Siegmund

Looks like a take-it-or-leave-it slam to me. And, mike, if you do open this hand 1NT, that may actually make the slam more likely to get bid... for instance: 1NT-2C 2S-3H (3H = strong spade raise, singleton somewhere) 4C-4D (4C = cuebid, happy about exploring for slam no matter where the singleton is) 4S-4N and finding only one key missing. Given the 1S opening, I flip a coin between 2H and 4C. It is a maximum for 4C, and it's unlucky West has nothing to cuebid over 4C, but I wouldn't go as far as blaming anybody.

It is mentioned in Roy Hughes's book Building a Bidding System: "This was a normal system, except that the first- and second-chair meanings of Pass and 1C were switched." He doesn't go in to any more detail than that. The 80s World Championship Books usually spend a page on each team's system in the front of the book - but I don't happen to have the 1987 book in my collection.

Traditional at one time, and still popular in my area, is showing stoppers at the 2-level, with 2NT and 3m by either partner at any time passable. (So if you had 15 but both majors stopped, you better start with 2H and then continue when partner tries to sign off.) 1m-2m-3M usually a GF splinter. It works best in conjunction with 1m-2NT natural and forcing, since it's a structure designed to handle both inv-vs-GF and stoppers-vs-not. It works very well for only getting you to 3NT when everything is stopped. But it gets a little frustrating when the field blasts 3NT blindly and makes it on a wrong lead or a 4-4 break in the wide-open suit and your double-dummy-perfect 3C+1 scores about 20%. I am reluctantly considering giving it up if I find a structure I like better. There are a wide variety of conventional alternatives. Most of them feature just one way for each partner to show a minimum. Some reserve one of opener's rebids for 4441 and another to promise 5m.

I don't care for the ambiguous length rebids after a canape 1M opening either. I am currently experimenting with the following method to avoid them -- I do not honestly know if it works as well as I hope it does, but I dont recall seeing it previously: 1H-1S-1NT: "I am willing to discuss a 4-4 minor fit." 1H-1S-2m: promises 5+m even if weak (still doesn't tell us if 4H or 5H yet.) 1H-1NT, 1S-1NT: "I am willing to discuss a 4-4 minor fit." 1S-2D, etc: "I don't care if you have a 4-card side suit, only tell me about 5+" In competition that takes us past 1NT, perhaps NegX implies willingness to hear about 4-card suits and anything else means only bid 5+ suits.

Looks like I am the lone 3NT bidder here. With reponder passing, too easy for me to see us losing the first 3 tricks in 5C to be eager to go that route. I also think that them having 8 hearts is far more likely than 10, and quite possibly close to a tie with 9. Maybe my partners bid 3C with 3-4-1-5 more often than others do.

For a while this past year I experimented with 1NT 11-14 no 4CM, and started off with ETM-like responses (2C asking 2 vs 3 hearts, 2D asking 2 vs 3 spades) which really acted more like 2-under transfers than Staymanlike bids. But I gave them up, and switched to something much more Keri-like: 2C = diamonds any strength or invitation any shape, 2D/H transfers (weak or GF), 2S asking for better minor, 2NT transfer to clubs, 3any natural GF. I am curious how the 11-14 without 4 spades works. I felt 11-14 with no restrictions came up too often and was too hard to control. Playing a regular weak notrump, I'd try the ETM responses again just for variety's sake. :)

Given the description of partner's hand, seems very likely we have 10, and only 10, tricks in hearts, while we have either 4 or 5 on defense. Any action other than double strikes me as going waaay out on a limb.

Yes, kind of. I've just started playing it this winter, with a partner who wanted to try Polish Club and wanted to try Weak NT, and this way we kill two birds with one stone. I had more extensive experience in the mid-90s with other Polish variations. At the time AUC was new, the gains were in part from opening 11-18 when everyone else opened 13-22. :) I find there is very little difference between 11-18 and standard. Because many of 19+ auctions can be awkward, perhaps it is fair to say that the 18-point cutoff was chosen to make the 1M range as wide as it could comfortably be, to keep the strong auctions fairly rare. I very much like AUC's 2C opening. Most the time I like the weak NT -- however, I really wish I could open more balanced 11s. I find an 11-14 notrump including 4-card majors too much to handle so reluctantly play 12-14 in AUC. (Playing Polish I opened all balanced 11s with 1C or 1D.) Playing other Polish variations where 1D was 4441 or 5+, I felt I gained more over 1D, especially in competion, than I lost by opening the 4342s with 1C. AUC requires the 1D opening on both 4-5 and 5-4, which is awkward on the first round, but does a very good job of separating the two meanings on the second round. (I am willing to put up with opening 1D on 4-5 in AUC because of that; playing SA or 2/1 I hate it.) Similarly, many of the other custom jump shift rebids come in handy -- allowing you to cope with at least half of the Bridge World Hands of Death for instance. It can be what you want it to be. I, however, am never opening 1NT with a 5-card major, and passing 1M-1NT with my 5332 11-13s. The system notes do specify 2/1 not game forcing (and jump shifts by opener after 1D/H/S not forcing(!). I have a feeling many people find this too uncomfortable, and simply substitute their whole 1M structure into AUC.

