Flame

Ken you example is imo not supporting cue bidding just the opposite, you explain that the key was the 4♣ bid which isnt the normal control showing, meaning exctly what im saying, control showing isnt the best way to go.

Im looking for general tools for slam invesrigation to use in nat system In nat systems most use cue bids + serious/non serious NT. The cue bids show a control and usually a slam interest. I wonder if showing controls are the way to go, I think there might be other things more important for slam decision then controls. Controls are good to check if we have 2 losers at the same suit, this is important but I dont think its the most important factor in the decision whater we belong or not. Now i want a general mechanisim just like cue bids, not something that works only after a specific sequence. Do you think control showing is the best way, and if not, what is better.

I general an opening bid could have a game opposite a 1H response therefore 3NT is definetly possible the only question is what it mean and you have heard the std meaning. I'll give a more extreme bid to explain what i mean. 1NT- 5♥, is this a possible bid in sayc ? yes slam is possilbe so it must be a possible bid although this doesnt mean i know what i mean.

Congrats justin wish you to have lots more to come.

I dont see the probem here just tell them: "0-9 hcp, signoff" also tell them how many spades it shows (does it implay exactly 3 cards ?)

Give weight to the overall strengh of the hand not only to the suit, always accept with maximum value always decline with minimum.

I believe using the 3 level bids for common hands but in a wasting space way will be the future, not long ago i suggested a similar idea here http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=14579&hl= I dont think ur way or my way is the right way but the idea is.

This is wrong, you say that if they dont know they need to learn, but the rules of bridge say you need to tell them and dont have the right to punish them for not knowing. You say that ppl with real expirence will know in other words you admite that some ppl without real expirience will not know and this is exactly why you must tell them because unless you do that you playing unfair bridge.

I dont like the "to play" explanation, but if you give it the opponenets still have the right to ask again and you need to explain more. so tell them what you told us, any hand that want to play 4M, it can be weak, or a better hand that want to be in game but doesnt have slam interest. You might think "To play" says it all, true it says it all to you and to me, but to someone who never seen something like that it doesnt. Same as when you bid 2D-P-2S where 2D is multy and 2S is p/c, i think the opponenets have the right to know that u usually have good hearts for this bid, yes its common sense, but its a fact that somoene who never played multy might just not get it and he deserve to know.

intresting ideas, but i since balance hands come so freqently, its 90% based on the simple question whather its better to play 4M or 3NT with 2 balanced hands.

Right

when one player already showed 25-26 hcp, a balance hand, and superaccept, he is limited and the need for serious 3NT isnt good enough to use this bid for it. In general serious 3NT only applay when both players are unlimited. like 1S-2H-3H. when atleast one player is limited there are better uses for 3NT, like turbo, ,RKB, cue bid in one of the suit or natural.

sry i thought north was playing and ment to sqeese east not west.

North 100% The play is interesting, we can assume the lead was from QJX(XX) and therefore there is no need to take the spade finnese cause if it works so does the spade diamond squeese on west. We can add the chance of diamond club squeese on west. So take the A of diamond, drow trumps, take the A of club, play A of diamond and ruff a diamond, if the J didnt fall, take all but one trumps out now, if west has the K spade or HXXX of club you make it.

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/bradco/sys...rimsonDeath.pdf

Its depends on thier agreement, if this doulbe according to thier system show something and the player had something else then its a psych.

Its not that the major isnt good, the problem is that the minor is better this can cause some problems. we could miss a 10 card fit in the minor after my LHO show his major and his partner support. We could just play go down 1 in the major instead of +1 in a minor contract. Another problem could be the lead, its likely that partner will be on lead and with some of those hands i prefer a club lead to a major lead.

I just read this http://www.masterpointpress.com/pdf/comp_bidding.pdf its nice and intresting but it come to me as a big surprise to what extreme he takes the 4 cards overcalls I also woder if this view is common between experts. Examples: RHO open 1D and you hold: ♠A J 8 5 ♥ 10 ♦A 8 ♣ A Q 10 8 4 2 ♠ A 7 ♥ K J 9 6 ♦ J 9 ♣ A K Q 10 3 ♠ K 9 ♥ K Q 8 6 ♦ J 7 ♣A J 10 9 6 With all those hands he recommand a major suit overcall.

If both hands are about the same strength this is a disadvantage. When you open 1NT you are very limited in strength and distribution. This is why so many books on defense have examples where someone opens 1NT: Such hands are easier to defend because you know a lot. Yes im talking about the normal 15-17 hcp range.

The fact that the 1NT hand remain close is an advance.

What is 3C in your version of bergen ? its not the normal bergen.

Not so easy, 1NT-2D-2H-2S-3NT and you missed it. You might find it when there is also H fit the then its less important.

awm how do bid 5♥4♠ invite ? Wouldnt you lose some 4-4 spade fit even with game value.

Thanks this looks very nice, the only problem with it is that you reveal little theexact major possition when playing puppet wouldnt, still i like it. I see that most world class dont use puppet stayman, do they use something like that to recheck for the major fit ? How would you bid the minors ? especially 5m 4M ?

Reading aprevious post on the forum i think it was a concensus that using kind of stayman when you only want to invite NT is bad tactic. I think maybe for the resson of hiding information there should be many hands which i would not ask for major even tho i have a 3 cards in it. Thanks alot to both of you for your help.