Siegmund

A lot of people were playing Wilkosz before they invented brown sticker rules too. Wish they had made that exception too! I hadn't been aware of the written-defense rule. But then, a) I can't imagine I'd need to refer to my notes to remember my multi defense, and :( not like I play in WBF events every day anyway.

Count certainly looks relevant to me. Opener might have 3 clubs and need to give me a ruff, have 5 clubs and need to switch immedidately, or have 4 clubs and need to think about whether to switch now or to cash the other high club and then take out dummy's entry.

I do. I am prepared to hate myself for it afterward.

There are various solutions. Going back to 1M-3M on three-card suits is quite possibly the worst of alternatives. (It's something that's in many beginner books, where the whole system is oversimplified, but was universally deprecated in advanced non-2/1 books from 1960s Goren to Commonsense Bidding and beyond -- if people seriously believe it is a normal part of standard american, they have been victims of an effective smear campaign by the 2/1 crowd which likes to compare the most crippled versions of SA it can find with 2/1.) If you play that 1M-2C-2M promises a rebid, you are in a bit of a bind. Coughing up a fake new suit is an option, but you're likely better off just stretching a bit. Some SA pairs agree that one or both of 1M-2C-2M and 1M-2C-2NT is nonforcing. This is appealing if you find yourself having a lot of trouble with 11-opposite-11 auctions. If you do play 1M-2C-2M as nonforcing (that limits 2M to ~11-13ish, and means the 3M jump starts a point or two weaker than it does for a lot of people), you pass with the worst limit raises as if your invitation has already been refused, jump to 4M with the best of them, and are free to play 1M-2C-2M-3M as a slam-try auction. That's the only sensible use for 1M-2C-2M-3M in my opinion anyway. You would gain more from having the slam sequences available than you would lose by getting to the occasional 23-point game if you are forced to overbid with the limit raise hands.

I am willing to XX with 4 clubs if they are KQxx/KJTx or better, but I am sure there are quite a few people who wait for five (or at least require KQTx to have an expectation of 3 club winners rather than just 2 certain ones plus prospects for more.)

It's much closer to the set of hands that acts over a weak two opener, than to the set that acts after that auction. 2D is unlimited; but it's still more limited than over a 1950s-era 1NT-p-2H, since the 1C opener is much less defined shapewise than over 1NT. As mentioned, you're not worried about game your way - but you are at the 2-level and you need to be prepared to survive having a strongish hand on your left not being able to nail you too easily. The posted hand I would bid NV-only-and-MP-only.

As has already been stated in the thread... Dummy does not ever play a card on his own initiative, and dummy does not ever tell declarer what to play next. Whether declarer chooses to do his thinking before or after he calls from a card is his own business - but thinking before is certainly the more usual way. As a defender, I will a) take my time to plan the defence before I play to trick one whether declarer pauses or not, and b> if dummy plays a card on his own initiative, I make a point of refusing to play until I hear declarer say something. On my nice days I ask declarer "are you ready for that card?"; on my less nice days I more actively abuse the dummy. (Yeah, against ZT. I admit it.)

...not SA either, the way I learned it: 1S-2C-2D-2S would be a 3-card limit raise. I'm sure there is someone out there who plays it the way the Hog does, but not textbook saycers!

Which part are you laughing at? You dont believe that South will usually have a good 7-card suit for a jump to 4 (he could have jumped to only 3, and would have with KQJxxx xxx xx xx)? You dont believe that people who have 7-card suits almost always have side stiffs? You dont believe that an ace-high 7-card suit is only about half a trick better than a king-high 7-card suit for offense, but about a full trick better for defense? Yes, partner made a takeout double once so he hasnt magically acquired a diamond stack. But the double, in preference to a 5S bid or a non-forcing pass, shows a hand with extras AND interested in defending. I don't consider it a remotely close decision to leave the double in as South. (Of course holding the actual North cards I wouldn't have considered doubling a second time - I would bid 5S as North but consider 5S-vs-pass reasonably close.)

I can't help thinking partner already has made a slam try, with 3H - we agreed spades as trump, and apparently our plan was to pattern out and see if partner did anything interesting. (I wonder if partner this we've already made a slam try with 3C?) Between partner's 3H-not-3D and our lack of anything to cuebid, I am fine with 4S now to pour cold water on things. I am sure some partnerships wouldn't allow me to do that, with partner still unlimited. (In fact in one of my partnerships, 3S would be a semi-automatic 'waiting bid' and the leap to 4S would promise possession of a control in every suit.)

