fromageGB

Is Gazzilli ruled out by the question? I would go 1♠ 1NT 2♣ and as partner's hand as given is not strong enough to ask what I have with 2♦, he bids 2♠ and I bid 4♠.

There's something to be said for this. My partnerships splinter with void or singleton, but it's an area for discussion. Does anyone have any other input on this point ?

4♠, 4♥, 2NT Hand 1 I have sympathy with the Bergen bidders, but I don't want them to find the 5♥ contract, and 3♣ or 3♦ makes it easy for them. A splinter has the same trouble. So it's 4♠. Hand 2 I think is close to 4♠ for the same reason, but I am good enough to bid 5♠ if they find 5♥, and the splinter gives the picture that can help partner if she has a strong hand. Hand 3 is good enough for the J2N, but we never jump to game in response. If opener has no shortage, she will bid 3♣ which allows me to bid 3♥ to show the shortage. Then non-serious 3NT and I sign off, or I will cooperate with a serious cue bid of 4♣ by bidding 4♦ and over partner's 4♠ (quite safe, as the serious cue bid showed slam interest) I will continue by Ace/King asking.

I'm ambivalent about this - maybe it is a regulation issue. The double was not alerted so in EBU-land it is for takeout. You are entitled to expect that opponents know such a simple regulation. Nobody in their right mind would make a takeout double to play at the 4 level unless they were short in spades. This is "general bridge knowledge" and another regulation says you don't gratuitously explain things in this domain. So by EBU regulation I would say the explanation given was OK. On the other hand, I believe fuller explanations are in the better spirit of the game.

We later added an exception to this simple rule above. The exception is that if opener rebids 3M it does not show any particular strength, just that the suit is both long and solid(ish), such that you are happy for this to be trumps even if opposite a singleton. Subsequent bids are cues. So with a normal 15/16 6 card suit, you initially disguise it. Show 6 by bidding 3M later, and when you make a try above game partner will know why.

Agree with Whereagles. I think the important think is to show strength, to enable partner to help determine whether to bid on above game level. Maybe not quite the same as Whereagles - you don't support or bid above 2 of your major unless you have 15-16. If you have 15/16 you must bid above 2M. New suit, support, 3M, 3NT etc. If you have up to 14 you make a natural bid below 2M if possible, but if not you bid 2M. This therefore does not show a 6 card suit. Partner will then rebid naturally to show his shape, but if not particularly shapely will bid 2NT which asks you to describe your shape. So now you can rebid your 6 card suit, support partner, bid 3NT or whatever. If you are 17+, again you bid as if you are 12-14. Partner clarifies the distribution, or you do, but when he signs off in game you now show your colours by bidding on. He knows you are 17+. Before I adopted this, we found we found either side had a problem when about 16 points. If partner has only 12 it can be dangerous to go above game. Conversely, if you keep quiet, partner with 16 is also likely to. Missed slam.

We've started playing the non-serious NT only recently, so we haven't any failures to correct our thinking, but we play it as always non-serious if a major has been directly agreed (as opposed to preference). So 1♠ 2♠ 3NT is non-serious, as the opener could have been a borderline 2♣ open, and would be interested in a slam opposite a suitable fitting 10 count. Similarly the 1♠ (2♥) 3♥ 3NT sequence is clearly slam-possible. It can certainly apply when the other hand might have a narrow range, and now the 3NT implies lack of ability to cue clubs, and wants to hear if partner has it. Gnasher is not far off, but for us the "non-serious 3NT" when hearts are trumps is in fact 3♠, and bypassing this to bid 3NT is a serious cue bid in spades.

OK, another point of view : 4♥ is ace asking agreeing diamonds. That's actually what it would be for me. 2♠ does not show 6, it is just a hand not strong enough to bid 3♦, or a hand too strong for 3♦ . (3♦ is about a 15/16 sort of strength.) But with 4 or 5 diamonds and 17+ I am delighted to go slamming.

Back to the point : What I now like to play after Jacoby 2NT (or Jacoby 2♠ over 1♥) is predicated by the fact that my splinters are limited to hands with high card strength less than that normally associated with game force support. So the Jacoby 2♠/2NT can be any hand with 4 card support and 13+ with no top limit, and may include a shortage. Consequently, the replies are to bid the next step if opener has no shortage (relay), and bid the shortage suit if there is one, but if the shortage suit is the one above trumps (this is the relay suit) then this is shown by bidding 3M. In response to the relay, responder shows his shortage if he has one, with exactly the same bids. After a shortage has been shown, or if responder has no shortage either he bids the same, the next bid is above 3M. With a hand with no particular extras, such as opener with a flattish 12-14, the bid is "non-serious" 3NT. Bypassing this is a "serious" cue bid (1st or 2nd round control) and the other hand is obliged to cue bid if he has a control. The serious cue bidder can then happily bid 4M knowing partner knows he is serious and will go on if appropriate. Of course after a "non-serious" 3NT partner may simply bid game, or may cue bid himself if strong. Summary (1) Opener shows a shortage... (2) or responder shows a shortage... (3) "Non-serious 3NT" or (serious) cue bidding sequence (4) Ace ask if no suit wide open, and the seriousness (taking any shortage into account) justifies it. In common with other treatments, when hearts are trumps we play a "non-serious 3♠", with 3NT being a cue bid in spades.