It's quite common in my area -- on maybe 25% of the int-adv crowd's convention cards. I, personally, don't ever play it. Not because it is "bad," but because it's a solution to a problem that only exists if you play the "wrong" set of responses to a 1H opening. I just bid 1H-1S whenever I have 4, and play that my semiforcing 1H-1NT can be passed by a minimum 4S5H opener. On your posted hand, all those 200s aren't there "because they weren't playing Flannery," but rather, because East wasn't imaginative. After the bidding starts 1H-1S-2S, the other Easts know exactly as much about West's hand as you do after the 2D opening. Those other Easts simply failed to see any potential in their 7-loser hand and make a second bid.

I meant that I found it strange that 1C-1H-1S was forcing. A quick check confirms that this sequence is forcing in e.g. Matula; but it seems that when Americans learn Polish Club we learn many sequences including this one as "a hand that would make that same bid in SA," and go our whole lives playing it as 11-18, NF. So, in this instance, I admit I am the strange one not you :)

The versions of Polish I've played, the 1S rebid would be rather strange. (But I realize WJ05 is quite different than several of the older published versions, and I didn't always play it exactly as published. Having 1S be F1 and including some hands up to 20 in it is probably an improvement.) This is a bad hand for Unassuming Club, where responder does a lot of describing but opener doesn't: 1C-1H 2C-3C (any 19+ / 6-9 or 13+ with 4H 5+C) 3S-? (opener's first natural bid) Now responder is in kind of a bind, not wanting to bid 3NT without a stopper and perhaps wrongside it too, and not eager to raise spades with only Qx. But I think if I were North I would bid 4S here. In Malfoir, North is not starting with a positive (positives normally require 8, and 4-card heart suits are occasionally suppressed even with 8 or 9): 1C-1D 2S-2NT (natural 19-22ish / 5-7, transfer to clubs) 3C-3H (confirming 3 clubs / natural, possibly just a stopper since 5S4H opener would probably bid hearts rather than accepting the club transfer) 3NT (to play)

I will respectfully suggest that there are odds questions, and philosophy questions, and what was posted in the OP was just an odds question, devoid of philosophy. When partner is 90% to have the card that makes it a 66% contract, OP already knows that bidding on is .66x.9~59% to work (so, in most cases, we bid on.) If you oversimplify, and say "you have a 90% chance of being in a great contract"... well... you are oversimplifying. When you have a 90% chance of being in a 51% contract (at MPs), or a 51% chance of being in a great (66%) contract, your oversimplification will cost you. That's the way oversimplifications are; often they work, sometimes they lead you astray.

There was a time, in the ancient past, when it might well have been penalty. I imagine generic extras is the most common meaning now. I have seen a few people who use X for 3 and any raise with 4, even though 1S showed 5 (and some people who don't play that 1S promises 5.) I personally like using this X to promise a doubleton honour, and several of my partners have tried it and liked it, but it's not something you should assume when you agree support doubles. As you say, many/most people do bid 2S on 3 cards here.

If he had Axx Qx AKx AJTxx, then no, the auction probably would be the same as it is here. (Now, if opener's diamonds were KQx or something, then he would have bid 3D rather than 3C, to show a holding that would be more useful in 3NT than in 4M if partner is short in diamonds, and we'd play 3NT.) If the auction wasn't the same as it is here, it would result in opener bidding 4S over 2D: maximum, all values working (3S, 2H, pure holdings in both minors.) That would have been the system bid after 1NT-2D-2H-2S (responder showing 5-5 invitational) but here opener should avoid blasting to 4S because he is aware of the risk it may be a 4-3 fit. Possibly so. It comes down to responder has to pick a game of his choice opposite 17 or 18 and 3-2 in the majors, and a hint that partner has medium club cards but aces and spaces in diamonds. My responder won't know anything about the suit quality in either spades or hearts. Here again it's a spot where responder's instinctive urge is to rush to 3NT, but I'm hoping opener's choice of 3C-vs-3D will help responder choose sensibly. I don't have any firm conviction what responder really would do, as far as spades vs. hearts. Straube can score it as whichever of 4H or 4S he thinks is fairer. I lean toward 4S as the more likely table result, in large part because opener might have dragged us there himself bidding as if partner had to be 5-5.

(Unassuming:) I didn't say 6NT was the best decision. I merely reported it's the decision I see 80 or 90% of int-adv types make in this situation, where they have determined they have slam values and do not have 8 cards in either major. I am trying hard to make myself jump to 6 of something else in spots like this, after seeing way too many times where the suit contract would have done a trick better. (Malfoir): If we assume responder will rebid 3H, then opener will try to sign off at 4H (my responder still hasn't shown extra strength just extra length) and then I can give a sweep cue-bid demonstration, though the system is much better suited to starting a level lower usually: 1C-1H 2D-2H 3C-3H 4H-4S (slam interest, first in spades) 5D-5S (first in both minors, but bad trumps under the circumstances / second in spades, and good enough trumps the 6-level is safe) 5NT-6NT (GSF / best possible trump holding, and all my cuebids were high cards not shortness) 7NT (and now disaster strikes: opener counts 2 spades, 7 hearts, 2 diamonds, and 2 clubs, and expects to be able to claim at trick 1.) The good news is he'll probably be forced to make it, with the spade onside.