Where was this example when we were asked last week to comment on the merits of reversing the meanings of A and K leads against notrump? North obeyed ill-considered orders, and it cost a trick when diamonds broke 4-1. I divide the blame equally between South for choosing the wrong lead, and the choice of system -- it seems that even on a Q lead, things are a little bit muddier than they would be playing standard leads, though it's possible to survive.

I already said I had a big spade suit and nothing else. I have nothing extra in offence; I have the SA, better for defence than KQJxxx(x) in spades, and I have the jack of diamonds. Why would I pull?

Taking the auction at face value: 3D - distributional extras, unwilling to miss out on the game bonus by defending anything cheap (most likely we're vul and they aren't) More often a 7-card suit than 6, but a good six and short hearts is certainly possible. 3H - stopper ask for 3NT 3S - I don't have it 4H - slam try in diamonds Given responder's hand, I don't care for the 3H bid, but given the auction up to 3S, 4C and 4H by responder have to be cuebids for diamonds (I'd prefer 4C first, but maybe their agreements are different, or maybe responder doesn't trust his partner to recognize a cuebid.) Instead of 3D, perhaps 4D if our style is to cuebid kings freely; thatll position us better to decide between 6D/6N/7D/7N. If we cuebid aces first I don't see anything better over 3D than RKCing and asking for kings if we get two keys.

Call me a chicken. I'm bouncing it only to 4S, not to five.

I still play new suits constructive but NF. There was a time I could safely assume that anyone who played (1C)-1H-(p)-1S was forcing was a beginner who assumed overcalls and opening bids had identical continuations. That has changed and quite a number of good players - still not the majority, IMO, but a very significant minority - play them forcing now. Gawd, that makes me feel old (and I'm still the youngest person at the club most nights.) I am not convinced any of the styles in use now (old-standard, new suit forcing, transfer advances, or exotic stuff like the Overcall Structure) is ideal. But for the time being I have settled for gluing bandaids onto the style I first learned: new suit NF is a LOT more playable with fit-jumps and jump cue constructive raise than it is straight out of Commonsense Bidding.

I voted 1S, but with KT9x in hearts the understrength 1NT isn't nearly as scary as it would be with a bare Kxxx.

Absent discussion I think it still shows willingness to sacrifice in the splinter suit. With discussion, I play the "shows the lower-ranking non-splinter suit" lead directing method, with a few partners. After the splinter raise by opener, I would be a bit less eager to use the non-splinter lead director, since I now have a 'dummy's first bid suit' available at the end of the auction too.

I protest the conditions. If I play a 4CM system it is almost surely going to involve a polish style club and some amount of canape :lol: I did attempt to cast a vote under the intended conditions, but they arent conditions I've ever actually played under.

Yes, Journalist vs. NT was A for count/unblock, K standard, Q standard (+KQT9), J denies, T from both AT9/KT9 and AJT/KJT, 9 from T9. My admittedly fuzzy memory of 50s and 60s era bridge books is that Journalist was the START of using A for count/unblock against notrump, and that one idea from Journalist became standard (but the ten and nine leads never achieved the popularity of ancient-standard or of zero-or-two-higher.)

I am constrained by system here - my advances at the 3-level or higher are all fit bids. That means I have to pass now and bid an appropriate number of clubs later. In the absence of any agreements about fit bids in the way, 5C now looks sensible - more descriptive than 3C begging partner to repeat his diamonds again, anyway.

I stick to old standard, and actively dislike A-attitude K-count. That's probably partly because of several disasters when I've been talked into trying it (partners just obeying orders, instead of actually thinking about giving a sensible signal), and partly from not having explored rearranging the Q-and-lower leads much.

3NT for me. I can't see partner reopening very often, even with shortness.

First attempt at answering the thread deleted because I misread the vulnerability.

That's what I'd expect X to be, opposite any partner who said he didn't want to play support doubles (provided partner's name isn't Lauria or Versace.) Even on THIS forum I thought penalty would get more votes than takeout for second place after support X.

It's a better hand for 2C-then-2S than a lot of random 20 counts I see B/Is opening 2C with. That's more a commentary on how bad some of the other 2C openings I've seen are, not a suggestion it's a great bid on this hand.