Lurpoa

♥ Directly 6♦ is a little to risky for me. I'll go for 5♦, and if they bid 5♠ ? 6♦

♥ Yes agreed. At MP a double is defendable; never 2♠!

♥ 100% in line with you.

♥ this shows how dangerous it is to undertake any action. For IMPS, really not wothwhile, to risk a disaster. At the best we can make 2♦ or 2♠, but if we can, there is a good chance 1NT goes down.

♥ Playing SAYC or BWS2001 2/1, 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is 4SF. The partnership clearly had a misunderstanding about this.

4♠. Looking for more seems too greedy.

♥ Yes, but not my partner, not even on a 1♣ opener.... !!!

Yes, agree with your analysis. Indeed slam seems far away. As already stated.... next hand please.

Open with the GF 2♣ in SAYC, Std Acol or BWS2001. In Precision I guess, you should open 1♣.

A systemic bid is available. So I would use it: that is better the partnership in the long term. That said 1NT is not completely wrong. 1♦=10, 1NT=7.

1♠, indicating a safe haven. Partner must be: 4441, 4540, 5440, 4432... unless the redouble is not "correct" and he is very strong with probably ♥ Possibly 3442... which suits us less.......but....you cannot have it all....

I wouldn't blame partner if he overcall 2♥ , even if in your methods this promises a little more points...he has length to compensate. Also N could/should prebalance with 3♣ (but again that depends on your methods).

♥ Mr Glen Ashton on his blog is giving some very easy, short and to-the- point advices on how to interprete 4NTbids: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2008/09/when-is-4nt-q-uant-itative-i-received.html. I think this can be usefull for any partnership to set their defaults. I have not (yet) checked them versus BWS2001 defaults, but I guess they can be used to solve the "clearly forcing" definition ♥

♥ No, I believe my Master said "no pre-empt over a pre-prempt". Will try to find that back in the litterature. Or has anybody something on that ?

♥ Yep, it is good to always question your methods.... and those of others... Bidding is just a coded language, and most important is, that you speak the same language as your partner. And almost as important, that you understand some of the language of your opponents...

♥ I find this hand really to weak for a reverse... but I guess it depends on partnership methods....

Yes, I think you have a good point there. It is really how I would like to play it, but have (had) difficulty in finding the justification in the BWS2001standard. But indeed it is all in the interpretation of "clearly forcing" (and what is "just "good" bridge"). And indeed I agree that it is only sound to initiate a Blackwood or RKCB if a suit is agreed. Besides BWS2001 is very specific: QUOTE After opener’s one-notrump rebid: (a) responder’s rebid ofthe cheapest two of an unbid minor is artificial, forcing, andpromising at least game-invitational strength (opener’s prioritiesover such a bid are: show three-card fit for responder’s originalsuit, show four-card length in the unbid major, show a minimum withthe cheapest other bid, show a maximum descriptively with anythingelse; responder’s next bid is forcing unless it is two of hisoriginal suit, two notrump, or a raise to three of the major just bidby opener); (b) responder’s rebid ofthree of the cheapest unbid minor is weak. © four clubs is Gerber. UNQUOTE SO YES, 4NT is Quanti when you play BWS2001. ::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yes, and if 4NT is Quanti, how do you check the condtions for a grand slam ?

Just another idea. When you set your system with partner, maybe it is better to agree when Blackwood or RKCB apply, and not when Quanti 4NT applies, as it is done in SAYC. Then, all which is not Blackwood is Quanti.

Yes, you make ne doubt about my interpretation of BWS2001. But another argument: isn't that "offer of general slam encouragement" not the Quanti were are talking about ?

Playing SAYC or BWS2001: 1NT

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: yes , and many other things, I guess, that we, the down to the earth haven't the slighthest idea of. Feel free to share your expertise here.... We are here to learn....from you, the experts... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I like your mail a lot.... I would never have opened 4♥, but that is not the question.... Yes, judging those situations is what makes experts, experts I guess..... A guidelines could be, in doubt, bid one more, but do we really believe that ?

No problem, if you agree with partner that he never can pass 2♦. Oh yes, just a little one, if he is 3-2-4-4, he will bid 3♦. All considered, if you do not want P to pass 2♦, better bid 2♥, at least he is warned.... and if according to your methods, he was allowed to bid a 4card ♠ over 2♦, he can do that now also now, .... but why did he not bid them on the first round ?

I think they should change the rules......:rolleyes: