fromageGB

This is where it doesn't work, when both parties are unlimited by the bidding. However, often somebody makes a bid which limits the hand to a range of values. In that case, it is easy. Example : 1♠ 3♦ (Bergen 4 card support bid, defined strength/HCP range) 3NT. We play non-serious (or frivolous) 3NT, where it is 3NT over spades, but 3♠ over hearts. So when both sides are undefined in strength, a serious hand would bypass that bid and make a cue bid. However, if partner is limited, as in this example, there is absolutely no sense in telling him you, too, are limited; you just sign off in game. So now the 3NT bid becomes a "serious 3NT", which insists on a cue bid sequence. However, this bid denies control in clubs. If you had club control, but not diamonds, you would have bid 4♣, the one beneath the one you want partner to bid. So you can in fact ask for the cheapest. Most times, in fact, one partner has limited his hand in some way. In a 2 over 1 sequence (the way we play it) opener limits his hand if his initial rebid is no higher than 2M (2NT from responder then asks for shape). Where both are unlimited, partner has bid 3♠ agreeing trumps in a forcing situation, and we are serious with missing club control, at the moment we just bid as if we have it, and take a risk, if you like, of missing the top 2 tricks in the suit. But this is the only suit with a problem, and we think it worth the definite advantage of always being able to show extra strength (without being unilateral), to enable partner to bid on if he too has extra strength. The "16 points opposite 16" hands (or equivalent) is a bigger problem otherwise.

As Zelandakh, I think it works fine with a normal simple natural system. (Well, as good as simple positive cue bidding works.) I don't think anti-cues solve a problem shared also with the normal "bidding controls upwards". Let's say you are in a spade game force, both hands are unlimited by the bidding, but neither hand has sufficient strength or trick source to unilaterally ace ask (ie not "super-serious"). Both hands are say 3 HCP stronger than they could be (ie "serious") and you cue bid to express your "seriousness", bypassing the "non-serious 3NT". The idea is that you are telling partner your strength, so that after cue bidding your controls, with no suit uncovered, HE is in a position to go on for ace asking if he has undisclosed extra strength, too. If he is minimum, he stops in game. Unilateral super-serious hands are easy, the cooperative "serious opposite serious" not so. Suppose you have good controls in both minors but not hearts... With normal bidding controls upwards you bypass 3NT to show extra strength, and cue 4♣. Partner has controls in hearts alone, outside trumps, so bids 4♥. You now know all suits are covered, but you are not strong enough to ace ask unilaterally, if partner is minimum. You have no choice but to bid 4♠. But when you bid 4♠ he will think diamonds are uncovered, so he will pass even if he has that undisclosed strength. From his side of the table, he knows you have extra strength, he knows he has extra strength, but he can't move. And he had to bid 4♥ rather than ace ask at that point, because diamonds were unguarded. Normal upwards cues fall down at this point. Do anti-cues fare any better? You have the minors, so you serious anti-cue in 4♥. Parther has that control, so on the original hand if he is serious he can now go on to ace ask. But this time he is minimum, so even with the control he just bids 4♠. You, on the other hand, are now "super-serious". But as you think he does not have that heart stop you reluctantly pass. So there is a problem with this method, too. What I am trying at the moment is a sort of combination : pinpointing the possibly missing control by making a serious cue bid in the suit beneath. In other words, the first serious cue shows in addition to the one bid, any lower controls. The bidding now goes 4♦. Partner without hearts bids 4♠. Partner with hearts and not serious simply bids 4♥ and I can ace ask if I am super-serious. Partner with hearts and serious himself will not bid 4♥ but will ace ask - if he has the ability to count to 13 tricks. If his hand is such that it can only count to 12 he can bid 4♥ but then go on if I stop in game. By the way, this method means that the first serious cue of 4♥ shows I have controls in all suits, but want partner to ace ask as I am just serious and not super-serious. I am sure there are other methods of doing it, but anti-cues themselves are not the answer for me. And I need something simple, that my partners and I can remember.

Thanks for the inputs. We weren't sure, but this settles it. We'll do it that way.

Perhaps you have spotted that it may be different when 4th seat doubles?

I have discovered this explanation of the expression : "taking big steps but thereby ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored". Is that about it? Any other ideas?

This is an interesting example of the problems of thinking you speak a language. I thought I spoke English, but haven't a clue what this means. Maybe I am not fluent enough to play in the proposed new BBO?

Yes, but for me this 3M is 11/12. (7-10 is an immediate 2M). As your LR is now 10/11 (a 12 point hand would have opened) this means you are at the 3M level a point lighter. More risky. I thought a 3 card support 10 count goes P 1M 2C? This means P 1M 2M is 3 card 7-9 or 6-9. As opener I would not invite without say a 17 count. But if it can also be 8/9 and 4 card support, we miss game. Otherwise OK !

