[1eyedjack]

Whilst I am interested to know what is "standard" (if there is a standard) I am more interested to know what is best (and which may or may not be standard).

Options appear to be:

Option 1:
1C-1S = Diamonds, unlimited
1C-1N = Clubs, limited
1C-2C = Clubs, unsuitable for 1N, presumably forcing.
1C-2D = ??? (why not bid 1S?)

Option 2:
1C-1S = Clubs, unlimited
1C-1N = Diamonds, limited
1C-2C = ??? Diamonds, perhaps, but unsuitable for 1N?
1C-2D = ???

Option X: ????

Personal initial thoughts:

I want 1NT to be non-forcing, with a reasonable chance of it being the right spot.

I am not too bothered about right-siding the contract at the one-level. If we only have values to try for the balance of the tricks then who is on lead is less likely to be a critical factor than other factors.

Opener may be strong enough to move toward game opposite a limited 1N response, at which point right-siding might be critical. If it is critical then although there is no certainty it is likely to be more important that opener declare. The most likely game is NT, but that is slightly less likely to be our final resting place if responder has Diamonds than if he has Clubs. Either way, this seems unlikely to be a critical factor.

After partner opens 1C, I am more confident of a Club fit if I hold Clubs than of a Diamond fit if I hold Diamonds.

If we have a fit then the opponents are more likely also to have a fit.

Ironically, I would prefer to play in 1NT on hands where we are more likely to have a fit (and hence oppo are more likely to have a fit) than the converse. If I play in a 1NT limit response and talk the opponents out of their fit then I am happy. Not sure if all y'all agree with that logic.

Anyway, I expect this wheel has been invented many times over, so happy to plagiarise, as I am fairly new to TWalsh.

Ancilliary questions are: what to do if holding both minors in response? Presumably bid 1N if within limit, else 1S?

[Gerben42]

http://www.geocities...dge/twalsh.html

[glen]

1♣-1♠: No four card major, less than a game force, balanced or both minors not too distributional, so at most 5-4 either way in the minors.

1♣-1NT: Game force, asks. I prefer to play this as not too distributional, so that 3NT is not wrong sided. Opener's major suit showing bids are now one-under the major.

1♣-2♣: Transfer to ♦s, either game force or distributional with no four card major and 6+♦s or 5-5+ in the minors.

1♣-2♦: Transfer to ♣s, either game force or distributional with no four card major and 6+♣s or 6-5+ in the minors with longer ♣s.

Possible improvement:

1♣-2♦: Both majors, 5+♠s & 4+♥s.

1♣-2♥: Showing what 1♣-2♦ did above.

General theme: Opener plays contract except if responder has at least game forcing values, in which case responder can ask opener to describe hand.

I don't like 1♣-1NT as non-forcing and 6-10, as in some systems, as the bid will often have one or two weak suits and thus wrong side the contract.

[helene_t]

I like Gerben's scheme.

As for wrong-sideing the contract with 1NT: I think it should not be mandatory. With 3334 you can bid 1♠ if you want partner to declare.

We play 2♦ as reverse Flannery but that has to do with the fact that 1NT is a transfer to diamonds, either strong or very weak, while 1♠ is a transfer to notrumps.

[Fluffy]

We are playing now

1♠ balanced or ♦
1NT balanced/semi balanced with 5♣
2♣ nat forcing
2♦ very weak in a major

But I saw recently someone playing 1NT as forcing with ♣s while 2♣ was weak, I liked the idea.

[paulg]

We currently play:

1♣ - 1♠ = diamonds (unlimited)
1♣ - 1NT = 5-11, balanced, no 4-card major, may have clubs or diamonds
1♣ - 2♣ = inverted
1♣ - 2♦ = weak, both majors

However we are limited by the EBU regulations which do not currently permit the "diamonds or balanced" option for the 1♠ response.

P

[Gerben42]

Quote

I like Gerben's scheme.

Please say "the scheme on Gerben's website". It is not "mine" (see reference on the website).