fromageGB

The ranges are not a problem with a 15/16 1NT open if you play transfer walsh as I do, with rebids that show a balanced hand with different bids for 12-14, 17/18 and 19. 2NT open is 20/21, upwards via 2♣ as normal. After a club open, and partner "transfers" to show a major, we complete the transfer at the 1 level with 2 or 3 cards in that major and 12-14, break transfer and rebid 1NT with 17/18 and rebid 2NT with 19. So when there is no 4-4 major fit for immediate support the strengths are shown. And of course, when responder has longer majors, there are transfers over the NT, and other things. When partner has no major we play a reply of 1♠ as a transfer to 1NT, with balanced hands as well as other options, and opener rebids 1NT with 12-14, 2NT with 17/18, and an artificial relay of 2♥ to 2♠ to 2NT with 19. So again the 17/18 is distinguished from 19. 19 is not enough to open 2NT in my view, as it destroys investigative bidding, as well as being bad when partner passes, so 2NT should only be used when you could miss game if partner passes your opening 1 bid. If you open 1♣ with 19 and partner passes, you have not missed game. On the question of weak NT vs strong NT, with either you open a minor when not in range. While so opening a minor playing a weak NT may be overcalled less often than so opening a minor playing strong NT, we play "system on" (X="I would have bid that", ie a transfer) so opener stll has the ability to show the strength ranges. However, even if you take that as a downside, I think a far bigger downside is that the weaker the 1NT the bigger the devastation it causes to your own bidding. At least with 15-17, responder is going to find major fits with 8+, and he rates to have 8+ half the time. WIth 12-14 responder rates to have 9 points, and he needs 11+ to find the major fits. Therefore considerably more than half the time he has to pass and you fail to find the majors. Give me a strong NT over a weak NT any day.

I don't believe an opening 1NT with a 2 point range, as with my 15/16, does mess up the 1 bids. After I open 1♣ I can have a 3 point range balanced 12-14 rebid, such as 1NT, but that does not mess with anything. By opening 1♣ you can find your major fits. On the contrary, it is the 3 point range 1NT open that messes the 1 bids, because you preempt the ability to find major fits.

This could be a significant difference. Does the expression in the OP "limit raise" imply a 4 card support? If so, then with that I would transfer to the major at the 3 level, and with a 3 card support I transfer at the 2 level. The other disadvantages of using the cue in this way are 1) it leaves more room available for opener to bid other things, which is unnecessary eg 1♣ 1♠ p 2♣! leaves room for all of X, 2♦ and 2♥, whereas 1♣ 1♠ p 2♥! leaves room only for X. 2) you cannot transfer to diamonds (eg, above example). And if 2♦ is natural, you cannot transfer to hearts ??? :huh: Absolutely, I agree entirely. Good points.

You seem to be arguing that you should ignore strength, and just bid cheapest natural suits, so with 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ opener could have a 12 count 45xx hand. I would argue - as does EricK - that if you have an agreement that a 12-14 hand will repeat his major (1♥ 2♦ 2♥) then this loses nothing in finding the fits : responder bids 2♠ if he has 4, or if not can bid 2NT so that opener can then describe his shape, bidding a second suit such as 2♣, showing 3+ support with 2♦, a 6 card suit with 2♥, or none of these with 3NT. Nothing is lost. Conversely, if opener's first rebid is 2♠ by these methods, it has to be 15+. It gives information on strength, as well as shape. This helps, because the use of serious/non-serious 3NT only applies with a major fit. Let's say there is no such fit. With my sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3NT responder with his 16 count can happily pass. Opener has no more than 14. With my sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3NT, responder knows opener is 15+, so with his 16 count can bid 6NT after checking for aces - using Gerber or asking specifically for 5 aces in hearts or diamonds if that suits his hand (with a kickback method). The correct contract always. With your sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3NT, responder is stuck with his 16 count. If he passes, opener turns up with 16 and you miss the slam. If he bids further, opener turns up with 12 and you have bid too high and go off. It also works better if opener supports the minor. For you, 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is any strength, and you don't know what to do. Look for a slam, and you may too late find out that 3NT was the best contract. For me, 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3♦ shows diamond support, but only 12-14, whereas 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is 15+. So I will argue there is great benefit in not bidding shape immediately.

I agree with awm. Playing a 2 point NT range, Stayman then 2NT is not an unused sequence waiting for a meaning, but is just natural, to play. As Adam says, playing a 2 point range also has a slight advantage where the bidding otherwise goes 1NT 2NT(natural) pass (or equivalent vis Stayman), and we bid 1NT pass. However, I have not seen this in practice, as the huge majority here play weak NT to my 15/16. A sequence that is perhaps available for another meaning is 1NT redtransfer completedmajor 2NT. You could argue that if you are not inviting game you are merely giving a choice between 2NT and 3M, but I am not convinced this is a good idea. At the moment I am using it as a 9 count invitation but I am sure there must be better uses.