My worries are that the 3 card support with a shortage is effectively forced to 3M opposite a 12 count opener, and 4 card support with a shortage is forced to 4M. OK if the shortage is advantageous to opener, but it could be detrimental. Even ignoring this, you are forcing to the 3 or 4 level with 3 or 4 card support, when either party has a shortage, which implies that the strength needed for the 2C bid is pretty strong. You say "Limit raise", and I guess this means maybe 10/11 HCP. And even with that, I do not necessarily fancy 3M on an 8 card fit 22 count, or 4M on a 9 card fit 22 count. Opener having a shortage does not necessarily mean more tricks as he is ruffing in the long hand. I think it is more useful to have the space afforded by the 2C bid employed to allow a wider range of responder support strengths. A more normal reverse 2-way setup can have say a 4 card support 8-11 range, and still have room in some cases to show shortages as an invite. The inability to show an 8/9 count responder 4 card support worries me, as this is tricky with a "possibly subnormal but maybe normal" opener. Perhaps you can add Pass 1M 2D as specifically this hand.

A partner and I are trying a variation of a defence to 1NT where X (in 2nd or 4th seat) shows both majors and nothing else. (It used to have other alternatives, but we want to get the best major fit.) With a basic reply of 2♣ as no preference, and "indicating" which major when you have preference, you can always play in the best major fit. After 2♣, doubler "indicates" his longer or better. The room you have also enables you to put a predetermined hand on lead, by "indicating" with either a transfer or a direct bid of the major. So the question is : Is it better to put the 1NT opener always on lead, so that he is leading away from his tenaces? Or is it better to have the known hand with both majors as dummy, so the defence has no knowledge of the other hand's distribution? The second option always has 2♦ spare for meaning "I hate majors - pass or correct to 3♣" This bid would also be available with the first option only when X is in 2nd seat. A 4th seat X would have 2NT as "hate majors". A point to note is that a 2nd seat strong balanced hand cannot double, so the protective X with both majors can be made with quite a weak hand (they are passing out in 1NT).

You haven't said what system you are learning, and of course that has an impact on the bid to use. Not only is it system dependent, it is partnership agreement where to draw the line between one bid and another. While you would want to be in game opposite a 5 card major open (does it show 5 cards quaranteed?) when you have 12 HCP and 4 card support, it is not a good idea to bid 4♠ directly, as that may be done with a weaker distributional hand, and partner will therefore pass when there could be a possible slam with your 12. Equally, it is not a good idea to bid 3♠ as this can be passed. You need a forcing bid, to be able to show your strength and your spades later. This could be a forcing 1NT if playing that method, but if not, then 2 of a minor (even though not a good natural suit) is commonly used, as it is forcing. I play an immediate 2NT as 4 card support game force, but for me (and others) 12 HCP is normally insufficient as our base is 13, which then makes slam investigation more secure. We have another bid for an 11/12 count. I would suggest you ask your teacher what he would recommend.

I think a key point is that you should try to make a habit of always doing it. It is easy to look at a balanced yarborough in defence and mentally switch off, just pulling out a card when it is your turn. Use this as an opportunity to give the counting of suits your full concentration - you don't have the distractions of how to play the hand !

I'm pretty negative about it, because normally with partner making a very strong bid like this he is the one with a long suit, and you are just a willing helper with some controls. It won't do you any good to ask for aces because you will not be in a position to know how many tricks are there for the taking. Are you going to guess whether partner has 6 clubs? Or 8? Only he knows, so he is the one who should be ace asking. But you need to tell him to ask.

Of course you are correct in the last sentence. I was merely trying to imply that 3♠ is a sufficient preempt, and that there is no need to open 4 to make slam difficult for them to bid. I should have expressed that.

While I would say the chances are less than 50%, therefore in the literal sense "unlikely", I see no reason to suppose LHO has a 20 count or a game force. That is much more unlikely. My feeling is "normal opening hand" is likely.

Without discussion, no defence to a multi, I think partner will assume it to be invitational. But (given that 3♣ should be a strong bid) I think with an invitational hand I will bid a guard in another suit(s), and if partner refuses to bid 3NT I can then bid 4♣ which must be invitational. So for an immediate 4♣, I think this suggests some clubs in support, some controls, and requests partner to make a slam move. It depends of course on the meaning of 3♣. For me this is the strongest of the 3 ways to bid 3♣ and is almost game forcing. In this context, it is nonsense to have 4♣ as invitational, and therefore has to be a fit bid requesting partner to ask for my controls.

I would say s2000magic's last hand is a borderline 2NT inquiry. If opener's minors are reversed, you will go off.

