fromageGB

On reflection, I think this is a very good idea. I originally hesitated, replied 1NT and rebid 2♥, but now I will compound my felony and correct my bidding to 1NT followed by 2♠. :) When it comes to a choice of 5/1 fits, then it it is better to have trumps as the weaker suit in responder's hand imo.

I am not so sure it is unworkable. If you play Gazzilli as being either strong or clubs, you can't play in 2♣ when clubs, but have to play in 3♣. So in the reversed meanings if 2♥ guaranteed 4 clubs, it is no worse. Just alter the meaning so that 2♣ is strong, or one suited, or balanced. Now a 1♥ 1NT 2♥ sequence has a 4 card club suit. As with normal Gazzilli a very weak responder will not bid 2♦ but something else, so with this version. After 2♦, though, you could have 2♥ single suited, not strong, 2♠ balanced 12-14, 2NT balanced 15/16, and the strong versions bidding at the 3 level. This is assuming you do not open 1NT with a 5 card najor. If you do, the spade/NT rebid can have more precise meanings.

I play KI and gazzilli, but would hate to be forced to bid 2♥ and play in a 5/1 fit, or 2♠ (showing 6) and playing in that 5/1 fit. Of course I would need a stronger hand to bid the 2♦ inquiry. However, while I don't like making the 1NT call because of this, it is no help to treat it like a 4 card suit by bidding 1♠. While I could then pass 1NT from partner, he would also make that bid with 4 spades (we have a 2♣ follow-on inquiry) and we would look a bit silly playing in 1NT when we have a 5/4 spade fit. So - opponents have called the director now for my hesitation - I just bid 1NT. But I may get lucky - partner may still have 6 hearts; if he goes for game we have room to reach the right contract; he may have spade support. On the actual resulting 2♥ contract, if it turns out badly then I shrug and content myself with the times when gazzilli has paid off.

I thought A for attitude and K for count was standard !

Does this imply you think playing forcing NT is bad when your 1NT open is strong? Then 5M 12-14 hands have to open 1M. I am happy with opening 1M on 12-14 hands, but I think you do need a multipurpose 2♣ rebid with clarification after a 2♦ inquiry.

I think the gain of 3♥ being general game try amd X being a penalty suggestion, over X being general game try and 3♥ being a suit-showing game try (of whatever format eg xxx or x or HHxx), is there, and is concrete. The idea of partner having a penalty pass option is not so good, as it is unilateral. If you have X being a penalty suggestion then partner can take it out to 3 of your suit when he is either weak, has undisclosed longer support, or is unbalanced. If you have X as a game try then while partner may pass he risks you having a highly unsuitable hand. Better to have opener offering a penalty than responder forcing one. In general I am an advocate of a 4 card support raising to the 3 level, but the OP specifies responder's hand as 3+. All the more reason for opener to offer a penalty option.

Transfer walsh does this for you if you play the version where balanced opener with 2 or 3 of the major completes the transfer, but with 17+ breaks the transfer. My preference is for a full strength 12 count balanced open, so with 12-14 complete the transfer, with 15-16 would have opened 1NT so not be in that position (it also helps having 2 point NT ranges, as responder does not need to be game forcing to use stayman), with 17/18 break the transfer and bid 1NT, with 19 jumping to 2NT. Of course with 4 card major support you raise in various ways. This solves the problem perfectly, as well as the other benefits given by transfer walsh.

Incidentally, my preference for handling the 3 suiters is to play 1♦ as either a 6 card suit, or as any hand with a singleton or void other than diamonds, all semibalanced hands not in the 15-16 range going into the 1♣ open. It copes very well.

For years I have played multi 2♦ as either a weak 2 in a major or varieties of very strong NT or any GF suited hand, and have used the 2♥ and 2♠ as tightly defined 9-11 and exactly 5 card suits, and that worked well. The distinction between 5 cards and 6 is useful. However I am now in one partnership playing the stong hands incorporated in the 2♣ open (Kokish type) and reverting to standard weak 2M (may be 5 card), and have 2♦ as as least 44 in the majors (probably called Ekren) 6-11 count and we are having great fun with it. We have a response to the weak 2 of the next step over 2M as asking, with step replies of weaker 5, weaker 6, stronger 5, stronger 6. With 2M being 5 or 6 you cant preempt so effectively, but you get more disruptive bids into the reckoning than you would weak pure 6 carders. Similarly 2NT over 2♦ has a clarification set of responses, but any major bid is to play. The 2♦ open is real fun. Don't ask me if it's the best method - I play for fun not money.

