EricK

Most play this as forcing, and I believe it is much better. Note that if you are forced to double on any strong hand then you might only get to show what you have at a high level. eg 1♦ (2♥) X (P) 3♣. And now advancer only gets to show ♠ at the 3 level. While this is OK here because his suit is so good, suppose he only had 5 of them? It is much better to be able to explore the right game (or slam) starting at a low level. The ability to stop in 2♠ (or 3m) is a small target after the opponent's pre-empt.

I think you are going to need very firm agreements as to follow ups if you are to reliably stay out of game when partner has a little more than a minimum, but bid to the right game if he has a bit more than that.

I don't think this is strong enough to reverse, and in such cases I prefer to raise a major with 3 card support, rather than rebid a 5 card suit, so 2♠ for me. But some partners pretty much demand 4 cards for the raise. In which case I bid 2♣, and hope we aren't left in a 5-1 (or 5-0!) "fit".

Under these conditions I bid 3♥ asking for a stop.

The general consensus, I think, is to also have the bid deny a 4 card major. I also think (and this is not general consensus!) that splinters opposite 1m are not a great idea in any case. When the opened suit is a major, it is very likely you want to be in 4M (or more). However, when the suit is a minor, 3NT is always a lively possibility, and a splinter leaves almost no room to decide on the best game.

I think double is right, but's it's pretty close to being strong enough for 2♥. I also think you very well might find a 5-3 heart fit even after a double. Partner will frequently bid a 3 card major here if he lacks a four card major, and will bid ♥ if he has 3 of both. For that reason, it is slightly more awkward if we have 5♠ and 4♥, and might be worth stretching to bid 2♠ in that scenario. As the auction unfolded, partner shouldn't pass 3♦. He has made a minimum bid, but he has a 6 loser hand, all his HCP are clearly working, and you have heavily suggested ♣ shortage (having shown both majors and raised ♦. He should re-evaluate his hand as (at least) game invitational.

If you don't bid 4♠ here at this vulnerability, you will get talked out of any number of good contracts with relatively meagre returns in exchange.

Perhaps you can bid 3♦ nominally asking partner to bid 3NT. Then (assuming opps remain silent), partner will either bid 3NT in which case 4♣ should show a hand interested in slam with solid ♣; or he will bid something else, in which case 4♦ will show a hand with solid ♣ and first round ♦ control. If opps bid more, the whole thing becomes even murkier than it already is. I'm not sure what an immediate 4NT is, but I don't think it should be ace asking.

Surely the West hand has to bid 2♥ if not playing 2/1 and a forcing NT - even if it is nominally 10 points and a 5 card suit. If partner opened a weak NT, I suspect most holding this hand would punt game. Hence I don't see how you can make a non-forcing non-Heart bid.

I think the 1NT-ers have persuaded me that, with agreement, it is the best bid on the North hand. But what are the follow-ups? If south rebids a suit, how long is it, and how strong is his hand? If he cues 2♦, how strong is that (GF?), and what, if anything, does it say about suit lengths? Does 2NT/3NT by South show a double stopper, a single stopper or half a stopper plus hope? Also, has North explicitly denied a 4 card major by bidding 1NT? Or should he also choose 1NT on hands with a weak 4 card major and a good ♦ stop? So if South does cue 2♦, what does 2M by North mean - a good 3 card suit, or a bad 4 card suit? I can see that with firm agreements, you are likely to get to the right game on most hands where game values are there - but I can also see without those agreements, both sides might be flailing about.

I would guess that playing transfer splinters, 1♠ 3NT shows short ♣; 4♣ shows short ♦ 4♦ shows short ♥ and 4♥ could be natural. You could play that completing the transfer shows the Ace and anything else denies it - which might be useful for partner to tell how well the hands fit if he could have either a void or singleton.

They do allow it*. eg that is what an EHAA 2 level overcall is. You just have to agree it with partner :) * They don't allow you to call it a "jump", of course

Are 2 bids strong or weak or do you have a choice? If strong (or weak), does 2C have to be natural (strong (or weak)) or can it be any GF?

