Tramticket

I agree. And for an expert pair playing against other experts there is little merit in using Michaels without some constructive values. When you use Michaels with a weak hand just because you are 5-5 you will find that your expert opponents are able to extract a penalty if appropriate or (more often) brush aside your interference and bid to the optimum contract with a large road-map of how to play the contract based on the information that you have revealed. Meanwhile, at the local club, players use Michaels on tram-tickets because their opponents misjudge whether to defend and fail to use the information in the play. Weak Michaels bids can be very effective at club level. But if you are going to use Michaels as a disruptive tool on weak hands, the split range version has merit - since it will be difficult for partner to judge when the possible range becomes too great.

It would be easier to see that clubs is your stronger minor if you laid the hand out in the conventional way: spades at the top, then hearts, then diamonds and clubs at the bottom. As others have said, your response will depend on your system. This hand seems perfect for a natural 2NT response, but most of us will prefer to use 2NT as an artificial bid (Jacoby or similar). In the absence of 2NT, a bid of 3C is reasonable. A response of 2D might be an attempt to avoid a diamond lead if you end in 3NT. 2H promises a 5-card suit and you are likely to finish in 4H on a 4-3 Moysian fit - which might be playable with yoyr strong heart suit, but is vulnerable to bad breaks or a forcing defence. The final option is to raise to 2 spades or 3 spades - more attractive if playing 5-card majors, but the hand is a little strong for 2S and a little weak for 3S (which should promise a four-card suit in many systems).

This is an intriguing idea, which sound like it might have potential. You may want to swap the 2♣ and 2♦ openings, since it is the two suited hands which need most space to express. But I can see problems of definition - what exactly is a 2-suiter? 5-5-2-1 is clearly two-suited, but 6-4-2-1? 7-4-1-1? 5-4-3-1? Is this just a theoretical idea? Or are you aware of anyone trying such methods?

I've played a lot of Benji. It is very playable, but the 2C opening needs to be kept as genuinely strong. The weakness in the system is when you hold a strong hand with a heart suit and the bidding starts 2D-2H-3H you are a level higher than you would be after a 2C opening. Personally I prefer to use 2D as a multi than either Benji or weak.

A convention name is never an adequate explanation to opponents. The reason it is inadequate can be seen from: I have a book in front of me by Brian Senior where he is describing Jacoby 2NT: This book is over 25 years old - not some recent trend. If experts on both sides of the Atlantic think that this non-game forcing version is Jacoby, I will continue calling it Jacoby in general conversation and continue to describe the bid to opponents as "four-card support, invitational or stronger".

It seems like two pretty marginal games. Well there is a certain trump loser and the ace of clubs to lose. So east will need to play diamonds for one loser - easy double dummy (low to the queen and duck a diamond), but if N/S don't open the suit you are just as likely to start with a diamond from hand and go down when south splits his honours. 4♠ by N/S would not be so good on a club lead.

It is not fashionable to respond 2NT with a positive, but a simple natural Acol auction might be: 2♣-2NT-3♠-3NT-4♥-4NT-Pass.

Yes, I think that Roman Keycard Blackwood was a fusion of two previous methods: Roman Blackwood which showed Aces in an either/or method (0 or 4 then 1 or 3) and Keycard Blackwood which shows the Keycards (including the King of trumps) but using the standard Blackwood steps. Bizarrely, the Mr Bridge organisation, which runs bridge cruises and holidays, still seems to recommend this Keycard Blackwood.

So when you bid 1H-2S what did you expects to happen? Did you expect: (a) To utterly confuse your partner, (b) That your inteligent partner would make some sensible assumptions and place you with the hand that you hold - maybe based on shared knowledge and experience. If you are sensible and hoping to score well, your answer is probably closer to (b) than (a). This shared knowledge and experience constitutes an implied agreement and the laws oblige you to disclose such implied agreements to your opponents. A response such as "this sequence has never arisen for us, but I am expecting partner to interpret as strong and game forcing" would seem appropriate.

I was perhaps a little unclear. It was online (like most bridge these days) and declarer attempted to play the ♠Q from the east hand. In an online setting, players are used to carrying on play when a claim is rejected, so maybe the attempt to carry on play after the director call is not a serious issue? I added it more as an indication of declarer's line of play (but an indication after the rejection). Nothing to do with the claim, but I am also curious. It was online and this was the full written explanation. I am guessing that there might have been a failure to alert a two-suited opener - but this was not the subject of the director call.

