lbyer

I agree with Cascade

Jlal - first let me say that I play limit raises with 3+ trump support. The 10-12 pt hands with 3 card support represent no problem. I agree that the hands posted represents something of a problem - not sure how 2n would be interpreted after the 2♠ bid

Not sure why 1n cannot be used with 3 card support. If for example 1♥ - 1N - 2♣ - 2♥ would be min (true you can't distinguish between 2 or 3 but opener can still explore with a big hand). Can you suggest a problem hand? I would think Asking bids would be useful slam investigating tools at a low level. Here 1M - 2M would guarantee Game+ and the slam investigation can start immediately.

With devices like Bergen and 1N fording - has anyone considered the possibility of using a direct raise of major (and even minor) as asking Gamma style (outside controls replaces length) Step 1 - 0 Top Honour (0-4 outside controls) Step 2 - 1 Top Honours (0-4 outside controls) Step 3 - 2 Top Honours (0-4 outside controls) Step 4 - 3 Top Honours (0-4 outside controls) Step 5 - 0 Top Honour (5+ outside controls) Step 6 - 1 Top Honour (5+ outside controls) Step 7 - 2 Top Honours (5+ outside controls) Step 8 - 3 Top Honours (5+ outside controls) Further clarification, Ace asking or Outside Suit asking bids can then be used. Any comments?

How about this for a non-artificial sequence? 1♠ - 2♣ - P - 2♥ P - 2♠ - P - 3♥ P - 4♣ - P - 4[NT] P - 5♣ (3 key) - P - 6♣ I guess I wouldn't get to 7

I would neg double. This is a 5 card spade suit headed by the 10 with min values. Why not inform p that you have a spade holding and suggest min values. I think free bids should show more than a min.

2♣ - Partner may be on a 3 card diamond suit. 3NT is possible with all sorts of minimum hands - but partner should be the one to play it.

Re Gerber 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♣ (or 4♦) being misinterpretd as gerber I only use Gerber directly over 1 (or2) NT so not a problem for me. This sequence would be sensible for a mild slam try - most likely showing a long second suit but possibly cueing an A and confirming 6 (or 7) spades. As I mentioned earlier opening NT bidder can now cue bid, raise the second suit, or with a minimum stop in 4♠. Even if opening NT bids 4♠ - responder may have a bigger hand and continue with RKC. I don't see the problem or the need/advantage of agreeing to play Texas for "mild" slam tries.

Re showing mild slam interest without using Texas Why not bid 1N - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♣,♦ (whether a cue bid or a real second suit - it implies a hand with some slam interest - partner may elect to bid RKC, cue bid, support second suit, or with a minimum and little trump support - stop in 4♠

Firstly if ops 2♥ bid is natural - then 4♥ must imply at least 5 spades (what else can it be??). Personally, I don't like Texas - I don't see why it is important to reach the 4 level so quickly when partner advertises a powerful hand. Are we worried ops will get in and bid 4?? That's a big risk to them - all the more so if they don't know the strength of responder's hand. I think this would only be feasible under favourable vulnerability

mikestar - if you read the earlier threads you would notice that 6 diamonds was a laydown. Do you think one should play in 3♦ when 6 diamonds is a laydown - without even the opportunity to explore?? I agree that Pass is the correct bid over 3♦; The initial 3♦ bid is not good - see my earlier post. I remember reading about a hypothetical hand in a book by Reese. The hand consisted of all 13 diamonds and Reese's question was what's the best bid. I think he opted for four diamonds (tactical underbid) with the idea of moving up in slow increments - likely to end up in 6 or 7 diamonds doubled. Although this was only a theoretical discussion - I think it brings out an interesting point about bidding distributional hands. Sometimes it is better to start low with good and distributional hands - ops may not fully understand the HCP vs distributional strength of the hand. At the same time partner is able to contribute to the final contract.

I would not bid 3♦ with this hand. I would agree with those who would open this hand 1 diamond. A weak 2 diamonds is second best. My preference is to pre-empt with BAD hands - not good ones, and I like my partner to do the same.