nullve

Some play versions of T-Walsh where some (otherwise awkward?) hands with 4c support go through the transfer acceptance. For example, you could play 1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N; 2♠ = 15-17 BAL w/ 4 S .

3M is Law protected with 4423 (4432) opposite 4441 (4414): 17 total trumps 4423 (4432) opposite 4450 (4405): 18 total trumps and even 4423 (4432) opposite 4423 (4432): 17 total trumps but not with 4423 (4432) opposite 4432 (4423): 16 total trumps . There is of course no guarantee that total trumps = total tricks on particular deals.

Invitational values or Law protection in 3M, perhaps. Then Responder could still use Garbage Stayman on weak hands with both majors except with 44(32).

Found this deal from the 1981 Bermuda Bowl final [hv=pc=n&sn=Rodwell&s=sakt63hk75d974ct8&wn=Munir&w=sq987haq964d6ck97&nn=Meckstroth&n=s2ht8dakqt852c642&en=Fazli&e=sj54hj32dj3caqj53&d=w&v=0&b=72&a=1h3hd3nppdpprppp&p=s7]399|300[/hv] here. I have no idea whether Meckwell thought they were playing standard jump cuebid overcalls. The redouble showed doubt.

Yes.

This is a textbook 3♥ overcall.

This has also been standard bridge for 80+ years.

X Takeout in principle, although partner will apply LoTT and usually pass, even at this vulnerability.

Who hasn't invented the Schuler shift? :unsure:

It's ok to have a style where this a 3♦ opening in 1st seat NV. (I do.) I think slam prospects are good. One response scheme which seems to be quite popular, is 4♣ = "transfer to hearts" 4♦ = "transfer to spades" 4♥ = "transfer to clubs" 4♠ = "transfer to diamonds" where after a 4♠ response Opener will rebid as follows: 4N = RKC(♦) 5♣ = Last Train (i.e. some interest) 5♦ = minimal interest . Playing this, I would respond 4♠ but sign off in 5♦ over 5♣ from partner. --------- This would be a harder bidding problem at MPs for obvious reasons.

Is 4♦, either directly over 2N or after 2N-3♣; 3♦, really not available to set diamonds as trumps? The auction could go 1♣-1♦ 2N-(3♣ 3♦)-4♦ 4M*-4N** * cue ** RKC(♦) or 1♣-1♦ 2N-(3♣ 3♦)-4♦ 4N*-5♣/♦** 5♥***-5N**** * RKC(♦) ** whichever shows 0 or 3 *** trump Q ask **** trump Q, no black king, grand slam interest .

By what authority is 8-10 the true range of the 1N advance?

How does West know that East already knows that West has a spade control?

I suggested using 4N as "Non-forcing RKC" over 2N-3♥; 3♠ in this thread. Could do the same over 1N-2♥; 2♠, with responses something like P = MIN and no fit 5♣,...,5♠ = RKC responses with a fit (but 5♠ should also be NF) 6N = MAX, to play . This is my post number 2000, btw.

1N-2♥* 2♠-4N** * transfer to spades ** quantitative, usually 5♠(332)

Are you sure?

The heart finesse is still around 50% when we know the opening lead was from A863? Well, maybe against players who we can assume would always lead from their "longest and strongest" suit. But at least against good opponents who we can assume know their Bird-Anthias*, that lead seems awkward, suggesting (if not guaranteeing) that a passive heart lead was impossible. So I'd happily commit to the club finesse and rise with the ace at this point. * I realise I have to re-read their book on notrump leads

IMPs? ♠3 = ? Assuming IMPs and that the ♠3 is "4th best", I'll continue spades at trick 2!! The idea is that if opps now cash their spade tricks (hopefully only four!), I'll be in a better position to guess which finesse is working, if any. Not only because it's a priori better to finesse through the player with only four spades, but also because I get a chance to see * that player's discard on the last spade * exactly what spade suit LHO led from (does it suggest an awkward lead?) * what the player with the fifth spade will shift to . For example, if the lead seems to have been awkward, then other leads probably looked at least as awkward, which to me is a strong indication that the heart finesse isn't working and that I should I try to play the club suit without a loser instead. But, depending on what has happened after six tricks, I might do better by cashing the ♥A first (in case the ♥K drops) before taking the (first) club finesse! Enough details for now, I think.

Joke formula I often think about when people say points don't take tricks: E=mc^2, where E = # of tricks m = # of points c = 3/5 . So e.g. 9 = m*(3/5)^2 => m = 25 and 12 = m*(3/5)^2 => m = 100/3 ~ 33 .