I'm not saying that we will never play in no trumps. It is, I suppose, possible... But when I pick up a hand like this and choose my opening bid, I am not planning for a 3NT contract!

Why do you think it is obvious? It is not obvious to me. North/south seem to have a very suitable holding too with the clubs blocked. If south has (say) AK1043 opposite 85 then south will lead the suit and four club tricks will be established to go with the king of hearts.

[hv=pc=n&s=sat74ha8dak942c96&w=s5hqt643dqj8753cj&n=s98hj2dt6ckq75432&e=skqj632hk975dcat8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2hp3d(How%20good%20are%20your%20hearts%2C%20forcing)d4hppp&p=dtc8dkd3c9cjcqcasksas5s9c6h3c2cth4h2h9hadad5d6]399|300[/hv] After six tricks (three for each side) the position is as follows with the lead in dummy (East): [hv=pc=n&s=st74h8d942c&w=shqt6dqj87c&n=s8hjdck7543&e=sqj632hk7dc]399|300[/hv] Declarer claims the remainder, with no stated line of play. Do you allow the claim? Edit: After the claim was made and the director was called, East attempted to play the Queen of Spades from dummy.

There is a lot of sense in this. I voted for 1C, but with no great enthusiasm and I have wavered between all three options. But what would you open if playing a strong club? 1♥ presumably? It still might leave the club suit as unmentioned.

Your partner will surely expect more top cards? No aces and one king will be a disappointment when he holds a big, but misfitting hand.

Yes, every convention has draw-backs and being forced into showing a positive you don't own is a definite draw-back. What will you bid with this hand after the auction starts (say) 2C-3C-3S? Do you carry on the pretence with 4C, which would show a self-supporting suit for most? Or do you support spades on your small doubleton and encourage partner to look for a spade slam?

Change the king and knave of hearts into low cards - now you can't be suggesting pretending to have a positive?

This is a second example in this thread of using a bid artificially without any agreement how you deal with the hand that wants to bid the suit naturally. The opening post uses 3C as Stayman and 4C as Gerber, so doesn't have a way of showing clubs. Using 3C as a second negative has a similar problem! Maybe you need to define 3C as "clubs or second negative"; or use the unfashionable 2NT as the second negative; or keep 3C as a second negative and use 2NT to show clubs; or get rid of the notion of a second negative completely! But I don't think that a positive 3C is helpful (and would be impossible if you had 8 clubs and a three-count).

À positive will usually deliver slam values, but this is not the point. Partner has a very big, but it is still an undefined hand. He may be balanced, as here, when it might be appropriate for you to take control. But he will often be unbalanced with single-suiter or two-suiter and taking up so much bidding space will only get in the way of a constructive auction.

A 3C positive will not help when partner holds (say) a spade / diamond two-suiter. It is not unlikely that your partner will be singleton or void in clubs and your 3C positive does not deliver the support that partner is entitled to expect.

How do you show clubs in response to a 2NT bid in your methods? I assume that 3♣ would be some form of Stayman? One option is to bid 4♣ showing a club suit and 100% forcing. But maybe you use 4♣ as Gerber or a transfer to hearts? If so, many pairs will bid 3♣ (initially Stayman) and then follow up with 4♣ (again 100% forcing) to show a club suit. As an alternative, if using 4♣ to transfer to hearts, you could use 4♥ to transfer to clubs. It needs to be a matter for partnership agreement, but you need a method to show clubs! Edit: my post crossed with Cyberyeti - his method is another alternative that some pairs use.

I'm not sure that this is correct? If you play boards in the Acol club for example, it is clear from viewing comparisons that few of the comparisons, if any, will be using Acol.

Not my system either. We wouldn't even be in this situation as partner would have opened 1NT! Inverted minors are definitely off for us and I think that it is a close call between raising to 2!c and passing. I'm not particularly inclined to bid 1NT, which would show 8-10 in this sequence for us.

Our 2NT opening is 21-22 and I would not upgrade. I really dislike that 4333 shape. Aces are great, but they are particularly suitable for a suit contract and your shape has no ruffing potential - which strongly suggests that NT may be the final strain. The responding hand is also a 4333 pancake with no aces and each of the four honours in different suits and no intermediates (there isn't a ten between the two hands). If this hand is a systematic 2NT response for you (and many do not use 2NT as a natural response), then it is surely an absolute minimum for the bid and responder should pass the 3NT (if non-forcing - there is an argument that this should be forcing to 4NT).

We play 1D-3H as a splinter. 1D-4H does not exist for us.