[mw64ahw]

Thanks for all your comments

Still struggling with what to do after 2NT? (may or may not have 4♠)

Is 3♣ looking for a 3NT/♣ game?
I guess opener then bids 3NT and we miss any slam opportunity in ♠ if opener is say AKQx ♠. The ♣ slam may then not be available.
If opener bids 3♠ then we are back to struggling to find the ♣ slam or not?
Can we infer a ♣ honour after 2NT-3♣-3♠? I guess if I don't bid 2NT with most of the hcps in the Reds (i.e swap K♣ for K♦) then its possible
So move directly to 6♣?

If we maintain our NT responses after 2NT with Stayman and 4-way transfers the 3♠ can show 5+♣. That then leaves partner to decide the correct strain and keycard responses/asking can follow. This could be 3NT or ♣ - I discount ♠ on the keycard count?

Any thoughts?

The full board

---

P.S. 1♣-1♥-2NT (may or may not have 4♠)-?

[DavidKok]

I don't quite follow, what is the auction and what does it show? If 2NT shows 18-19 balanced with 4 spades then you only need a single bid to sign off to spades and everything else is a descriptive slam try, using whatever methods you prefer.

[fromageGB]

For any new viewer, we are talking of a 1♣ open by NORTH - not so obvious when you look at South's clubs!

If you really want an ambiguous 2NT that is either/or then I suggest you need to allow any minor by either party to show 5, and the other can show support or bid NT (or spades in the case of North). But I really can't see why you should favour a minor when you already know of a major fit. You do not have room to both find fits and be able to ascertain the relative strengths (in terms of top cards) in BOTH suits, so there seems no point in looking beyond spades. Don't forget, responder may have 5 spades as well as a 5 card minor, and moreover responder may have AKQ in either. You cannot mutually describe the hands sufficiently to reach the "right" contract, if you wish to include contract possibilities other than spades.

Consequently I don't see a benefit in ambiguity.

[fromageGB]

An ambiguous 2NT also destroys the possibility of responder bidding with 3/4 hcp and a 4 card major. The ability to do this is a great asset, as anyone who has this capability will tell you.

Edit : This is nothing to do with being ambiguous, just that any bid above 2M is too high.

[mw64ahw]

fromageGB, on 2021-August-13, 13:54, said:

An ambiguous 2NT also destroys the possibility of responder bidding with 3/4 hcp and a 4 card major. The ability to do this is a great asset, as anyone who has this capability will tell you.

Yes this could be an issue, but how much difference is there in playing in 2NT with 22/23hcps versus 3♠?

I think life becomes easier if completion of the initial transfer is any Weak NT and the 1NT response is the strong balanced hand as there is then space to find a 4-4 minor fit which may play better than say a 5-3 major or as in this case offer a choice of contracts.

[DavidKok]

Or, even better, the transfer completion is any weak NT with at most 3 card support or any weak unbalanced hand with exactly 3 card support (weak unbalanced hands with 0-2 card support always have another rebid, sometimes 2♣ on a 5-card suit), 1NT is a strong notrump with at most 3 card support, and both the weak and strong notrump hands with 4-card support make higher level bids. This clarifies strength, shape and hand type all at once while keeping the bidding low with weak and misfit hands, so transferring with a garbage hand without club tolerance is relatively safe.

[fromageGB]

mw64ahw, on 2021-August-14, 00:48, said:

Yes this could be an issue, but how much difference is there in playing in 2NT with 22/23hcps versus 3♠?

I think the point is that
(a) if I do not have 4 card support for a shown major, I do not want to rebid above 1NT unless I am taking out to a long minor
(b) if I do have 4 card support then I do not want to make any bid above 2M no matter what my strength.

So there is no difference, because both 2NT and 3M are wrong in my view.
Sorry, it was a misdirected comment of mine, it is nothing to do with being ambiguous - I shall edit that post.

