PhilKing

The reason the world plays: 3♦-X-4♦, and 3♦-3♠-4♦ as competitive, is not because they like "pushing the opponents into game." Bidding 4♦ takes away LHO's option to cue bid or jump to 4M or 5♣ or bid 3NT. It's true that they can double 4♦ instead, but that is not really the same thing, since it will end the auction about a third of the time, and it can never cover all the hands they want to describe. We can bid 4♦ on absolute trash, on hands where we think we can beat 4M, on hands where we can beat one major-suit game but not the other and on hands with GOOD diamond support where we are worried that jumping to FIVE Diamonds will push them into slam. It does not push them into game - they were either going to do so or not, and our bid will encourage them to do so very rarely. At a rough guess, being able to compete with 4♦ is about 1000 times more important than being able to bid "Minorwood" in these sequences.

Glad all the points have been taken on board. I don't see a rush of volunteers of the type required if simple obvious criteria are not adopted.

This hand is another advert for the Garozzo 2♥ response to 1♦, showing 7-10 with 5♠ and 4♥ (weaker if 5-5). One of the main worries when bidding 2♦ is missing a good 4♥, which could now never happen. 2♦ is fine for me, but that's also because I think people set the bar for a raise to 3 too high.

你的英語比我的中文好多了

.

Looks like 1♥ was the winner - this way dealer!

It's a translation issue - he means Denial cue bid (which is a bit like De Amazon Cue Bid ;) ).

You keep asking for ideas and everyone keeps making the same response - when a top established pair of regular posters such as Frances and Jeffrey make themselves available, pick them. (See below). Most of the time that does not happen, in which case deserving posters will get to play. Sometimes there is no clear concensus, but this is not one of those situations.

I have a generic method that covers all these two-suited four-level situations plus 32 competitive (mostly leaping Michaels variants) sequences: 4M/5m = nat NF. 4M covers most sign-offs. 4N is never natural. 5m is encouraging if no "flag" is available bids below 4M = if 1 step available, flag for M, if 2 lower = M higher = m 4M+1 = RKC M 4M+2 = Flag for m if not natural 5♦ = if not nat, then it is RKC for clubs 5♥+ = RKC response for the minor. This applies in all equivalent sequences and works! In the 2NT sequences, responses count the major suit king. When we flag for the minor, partner can bid 5m+1 as keycard. That above may cause indigestion, so I will give an example. After 2NT-3♦-3♥4♣: 4♦ = enc hearts 4♥ = sign-off. Can be 2. 4♠ = RKC hearts 4NT = enc clubs (now 5♦ = sand wedge) 5♣ = nat (now 5♦ = sand wedge) 5♦ = RKC clubs 5♥ = 1 or 4 of six key cards for clubs 5♠ = 0 or 3 of 6 key cards 5NT = 2 or 5 without 6♣ = 2 or 5 with Or after (3♥)-4♣(NLM)-(Pass): 4♦ = enc spades 4♥ = enc clubs 4N = RKC spades 5♦ = nat 5♥ = RKC response for clubs All sequences fit the rules, so do not need to be listed separately. a) (2♦multi)-4m (2 sequences) b) (2M)-4m (4 sequences) c) (2♥)-3♥-3♠-4m (2 sequences) d) (2♥)-3♥-3N-4m (2 sequences) e) (2♠)-3♠-3NT-4m (2 sequences) f) (3♥)-4m (2 sequences) g) (3♠)-4m (2 sequences) h) (3♦)-4♣-4♦-4M (it's the exception that fits the rules) (2 sequences) i) 1♣-(2M)-4♦ (2 sequences) j) 1♦-(2M)-4m (4sequences) k) 2NT-3♠-3NT (2 sequences) l) 2NT-3NT-4♣ (2 sequences) m) 1N-(2M)-4m (4 sequences)

I've never voted for Gerber before, and I doubt I will again, but this seems perfect! Opposite two aces I will ask for queens (6♣) and opposite three I may ask for jacks.

You can have both - where 4♣ agrees clubs, for instance, I play 4♦ as RKC (and similarly 4♥ over 4♦ unless hearts have been bid naturally). So in my cue bid example hand, partner would roll out key card. A slight punt, admittedly.

