[pescetom]

MP

---

I'll get linched if I suggest this semi- balanced 18HCP looks like a 2NT opening, let alone that it looks almost too strong

So let's say you opened 1♣ and got a spades response. Your rebid now, playing preferred methods?

[DavidKok]

That's 20 HCP.

I rebid 2♦, art GF. Partner may have not responded 1♠ in my favourite methods.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2026-April-15, 09:26, said:

That's 20 HCP.

I rebid 2♦, art GF. Partner may have not responded 1♠ in my favourite methods.

I entered the hand from memory and had the diamonds honours slightly wrong, sorry: 18 HCP it now is.

Partner would have transferred spades over 2NT in a standard system (but Stayman in my methods) if that helps you decide what she would do here over 1♣.

[DavidKok]

My 1♠ nominally shows 8+ (though with some shape you may freely upgrade into it).
My favourite way to play 2♦ is GF three-way: 17-19 bal; ♣+♦ reverse (GF opposite 8) or GF 6(+)♣. Over this partner shows degree of slam interest (2♥: yes. 2♠: no.) while asking us to clarify, or zooms past that with specific very shapely hands (2NT+).

[mikeh]

I’d have no problem with 2N at mps in 3rd or 4th, or teams against a significantly better team but otherwise I prefer to stay within my methods.

Which use transfers. So let me assume 1C 1H. Now I bid 1N, showing 2-3 spades and 17-19 hcp. This hand values to the extreme high end of the range. We gave methods over this so how the auction progresses is dependent on what he does next. If he tetransfers to spades, I accept.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2026-April-15, 10:48, said:

I’d have no problem with 2N at mps in 3rd or 4th, or teams against a significantly better team but otherwise I prefer to stay within my methods.

Which use transfers. So let me assume 1C 1H. Now I bid 1N, showing 2-3 spades and 17-19 hcp. This hand values to the extreme high end of the range. We gave methods over this so how the auction progresses is dependent on what he does next. If he tetransfers to spades, I accept.

I can see why you are happy playing transfers here, wish I had a partner who would accept to play similar methods.
My first thought was indeed that our T-Walsh pair (absent that evening) would be off to a great start with 1C-1H; 1N.
It's an underbid IMO, but they still exchanged a wealth of information and are only at 1NT.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2026-April-15, 09:39, said:

My 1♠ nominally shows 8+ (though with some shape you may freely upgrade into it).
My favourite way to play 2♦ is GF three-way: 17-19 bal; ♣+♦ reverse (GF opposite 8) or GF 6(+)♣. Over this partner shows degree of slam interest (2♥: yes. 2♠: no.) while asking us to clarify, or zooms past that with specific very shapely hands (2NT+).

Our 1♠ could be much less, at worst an Ace and four spades.
I too would bid 2♦ (IMO this is too strong for a 2NT rebid even if you are prepared to bid it as balanced) which for me is not GF and is five-way:
- ♣+♦ reverse
- 6(+)♣
- 5+ ♣ 3= ♠
- 5+ ♣ 4= ♠
- 2+ ♣ bal 18-19 4= ♠.
So here I have to show 6+ clubs by bidding 3♣.
Now 2♥ by partner is artificial GF with 8+ points (and that is what she bids).

[Cyberyeti]

I probably open 2N (good 19-21).

My alternatives - show it as 17-bad 19 bal
Show it as a GF with 6+♣ and less than 3 spades once partner responds

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-April-15, 09:24, said:

MP

---

I'll get linched if I suggest this semi- balanced 18HCP looks like a 2NT opening, let alone that it looks almost too strong

So let's say you opened 1♣ and got a spades response. Your rebid now, playing preferred methods?

I have thick skin but this is not quite a 2nt opener but why on earth wouldn't you rebid 2nt?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-April-16, 10:02, said:

I have thick skin but this is not quite a 2nt opener but why on earth wouldn't you rebid 2nt?