As your ideas are off-beat, and gappy in their coverage, you may find it difficult to get anyone to attempt them with you. If you are not happy with SAYC major openings, then there is probably no hope for you unless you learn a "standard" system like precision from a book, then look for partners in that. If you are OK with the majors, but dislike the lack of meaning of the openings of one of a minor, then try transfer walsh. This can be a big improvement. The trouble with that is that there are many flavours and treatments, so if you find a partner willing to show you the ropes, best to initially learn and try his methods, then - if you are happy with the partnership - maybe try other flavours together by agreement. But I strongly think you need a face to face partner at the local club who will learn with you, as discussion is vital.

I don't think 7 or 8 losers is valid for me - I like to open a weak 2 often, and can do it on 9 losers. I use a 2NT ask, and will do it with a flattish 16 count, or a 14 count with a singleton. I think if your weak 2s are freely bid, you have to accept that sometimes (but rarely) you will miss game, or get to the 3 level and go off, but with the advantage of being disruptive more often than those with stricter requirements. However, blackshoe is perfectly correct - a 14 count containing side suit quacks does not qualify.

Too late to impact your decision, but I echo Trinidad in saying that it is a waste of time - and a gift to the oppponents - to use double or 1♦. Let all your bids start at 1♥, and for something simple I use suction (or inverted psycho-suction). So a bid of 2♣ means either diamonds, or both majors. NT bids shows split suits. Bids mean the same even with a jump, just the higher the level the more pre-emptive you want to be. With a 4-4 2-suiter, I am happy to bid cheaply! The important thing is to get in the bidding whenever you have any shape other than a 3333, and with an ambiguous bid. Experts will have decided how to handle it, but even they will be disadvantaged by the space you have taken away. Even if your bid makes no difference to the eventual contract, give them a chance to miss something. The downside of suction is that responder can always pass and bid again, but play the variation that 2♣ means both minors or hearts, and his pass is risky. The bid is more risky for you, too, if you have hearts and end up in 2♣, but of course partner has some as he prefers clubs to diamonds, and if you are doubled you can always bid hearts. The upside of any ambiguous bid (apart from removing bidding space) is that your suit is not known. Every precision player knows how to handle a known suit (whether bid naturally or transferred) but it is not so easy when they don't know what you have.

Amusing, but it's fair eneough, as it emphasises that a 1C open (unless long) must contaim a 4 card major. It surely is "{4441}" (ie any suits) rather than "4441" (shdc).

It's not easy, and not only do you need rules, but you need to be on the same wavelength as well. 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 4♥ seems right as natural (fast arrival as Free says), and you have no problems agreeing diamonds first if you wanted it to be ace asking - you bid 3♦ then 4♥. But 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 4♥ - again a jump to the 4 level - has to be ace asking in diamonds, not natural. This time there is no room to agree diamonds first, so (rule 2) "if it can be ace asking, it is". In this sequence, there IS room (playing 2/1 GF) to bid 3♥ then 4♥ if you want to play in hearts.

"I was not aware that a strong 2♣ rebid showed a minimum number of clubs, or a maximum number of spades - we certainly didn't play it that way." - minimum number of clubs? - maximum number of spades ? Perhaps I am misunderstanding these posts, but I am glad we agree that 2♣ used in a gazzilli context does not imply a mimimum number of clubs or a maximum number of spades.

Well, if you did change the agreement so that a possibly ambiguous bid was natural, rather than kickback, and use a higher bid for ace asking, you lose the space that kickback gives. Without that space, we cannot show all aces and trump queen yet still stop at 5♦, and when your next bid is one level up to ask for specific kings, there is no room to show them precisely and stop at 6♦. So you would need some sort of condensed responses that would not cater for all circumstances, and, importantly, take more memory. Of course, in my hypothetical sequence, you could not have 4♠ as ace asking in diamonds anyway, as this is kickback for my heart suit. In practice, I have been playing it for years and not yet had any situation where I regret the metarule no 2 that "if it could be ace asking, then it is".

When I played a natural 4+ 2♦ rebid I played 2♣ as either weaker with clubs, weaker with balanced hand, or any strong (Gazzilli) and the replies to the 2♦ differentiated between them. We treated an opening 45xx as balanced (after all, responder is not interested in your 4 spades). With a partner playing KI, over 1♥ 1♠ we played 1NT as maybe including 4 spades, with a 2♣ inquiry (but weaker hands than would bid 2♣ which can again include 4 spades.) I was not aware that a strong 2♣ rebid showed a minimum number of clubs, or a maximum number of spades - we certainly didn't play it that way.

By my agreements, 4♥ is unambiguously ace asking in diamonds. You have on the previous round agreed diamonds (presumably in a forcing situation). I would take the "3x" as a stop for no trump purposes, and a "4x" as a cue, but either way 4♥ is an ace ask.