fromageGB

I wouldn't call that a danger, I call it success.

The way I have always played it is different, perhaps because I play a 15+ Gazzilli that has no option meaning weak hand with clubs, which in turn means (after 1♠ 1NT) that 2♦ is not necessarily a diamond suit. Now it seems right after a 1♥ and a 0-4 1♠ reply that 1NT is natural (reclaiming the formerly lost 1NT) and that therefore 2♦ shows 4 spades. No spade fit ever missed, and you get a natural 12-14 1NT. I certainly prefer this to the way you learned.

Not as I understand. If Johnson goes, as things stand it will be a Labour led government with Corbyn as prime minister. Where does your "too many people don't want it" (no deal) come from? Less than a week ago it was reported (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/17/britain-would-prefer-no-deal-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-government) that a YouGov poll found "Nearly half of the public - 48 per cent - said they would prefer to see the country crash out of the EU than the Labour leader implement his own approach to Brexit" with 48% in favour of no deal, and 35% in favour of Corbyn, who has eventually agreed a policy of a second referendum. That's a pretty decisive margin, and it is not Labour policy to either repeal article 50 or accept May's deal. However, unfortunately it is looking as if Boris is trying to resurrect the May agreement, with added tweaks. I really hope he does not succeed.

That's fine if you are not playing 5 card majors, or you enjoy playing in a 4-2 fit. I do not the latter, so I do the former.

I think maybe it is. I play attitude leads, and small to say you like the suit is standard. I don't play attitude following suit, but those I know that do think it is standard to play a high one when they want it continued. Reverse attitude is low to encourage. So I think the standard is the opposite for leading and following. And that is confusing.

When you say "play reverse count" I am not sure what you mean. Can you give an example? I play "standard count" which I take to mean - when following suit with small cards - play a second round card lower than the first round's to indicate an even number. I know of nobody who plays that to show an odd number and calls it "standard count". Perhaps they mean it has become more common and is therefore now normal, or standard? But it is not, where I play. Your second line has me lost. I do not understand "bye stand" so perhaps you can give an example and context. (Maybe used elsewhere, but I have not played outside GB.) If you are referring to the case of say an 8 table 24 board bridge movement where table 1 plays the same 3 boards as table 8, we say we share the boards, and this is the normal use of the word "share". Something is divided among a number of people. Between tables 4 and 5 there is a chair on which boards are placed in transit (resting for one round) as they move round the room. This is a relay because the word means "to hand something over, or pass something on". As in a baton in a race that has usually 4 members of a team running consecutively. The boards are being passed on, but not played for a round. Hence "share and relay movement", and as an Englishman that seems entirely logical to me. If we have no word for "relay" by your definition, can you give me a definition in English of what your word (in another language) means?

Like Tramticket, I think "system on" is best - bid as if your partner opened 1NT. However, Like FelicityR it is not penalty, and I play it as a transfer to the next suit up, either weak and 6 cards (more likely here) or strong. It is forcing, so you have the opportunity to bid again. If their bid is 2♠, it is a transfer to ♣ on the assumption that opener could be short.

Now it is me that is a little confused. I see no mention anywhere of anyone saying Brexit makes a united Ireland more likely : I think the opposite. A single Ireland is more likely when there is the current situation of no distinction between north and south, leading perhaps to a vote in the future for fusion, as probably thought by Sinn Fein. A foot in the door can lead to the door opening. Conversely, Brexit will likely cause the EU to create a border, and separation will harden. Where is the "illusion" that NI is part of the UK? Again, that seems like a fact to me. Apart from minor controls released to peripheral regional assemblies, it will be governed by UK laws and UK trade agreements, have the same social services and health arrangements. Longer term things will change. Initially the UK will be taking exports from Ireland duty free, but if the UE does not reciprocate and starts taxing ours, then we should and probably will follow suit. Maybe Ireland would leave the EU and have its own Eirexit so it can make its own trade arrangements.