My standard agreement is that X is takeout for the other 2 suits with no preference, cue bid of 1st suit = 2 suited but preference for lower ranking, cue bid of second suit, or 2NT if cheaper, = 2 suited with preference for higher ranking. (latter 2 probably 65) So the 3♦ bid has no useful meaning for me. I would assume partner has a no preference takeout and 66, but with that I would just X anyway.

Quantitative over 1NT, but I think 4NT over 2NT has other and better uses - particularly if your 2NT bids have 2 point ranges.

Thanks, Ben, I see your point. 2NT 3♣ 3♥ then 3♠= 3 or more hearts 3NT = denies 3 hearts, to play 4♥ = 5 spades and 3 hearts 2NT 3♣ 3♥ 4♥ is a better way to go when responder has a shortage, I agree. I am not too happy with it being 53(32), but it does free up the immediate 3NT bid.

That's strange, because I am not good at remembering things, can't get my head round complicated sequences, but tranfers are easy. All our bids in competition are transfers at low levels, so it would be difficult to remember anything else : transfer walsh with no competition - from 1♦ to 1♠ inclusive still transfer walsh after a one level overcall - from double to 1NT (the latter only over spades) transfers after a NT overcall - from double to one under opener transfers after our major opening has been overcalled - from double to one under opener transfers after a jump overcall, from double to one under opener rubens transfer advances after our overcall and third seat pass, from their suit to one under partner's transfer advances after our overcall and third seat bid, from double to one under partner's I guess if you use transfers in all competitive situations it makes it easier to remember.

That would be an option. We have always played 2NT 4♣ as transfer to diamonds (with follow-ons) and our current plan is to play the last of the sequences you quote, with 4♣ in place of 3NT, as Gerber. However, I have no compunction about playing in 4NT if there is no fit for a slammish hand, as I am restricting that to a solid combined 30 count. If we lowered that standard I am sure we would have to have a very solid long running suit(s) to compensate.

Hey ! It's all my own work - invented specially for this thread after seeing the opening entries here. Let's call it "fromage response to 2NT". I was trying to get it to work without having a special bid for 53xx but kept failing, so had to incorporate that immediate 3NT. But with Gwnn's addition of 3♠ transfer to 3NT it seems good to me and my system-idea-tolerant partner, and we have now permanently adopted it. After some discussion we are trying follow-ons from the transfer to 3NT as showing 5 clubs, with 4♣ being 55 in the minors for pass or correct, as we have previously regretted not having such a bid, 4♦ as ace ask in clubs, and higher bids as showing the number of aces (of 6) in a slam invitational (or better)55 in the minors, so opener can play in 4NT, 5m or 6m accordingly. We are handling Mm slammish or better 2 suiters by starting with the major transfer, and that works out OK in theory. So far we have not had a 2NT open, but I have every confidence in its efficacy. And thank you for your contribution, Gwnn, maybe we should call it the "fromage-gwnn response to 2NT" ?

Very good question and I have no agreement but would like any ideas you have. All our 2NT bids and rebids are 2 point ranges, so we could say 4NT in place of 3NT perhaps? (To ace ask in spades we would transfer to spades then bid 4NT, so we have no other meaning for the 4NT bid.Perhaps 4NT = 53xx inviting slam if there is a fit ( but passable without), and 5NT = 53xx insisting on slam somewhere? We haven't any meanings so far for initial responses above 4♣ so if anyone has a structure they would care to share, I am all ears. (Or eyes :D )

I like this. Thanks. I agree that it is a downside giving bids that allow opposition to make lead-directing doubles and otherwise giving away information unnecessarily. But 3♠ forcing 3NT certainly helps, and it can be followed by other bids for minors. When you have serious intent to find a major fit you have to give information, and that is unavoidable. With regard to the question of having stronger responder hands, instead of bidding 3NT responder can bid something else as the final bid - for example, 4♣ gerber when no major fit is found. The method is a bit deficient when holding a major and a minor, and I'd welcome suggestions and ideas. Currently we play transfer to a minor followed by a major is slammish 5m4M and transfer to a major followed by a minor as slammish 5M4+m, but there may be something better. At the moment we have 3♠ as transfer to clubs, but with the new 3♠ :) we can have 3♠ then 4M as the club/major hand. Anything better?

