You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that (1♣)-2♣ or (1♦)-2♦ shows five+ hearts and four+ spades (not the other way around), both suits possibly longer. Of course we explain it as such when asked.
(Over majors we play traditional Ghestem: (1♥)-2♥ 5-5+ spades and clubs, et cetera.)
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When asked about the meaning of 3NT, partner should say ‘undiscussed’ if that is the truth, not what they think it means and especially not gamble a most unusual meaning like ‘25–27’. Likewise, opening an undiscussed 3NT is maybe not a good thing; however, Gambling is probably the most usual meaning for the bid.
I would also advocate some leeway for occasional partnerships, playing together for the first time after at most a short talk om methods. They usually do not have a convention card for their partnership – not counting one for their partnership with someone else – especially not one well filled out. I feel some disrespect for opponents who squeeze some incorrect information out of an intimidated half of an occasional partnership, then run to the director for alleged ‘unauthorized information’.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This must be purely a matter of system – which was not stated. I play 1♦ as ‘usually five+’ and 1NT at these colors as 15–17 (or a good 14, which this is not), so that leaves 1♣.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In other words: a voluntary 2NT – directly over opponent's bid – is Good-Bad (Lebensohl-clone), barring a few clear exceptions. An involuntary 2NT, in a forced situation after partner doubled for take-out, and barring a penalty pass, is Scrambling. That is probably the same as what Michael meant.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like others, I play 2♥ as game-forcing with three or four hearts (five hearts bids 3♥). Any up to about 14 HCP bids 2♠. Using 2♥ for all but exactly this hand is fine if you happen to have this hand, but otherwise ineffective.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even in non-forcing Stayman – which I play over our 9–12 1NT – 2♣ and then 3♦ would be invitational. The only weak diamond bid is an immediate 3♦, which could also work preemptively but would miss a possible heart fit.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have a fair chance to set up the hearts and cash them if either: (1) declaring side has just ace doubleton, or (2) partner has four hearts. Neither is unlikely.
I would lead a heart, but the question poster raises is a good one. Modern analysis of various kinds has revealed that many traditional ‘automatic’ leads appear not to be the best after all. Thinking about such matters is not necessarily ‘overthinking’.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the absence of Namyats or Gazzilli (see Martin above) 4♥ shows eight playing tricks and that is what North has. With these secondary values (queens and jacks), South is the overbidder.
Rosalind Hengeveld
(Over majors we play traditional Ghestem: (1♥)-2♥ 5-5+ spades and clubs, et cetera.)
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
I would also advocate some leeway for occasional partnerships, playing together for the first time after at most a short talk om methods. They usually do not have a convention card for their partnership – not counting one for their partnership with someone else – especially not one well filled out. I feel some disrespect for opponents who squeeze some incorrect information out of an intimidated half of an occasional partnership, then run to the director for alleged ‘unauthorized information’.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
I would lead a heart, but the question poster raises is a good one. Modern analysis of various kinds has revealed that many traditional ‘automatic’ leads appear not to be the best after all. Thinking about such matters is not necessarily ‘overthinking’.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld