Lurpoa

So just a game going hand with doubts about 3NT as a final destination.... ??? Seems reasonable as well. Ijust had some doubts, because in SAYC this sequence shows slam intrest..... Bottom-line seems to be, that it is one of those sequences that need to be agreed with Partenr. Thanks for your input.

you warned, that you do not have an defensive hand (=2.5 DT), so he was withholding on 2♣/2♥. And if this is for IMPS a 2♥double, might be too risky.... But when you bid 3♣ he can expect at least 0.95 DT: you didn't open 3♣.

From the first round, your partner was hoping you would double ! You have now warned twice that you do not have a defensive hand... If he doubles now, he means business, and certainly he does not want you to bid 4♣. PASS by all means.

Anybody to help me ? Playing BWS2001 it is not clear to me what a 3♣or 3♦ by responder is after he initiated Stayman (bidding without interventions) Stayman followed by 3 ♣or 3♦ is ? Following the general default, I would say it certainly is forcing, 5card of the bid minor and a 4card major. But is it merely showing game-going values, or is it showing slam-intrest (as it would be playing SAYC). I tend to believe that the slam-intrest hand is the most efficient solution. May I hear your opinions please. Thank you.

As you describe it, it is good bridge. Doing it in another would be bad bridge. And indeed, if opener hasn't a defensive hand (without speaking of a sub-minimum hand), he has to warn you. Your partner cannot know, you have that monster hand: as far as he know, you can have only 9+H.

Yes, this is one of the things on which the partnership should make agreements. How forcing is a reverse by opener (after a 1level response) ? That is the question ! Playing it naturally, that reverse can be done with (1) as much as 20H: so it is forcing for at least one rond. Responder must make a bid. (2) as less as 17H (needs to be fixed by the partnership). So responder has to bid his full hand. With a weak hand, he supports one of opener's colors at the lowest possible level, repeats his own 6card at the lowest level, or bids 2NT. With a gamegoing hand (without slam ambitions) he should bid game or 4th suit. 4th suit can also bid with slam ambitions as a start to find out more information from opener. Jumps to 4 in one of opnener's colors should be treated as slam-ambition hands, and open a control bidding sequence. Above is how I see it, when you play it naturally. However, it is true that other agreement are possible. In BWS2001Defaults: "opener's reverse after a one-level suit response is forcing AND promises a rebid below game" With that agreement, responder can indeed, simply rebid his shape, and bid his full strength on the next round.

3NT = to play, good ♦ stoppers. (don't forget that 2♦ can be a relais bid (whatever system you are playing, unless other agreements). 4♣ = good 5card ♣, forcing

Yes, your 4♥ after 3♦ is stronger than a direct raise of 2♥ to 4♥. .

yes, I have to say, that i am always reasoning in a IMP context.

I would say, it is not so important what you play here... sometimes one is good, sometimes the other.. More important is, that indeed you have agreements on it. Personally I like to have a penalty double availble here...If not, and opps know, they will fool you around......

♣QJ seem to be of little value here..... I would go for a X. on partner's response: 2♦: 2♥ inviting 2♥; 3♥ inviting 2♠! 3♠ inviting 2NT: 3♥ forcing

It looks like partner has a Gambing in ♣. To pass you are supposed to stop the other colors. Being NV vs to V, you sure can take a little gamble here yourself and pass.

Right you are, very good comment !

As said, yes, I fully agree. I was wrong (too focused on 5card major systems). Mea Culpa.

Yes, if you decided to play 4th suit forcing, you need to agree on this sequence with your partner.

Right ! Indeed, the suggested sequence, is clearly inviting, now that we discovered the 5-3 fit.

please, can you verify Crowhurst..... if non forcing, what were his reasons ? Stong or weak NT: the inviting goes trough 1♥ 3♥: no need to mention ♣

A limit bid would go through 1♥ 3♥, not worth going through ♣ !!!

Why didn't you open 1♣ ?

no 3NT is a little chicke, Even on a minum S: x xxx AQXXX AXXX, 3NT could make. Also N should see that 6♦ has good possibilites. He has to do something constructive: 4th suit forcing looks like a good start.... And then it will depend on the agreemnts you have with your partner.

sure, again, one of those sequences which should be discussed with Partner. Personally I don't think 3♦ is right. Other descriptive bids are available: 3♥ or even 3NT, if you have no further ambition, 4NT, as a limit bid. And the 3NTresponse is even worse....

sure, again, one of those sequences which should be discussed with Partner. Personally I don't think 3♦ is right. Other descriptive bids are available: 3♥ or even 3NT, if you have no further ambition, 4NT, as a limit bid. And the 3NTresponse is even worse....

yes, you need to agree on all those things with your partner.

3KC: 5♣. That is what you agreed with partner..... But I think, playing SAYC, 3♣ is wrong. I would have splintered: 3♠: partnership can now start a serie of control bidding, or whatever you agreed on a splinter.

2♣ ALWAYS. You have to tell partner you have opening values with a decent 5card ♣.....