I'm a believer in the 2 point 1NT range, because then you can happily dispense with invitations in most cases, and after an opening 1NT you can play in 2NT if there is no major fit after Stayman. Very important. We play 1NT = 15/16, and using transfer walsh a sequence 1♣ 1♦/♥!(ie shows a major) 1NT = 17/18 (denying 4 card support). Then simple transfers allow you to play a 5-3 or 6-2 fit at the 2 level if you want to. We find it useful to be able to stop in 2NT because you need to find a major fit at the 2 level when there are not values for game. Playing a 3-point range NT means that you have to have the 2NT bid after stayman as a game invitation, which means that you have to have a stronger hand to use staymen than you would with our 2 point range. This is more important in the UK - where people playing a 12-14 NT will be bidding 1♣ 1♥ 2♥ pass on a 15/16 opposite a 7 count. Playing 15/16 we bid 1NT 2♣ 2♥ pass, whereas a classical 15-17 pair would bid 1NT pass. Not good in matchpoints. You need to be able to play in 2M.

Darjeeling, actually, but drinking rather than smoking :D Hey, they are not my methods, I'm an othodox 3♦ bidder. I am merely pointing out how Phil seems to guarantee 2 of the top 3 honours with his 3♦ open, therefore a 7 card suit headed by AJT does not qualify. (Hx with partner would not be enough for a comfortable 3NT.) So that hand has to open 2♦ it seems. Therefore 2♦ is extremely wide ranging in both strength and length, as he implies, and has the unsettling effect on opponents that he describes.

The bid that describes - by partnership agreement one hopes - ANY weak hand with long diamonds that cannot be opened 1♦ or 3♦ is, by definition, 2♦. Remember 3♦ guarantees 2 of the top 3 honours. Argument(3) is valid, if alerted, explained, and allowed by the governing authority.

My preferred method of handling overcalls is not standard, but not uncommon : I prefer transfers. They allow you to make both stronger and weaker support raises, and allow you to bid a suit eithet as weak, to play, or as a force. Sometimes. Assuming responder passes, ours work like this. All suit bids higher that partner's, but lower than opener's, are natural and forcing. Forcing partner to speak, but not forcing you to speak again if he says nothing exciting. But forcing to 2 of his first suit. A cue bid of opener's suit, and any higher suits lower than partner's, are transfers, where you may have the equivalent of a weak 2, or may be stronger and intend rebidding something such as delayed partial support, a forcing non-specific cue of their suit, NT etc. After 1♦ 1♠ pass, 2♣ is natural and forcing, while 2♦/♥ are transfers. Depending on the suits, there may or may not be any natural bids. When partner is bidding a major, we use a transfer to 2 of partner's suit as a standard 3 card raise with a balancedish 9-12 count; this means a direct raise to 2 is weaker and preemptive, but again with 3 cards. With say 13 upwards (rare), we bid something else, then support. Fewer HCP on all these if shortages. For 4 card raises, we again transfer to the suit, this time with a jump, as stronger than a direct raise to 3, and the transfer is of course game invitational. We think it important to distinguish the length of the major support - this helps in the bid on/stop decision when they bid again. In this situation, "responding" to our overcalls, we do not use fit-jumps, as we like the weak/strong raises to the 3 level, and while 2♦ after the above start could be a weak 2 in hearts, we use a jump to 3♦ as a more preemptive take-out, probably with 7 cards. This latter, though, could be employed as a fit-jump or something else without affecting the basis of the method. We do the same if RHO doubles, and all NT bids are natural. However, if RHO makes a bid, it is different, but again involving transfers.

I have a hand that is fine if partner bids, but not good enough in my view for a call now : terrible suit, insufficient general values. Happy to support partner. Do not want him to lead from his Kx of hearts if we end up defending. After my pass, if they end up in 3♣ they may be unpleasantly surprised by the distribution.

mistake

There's always someone with a different opinion .. ;) A) Yes. Assuming 2♥ is a 2 suited bid with spades, he could have doubled to give you a choice. Therefore he actively prefers diamonds, having more of them. B) I'm happy with 1♥, but over 3♦ would bid 3♥. Partner passed because he has only 4 hearts (maybe 3 with void clubs?) and can't do anything else. You on the other hand have 5 hearts, and you have shown only 4. What's more, you are short in diamonds, while he is short in clubs. Looks a good hand for you. C) I think I can pass, but if I can't, then maybe X. Even if if does show 3 card support, you want to do something and Hx with a side singleton is just about acceptable. Partner then has the option of bidding anything, which you can pass.

I've never used or come across a "number of aces" ask followed by specific king ask in Gerber. Is this normal these days? I have always seen "number of aces" followed by "number of kings". Of course you can agree anything here with a specific partner, but what would be accepted as normal?

The alternative call on 0364 is 2♦ for me, not 2♣. I would rather bid 2♥ than 2♣, but prefer to show my 6 card diamond suit rather than immediately fix on hearts. If partner has a further bid I will be delighted to support or pass hearts, but when he is a weak hand with a 3433 shape, the 6-3 fit is likely to score better than the 4-3 fit, but I agree it's a close call. But yes, 2♥ rather than 2♣.

While it is "logical" to have a double as more penalty the weaker the NT, in practice I am not keen on having multiple methods. Have 3 different systems depending on whether mini, weak, or strong? I like a double as non-penalty, as it enables better definition of your hand types when you want to bid over the NT, so I keep the same system regardless of NT strength. I play against more 12-14 NTs than 15-17, and have only rarely regretted no penalty. Conversely, I have more times benefitted from my intervention with a double. A penalty double is over-rated, I think, as everyone has a get-out available, such as playing in 2m when they would not be able to do so otherwise. Also not to be forgotten is that if you play a direct seat X has a minimumum strength, partner always has the option of passing. Probably more important than the strength of NT is the method of scoring. I have regretted coming back to score up an IMP match and reporting +140 against teammates -300. In MPs, the frerquency is more important than the magnitude.

I prefer a 6-0 to a 4-3, but have no evidence to back this up! It certainly does seem to depend upon hand strength, as well as suit strength. I higher hand strength / lower suit strength pushes me more towards 4-3, and higher suit strength / lower hand strength pushes me towards the 6-0.

Bluejack's site http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt01.htm gives "Meckwell" for this, but does not define the suit lengths. I prefer 2m to be 4m + 5anyM, but agree 2M should be natural 5+. I think X to take out to 2m is near useless, as it does nothing to prevent opps finding a major fit, so played "Vertigo" where X was both majors or 5m + 4M. This worked well 80% of the time, but 20% forced you to the 3 level with no sensible fit, so I am now trying X as just both majors. This allows you to always find the best major fit, which I think is important when it can be unequal majors. Why play in a 4-3 when you can have the 5-3?

When I have 4351 shape I think a rebid of 1♠ is better, as my partner can easily have 44 in both majors. If he doesn't, the fact that I have bid 1♠ rather than 1NT (which shows a hand with a heart shortage) will lead him to believe that I am a 4x6x shape, and he will convert to 2♦. At that point, I will then correct to 2♥. So I don't need to bid 2♥ immediately, I can afford to find the better spade fit if there is one. Perhaps this is one of the advantages of playing a transfer walsh 1♣ with balanced hands, and an unbalanced (or 6 card) 1♦.

For me I will always bid 2♦ with a 6 card suit if I do not have 4 hearts. Time enough to support hearts later if partner bids again. However, without 6 diamonds, and without 4 spades, I will always raise hearts on a 3 card suit if I have a void or singleton in the hand (as I always will if I open 1♦), as the shortage with probably immediate ruffs is worth an additional card. But not a low doubleton : the ruff(s) may not materialise.

We have a very simple - skeletal - rebid structure after a diamond open that you will no doubt think deficient, but can be easily taken on by beginners. However, it has to be completely different from the rebid structure after a club open, as this is a completely different animal. This shouldn't be a problem, though, for any beginner can understand that a bidding structure over 1M is different to the structure over 1NT.

Or are you suggesting you should always refrain from opening on a balanced 14 count ?

In the clubs I play in, -100 always scores better than -110 B-)

I did say this hand was a pass in my view, but in the protective seat at the one level, there is an argument for bidding 1NT not vulnerable, and it's pretty close. You don't mind a heart lead, and the strength is equally divided between the 2 sides. Could well be your hand, as partner without 4 spades and no decent minor does not have the heart values to bid the 1NT he otherwise would. If 1♥ makes plus 1, then even 2 off in 1NT is a good score, and if 1♥ makes then 1 off is a good score. If 1♥ goes off one, then you make 1NT for a better score. Matchpoints, remember.

While I would like to see transfer walsh and an unbalanced diamond become the standard minor openings, I can't really see it happening. There are just so many alternative continuations you can get into that would make it very difficult to agree on a "standard".

Yes, this is one of the times. 1NT is a possibility, though. I don't like X with only 3 spades and going down as dummy with the lead through me.