I think a key point here is that in social bridge you do not necessarily get a good mix of bridge skills to learn from. The trouble is that the person the group may look to as "expert" may have some completely wrong ideas, and if he is your mentor you are likely to be damaged more than you are developed. In my view, echoing most, read all the time and play duplicate where you can. You need a regular partner you can discuss and learn with. It's no good playing casual partnerships all the time, but occasionally do that and gain awareness of other styles.

I have a simple method that fits gwnn's 1% as a puppet replacement : there are no cases of missed major fits. Moreover, all major contracts are declared by opener, and you play in the better 4/4 fit rather than the 5/3 fit when both are available. It doesn't do anything for minors, but having found you have no major fit you still have 4C/D/H available to look for minor games/slams. It is enabled simply by 1) not using red suit transfers when you are 55 or [54] in the majors, 2) having responder's bid of a major denying the possibility of a contract in that major, 3) having a 3NT bid commomly offering a major game alternative. There is a special bid of 3NT showing 5 spades and 3 hearts. If you wanted to just bid 3NT you would look for a major fit first. 2NT 3♦ transfer to hearts denies 4 spades, but may have 3 (in case opener has a 5 card spade suit), and completion of the transfer is followed by 3♠ = denies 3 spades 3NT = shows 3 spades 2NT 3♥ transfer to spades denies more than 2 hearts. So a 3♣ reply - essentially asking for a 4 card major - may conceal a 5 card major with a 4+ holding in the other major. The replies to 3♣ are : 3♦ = no 4 card major, but may have 5 spades 3♥ = 4 or 5 hearts, denies 4 spades 3♠ = 4 spades, denies 4 hearts 3NT = 4/4 in both majors. After 2NT 3♣ 3♦ responder bids 3♥ = R has no 5 card major 3♠ = R has 5 hearts 3NT = R has 5 spades 4♦ = 55 in the majors - pick a major If responder denies a 5 card major by 3♥ now opener comes in with 3♠ if he has 5, or of course 3NT if not. Over 2NT 3♣ 3♥(4 or 5, denies 4 spades) responder goes 3♠ = R has 3 hearts, asking for the 5th 3NT = to play (R denies 3H) 4♥ = R has 4+ hearts Over 2NT 3♣ 3NT (both majors), responder passes or transfers to a major. Simple enough when you remember the principles. An initial response of 3♠ is available for what you will - eg a transfer to clubs or for the minors.

I play advancer transfers too, but with my transfer partner we play these situations as if we "forget about" the opening bid, and use transfers as if partner had opened and there was an overcall. Transfers up to overcaller's suit. So after 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ ?? X = ♦ ♦ = good heart support raise to the 2 level ♥ = poor raise to 2 ♠ = natural. Generally a transfer to the opening suit is inviting partner to bid NT if he has opener's suit guarded. So we "remember" it then. B-)

I think I agree with this. After all, in partnerships' transfer walsh methods, we play 1♣ (1♥) X as 4 or 5 spades, anything less than game values, and it works OK with use of support double. So if a natural 1♠ may be 4 or 5, would a double say "I have biddable values (7+?), but less than 4 spades, hearts not good enough for 1NT, and insufficient clubs to support you immediately?"

OK, this is a pretty convincing argument for me, and if I am allowed to change my mind, I am now a convert. If this sequence comes up in a scratch partnership (partnership methods are different) I will treat the forced bid of 2♦ (over 4th seat pass) as not forcing, and a free bid of 3♦ (over 4th seat 2♥) as forcing. I hope my scratch partner will do the same. This forum is useful, and I appreciate the efforts some people put into their explanations. Thanks.

♠ 3 ♥ 752 ♦ AKT6 ♣ AQJ97 If it was my style to open this hand 1♣ and heard 1♣ (1♥) X (2♥) I would really like to bid 3♦ to play. If it was forcing, I would have to pass and take a poor result. For me, not forcing. Could I not double if I had a forcing hand?

I think this is a question that will lead to an intersting debate. Classically 1♠ promises 5+, and X promises 4 unless followed by something dramatic, but I gather some people prefer 1♠ to promise 4 exactly and no more. In the context of the original question , while the classical X does not guarantee diamonds, it implies a tolerance for them. In the light of that, opener's 3♦ is purely competitive and not forcing. I pass. Not happy with 3NT.

Gosh ! Way too complicated to remember this all. Much easier to double and hope partner does the right thing :D