As tramticket said, forget forcing/non-forcing 2♥ : have both. The way I play transfer advances is probably the same as anyone else, ie : 1) Bids between overcaller's suit and opener's (at the next higher level of course) are forcing. 2) Bids of opener's suit up to the one beneath overcaller's suit are transfers. 3) Raise of overcaller's suit is weak. 4) Higher bids are what you wish, and for me they are fit jumps - designed to aid competitive bidding, they are raises to the level of next higher opener's suit (not stronger) and show length in the suit bid. 4b) A fit jump can be at any higher level, where you wish to compete to that level. A big and very important benefit is that bidding 2M of partner's suit is a weak raise, while transferring to that suit is a stronger raise. For me, I assume 12hcp for a 1♠ open, and have an unopposed reply of 2♠ = 7-10hcp when 3 cards. My assumption is that an overcall can be typically 2 hcp lighter than an open, so 10 hcp, so my "full strength" 2♥ transfer to 2♠ is correspondingly stronger, at 9-12 hcp. Therefore a direct raise here to 2♠ is up to 8 hcp only. Indeed the transfer raise can be any strength stronger than the nominal 9-12 because it is forcing, and I can rebid should partner just bid 2♠. All 3 card raises can therefore start this way. (4 card raises 9+ start with a jump cue bid of opener's suit). Partner is not obliged to complete the transfer to a new suit, but would if he has a hand that would pass a "weak 2" type advancer. The benefit here is that the stronger overcaller is playing the suit in the concealed hand. Applying this to the discussed sequence of (1♣) 1♠ (pass) ?? having hearts, 2♦ is a transfer to a 5+ card heart suit, and if partner completes as he usually would, you can pass 2♥ when weak, and bid on if invitational or better - perhaps showing partial spade support. So both forcing and non-forcing hands are catered for - have your cake and eat it. Applying this to the OP hand, (1♣) 1 ♥ (pass) 1♠ is forcing, so 2♠ is a fit jump as Cyberyeti discussed in post #10. A thoroughly recommended method, and easy for anyone to adopt.

I don't think the current government's position is relevant. We are about to get a new government and its position will be markedly different. What that will really be, we have no way of knowing until Oct 31st, when opposing bluffs are exposed or win through. As far as I understand, plan A is a temporary tariff continuation agreed with the EU until long term arrangements can be agreed; plan B is WTO. The EU have not really said it won't accept a customs border, as I have read that Eire is planning controls on the border if plan B materialises. Surely the EU will not want an open border?

Independence rebellions have been suppressed in many countries, and I'm sure they can be in Scotland and N.I. (I'd let N.I. go and keep Scotland :) )

I don't really see why there cannot be a border between two states with different regulations and tariffs. Personally, I would prefer movement to be borderless, with checks and financial controls elsewhere, but I don't believe the EU will allow that, and will put up border controls. Equally, I would be delighted if we became GB instead of UK, and that is much simpler, but I don't see it happening. No state just gives territory away. Perhaps the EU could make us an offer?

Transfer then jump to 4♣, if you were playing positive cue bidding and not natural for this. This will elicit a diamond control if there is one, but it depends on your cue style I suppose, if this denies spades. I never did see the point in that, though, as you are not normally looking for slam with two suits of your own wide open, so therefore bid the one beneath you want to hear about. But Cyberyeti's approach has appeal.

Why would you want to? If you are playing transfers over 1♣ it is better to open 1♣ with balanced hands. Transfers are most useful over balanced hands. If partner opens 1♦ then presumably he is not balanced. Now you should not want to give him information, rather find out what his hand is, as he is quite possibly short in your suit, when you would be better off letting him bid out his shape first. This argues for a relay from you rather than a real suit, but when you are weak you cannot avoid the risk of getting too high. It maybe better to play 1♥ and 1♠ as natural or swapped, but weak, and 1NT as a relay otherwise. Or if you wish also have 2♦ as weak,and 1NT with weak clubs, so 2♣ is used as a stronger relay. Discus with partner what shape hands you would prefer to open 1♣ to get the most out of transfers, and then the others are your 1♦ candidates. A "balanced club / unbalanced diamond" approach has benefits.

Of course, but I am not aware of methods that can show a minor and cue bid controls all the way including control of the trump suit, and not interfering with other sequences that may have meaning such as bidding a major after a long minor. Please enlighten me.

Yes, sorry, this is what I meant in post #3, where it seems I jumped in clubs without realising it !

Well, I said in post #22 the odds are against this, but I'm sure it's not worth anyone working out how unlikely this is. Almost all you want is an ace or king in spades. Bidding goes on probability, and when this happens you shrug and accept your bad luck. The fact that opener might get only 5 tricks with this hand does not prevent him from opening 2NT. Equally the fact that I might not make 6♣/NT will not prevent me from bidding it.

