NickRW

Having played a lot with partners who pointedly comment, "you didn't have 4 cards in my major" when replying to a take out X, I can sympathise with 2C. However, your partnership apparently has quite light opening tendencies and you don't have a major, so game seems pretty unlikely, so this brings pass into the realm of plausible actions, especially at imps where you don't have to strain to beat other people with your cards by the odd 10 or 20 points. As for what to do now, pass. 2Dx could well be our last chance to go +.

Not really if you're happy with that way of doing things and you and partner see eye to eye over it. The alternative, IMO, offers more constructive options in your bidding style.

I prefer the "modern" alternative, but a beginner had better not use it without discussion especially in an Acol context. Most Acol players are going to expect the sequence 1D-2C;2D to be promising at least 5 cards. Furthermore, a lot of older Acol players don't guarantee a rebid when they call 2C in this sequence, so will think nothing of passing the 2D rebid. A solution to this is for responder to guarantee a rebid when making a 2/1 response and for the 2D opener's rebid to be a waiting bid merely denying the values to reverse. The former aspect of this should be standard (but isn't) and the latter aspect definitely isn't standard - or at least not regular club standard anyway.

Yes, that is true enough and is worth remembering with unfamiliar partners (and those who are more familiar, but who don't discuss much about exact requirements for bidding sequences). With better, more communicative partners you should discuss what to open 4441 shapes, especially the ones where the singleton is black, as there are different opinions out there.

Or, more simply put, if you weren't at least 5=4 in the reds you'd not have opened 1H or had a different rebid than 2D

You wouldn't believe the extent to which, in some partnerships, we've gone to explain our understandings (whether GBK or not). Most people either glaze over, or huffily explain how they "don't have time for all that". That or you announce your "decent 12 to a bad 15 NT" as 11 to 16 just to cover your arse and avoid holding the game up. However that, of course, leaves them none the wiser, but at least they can carry on counting cards in good old hcp.

Yes, You certainly won't find any argument with me on that. But there are those who would (and not just poor players either). I remember an, err, difference of opinion in these forums between myself and a very well known and respected person about downgrading a 16 count into a "weak" NT (announced as a decent 12 to a bad 15; rightly or wrongly we were in habit of passing crappy, balanced 12 counts). I forget the hand exactly but it was something like AJxx KQ KQ Jxxxx It was my partner who downgraded it and I personally have no problem with calling it a 14 or bad 15 (on the grounds of 2 doubleton honours, lack of intermediates and the long suit being of poor quality). But this other person, who most certainly does not lack "GBK", took a different view.

The problem with "GBK" is everyone has different ideas. What about whether this 13 count is worth a strong NT: Tx ATx ATx AJT9x On the basis that any four aces and tens is worth a point, 7 of them must be worth nearly 2, then there is the 5 card minor and the possibly useful club 9. Arguably this is closer to a 15 count than many a poor "actual" 15. Yet there are many who would say that upgrading this is "taking the p*ss" and not see the funny side when partner turns up in defence with a queen that "he couldn't possibly have"

D) Open 1NT in the first place. Sure u can construct better 14 pointers for an upgrade, but if that is all you accept, then you're not doing it often enough.

Well, arguably you're right. It is one of the factors which strong 1 club systems address. But it is not as simple as that. Strong 1 club systems have their own issues for a start off. Plus the wide ranging openers that "natural" systems employ appear to be hair raising, but are much more workable in practice than one might suppose.

This was worth a game swing in a recent match. Having lost one trick already in a side suit and with entries to both hands, your trump suit in 5♦ is xxx opposite AJ9xxx What is the best way to handle trumps? (P.S. Advanced and better, please refrain from comment for 24 hours and, if you're B/I, don't look it up, think about it)

Yes, it is said by some that 2D is at least as effective as 2H.

Yes, but most strong 2 suiters can be dealt with adequately using a reverse or jump rebid. And that is to a large degree true whether you play strong twos or not.

Don't be so quick to dump strong twos - not if you're from Acol land anyway. At club level a great many play them in some form or another, so you'll need to understand them whether you play them or not. Don't worry too much about the EBU definition of clear cut tricks. It exists to stop people opening "strong" twos with AKQJxxxx and nothing else (or similar) and, at the same time, calling it a "strong" bid. If you stick to the absolute minimum* of 16hcp and a 6 card suit for a strong two you'll not fall foul of the regulation because the hand will qualify under the rule of 25 (16 + 6 + 3 for the minimum possible length of your 2nd suit) Nick * That is the bare minimum. In practice most strong one suiters are opened with 1x and rebid 3x (or possibly 4x or in some variations 3NT). Best in the long run with strong twos is to ask yourself is the hand worth a game force? If so open 2C (or 2D playing Benji). If not, are there reasonably likely hands that partner could hold that partner will pass a 1x opening with, yet still produce good play for game? If no, then open 1x, otherwise you've got a strong two in your hands. It takes a bit of experience and judgement to determine that, but you'll will get there.

For what it is worth, the Wikipedia definition is basically on the right lines IMO

I don't know if you'll be much the wiser, but this recent thread discussed the same sort of thing.

Obvious opener any seat any colours. What to open is a matter of agreement, but if the agreement is "this is not an opener", then find another partner.

No need to be afraid, your answers are reasonable. I won't say if they are all right or, even if they are, the reasoning is spot on (as that may spoil the thread for others who want to attempt these questions without knowing the answers just yet). But put it this way, if I were declarer, I could think of a great many supposedly experienced players who I'd rather have on lead than you.

Ah, well, so do most of the Americans play MPs most of the time - yet it appears they do things differently in this regard, as do a lot of more expert players in this country. One has to wonder if they aren't on to something.

A typical club player here in Acol land would think that FSF in a sequence such as 1D-1H-2C-2S (i.e. the fourth suit bid comes at the 2 level) if F1, not FG. You might think that is misguided, but it is common. (It certainly suits some invitational hands, but limits opener's options since a responding hand truly worth a game force is not guaranteed). Nick

I'd say that the shape is, arguably, worth the points. However the description should allude to this possibility

This sort of question does come up. A fairly common example for players of strong NT is that they (some of them anyway) quite like to upgrade good 14 counts into range (and similarly upgrade good 17 counts as too strong). Though expert players rarely, if ever, talk of fractional points, it is never the less necessary to come to some sort of agreement, no matter how loosely specified, of what constitutes a "good" 14 (and when, if ever, is 15 so bad that it requires a downgrade). If you don't come to some sort of agreement about such things then the partnership is really in the same boat as a pair of beginners who blindly count hcp and make no allowance for aces, intermediates, shape etc.

A casual partner is highly unlikely to have that discussion with you of course. A more permanent partner may well do so - especially if they think you are either downgrading too much or not downgrading enough in their view.

In ascending order of preference: 2H = no. Too many playing tricks Pass = no. I suppose it is conceivable that this could work out for the best, but it seems against the odds to me 3H = right on playing tricks, but partner will not raise to 4 on hands that can make 4H = could also end in tears, but seems on balance the best guess

Speaking in general about transfers over various strength ranges of NT openers, they are more useful the stronger the NT range. Yes it is useful to have the lead come up to the NT opener, even if the range is quite weak. However, the responding is hand is something of an unknown quantity in terms of exact shape and, especially over the weaker NT ranges, can be quite variable as to strength as well. So there is virtue in keeping the responding hand concealed.