fromageGB

I agree with you that it would not apply to anything other than a double of a club, but that's what I play in this circumstance. If the 1♣ is not a "strong club" variety, then for us a double says "I would have opened a club". We play our normal transfer walsh responses, and they are better at the major fits than a normal takeout double would be. If 3rd seat opponents bid, we treat it as an overcall after our 1♣, and still play transfers if it is at the one level. For example, (1♣) X (1♥) X shows 4 or more spades, 1♠ is a transfer to NT, and 2♠ would be a weak 2 type of hand. Admittedly, a weak diamond hand is a problem. But I think the gain in the majors makes it worthwhile.

Almost agree with gnasher. If "forcing to agreement" means I can pass a suit I agree with, then I am happy with 2♣, but if it means I have to raise to 3♠ then I don't think I am strong enough, and would bid 2♦. I guess it depends how strong doubler has to be. However, if 2♣ is GF, I definitely prefer 2♦. Perfect hand for transfers, though. Following with spades is a "1 bid" force only (not a "1 round", as I can pass partner's (eg 3♦) bid. It could be a 1 round force if transfers started at the 1 level. (Why not?)

As Ant590 says, other bids can then begin to define themselves. For example, if completing the transfer at the 1 level denies 4 and is 12-14, opener bidding 1NT denies 4 and is 17/18, then completing the transfer at the 2 level shows 4 card support and 12-14, and completing at the 3 level shows 17/18 and 4 card support. Incidentally, if you have a 15/16 hand with a singleton or void diamond, I have found it best to treat it as 17 when there is a major fit. Another bid you may find useful is an artificial responder rebid after opener completes the major transfer at the 1 level. 2♣ is used by me and others to define a hand as invitational or better. If you play that a 4 card major will initially transfer to a NT if invitational (and then use stayman), the transfer to a major then 2♣ has to be a 5 card major. This keeps things simple, and you have space to find a 4/4 fit in the other major as well, again in all cases playing in 2M of a fitting major when the game invitation is declined.

Ant590 missed a big one, unless his "minimum" includes a 14 count. The first step is deciding what 1NT is opened with. My reasoning says 15-16 is best, as the 2 point range allows a 2NT rebid to play, after looking for 4/4 majors. If you have a 3 point range then you must have this 2NT as a game invitation, so it needs a bit more strength, which in turn means that without that bit more, responder has to pass and you miss the major fits that may be there (and are found by players with other NT ranges). A 17 point hand can be managed happily by starting with transfer walsh. Next decide what sort of hand can open 1♣. Can it include a singleton in a major? If it can, you need a different method of handling the transfer walsh, as you do not normally want to play in a 5/1 fit. One method I like is to put those major shortages into the 1♦ open, so that the definition of a 1♦ open is any hand with 6 diamonds, or a singleton or void other than diamonds. This means that any hand that opens 1♣ will be (semi)balanced and not 15/16, or it can have a shortage in diamonds - in which case it will certainly have good majors. This basis then means that a hand of shape 4252 (spades first) will open 1♣. Are you happy with that? If not, consider this : (1) transfer walsh (as I know it) is excellent at discovering the major fits, and playing in NT otherwise (2) if this shape had a point count within their 1NT range, people would open it 1NT completely forgetting about the diamonds - and play in a major or NT. So why not open it 1♣? The implication is that a 1♣ open guarantees no major shortage. The completion of the major transfer at the 1 level can then show (5) 12-14 and either 2 or 3 of the major. The advantage of method (5) over (3), which I used to play, is that with 2 or 3 of the major, opener bids 1NT with 17/18, (or 2NT with 19 if you like). The strength is then immediately conveyed, and over the 1NT rebid, responder can use stayman with a 4 card suit and transfers with 5. Opener completes the transfer with 3 cards, but rebids 2NT with 2. Another advantage is that when responder is pretty weak, it is better for opener to play in a 5/2 major fit than in NT. As Free says, the decision on the responses of 1♠ and 1NT are also key. Some play one of these as showing diamonds, but I am very happy to forget the diamonds and use them to improve the majors and other hands. 1♠ = transfer to NT (a) You can bid it with any NT strength for the hand to be played by opener. Transfer then invite with 2NT, for example. (b) By following this up with stayman, you can use it to show invitational or better hands with only a 4 card major (or both). This may free up sequences following a major transfer to have other meanings, and it is better for a no-fit hand to be played in NT by the 2344 rather than the 4432 hand, as you will probably get a minor lead. It also has the advantage that an invitational hand with a 4/4 fit in a major can be played at the 2 level with the invitation declined. The sequence would go 1♣ 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♥ pass rather than 1♣ 1♦ 2♥ 3♥ pass, with other methods. It does not happen often, but it's nice to look at a traveller and see your 2H tick amongst other 3H-1s. ( c) You can follow with jumps in minors for GF hands. (d) You can follow with 2♠ for "invitational with clubs", so keeping your immediate 2♣ and 3♣ as both being weak and preemptive. 1NT = weak(ie less than invitational) 54xx or 45xx It is tricky to handle both these hands otherwise. It forces to 2 of a major, opener rebidding 2♣ if he has no 4 card major for responder to then transfer to the 5 card suit. Other things to decide Responder needs to distinguish between weak, invitational, and GF hands, regardless of the length of the major(s), so there must be sequences that do this. Responder must be able to differentiate between 4, 5 and 6 card majors. This is helped by the method that a 1♣ guarantees at least 2 cards in each major, so you when you have a 6 card major you can always bid game in it, and can safely use an immediate response of 2M as weak.

