Tramticket

I would respond 1S on the hand quoted Mike, but I wouldn't respond 1NT very often with a four-count. For us, opener is entitled to expect 6-9 for a 1NT response and 1D-1H; 1S-1NT is that same 1NT response with a four-card heart suit (in the context of our Acol system). There is a downside in continually shading the requirements for a response, if opener can't make an invitational raise with the hand given in the opening post.

Partner so won't usually respond with a four-count, let alone bid 1NT and I'm not keen to distort my bid to take into account a sub-minimum response.

I don't understand the problem. Partner has shown 6-9 and I have a decent 17. I invite with 2NT and partner accepts with 8 or 9.

We play 2S as forcing. It shows 10+ points and 6+ cards. West is two points short, but has the seventh spade. I would have probably doubled in preference to 2S, but it is close. Having chosen to bid 2S, West should recognise that they have a complete minimum and bid a simple 3S.

I have never played SEF or Forum D, but in Benjaminised Acol this is still some way short of a 2♣ opening, which really should promise at least nine playing tricks if your suit is a minor. This is a very normal 1♣ opening in Acol (Benjaminised or not).

Do you play a 1H overcall as forcing?

2D-2NT needs to be strong enough to play in game opposite the upper end of the range for your weak options. It will depend on your range of course, but 14+ sounds too low. You then need to discuss your response to the 2NT inquiry. A simple scheme is that 3C/3D show upper range in hearts/spades respectively and you bid the suit with lower range. You can actually divide the range into three if you prefer, so 3C/3D show either top of range or bottom of range with 3H/S showing the middle of the range. Then bidding the intermediate suit over 3CD asks again whether top or bottom. 2D-2S can be any hand where you are prepared to compete to 3H, but not 3S, so likely only a doubleton spade. With 3-3 in the majors, bid 3H (pass or correct)

I hate the non-forcing 3♠ bid in Acol, this is why we prefer to play 1m-2M as weak (4-8 we play), then 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♠ is invitational (about 9-12 for us) and the auction given in the opening post is game forcing. If you are still playing strong jump-shift responses, then why not 1C-2S here?

If I am overcalling on light values, I want a good quality suit. Change your six-count to: [hv=pc=n&s=skqjt8h98d962c754&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1h1s]133|200[/hv] Now the fact that my suit is spades and I want a spade lead makes an overcall realistic.

I agree that strong minor is the worst option to include. This was a hangover from playing Acol Two's and wanting an equivalent in the minor. We played the multi as three-way for years - being weak two in a major or Strong balanced or strong 4441 hands. This scares novice opponents, but having too many options is unhelpful and the 4441 type came up only rarely (and needed some system to optimise the responses), so we dropped the 4441 type. We later dropped the NT option and find that we are able to put much more pressure on opponents, because the 2D bid is non-forcing and LHO can't pass to await clarification - in case he never gets a second bid.

I can see that it adds definition, but you will often give the opponents an easier route back into the auction.

3D will be a transfer. The 3NT bid is a break of transfer, showing whatever they have agreed it to show (we show controls when we break the transfer over 2NT, with 3NT showing control in every suit). 3NT should be alerted of course (at least in England).

South gave a 3♥ response to Jacoby, showing extras. You can't be missing three aces.

Not a penalty double for me. Any double will be rare, whether takeout or penalties, but I see no reason why my passed-hand partner, who could only dredge up a 2D bid last time, suddenly thinks that they have the values to set 2H. Maybe partner concealed a four-card spade suit? Or holds three good spades and wants to give us the chance to compete at the two-level? I bid 2S now.

I can't comment about New Zealand, but in the UK, the modern tendency is to require a 10-count. Yes, a good 9 HCPs might be upgraded to 10 on occasions, but one of the most important factors in choosing to upgrade should be a useful holding in partner's suit. Whilst 1H-2C-2H is non-forcing, responder will make every effort to find a second bid - particularly if very short in hearts. 1H-2C-2H isn't passed out very often and I can't remember ever playing in a 5-1 misfit on this auction. I do agree with Helene, that the specific 2533 shape is an awkward 1H opening, because you can't raise a 1S response, 1H-1S-2H really should promise a six-card suit and I would be very reluctant to bid 1H-1S-2C with a three-card club suit. I would generally open 1NT with this specific shape.

In the past I have played every variation. I was taught that a 1NT opening would never have a five-card major (in a weak NT four-card major context). Over time, I moved to always opening 1NT with a balanced hand in the 12-14 range. More recently I am being less rigid and this hand would be an acceptable 1H opening (just). I can raise a 1S response and whilst I would rather have a six card suit for 1H-2C/D-2H, I am not promising six. I would have no qualms about opening 1H with: AJxx AKxxx xx xx, so there is certainly no guarantee of a six-card suit in Acol.

2H is the system bid.

Four hearts

One club. No need to distort the weak no trump.

2NT is 19-20 for us and 3♣ is natural, but I would take 4♣ as a cue bid in support of spades. What would be the meaning of: 1♦-1♠ 2NT-4♣ It would be natural for us, showing a lot of shape and the black suits - but I've never encountered this sequence and not sure what it says about the relative lengths of spades and clubs. Still tough to get to 6♣.

Easy pass for us. You are not making game and are in a seven-card fit. You have goood defence if opponents bid either minor.

I am at the lower end of a 1S opening in our system (weak NT, 4-card majors). But if we are playing pairs with neither side vulnerable (as in Jillybean's diagram), then I am making a reopening double. Partner probably has an average of 10 points and two clubs. If this is the case, then the opponents have an eight or nine-card fit and we are odds-on to have a fit somewhere. If they are making 3C, then 2-off might be ok (it might not be easy for them to double). If partner has (say) Hxx in clubs and a balanced hand, they might pass for penalties at pairs and you will expect to beat 3C.

Why don't you like that? If the auction starts (1NT)(12-14)- Dbl-(2D) there are two reasonable approaches. You might play a penalty double here in which case, you surely need to pass to give partner the opportunity to double. But you might not risk doing that if you might be defending 3D undoubted. You may play the double as takeout in this situation - this is becoming an increasingly common method. Now you might pass with length in their suit, hoping to pass partner's protective double. That still doesn't mean that you want to defend 2D undoubted.

This is a silly idea. You should be expecting to make your contract when opening in fourth seat. This should be self-evident - you could always pass. Which 10 tricks are you expecting take? Maybe partner does have ten points and a couple of aces ... you might then find yourself in a small slam!

There are similar arguments at teams. Suppose one half of the team plays a weak NT and the other half a strong NT. You are playing a known team, which also has one strong NT and one weak NT pair. If given the choice of seating, do you sit weak NT Vs weak NT and strong NT Vs strong NT? Or do you choose to have the weak NT pairings in each team playing the same cards? I have listened to team-mates arguing this question at length, but have never understood why it should be considered important!