[fromageGB]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-14, 01:19, said:

Or, even better, the transfer completion is any weak NT with at most 3 card support or any weak unbalanced hand with exactly 3 card support (weak unbalanced hands with 0-2 card support always have another rebid, sometimes 2♣ on a 5-card suit), 1NT is a strong notrump with at most 3 card support, and both the weak and strong notrump hands with 4-card support make higher level bids. This clarifies strength, shape and hand type all at once while keeping the bidding low with weak and misfit hands, so transferring with a garbage hand without club tolerance is relatively safe.

A agree with you David, but using the normal definitions of weak and strong NT, I say transfer completion is 2 or 3 card support with a weak NT hand, the strong NT hand opens 1NT, and a twalsh 1NT rebid is 2 or 3 card support stronger than a strong NT. That caters for all hands without 4 card support, and when you do have 4 card support with twalsh you have two ways to get to a 2M bid, as we discussed earlier in this thread.

(The chief difference between us is that with an unbalanced hand I will be opening 1♦, and a rebid of 1NT then shows 3 card support.)

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-14, 01:19, said:

Or, even better, the transfer completion is any weak NT with at most 3 card support or any weak unbalanced hand with exactly 3 card support (weak unbalanced hands with 0-2 card support always have another rebid, sometimes 2♣ on a 5-card suit), 1NT is a strong notrump with at most 3 card support, and both the weak and strong notrump hands with 4-card support make higher level bids. This clarifies strength, shape and hand type all at once while keeping the bidding low with weak and misfit hands, so transferring with a garbage hand without club tolerance is relatively safe.

This is standard "Swedish" T-Walsh, which is also the basis for what I play.

But for those who don't like the idea of putting 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support in the transfer accept, like I do, how about rebidding 1N (18-19 BAL and) even 4-5c support? To me, this is analogous to putting the (balanced?) 3c limit raise in 1N instead of 3M when playing 1M-1N semi-forcing. (The times 3M plays better than 1N are presumably weighed up for by the times 1N makes but 3M does not.)

[mw64ahw]

fromageGB, on 2021-August-14, 03:20, said:

A agree with you David, but using the normal definitions of weak and strong NT, I say transfer completion is 2 or 3 card support with a weak NT hand, the strong NT hand opens 1NT, and a twalsh 1NT rebid is 2 or 3 card support stronger than a strong NT. That caters for all hands without 4 card support, and when you do have 4 card support with twalsh you have two ways to get to a 2M bid, as we discussed earlier in this thread.

(The chief difference between us is that with an unbalanced hand I will be opening 1♦, and a rebid of 1NT then shows 3 card support.)

All makes sense-you of course have the unbalanced hand with short ♦.

I have switched between various versions of TW to try them out in practice so perhaps time to change again.

[mw64ahw]

In conclusion

As South; once I am shown North's strong hand I know there is a chance of a slam if a fit can be found, given. I have a combined MLT under 13, 2 keycards and shape.

My natural inclination as North is to show ♠ support via 3♠, but I need to look at rejigging how I use 1NT/2NT and subsequent bids.

In the absence of a system rejig the following bidding gives North the option of a suit contract (North chooses ♣ given the greater keycard count) which South follows with Kickbo and a sequence to establish controls in all suits. As an alternative control denying could be used by the strong hand.

1♣-1♥ (♠ transfer)
2NT (may have 4♠ support without a top 3 honour)-3♠ (6+♣ transfer Inv+)
4♣ (set suit) -4♦ (2 keycards SI)
4♥ (♥ control)-4♠ (♠ control)
5♦ (3 keycards w. ♦ control no Q♣)-6♣

5♠ was makeable as was 6♣ and 6NT

---

[DavidKok]

I'm happy you found a system that works for you, I would refuse to play half of the proposed tools and think the auction shown is a case of resulting.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-16, 02:38, said:

I'm happy you found a system that works for you, I would refuse to play half of the proposed tools and think the auction shown is a case of resulting.

Definitely a case of resulting, but it has clarified that I do need to look at our TW sequences again although the hand in question may still remain problematic.