Thought I should remind people what one-suited hands with 16 hcp and 6 hearts look like, since there tends to be no systemic rebid if not 3♥ on these hands in standard systems over 1♥-1♠. So here are 100 randomly dealt hands using hcp(west)==16 and hearts(west)==6 and shape(west, any 6322 + any 6331) produce 100 action print(west) .

In a strong MP field, almost every EW pair would be able to reach 4♥, e.g. after 1♣/1♦/1N-(3♠)-X(=negative), and make the contract. So competing to 4♠ would be the winning action for NS. Back at your table, are you sure West wouldn't compete to 5♥ over 1N-(3♠)-4♥(???)-(4♠)? Are you sure East, who just bid 4♥ on a 4c suit and then managed to go down down, would never let 4♠X through, e.g. after 1. ♦A-♦6-♦8-♦3 2. ♦4*-♦K-♦5-♦2 3. ♠K-♠A-♠6-♠3 4. ♦T**-♦7-♦Q-♠2 * "the ♦8 looked encouraging, must follow order" ** "haven't forgotten that ♦8, partner!" ?

The real bidding problem on the first deal is: [hv=pc=n&w=s987643h64daqt2cq&d=n&v=0&b=5&a=p1c1h1s3hpp?]133|200[/hv] What I often do in situations like this is to try to figure out the distribution around table is and then apply LoTT (with adjustments). More specifically, before I apply LoTT I assume that the actual distribution around the table is close to the mode distribution(s) around the table or, rather, what I get when I try to divide each suit as evenly as possible consistent with the bidding and the requirement that each player get 13 cards. (If that's a silly method, please let me know. :)) Here, for example, I get N: 2434 E: 3235 S: 2533, so I'd assume there are close to 18 total trumps. My poor trumps and (in my experience) also South's assumed 5T(332) shape suggest that total tricks may be lower than this, although rarely as low (16) as on the actual deal. So (by LoTT w/ adjustments) I'd assume 17 total tricks and bid 3♠ (competitive, NF) accordingly. On the second deal I assume the 2♥ response was forcing to at least 2N. Then one possible agreement is that it sets up forcing pass to 2N, and North's pass over the 2♠ advance would actually be forcing. It doesn't seem like you have that agreement, so in this position [hv=pc=n&n=sk86h875dT52cakqj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s2h2s?]133|200[/hv] you only had to decide whether to raise or not. You passed, which looks kind of defensible in view of the poor trump holding and the K of their suit (collectively suggesting total tricks < total trumps), so now your partner got the following problem [hv=pc=n&s=s4hakj62dj98c9764&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s2h2spp?]133|200[/hv] instead. LoTT would have told him not to pass, of course. LoTT (or a corollary to it, "bid to the level of your fit") would also have told you what to do in this position [hv=pc=n&s=st86h76dkj76ckt73&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n3s4h?]133|200[/hv] on the third deal, and your partner what to do in this position [hv=pc=n&n=s985ht764dkjt3cj6&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp3cd?]133|200[/hv] taken from a very recent thread.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa65hakq32d85ct53&n=skqt4h84dak42c974&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d2c2hp2sp3cp3hp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] 3♣: cheapest GF bid (2N, 3♦ and 3♥ would all be NF) 3♥: 2c support, definitely fewer than six diamonds, likely 4243 (but could have bid 3♦ with 4252, I guess) 3♠: likely 3c support and doubts about 3N (but maybe Responder would bid this way also with 4c support if worried that 1♦-(2♣)-2♥; 2♠-3♠ would have been NF) 4♠: spades good enough even opposite 3c support, doubts about 3N, no significant extras (so 12-14 hcp if 4243)

Their Munksgaard's 2♣ is not exactly "0-8, any" but . I infer from their CC that they usually pass in 1st/2nd NV vs V with a) 0-8 hcp, (4333) b) 7-8 hcp and 3+ controls if the shape is wrong for 2♦/2N/3♦/4m/4N+ c) 9 unBAL if too weak for 1♦/1M/2M/3♣/3M/3N or if the shape is wrong for 2♦/2N/3♦/4m/4N+ d) 9-11 BAL (too strong for 2♣, too weak for 1N) . I agree with you that the meaning of Pass should be on the CC. In fact, I think it should regardless of the system being played, because there is really no such thing as a standard Pass "opening".

Vendetta Club is hardly a Forcing Pass system. Even NV vs V, when their 2♣ is fert-like, Pass seems to have an upper limit in 1st/2nd seat of 11 hcp if BAL and 9 hcp if unBAL.