My hand is not that strong, in context. Due to system constraints I have managed to bid 3 suits on a 4-3-3-3 8 loser hand, and my first bid suit is my weakest. I could equally have a 4-3-1-5 hand with good ♣. The difference in playing strength between these two hands is huge. And furthermore, partner has, at this stage, no idea what cards are useful and what ones aren't. ♦xxx ♣QJ is one loser opposite ♦x ♣AKxxx and 4 losers opposite what I actually have. I'm not certain he even has 4♠! How might he bid ♠Kxx ♥QJxx ♦xxxx ♣AK, for instance? Is he the type to gamble NT with 4 ♦ losers opposite a fairly likely singleton? I think I have to bid 2NT here. It shows the ♦ stop, shows I have at least a semi-balanced hand, and strongly hints that whatever else we have, we won't have 5 running club tricks.

By partnership agreement, 2♠ now just shows shape, rather than extras. Or, by partnership agreement, 2♠ shows extras, and 2♥ just shows 5♥, and denies the ability to make a stronger bid. In the latter case, responder will bid 2♠ if he has 4 and the fit comes to light (plus the inference that opener does not have extras). Personally, I think the latter approach is much better. But many good players seem to disagree.

I don't see why these days you can't bid 2♠. Then on the next round 3♥.

It looked like an obvious 3♦ to me. I have read the countervailing opinions and they are only slightly persuasive. So my bid is still 3♦. I believe partner will bid 3NT with the right minimum - as this would have to include ♦AK, and he will assume they are running.

I think 2♣ is best. The upside of being able to bid on a hand this weak is that you often get the par score of 2M. The downside comes when both you and partner have approximately 12/13 points, and he daren't play you for a hand that strong, and you daren't play him for one, so you score +170 instead of +300/+400 (defending 1NT) or +600/+620 (declaring 3NT/4M) - but those hands are difficult against a Weak NT whatever system you play.

You're lucky. My partner would take it as natural, and still bid 5♥.

There's a chocolate-covered biscuit bar available in the UK called a Club. On Monday night, I arrived at a table and my RHO had a couple of these on the table in front of him. So naturally, I turned to my LHO and asked "What do you understand by your partner's two Clubs?"

Does the fact that you are allowed to psyche increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game? Does the fact that your opponents might be psyching increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game? Does the fact that partner might be psyching increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game? If psyching were banned, so none of the above would be a concern, by how much would it affect your enjoyment of the game? Even though I quite enjoy being allowed to psyche, I must admit that I think of psyches I could do far more often than I actually (have the courage to?) do them. And I reckon if psyching were banned it wouldn't really make for a worse or less enjoyable game. At least, I wouldn't enjoy it any less - would you?

What the deuce are you talking about, Jack?

1. He generally doesn't. Although in the case of the first sequence, responder might voluntarily bid to 3 later in the auction if there is competition, thus strongly hinting at a 4th ♥ 2. He makes a trial bid in another suit asking partner to evaluate his hand further. Partner will generally bid game with a maximum or a good fitting hand which isn't maximum.

An insufficient bid is the answer to many difficult bidding problems (as long as the opps don't notice). Unfortunately, in the sequence given in the OP, you would have had to bid 3♦, not 2. The specific sequence in the actual hand is different though, as 2♥ as well as being a repeat of opener's first suit, is also the cheapest bid. A useful principle of bidding system design is to try to have higher bids be more specific than lower bids. However, even here, I would prefer to play 2♥ as nothing to say (so probably x or xx in ♠), and 2♠ as something like Hx in ♠ and no ♦ stop - because if partner has no ♦ stop either, then the most likely game is in a 5-2 major fit. But the problem on the actual hand, was that West bid FSF when he wasn't interested in the answer. Instead of FSF followed by an ambiguous 4♣, he can just bid 4♣. I may be doing you and your partner a disservice here, but I'm not at all sure that the bids between 3♣ and 4♣ in the sequence you quoted added anything useful to the auction. He also might have been better served bidding 2♣ rather than 1♠, as this gets the strength over straight away and helps opener evaluate any singleton he might have - on this hand, you are probably never playing in ♠ unless opener can bid them, so it is not so vital to show your weak 4 card major here.

Do you play that a non-jump actually shows support? What would you bid with say ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AJxxx ♣KQxx? I think it is clearly best to be able to bid 2♠ here. I also think it is clearly best to be able to raise immediately with 3 card support and a minimum hand. Which leaves the jump support as showing the other sort of hand - 3 card support with extras!