I would look upon the 10 as encouraging the lead. Playing the Q is unnecessarily high, therefore asking for a switch to a heart. Playing the 5 would be asking for a club. Maybe old-fashioned, but I'm sure many play the same as I was taught.

awm gives a convincing argument for the NF 4x6x. Playing Gazzilli it has to be this, but even if not, then it makes sense, as a GF can rebid 2♦ and I would have thought continuations would discover the best fit regardless of the lengths. I suppose the argument (certainly at matchpoints) for NF 5x5x is that opener may have a doubleton in both suits, and if he can give a preference it scores better. One of the reasons for using Kaplan inversion of course.

I think gnasher has hit here the big problem I find with "encouraging signals". I lead the Ace and partner encourages. Am I supposed to play small next, or the King? Do the wrong one and the result can be catastrophic. Take the case where dummy has xx and partner may have Qxx or may be xx and wanting to overruff. Barmar says to play the King and then to partner's Queen or overruff. But there lies the problem : if he has the queen you have now given declarer a ruff and discard. This and other examples lead to the idea that you never ask for encouragement, but always ask for length. But then you get the problem that you start with K (if playing K for count) from AKTx, dummy has xxx, partner shows odd by count, and declarer's bidding shows probably no shortage so a likely 3. You have to switch, as partner may have the J, but if he has the Queen then you may have lost your chance of 3 tricks. In this instance, it would be nice to lead Ace with an agreement that partner's encouragement quarantees the queen and suggests an underlead. Is it playable to have this as the only meaning? Or can anyone suggest reliable guidelines for when encouragement requests underlead and when it requests the K?

Assuming 1♠ and 2♣ are natural, I like 5x5x and invitational. A GF hand has always the option to rebid 2♦. With 4x5x invitational I would just rebid NT.

On the other hand, "banging empty aces" can be good strategy if it is a high level contract and the bidding leads you to believe there could be a long suit that will enable discards before you get in. You want to know "has partner got the King?". Play the 5 then. If it is a 2 or 3 level contract, or if no other suits have been mentioned, and partner is likely to have AK, play the 8.

Assuming the question relates to raising your partner's opening after an opponent's overcall, then certainly raise on the same hands you would do after a pass. However, the overcall may well take away some of your raising options. For example, in an uncontested auction if you use Bergen support raises it may go 1♥ 3♣ when you have 4 card support and 7-10 points (or equivalent), while a direct raise to 3♥ would be weaker. When there is a 2♦ overcall, you may prefer a 3♣ bid to be natural and forcing. So if it goes 1♥ (2♦) 3♥ then (without any other agreements) that 3♥ is now wide ranging and partner may be a bit stuck knowing what to do next. Common methods sacrifice the natural 2NT and use that as a raise, and use the cue bid of opponent's suit as a raise. Discuss with partner. My preference is that you 1) transfer to 2♥ with a full strength (7-10) 3 card raise (by bidding 2♦ or doubling their bid of 2♦), 2) bid 2♥ directly with 3 cards and weaker 3) bid 2NT with a 3 cards and 11 points or more 4) bid 3 of their suit with 9+ and 4 card support 5) bid 3♥ directly with 4 cards if you are weaker. You could reverse the meanings of 2NT and the cue bid, and many people do not wish to play transfers up to 2 of the major.

Maybe you have never played at a table where the contract is 1♣, but I have. While a minimum opening 1♣ will often be overcalled, responded to, or protected, an 18 point 1♣ is a different kettle of fish. Many times no hand will feel it can say anything. Not everyone overcalls or protects on a scattered 6 count. My reasoning for preferring 1NT at matchpoints is that partner (each of the other 3 hands) is expected to have 6 points, or near. If partner is : good 8, or 9 = we will be in game, like 3NT, regardless of what we open. So the choice of 1♣ and 1NT makes no difference. 7 or bad 8 = opening 1NT misses game, a bad result 6 = no difference, let's say we get the same result 3,4, or 5 = opening 1C and playing there is a bad result. So without any clever arithmetic, opening 1C is worse than opening 1NT at matchpoints.

An interesting analysis that seems to demonstrate the benefits of calling this hand a 1NT open. Of course the fact that the strong 1♣ will not be playing in 1♣ means that if those hands could be excluded, the very slight +.02 imps for the 1♣ opne would also be negative.

OK, conceded. :angry: I missed that it was IMPs, where the game swing is vital compared with the small swings when in the wrong part score. In MPs I think the odds go with 1NT, as you will be more times playing in 1♣/1NT than you will be in game.