What I said was 'please stop playing "Minorwood"'. The point was that you interpret most bids of 4m as "Minorwood" (and your partner, who seems to be a Key Card junkie, interprets all bids of 4m as Minorwood). The standard rule is that you have to have agreed the minor already for Minorwood to apply, so what you are playing is not really Minorwood. This link http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/minorwood_convention.html is not necessarily the definitive word on the subject but it outlines the principles pretty well. The point is that, if the first time you can agree the minor is at the four level, even if the auction is clearly forcing, it is presumptious to define it as "Minorwood" - cue bidding should take precedence. Look at it this way: if key cards are all that matter, cue bidding will usually work fine, but if cue bidding was necessary, either because that way you can find a key control or simply find out if partner is suitable, then Minorwood is not likely to get you a sensible result. An example: ♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦AQxx ♣xx You deal and the auction goes: 1♠-3♣-3♦-Pass 4♦-Pass-4♥-Pass 4♠-Pass-6♣-All Pass You have an easy auction because partner has: ♠Qx ♥Axx ♦KJxxxx ♣Kx (I'm ignoring the issue of what 4♣ would mean in this auction, since that is another can of worms). Playing "Minorwood", partner would respond 5♣ to 4♦ (aggressively showing two plus the trump queen when holding 6 trumps) and you would have no clue how to proceed. If you say to me that partner would continue to slam over 5♦, then I hope you hold: ♠AKJxx ♥KQx ♦Qxxx ♣x Your only way forward should never be Minorwood. In an uncontested auction such as 1♠-2♣-3♥ you will have a choice between cue bidding and Minorwood, but where the minor has not been agreed, 4m merely sets the suit.

The odds are much longer when you use the four-colour scheme: ♠♥♦♣ Since you now need thirteen of a suit.

Sorry - I just miss Lurpoa :( ♥.

Then they are not playing Muiderberg.

I might be being a bit thick, but isn't West going to raise to Three or Four Spades with four trumps and a singleton or void in a minor?

I would overcall 3NT over 3♥ as well.

I voted 5♣, but it's logical to smack 3♥. If the husband had a weak two available, he likely has exactly five hearts, so partner is probably 5215. It's going to be a real bloodbath if the 1♦ opener has stretched with some sort of fishy 3442 shape, which her comment arguably indicates. It's 1100 opposite partner's ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦x ♣Kxxxx (we take 3 diamonds, 3 spades and 2 clubs). If the hand isn't exactly as envisaged, we will usually pick up at least 200, which rates to score very well even if 5♣ is making, seeing as virtually no one is bidding it. Besides, against this pair, it will be far more entertaining taking a penalty than bidding and making 5♣. Put me down for Double!

It's off topic, because we do not have the faintest idea what the auction was, so the problem is meaningless. The discussion only got going because of some bizarre suggestions regarding how to signal. How on earth do you expect us to discuss the defence with no relevant infomation? But, given that you know the hand, give us a plausible auction and you never know - rational analysis may ensue.

Yes (as a default), but only because you underlined it. There is also a big, grey elephant in the room - just because you play A from AK does not mean you always have the king.

Why not GWTP and just play GF transfers?

Well, you could look at the Kokishian flags and scrambles thing in IPBM from the early 80s - I could find it if you need. One of the Canadian pairs wee playing it in Shanghai. http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2007WorldChampionships-Shanghai/VeniceCup/canada/summerscaley-habert.pdf Note 30.

It just ain't so. You may be able to overruff dummy or partner may need to underlead to get you in with the queen to switch through dummy's weakness. And playing obvious shift, you sometimes have to encourage (or play an unreadable card) when you can't stand the switch. Partner may have difficulty divining what to do next, but straight SP is not the answer, and count is even worse.

No - you can make it if West underruffs with the ♠8 and ♠7. :P

That reminds of General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth. He will virtually always think he has the right shape send us over the top. I think voids are a big part of our range, because with a void we will double back in with almost our whole range, but with a singleton, we need a suitable max.