mfa1010

Sounds cool :) Maybe your suggestion is the best. But we will get out of 3N a lot, since partner will not play us for such massive clubs and only 2 spades. No surprise that the forum spotted this line in seconds :) Any suggestions for improvement are most welcome. I will proceed with the thing about 2N being natural, especially when RHO passes.

Thanks for comments (more comments are welcome :)). I chose 3N but felt lousy about it. Jumping all the way from 1♠ to 3N when it so easily could be wrong felt like a beginner's bid. [hv=pc=n&s=saqhaq98dj6cqjt72&n=sjt982h52da98ca53&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1sp3nppp]266|200[/hv] The contract was reasonable, though. The declaring had a fun theme as it went: Lead ♦3 third/fifth, to ♦8, ♦K, ♦6. East shifts to ♥J (denying the T according to their agreements).

Screens were indeed N+E/S+W, but it was therefore east, who was on the same side as north. East hardly had anything to consider after 3N.

That's a good point. We play 2NT as 10+ with 4 card fit and 3♣ as a mixed raise. 3♦ and 3♥ are fit bids that never seem to come up anyway. Maybe it is better to rotate some of the bids so there will be room for a natural 2N. In the club last Thursday, I had: ♠-, ♥QJT7, ♦AT985, ♣AKT8. Here the bidding went (1♦)-1♠-(pass), and I was screwed also. NV vs V I tried 1N, which worked out ok but didn't have to.

No problem there. The 4♣-bidder had a singleton spade and ♣A, so 4♣ was the logical way to make a slam try over 3N.

NS play a weak NT opening and 5-card majors. 1♦ is 3 with 4-4-3-2 only, and in that case it will be 15+ points. 3NT is a suggestion to play, I don't think the agreements about 3N go any deeper than that. Right. I deliberately left out the hands to focus the discussion on the question I would like to get opinions on.

I could bid 2♣ over 1♠ to show a diamond suit. It is only the enemy's opening suit, I can't show.

I feel that giving up on a having natural 1NT is a much too big a price to pay for being able to show the opponent's opening suit naturally, even if 1♣ could be short. So I'm not hooked on making that change. 1NT comes up a lot.

1♠ is normal, aggressive style. Like 8-17.

If you bid 2♥, then you'll get the expected 2♠ response. Then what?

3♣, 3♦, 3♥ and 4♦ would also be raises in our system. :) If you have any good suggestions about system I would love to hear them.

This committees decision is from a tournament this weekend in Denmark, screens were in use. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp3sp3np4cp5dp6dppp]133|100[/hv] 3♠: GF splinter 3NT: This bid was slow, like 1-1½ mins. N later explained that he had forgotten if 3♠ was nat/weak or a splinter and was trying to remember. His written explanations to E supported that. In the end he decided to bid as if 3♠ was a splinter. 4♣: Cuebid. The committee decided that S's hand had so many extra values that pass was not a LA. So 4♣ was a legal bid whatever UI were present. 5♦: Weakest possible action at that point, according to NS's slam principles. 6♦: The committee decided that pass to 5♦ was a LA, since 6♦ was a quite aggressive bid. 6♦ made. N had a pretty decent hand for his bidding, so the slam was good, like 75% or so. Some might well argue that 5♦ was an underbid. Is 6♦ a legal bid, given these committee evaluations of N/S's hands?

♠AQ ♥AQ98 ♦J6 ♣QJT72 (1♣) - 1♠ - (pass) - ? None vul. You have agreed to play transfer responses: 2♦ would show a heart suit, at least 5 cards. 2♥ would show 10+ with a 3-card fit. 2NT would show a 4-card fit. What would you do?

I would pass. I think the hand is too crappy to bid anything. 2♠ would be nonforcing - it would be silly not to be able to play 2♠ when we have a spade suit.

Declarer has mishandled his entries, so it is good enough if N wins ♣K and plays back a heart. Aside from that, N should have count of the red suits by now and therefore full count. So he should be able to to find a duck in clubs. S can in principle also work out to rise ♣A (if declarer had kept a heart entry in hand - now there is no reason to go up), although he will pay out to a declarer who is about to butcher his contract with ♣K9x,♦Ax.

X. 2♦ on a balanced hand with a terrible spade holding is ugly. ♦9 doesn't change that. X keeps good options open, for instance 1NT.

5♦ is my guess.

I would return an attitude style (noninvitational) ♣8 and hope partner reads the layout.

If we did open 4♥ I think we would have to follow up with X'ing a 4♠ overcall ourselves. Of course this requires that we play a style where X would show values and not something fancy like a strong suggestion to bid 5♥.

I have play a reasonably serious event with 2N = exactly 15 balanced. This fits nicely with 12-14NTs and 16+ precision 1♣ :D

Yeah, that's what I play too. Actually we even play that 2♦ is also stayman. So I guess we are twice as silly. After 2♣ stayman, responder shows it all, 5c minor, min/max etc with naturalish responses, while after 2♦ he only shows his major(s).

I agree with donn but would have spiced up the criticism of south a lot. I don't know what more he thought he needed to bid slam even if he did not know exactly what p meant with 5♥. 2♠ already showed a powerhouse and partner just kept trying for slam all the way to the 5-level.

This is lol. Partner has made a take-out double of 4♠ so he has promised sufficient values for that. The more useful shape he has the less extra values he needs, and vice versa. He has not promised some exact number of aces.

Popular around here. An upside with the weak responses is that they tend to be helpful also when opener has the GF hand.

Pass and then 5♥. Issuing a slam try with 0 key cards and no queen of trumps seems like begging for a two ace disaster in 6.