NickRW

IMO, Nat + forcing if partner is an un-passed hand. If partner has passed, raise + leading directing

Generally, with at least invitational values (11+), you would think of using Stayman when you have a four card major. Some people are of the opinion that you're as well off NOT employing Stayman when you have 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3 shape specifically (those shapes tend to play well in NT)

5♥. Both sides can probably make 4M, but there is less certainty at the 5 level and even less at 6. 5 seems to me a quite possible make and, if not, a good save over 4♠. The rest is playing poker (and you could be right do so - or not)

5332 (absent any other info from the bidding) is a balanced shape well suited to NT play. It doesn't become less balanced if the 5 bagger is a major - though, of course. there is a more realistic chance of finding a 4M game (as opposed to 5m) - which is where your system choices come in. Personally I am yet to be convinced of the benefit opening a weak 1NT with a decent 5 card major - too often the opening is passed out and dummy goes down with 3 or even 4 card support. However a strong NT is passed out less often and responder more commonly has enough strength to explore, so am happy to open 5M332 shapes with 1NT in that case. But that is my preference - your mileage may vary.

Personally, to those people who bother to look at my CC (most of whom are at least as experienced as I am), I strongly object to having to explain why, for example AT9xx ATxx xx xx is (usually, quite a lot) better than Qxxxx Qxxx Qx Qx CCs are about brief system explanations. Not a beginners book on hand evaluation. Nick

Pass the lot

I've played a style where I would have passed - because of the lack of aces, tens, nines or any aggressive shape. But even then it is borderline and, I recognise, a minority decision.

deleted

Any strong club system would get you there as well as all these other fine suggestions

♣

As I understand it, the "datum" in the Butler method is 620+650+170/3 = 480 (i.e. includes your score), not 650+170/2 = 410. One could argue your method is better, but would require a different datum for every table and the Butler method was created for IMPing a pairs event in the days before computer scoring.

For most practical purposes they are the same - but the calculations are different and can lead to "anomalies" when one expects them to be the same and they are not.

4th seat pre-empts are on the rare side

Well, I am in two minds. It is top end, but only because of the ♥Q. Who knows what that is worth.

I don't know, but the Norwegians I know complete the transfer on 3 card support as opposed to the other strategy of showing a weak NT (and therefore 2+ support). Of course the Swedes may be different again, but obviously I am surmising not

No, nothing like 10%. 2-1 split = 78%. 6 different distributions = about 13% for a specific case 3-0 split = 22%. 2 different distributions = about 11% for a specific case.

I am guessing 7 ♦ to the AQ and, in view of the fact that partners suit cannot be solid, an outside trick. Basically I expect to see a weakish 1 level opener (in any other seat) worth 7 tricks. Here you could be lucky, gamble 3NT, and find that trick is ♣A - or it could be ♠KQ and they lead a club.

I have one partner who likes 5551 with a 14-16NT. My preference would be for good 14 to bad 17, but honestly 12-14 or 15-17 are playable. I'm not particularly keen on 12-15 (range too wide, though if you can stomach passing crappy balanced 12 counts, a decent 12 to bad 15 is quite playable IMO).

Whenever I've played short club openers I prefer NOT to do anything special about responses. It does rarely happen that the bidding get passed out in 1C and you're in a 3=2 fit or whatever - this is just as likely to be a good result as bad (if a tad uncomfortable!) Some at my local club treat the 1C opener as semi forcing (responder passes garbage with at least 4, preferably 5 clubs) but otherwise always responds with 1D being natural/negative. This means you don't play embarrassing 3=2 fits at the cost of making the auction after 1C-1D a little murky (which they don't give enough thought to)

Sure you've got that right Gordon? That means NS at T7 is pair 7 and EW at T1 is also pair 7!

At these colours and scoring, easy bid. Different colours or scoring, then it is a harder problem.

Not really given that it is 4.5 tables. For 5 full tables you could play a Mitchell (5x5) or a hesitation (6x4) or a double hesitation (7x4), but when there is a sit out 4 or 5 boards twiddling thumbs is not ideal. Again not really for similar reasons Double hesitation Mitchell for 9x3 Nope - what is wrong with a hesitation? I wouldn't recommend the Blackpool for 7.5 tables as one pair will sit out twice.

If 3 card raises are at all common in your agreements, then blasting 4 without offering either clubs or NT as an alternative is appalling.

Playing canapé it might start 1S-2H; 2NT-3C; 4C and then you have a chance

2. LTC might indicate 3, but I think partner is going to be encouraged to try 3NT on many hands where that contract has no chance. You can always come alive if partner finds another bid. Most 4 card majorists don't, but it is a matter of agreement/style