I pass happily, IMPS or MPs. Whatever I bid as a correction when partner fails to bid a red suit, it may be too high, or partner may think I have more and go further. With another ♠x I would be more than happy to bid 1NT.

I don't agree that the support double shows 3 - whatever the level, whatever the length of partner's suit. If partner shows 5 spades, and I have 3 spades, I bid 2♠. Why not? If partner shows 4 spades, with 3 I support double with a bit better than minimum hand, say a 14 count. (Actually in most partnerships if I open 1♣ and don't repeat the suit I guarantee 2 spades, but the above comments apply always.) It seems to me that when you are in a competitive situation you should describe the length of the fit. It helps partner decide what to do. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 3♥ then opposite 5 cards support double with 3 unless minimum and bid 3♠ with 4. 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ then support double with a non-minimum 2 and bid 3♥ with 3. The principle being that with an 8 card fit I bid 2 of our suit over their 2, or 3 over 2 if we rank lower than theirs, while a support double shows one less than that required to bid the suit. A support double also "guarantees" half the points in the pack so that a double is invited if they go too high.

I voted for "other". I thought the answer was 14.

I hate partner opening a 15-17 1NT when I have 7/8 and a 4 card major. I am not strong enough to use stayman as you need that to be invitational, so we play in 1NT. The rest of the room (this is UK) bids 1m 1M 2M and plays in the 4/4 major fit. (So we abandoned that and play 1NT 15/16. Now there is no point in invitational Stayman so 1NT 2♣ something 2NT is to play. So we can play in 2M too. [ 17 is handled with 1♣ T-walsh and a transfer break to 1NT if no fit.])

Thanks Adam, some true and astute comments. (1) yes, you don't often play 2m because usually partner finds the major. However the big plus is that having got to the 2M spot, if partner doesn't like it (and he knows you guarantee a 5 card suit) he can happily convert to 3m, knowing of the fit. Of course if he prefers to play in the minor rather than hearts, he bids spades initially, and if that is not your suit you bid 3m. This is a huge advantage over the common method of having guaranteed a major with the minor unknown. With that, where partner doesn't like the major he does not know whether he has a minor fit. So you are stuck. If oppo does come in over the 2m by bidding 2M, we have the option of playing a paradox double (same as over a multi) saying "pass if that's your suit, or else I have support for your other major". But often the unknown major deters them. (2) If partner has no 4 card major when you have 5♣4M, then of course you play in 2♣. You can also play in 2♦ any time partner does not have 4 hearts when you have 5♦4♥. But yes, sometimes you end up in 3m. But isn't this true of any 2-suited method that includes a minor ? At least with this method you stay in 2m a lot of the time. (3) True. But it hasn't happened, and it must be rare. We hypothetically lose out on this one. (4) We use 3m as a one suiter. Yes, you lose a natural 2♦, as you would if you played it as some other bid (such as both majors). But if you have a one-suiter minor I like to preempt them out of finding their major. I agree no method is perfect, but having played this in different partnerships over the last couple of years I like it.

Incidentally, an amusing incident last week. My partner smoothly passed a NT with a 20 count, oppos took the 1NT out to 3♣, double ! When declarer looked at the traveller to find he had a botttom as everyone else (after an immediate double) rescued to 2♣ doubled, he complained that I hadn't alerted the initial pass !

I think any method is poor if you have a penalty double. Justin's paraphrased comment "if you have a major and a minor just forget the minor" is correct. However, if you are prepared to give up the penalty double, I like X = 5m + 4M , or both majors. Partner's replies are 2♣ denies a 4 card major, 2♦ = 4 spades but not 4 hearts, 2♥ = 4 hearts, does not deny spades. If no major fit is found responder just bids or passes his 5 card suit, and over 2♥ can bid 2♠ safely knowing parter can convert to your 5 card minor. This means 5M + 4(+)m hands can be shown by bidding the minor. Partner can pass the minor or play in 2 of the major by bidding 2♥. I think showing the minor is a huge improvement on showing the major : you can play in 2m. 2♥ and 2♠ are natural single suiters. I find it useful to be able to find 4/4 major fits. We call this method "vertigo", EBU level 2 but don't know about the USA.