Wouldn't even consider anything other than 5C favorable. The fact it's in third seat and no hope for one defensive trick makes it even clearer.

Voted 4H, on the theory that I need two fast tricks to make 3NT (cant afford to lose the lead once the spade stopper is gone), while any two working cards give me chances in 4H. Even the SK might be a 'working card' if they lead spades twice and I can pitch a club on it. It is true that we might have two spade stoppers, or might be unable to do anything with two diamonds a club and a spade in 4H. I am guessing it's a disagreement about frequencies rather than what is actually needed.

This is a terrible hand for Unassuming: 1D 1H 3C 3S 4C 6NT(?) The notes say 3C shows 15-18 and 5-5 minors, and denies 3 hearts, but is passable(!) because opener is limited to 18 and responder might have bid 1H on a misfitting 5, and they further say that 3H by responder in nonforcing, with 3OM as a generic force. Opener can't bid 3NT and can't show 2-card heart support, so what else can he do but 4C? At this point we have no more science, and responder just blasts something. My partners always seem to blast 6NT even though 6 of either partner's suit makes quite a bit more often. It is also a bad hand for Malfoir, which doesn't have a dedicated sequence to show a strong hand with both minors; opener is going to have to pick a minor to show first and hope he can catch up. Fortunately responder is insistent: 1C 1H (1H=8+, 4+ hearts, very often longer since many 4-card heart suits are suppressed) 2D 2H (natural 16-20ish, natural and forcing) 3C After this I am again a bit lost. Does responder rebid 3H as if he had 7 (after which he'll sail into 6H) or drive to 6D expecting an 8-card fit or blast to 6NT or what? So much bidding space left after 3C, and I have no clue how to use it, since it's sort of a dark corner of the system.

Unassuming has a boring auction: 1C-1H-1NT (15-18 balanced), checkback stayman method of your choice, 3NT. Malfoir backs itself into a corner but lands on its feet: 1C-1S (if opener has the 11-18 hand with 4 spades and <4 hearts, spades are going to be trump, so might as well conceal them, and take control of the auction) 1NT-2D (15-18 no 4CM / inv+ transfer, can be 4S5H or 5S5H) 3C-4S (maximum, 3 spades but usually not 3 hearts, values in clubs that might be wasted opposite shortness) and now responder really ought to be scared of playing 3NT, if opener chose to advertise club values rather than diamond values.

Unassuming Club is going with the field: 1C-P-1D-(1H) 3C-(3H) Opener jumps to 3C with the 16-18 hand and 6 clubs, bids 2C artificial with strong hands. It's a weird hand for Malfoir, which succeeds in shutting out the opponents: 1C-2S Since 1C includes 11+ hands with 4 spades, and 15-18 balanced hands, responder leaps to 2S on weak hands with 5 spades, willing to play in that spot anytime opener has spades or a balanced hand. Now opener has to decide whether to persist with 3C (forcing, 19+) or let 2S go. I think with Jx he should let it go, as a minor-suit game requires two cover cards (and two aces is not possible) nor does 4S look easy unless you are sure responder has six.

One more comment that West is not going to pass over an artificial 1C. In Unassuming Club: 1C-1D 1NT-2D (15-18 balanced / xfer) 2H-P -- or, perhaps 1C-1NT-2C-2H, depending what agreement you have about responder's 2M after 1NT-2C-2D. In my one regular AUC partnership, it would be invitational, so just transfer here. In Malfoir, a fun hand: 1D-3H. (11-18, exactly 4 hearts, any other shape / To play.) North doesn't HAVE to jump to 3, 2H is also to play -- but 2H is typically 4-7 and often only 3-card heart support.

Malfoir and Unassuming have the same auction here; 1C-1D 2NT-P (21-22, may include 4CM) (19-20 is 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT, 23-24 is 1C-1D-1H-1S-2NT.)

Playing Unassuming Club I probably opened an 11-18 1D (4-5 either way in the minors allowed, 1D-1M-2NT promises 4D5C while 1D-1M-3C is 5D4C or 55) despite the 4 losers because this shape is so awkward to show in a strong sequence. Playing Malfoir, I opened 1C, and rebid 2C if it goes p-1d-1h back to me, 16-20ish, usually 6 clubs.

Given your set of rules, especially #6, it likely is, for you. Of course I think that the whole set of rules implies you grossly overrate ace-asking. (No partner of mine is ever getting me to agree to at least three of your six rules.)

Looks like I am a lone passer. I suppose it depends who the opponents are - but I think they are more likely finish in 3H making 4 if I pass, than they are to finish in 4H going down if I bid. I at least understand considering 3S.But I can't remember the last time something good happened from bidding a 10-loser hand at the 3 level at my table.