to partnership morale. When I make a successful push, to have a better chance at defending, and then partner goes and bids further for bad score, it really annoys me.

I guess I am old-fashioned. This is a minimum 2♥ for me, so I bid it. I see no reason to suspect it is their hand, and if I don't bid now we will never find the heart contract. OK, if doubled it can go off 300, but in my experience a 2M contract is rarely doubled, and I am taking that risk for a small percentage of the time, where for a much larger percentage of the time I have increased our chances of finding a heart contract, and impeded their chances of a minor contract, getting the desired lead if they find one. So it seems right to me. "Percentage of time" is more important than "size of negative" - this is matchpoints. And I don't go along with the idea of passing then coming in with 3♥, as I reckon X is more likely. If they do end up in 2♠ and I lead a heart, I have given absolutely nothing away with my bid. Indeed, they may be influenced to take a 2-way finesse into my partner's hand.

I get you. Sorry I misunderstood. So you do have transfers, but the "transfer to 2♠" has more than one meaning. The reason I don't do that is that it makes life difficult for partner when next hand bids 3/4♣. If he has a weakish hand and knows you have 4 card support it could be a simple 3/4♠, whereas if he knows you have only 3 cards, pass or double could be better. Similar problems when partner is stronger, to bid game or double. Showing your length immediately is usually best in my view. But the crucial benefits of the transfer methods are being able to have different ways of raising with different strengths, and the ability to bid a new suit either weak or strong. And if one of the common alternatives of the cue bid is a forcing one or two suited hand, this is more usefully shown by a transfer followed by another informative bid. Otherwise there may not be room when next hand bids 3♣.

I confess I disagree with Mr Waterman here, because if "extra distribution" is held equivalent to "extra strength", then it means nothing when the bidding goes 1♠ 2♥ 3♦. If "extra strength" is defined as HCP, then there is a world of a difference between 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ and 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♦. Knowledge of the additional HCP makes it easier to bid NT at the correct level when there is no fit. My preferred partnership has 12-14 as "normal", and 15/16 as "extras". Maybe shade that by a point if you want to, but it helps when in slam zone. Incidentally, FWIW, 17+ we treat as "normal", and then when the bidding stops at game you come out of the woodwork and bid further (4♣ after a non-fit eventual 3NT acts as a relay). Knowing the strength as well as shape makes it easier for me, as I am not always able to make the correct judgement otherwise.

Agree with Phil, transfers solve the problem of different strength 3 card raises, and different strength 4 card raises, so no need of the "pseudo-Bergen", and you don't lose the minors. But of course with the additional value of being able to bid them weak or strong. However, if playing transfers for me XX would be a transfer. Vampyr, without that, how can you transfer to 2♣? I would have thought that after 1♠ X then either 1NT is natural and XX transfers to clubs, or XX is a transfer to NT and 1NT is a transfer to clubs, depending on whether you want transfers to include NT or not. But either way, how do you get to 2♣ with an unutilsed XX? Having said all this, if you have only one 3 card raise, while it might be normally be 8/9, with the Ace of spades it may be worth stretching to get the lead, as long as partner understands it may be weaker. My normal after-a-pass raise is 7-10, and after their overcall that is the transfer strength, with weaker hands like this one making a direct raise.

2♥ There are the 2 schools of thought on opener's rebid after a 2/1. Does he bid higher than 2 of his major without extras? If you play that a 2♠ rebid does not show additional spade length, and is the default rebid with no significant extra strength, then you would rebid 2NT on many hands to let him bid his shape, but here of course you rebid 3♣ to show your shape. I can't see a problem with that. Of course the 2♠ rebid denies extra strength, so I would not fear missing slam if no good ♥/♣ fit came to light. So if he rebids 3♦ over 3♣ you can 3NT, or raise 3♠ to game. On the other hand, if he bypasses 2♠ he is showing additional strength, so now you will be slamming. Maybe the hand is a problem if you play a 2♠ rebid shows extra length, and you bid above it without additional strength, but I have no experience of that school of thought. Maybe you need to change schools.

I cannot believe that 1NT (2♥) puts you in a better position than 1♣ (1♥). After the latter I can show 4 or 5 or 6 spades, distinguishing between them, and in each of those categories show strength ranges as less than invitational, invitational, or GF. I can show 4 spades with a heart stop, I can bid 2♦ or 2♣ to play, or end in 3 of a minor offering a game invitation. Of course if 4th seat ups the ante in hearts you cannot be so precise, but whatever happens, I cannot see how it can be worse than the 1NT open. Although I do agree with you that some combination of hands/people will bid 1♥ over 1♣ but not 2♥ over 1NT, I think the preemptive effect of 1NT on your partner does not justify those cases.

You appear to have not read my post - a 2NT rebid shows a 19 count. I agree you should not have a bid higher than this, because you need to find majors even if you are not slamming. Weak notrumpers of course believe in it (those that have thought about it, not the majority that were just taught that way so do it by inertia), but I fail to understand the argument of preempting to hide the fits for both sides. The argument seems to be that as I have more than my average share of the points, the expectation is that it will be our hand rather than theirs. So therefore prempt. Why ? You are preempting yourselves more than the opponents. I agree the self-preemptive effect is still bad for the strong NT, but an important point is that you have a strong NT less frequently than a weak NT, so playing a strong NT you are self-destructing less often. And when you play a 15/16 NT, it is marginally less often than than 15-17. I will oppose your argument that a weak NTer wins the part-score battle by giving a counterargument that by playing transfer walsh (and an unbalanced diamond) you are in a better position to get to the right contract, even after oposition bidding.