EricK

Not an easy hand, and I don't really like 3NT. But I think leaving partner in 3NT is ignoring both the suit-orientedness of this hand and its massive slam potential (even taking into account the likely wasted values in ♥, you don't need much in the other suits from partner to make 6♣ seriously odds on)

But only when you make them.

I don't like the 1♠ at all. If you do have a 4-4 fit there, they are almost certainly breaking badly with the missing honours misplaced; you give LHO more options (he now has pass and double, as well as all his other options); you mislead partner as to the location of your strength; it's not lead directing. The bid seems all downside with no compensating upside.

I voted for true/true. But whereas I would be totally shocked if evidence came to light now that showed that evolution was false; I wouldn't be so shocked about the other.

Playing 12-14 NT I open 1NT. I would do this no matter what form of Stayman we were using.

If your 1NT range includes 16 point hands, then it is a 1NT opener.

3NT for me. Yes, we might miss a superior 4♥, and yes, we are giving up on penalising the opps. But it seems to be the bid which is most likely to get us to a sensible spot without risking a mishap.

That's very unlucky, but no method will avoid all bad results. This was a bad result of the methods chosen. There ought to be plenty of good results to compensate.

3♣ is clearly ridiculous IMO. Partner is a passed hand and has bid your shortest suit. The hand is obviously something of a misfit for both sides. In particular, partner is pretty much marked with ♠ length under the 1♠ opener, a couple of ♥s, no ♣Q, and about 6 points. You can almost see 6 or 7 losers in a ♣ contract before the opening lead is even made.

If I open 1♠, pard responds 2♥, and I want to be in game facing a minimum, what to do ? Bid 4♥. Don't want to be in game facing a minimum ? Bid 3♥. Don't have ♥ support ? Bid ♠, NT, or a minor. Can't see any gain to a 'waiting' 2♠. One gain is that on hands which want to get to game in ♥ opposite a minimum you still leave room below game if partner is interested in more.

They seem pretty harmless to me. Especially when compared with a lot of stuff which is already allowed.

"Make's no sense" is surely an overstatement. On a hand with ♥ support that doesn't want to play in game opposite a purely invitational hand, you make a waiting bid of 2♠, partner makes his proposed follow up, and you now show your ♥ support. Since you have two ways of getting to 3♥, you can use them to show different strengths. It might not be perfect, but what simple system is going to be perfect?

There can be no mileage in playing this as anything other than forcing. Responder has inv+ strength and there is a double fit. How can opener possibly judge when it is right to pass?

Good question! Certainly a hand like ♠KQxxx ♥Qxxxx ♦xx ♣x is normally going to be better than one like ♠Jxxxx ♥Jxxxx ♦KJ ♣Q even though it has one fewer "point". On the other hand, it is not clear wether the best way to deal with this is to upgrade the former, downgrade the latter, or perhaps do both. I'm not really that experienced with relay systems, but I tend to side with your partner on this one. I suspect that upgrading will only really help if your sytem is one whereby partner could pass in a situation where you are fairly sure that game should be bid. Or to put it another way, if you will generally be able to show your shape anyway in the non-relay auctions, then you are more likely to reach the correct contract if you don't upgrade than if you do.

I thought about this line, but figured that from declarer's point of view, South is a. almost certain to go up with an honour on the second round of diamond (declarer can't possibly foresee that North has devilishly underled ♦KQ) and b. less likely to believe that declarer has two singletons, so is less likely to fall for the ruse in ♣ once you have shown your singleton in ♦ by ruffing the second ♦.

And perhaps in that scenario, the point is to go up with the ♦A, cash the ♣A playing the ♣J from hand and then lead the ♣9 from dummy, trying to persuade South that you had a singleton ♣ and so not rise with his K on the second round. ;)

If we do splinter, is partner meant to cue-bid ♥ if he has a singleton there? If not (and I suspect not!) then we will miss a lot of very good slams even if we do splinter.

2♠ usually followed by either a bid in ♣ or a plaintive cry of "surely WJS aren't standard?!"

No system gives you judgement. If you start with a system which requires more judgement, all that happens is that your lack of judgement becomes noticeable far sooner. My local clubs are full of people who 1. Play Acol 2. Have Played Acol for years 3. Display close to zero bridge judgement

If your novel meaning is, say, a WJS then you have reduced the number of sequences available on the strong hands. If your novel meaning is, say, a splinter, then you have reduced the frequency of the SJS, so have still increased the proportion of strong hands which have to go through 1M and the consequent vague forcing bids which inevitably follow.

That's really quite a naive comment. Just because 1♥ is forcing doesn't mean that the GF/slam invitational hands will be able to be bid accurately. In fact, one of the more common hand types posted on this forum in the "assign the blame" or "what went wrong" threads is the one in which responder bids 1M when they have a SJS type. This is certainly evidence that, in practice, the SJS is useful.

I suspect you did not read the post. Did you not see that 3D was non forcing and that means opener could pass it even with 4H? Does it necessarily mean that? The replies could be: Pass - 3 hearts and minimum 3♥ - 4 hearts and minimum Higher bids non-minima of various sorts.

After a reverse, you need some way of showing support for partner's first suit in a forcing manner without going past 3NT. Most, I think, play something artificial (a Lebensohl-ish 2NT for instance) so that your 3♣ would have been forcing. If partner is going to pass 3♣, then he would likely pass 2NT as well, so that is no improvement. In such circumstances, probably the best you can do is bid 3NT, knowing that partner will not know what to do if he has eg a 1-3-4-5 hand. FWIW, I think the North hand should simply open 1NT. This certainly simplifies everything (but might, depending on your methods, risk getting to an inferior 4M if partner has a 5521 type)

What happens if towards the end of an event a pair who is out of contention is playing against a pair in whom they own a stake?

That's alright then, otherwise there would be a terrible conflict of interest.