We would play (without discussion) opener rebids 2♣ = a six card suit, X = 17+ penalty (may be doubleton in the suit), pass with anything else. Let responder pass unless he knows we have more than half the points, then he will double. Opener is guaranteed to have at least a doubleton if he does not rebid 2♣. I agree there is no point in a support double, as if responder is weak he can't leave it in, and has nowhere to run.

Those who go higher than game may be non-2/1 players. As I play 2/1 I have already shown most of my hand by the 2♥ GF. Being void in partner's suit is not good for setting it up ; if partner is void in diamonds I can't set that up. So not a good prospect if he does not have AK in clubs. Another factor too is that if 2♥ is GF, an opener with a fit who thinks that there are slam prospects if responder does not have decent extra values, has the option to bid 3♥ to set the suit and start a cue bidding sequence. He failed to do this. Ergo he is minimum and a misfit minimum at that. I'll stick with the 4♥.

Actually, I use a variation on this. The puppet/transfer to 1NT is used with invitational+ major hands as well. One of the problems with standard is that responder can't distinguish between a 5 card major and a 6 card major. With the transfer, 1♣ 1♠ 1NT 2♠ is invitational 5 card and 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2♠ is invitational 6 card. (I don't transfer over the NT because I like 2♦ as natural invitational.) Using 1NT as 4/4 both majors NF has the advantage that if 4th seat comes in with 2m opener knows what to do. He is stuck if you otherwise intend bidding 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠: after 1♣ p 1♦ 2m you can never find the spade fit.

I don't like 4♠. When partner has shown a 5 card suit I like my cue bids to be an honour in his suit. Maybe the answer depends on the nature of the 2♥ bid. If GF, we are not that good, as the splinter devalues our hand, but if the 2♥ is not GF then I go 5♥.

The way I play this, yes. Our structure is a simple 1♠ 2NT ? 3♣ = I don't have a shortage, do you? higher bids = show shortage After 3♣ responder makes the same bids as opener to show his shortage if he has one. If responder has no shortage either he can ask/describe strength. If either party shows a shortage the other can then sign off or make further asks. So there is no concept of captaincy, as it is a mirrored situation. For us responder does not have to have a balanced hand. Our splinters are never more than minimum opening strength, so J2N is made with any 13+. If responder has a shortage, opener is the captain. If opener has a shortage, then although the "wrong hand" is disclosed, I think it is better than not being in the correct contract. I suppose you could modify it so that if it is opener that has a shortage, responder then tells his features/values rather than ask opener's. A minimum (after devaluing holdings in the shortage suit) would sign off anyway. (Note - to make a symmetric system, we play 1♥ 2♠ as the J2N)

I'm for the Bergen, like it a lot. The 3m bids may allow a lead-indicating double, but that's not something I've noticed. The thing I like about them is that you clearly describe both your length and strength in one go. Good for competitive bidding, and good for game judgement. Downsides : Going off in 3M when others are in 2M - yes, so if both oppos have passed you may be a little circumspect with the 1M - 3M, but it would not deter me from 3m, as partner needs that info to judge game. The mixed raise eg 1♥ 3♣ on 7-10 and 4 card support may leave little room for investigation, but there is room for a 3♦ relay for responder to judge whether good or bad. If you wanted more room, and replied with another bid, that would mean the other bid would be too wide-ranging to be useful. 3m would be handy to have for something else (I've toyed with 2/1 followed by repeating the m as non-GF but don't like it) but the number of times you would use it is completely outweighed by the Bergen usage. So - Bergen good outweighs bad. As a sidenote, I have the Bergen 3m raises shifted up when over 1♠, so 3♦ is 7-10 4 card and 3♥ is 11-12 4 card, ie Bergen is 3M-1 and 3M-2, as we have the 3M-3 response for something else.

If transfers are on the card, it's an easy 2♦ then 2♠. That seems to sum it up.

With this hand I pass quickly. With your alternatives : an extra small spade - pass again; a King of spades then 1S. I prefer Kaplan inversion, but natural if not.

I can't envisage this hand being passed out with all those minors missing AND over half the pack in high card points. So it's 1♠ for me then if partner replies 1NT (2 over 1) I bid 2♣ Gazzilli which is forcing, and over the 2♦ relay I don't have anything to describe a hand this powerful, so bid 3♥ (which is forcing) and see if I get preference. I can then cue 5♣ and hope for a diamond reply. If interference scuppers this plan, I rebid 6♥. If partner makes a sign-off into a minor over the Gazzilli I still bid 6♥.