No need for thick skin, the majority of our players rebid 2NT. I dislike it because I think it's an underbid and because I want a dialogue with partner about shape and fit, a suit slam is still in the picture.
Even playing pure natural (without my convention to show 6+ clubs 2- spades) I would prefer to rebid the diamonds reverse on 3 cards here. Our system has good methods over that and we're still in time to bid NT if that looks best.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-April-16, 11:27, said:

No need for thick skin, the majority of our players rebid 2NT. I dislike it because I think it's an underbid and because I want a dialogue with partner about shape and fit, a suit slam is still in the picture.
Even playing pure natural (without my convention to show 6+ clubs 2- spades) I would prefer to rebid the diamonds reverse on 3 cards here. Our system has good methods over that and we're still in time to bid NT if that looks best.

I have thick skin for the eye rolls I receive after opening this 2nt.

Are you playing Walsh? I agree this hand is strong but we also have methods over 2nt.
I like 3♦ if your partner will handle it, if there is any doubt I think 2nt is best. KISS

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-April-16, 11:58, said:

I have thick skin for the eye rolls I receive after opening this 2nt.

Not from me, although there are hands I am more convinced about opening balanced in first (unless it is within agreements, as in my rogue NT partnership).

jillybean, on 2026-April-16, 11:58, said:

Are you playing Walsh? I agree this hand is strong but we also have methods over 2nt.
I like 3♦ if your partner will handle it, if there is any doubt I think 2nt is best. KISS

I play Walsh in the partnership with the Multirever convention. Most of the "natural" pairs will skip four diamonds but not five with invitational strength.
In a "natural" partnership, I wouldn't expect partner to do anything special to cater for the (undiscussed but logical) possibility of 3 card diamonds and so raise with 4 cards and game force strength: should not do any harm here.
2NT is no real problem but I'm not convinced it is right or even simpler, except in the various cases of spades fit.

[pescetom]

Here are both sides.

MP

---

[mike777]

East has 6C I believe

Not an easy hand, lots of options, lots of judgement

[Cyberyeti]

2N-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥(kickback♦)-5N(2 w/0 and a void)

now it's difficult seeing both hands, but I'm guessing 6N

Would in fact be much easier if we started 1♣

1♣-1♠-2N(GF unbal, almost forces 3♣)-3♦(5-5) and now the slam is bid in diamonds, whether small or grand is up in the air.

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-April-17, 02:47, said:

2N-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥(kickback♦)-5N(2 w/0 and a void)

now it's difficult seeing both hands, but I'm guessing 6N

Would in fact be much easier if we started 1♣

1♣-1♠-2N(GF unbal, almost forces 3♣)-3♦(5-5) and now the slam is bid in diamonds, whether small or grand is up in the air.

Nobody suggested 2♦ for opener's second bid. Aside from resulting on the present deal, it really is least of evils.

[mike777]

Tough one perhaps:

1C!=1H!
1NT!=2H!
2S!=3D
3NT?=4D?
4H!=4S!
5C!=5H!
6C!=6D?

Several transfer bids, then keycard auction in D


Off to the Friday afternoon local club game, they have a nice turnout, 18-20 open tables.Plus 6-10 limited game tables...
Several Platinum Life Master players, occasional Grand Life Master or two might show up.

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2026-April-17, 06:17, said:

Nobody suggested 2♦ for opener's second bid. Aside from resulting on the present deal, it really is least of evils.

DavidKok did although a conventional version

Might well be what I do if I don't have the artificial 2N available, and don't decide to open 2N.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2026-April-17, 06:17, said:

Nobody suggested 2♦ for opener's second bid. Aside from resulting on the present deal, it really is least of evils.

I suggested it ("the diamonds reverse") and agree, in absence of a convention I would be quite happy to bid it: if she raises diamonds I can always rebid NT or even explore slam in the probably moysian fit and then decide what to do.

None of our players bid it, I suspect. Even minor and well justified deviations in length are frowned upon here (I was almost crucified the other week for opening 1S in fourth seat on a strong four card suit).

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-April-17, 02:47, said:

2N-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥(kickback♦)-5N(2 w/0 and a void)

now it's difficult seeing both hands, but I'm guessing 6N

Would in fact be much easier if we started 1♣

I agree that an NT opening of an unbalanced hand backfires here, as is often the case (but not as often as some detractors seem to expect). Much easier if we start 1C.

After 2NT, Responder will transfer spades. In our agreements, I would bid 3NT which probably ends things. Even in your more conventional auction I'm not sure I would have bid Kickback over diamonds with no real fit in either of partner's suits and if I did I think I would stop in the small slam.