Yes, K D Joshi is a wonderful system as there is never any argument over the perfect opening bid. Who cares what the eventual contract may be ? 1♣ is OK in strong club systems as it will be forcing. The trouble with a normal 1♣ is that it may be (and is quite likely to be) passed. While distorting your strength is wrong if it is likely to lead to the wrong level of contract, here the 18 count is a bad 18 as Meng said, and it won't. I have a preference to treat it as 17 and bid a contract I don't mind playing.

A key point here is that if the hand is passed out, I would rather be playing in 1NT rather than 1♣. So 1NT for me, if I was playing 15-17. Enough reason, Hog?

This definitely needs partnership discussion. My two partnerships agree the following rules, which seem to work well in defining the hands : A rebid above the level of 2M shows a 15/16 count. With less than that, if you can't bid naturally below 2M, bid 2M which does not guarantee any additional length. After this 2NT from responder is fairly balanced, and asks opener to bid his shape or NT. With more than that, ie 17+, bid initially no higher than 2M, but then when partner signs off in game, come out of the woodwork and make a further bid. This is now slam suggestive, of course. If partner signs off in 3NT, then 4♣ always shows the additional strength. Applying this method to your sequences : 1♠ 2♦ 3♣ 3NT 4♣ is an unusual bid, but would be 15/16, suggesting heart void and that game in any of the suits is likely to be better than 3NT. A 5026 shape? 1♠ 2♦ 3♣ 3NT 5♣ is still 15/16, but insisting on clubs. 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ is just 5xx4 12-14 at this point, but depending on further bidding, may be 17+ and may have longer black suits. 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 4♣ is 17/18 and hoping for a slam. Decidedly shapely, probably 5xx5 or 5xx6. 4NT from responder would be to play. 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ 3NT 4♣ is 17/18, hoping for a slam in NT, more balanced, typically 5314. 4NT from responder would be to play. 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ 3NT 5♣ is unusual, but would be 12-14 and 5xx6, or perhaps 5xx7 and worried about missing the major if he opened 1♣. We still play this way with primary support. For example, 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♥ shows 3+ hearts and 12-14, whereas 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ shows 3+ hearts and 15-16. In both cases 3♠ from responder would then be "serious 3NT" demanding a cue bid from opener. There is no worry about missing a 6/2 heart fit playing this way, because responder with 6 hearts would rebid 3♥ rather than 2NT. So you can consider this more refined/defined approach as an alternative, but it does need clear partnership agreement to avoid misunderstandings.

Perhaps it's a question of partnership agreement in some of the cases you mention. For me the double would be 2 suited takeout including a 4 card major, and I would bid 2♣ to deny a 4 card major. I know someone who plays X as a general takeout, and then the bid with this hand is of course 2♦. In general though, if it is a penalty double I can't see why you would bid with this hand. If you wanted to bid with weaker hands then you would want 2♣ as a genuine suit rather than a convention such as stayman. So my answer to your question is "no".

Put me down as one who would not even hesitate about opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣. It's a nice hand, but nowhere near a 3♣ rebid in my book. With such poor red suits 1NT seems a little silly. When partner passes I am quite likely not able to get in enough times to set up and run the clubs. Opening 1♣ gives you freedom to play in clubs or spades, or NT if that's what partner wants. If he shows values then now I will be able to run the clubs. I don't see the scoring method making a difference here.

I don't like 1NT. Partner's double promised hearts, I thought, not spades. I don't like 2♣. That sound like my hand is unbalanced - but then I don't like the 1♦ open and prefer 1♣. Partner's X shows hearts, so I bid 2♥. If he has 5 then all the better. If not, at least they are not going to run off the first 5 spade tricks, which could happen playing in 1NT.

Many thanks, lmh ! :o (hits forehead) Sounds useful, and we can discuss this.

Reasons for transfers in order of importance : 1) Allowing different strengths of responder hands to be shown ; 2) Allowing responder to show a second suit or shortage ; 3) Getting the opening lead of a different suit to go round into a hand that has more cards and probable values in that suit ; 4) When transferrer is the weaker, keeping the sides values hidden. All are valid for any strength NT opening.

Phil, sorry, I don't understand the terminology - can you expand on it for me? Responder's step bids showed what?

I think playing an unbalanced diamond and a balanced club (OK, a diamond shortage also opens 1♣) pays handsomely in a 2/1 strong NT framwork too. I am surprised it has not caught on with the majority. As for the 1♠ = 1NT response, that implies transfer walsh, and again I am surprised at how rare that is in F2F club play.

You have my sympathy. The EBU may think it is making the game more open to beginners, but it is completely stifling the development of the game. IMO EBU regulations are leading to loss of interest and falling numbers.

I've been trying to adapt it to my methods (strong 2 suited gazzilli is 17+), and I am also having drawbacks with 12-16 opener opposite a 9/10 hand. With an opening 12-16 [x5]x4 hand rebidding 2♣ I play 2♦ asks, and opener can distinguish between 12-14 and 15-16. The 9/10 responder can bid game after the 15/16 is shown, or sign off in 2M after 12-14. But in reversed gazzilli if the 2M rebid is wide 12-16 and [x5]x4, then the 9/10 responder is stuck. Finding the game is impossible. So I can't play it. Free's and my objections also apply (probably) to a semi-forcing NT (whatever that is).