You would get an approximation to that information if for example you bid 1♦ 1♥, 1♠ 3♣, 3♦ 3♥, 4♣. This is difficult to answer without knowing your agreements for a 1m open, but responder bids 4th suit forcing followed by his own suit, which I believe would show a GF hand with a good and long suit. 4♣ I would take as a cue bid agreeing hearts. (It cannot be natural because then opener would have rebid 3NT.) Playing first or second round controls, it could still be say Kx in clubs, but it might be a singleton. Very uncertain. If you were playing a "balanced club / unbalanced diamond" style of minor openings, then you would know opener's shape almost exactly. 6 diamonds, 4 spades, heart support, so the club is singleton or void. Opener's hand limited by the failure to reverse to 2♠. That should be enough of a trigger to get you to 6♥.

I will add my agreement to Tyler's initial sentiment. Extract the language and a powerful argument remains. Your methods must be holistic, and where you have multiple choice bids you need to have mapped continuations. I can't see how it helps to start constructive bidding at 3NT, but you haven't given us that part of the system yet.

Of course I do not want France to change their laws, just uphold the ones they already have. I was simply paralleling the Mexico situation. As USA does not want to be flooded with economic or other migrants from the countries south of Mexico, it is trying to apply some leverage/strongarm tactics or whatever on Mexico. The USA has the freedom to choose to do this as it sets its own laws and tariffs. I am not saying that UK would do the same, but it would be nice to have that ability. We don't. We are a vassal state.

The version of 3♣ that I use to handle major asking covers the 54xx (shdc) hand. (With 45xx we transfer to hearts because 3NT then shows spades while 3♠ denies them. In this method, if responder bids a major it denies that suit as trumps.) The replies to 3♣ are not the normal ones : 3♦ = denies 5 spades, denies 4 hearts except when 44xx 3♥ = 4 or 5 hearts but not 4 spades 3♠ = 5 spades 3NT = this reply does not exist! Over 3♥, responder's 3♠ expresses interest in hearts, and asks the length : 3NT=4, 4♥=5. Over 3♦, responder's 3♥ expresses interest in spades, and asks the length: 3♠=3, 3NT=denies, 4♠=4 Over 3♦, responder's 3♠ asks for 4 hearts : 3NT=denies, 4♥=4. For your 54xx responder ; (a) if opener's reply was 3♥, responder can just raise to 4♥. You might have missed a 5-3 spade fit, but you have a 4-4 or 4-5 heart fit. Opener has denied a 5-4 spade fit. (b) if opener's reply was 3♦, responder gives up on hearts and asks about spades. This will find the 5-3 or 5-4 spade fit if there is one. You might have missed a 4-4 heart fit, but if you have, you have found the better 5-4 spade fit instead. There are other methods you could use, but this approach I believe conceals opener's hand best. All such methods leave 2NT 3♠ available as minor suit stayman or club transfer, or whatever, as well as 3NT. As a "both minors" responder has no interest in playing in opener's possible 5 card major, 3NT could be both minors with slam interest for example.

No, you are not missing anything, as it depends whether you think the sacrifice of right-siding is worth the slight benefit when there is a game hand. Perhaps this is a matchpoint / IMP thing, but it's a choice. With a minor hand good enough for game you can always use 3♠ "minor suit stayman" to get that information if you are prepared to play in 4NT when opener likes the wrong minor. But I disagree with you that 4♣ to transfer to diamonds loses a useful Gerber. If I am for example interested in a NT slam I can transfer to clubs, or any suit in which I would like to know of the K, then ace ask etc with the next step. When I convert the answer to NT at any level opener does not argue. If I wish to progress to specific kings then likewise I can choose 6NT or 7NT. Even if your Gerber gives you specific kings, I cannot see how it improves the situation.

Of course when I have such a hand I do want opener to play in 3♣, and 2♣ would be better, but I do concede it has to be 4♣ ;)

Yesterday I read of even more illegal immigrants via France being accepted into the country. If we had Brexit we could impose an escalating 5% extra import tax on France.

The problem with this 3♠ is that if 4♣ is always a slammish hand, then you are stuck when you have a weak hand that wants opener to play in 3♣. Your current transfer approach does both. I have no problem in ace asking when I have no spade control, as in this sequence. The chances of opener having nothing there is miniscule. Conversely the problem with opener asking is that he is guessing how many clubs responder has. Is it 5? 6? 7? 8? He might need to know to bid the correct slam. If your sequence shows 6 clubs, what do you do when you have a different number?