Double !

4♠ You don't need much from partner to have a play for this, P shouldn't have heart tricks and 10 hearts (theoretically) have been accounted for in the bidding. If P is something like 1-2-6-4 with few controls, the opps might just be making 4Hts. You might be risking a huge swing by not bidding. I know, wrong again :)

You might want to go to acbl web site or (I think) bbo website and download "Learn to Play Bridge", 1 & 2. Last time I looked, both programs were free downloads.

Is "who will score well here?" really an issue? Advise against emphasizing "results bridge" or before long you will start looking for and seeing horrible breaks behind every rock and bidding box.

sorry, can't seem to get hidden text.

Mais, oui! SVP

Heck. I'm still adjusting to the 20th century. Like I say, I am a bidding dinosaur. I went down in cold contract last night and partner dragged me into cave and clubbed me into submission. No, do not ask what I submitted to. You don't want to know.

3♠ to a degree a matter of partnership agreement. Did you agree to make a double negative bid first with less than a certain number of "points"? IMO, ye has JTx trump support (a good holding for J-3rd: potential entry), and an outside control. No need to jump to 4♠ on 2nd bid to show support and nothing else: you have something else. If opener wishes more information, all he/she has to do is ask! like: "you got any 8s?"------"No, go fish"!

You forgot to count points for distribution, let's see: that's 3 for a singleton X 3 = 9, +3 for good declarer play. Or 10 hcp - 2, +11 for combination of two longest suits, +9 for difference between longest and shortest suit, +3 for controls, etc., etc. Dang, you have 3148 pts, definitely enough to bid! B)

I disagree opening namyats or 4S is questionable enough (it shows 7 or 8 spades, not 10), but why take partner completely out of the joint decision-making process by opening 5 spades (opening 5 spades does NOT even show this type of hand). Remember the title of the post: Boss suit. When in doubt, you can always out-bid the opps.

Not so sure that I'm opening 1 club Am definitely considering opening 2NT. but it's early and haven't had my caffeine fix, yet

He takes your bottle away, of course.

Oh, yes, absolutely, and it was in the states, too and you had 1) double, 2) I Double, and 3) DOUBLE !

I double this bid. Just understand that neither book is technically about 2/1 and, in a number of circumstances, presents topics that apply regardless of whether or not playing 2/1. And, where else can you learn about Bergen minor suit raises (not one of his better ideas).

Two points to make in answering your question. 1) usually nothing more than "forcing", "weak", "Pre-emptive", "intermediate", "inverted", etc. common descriptive bridge terms, not such a lengthy description as your example. 2) after a long session of 26 or 52 boards and several "refreshments", do you really think you could get all of that out in one breath coherently? And, anyway, your example contains 10 words.

well, if the partnership agreement is to play snapdragon (which is a plant. Does that make it a flower bid?), then i think the dbl is just that. If no such agreement has been made, then it sound like a hand that has values but not enough in terms of cards, suit value, or shape to have acted over 1 puppy track but insufficient support to raise (♥ hahts (spent most of life in Boston area/ lolololol).

Some form of checkback has been in use for the last half cenury at least, even longer if you add Stayman (and Baron) as forms of checkback bids after P bid some number of NT. NMF is just another, as are checkback, 2-way checkback (referred to as "double-barrelled checkback stayman" way back when, and XYZ to name a few. I agree that having some form of checkback in your system is extremely important. BY THE WAY In reality, are not nmf or some structure of checkback bids just other forms of asking bids (as is Blkwd), a concept that has been around and permitted by Sir ACBL of Memphis since as far back as my bridge book collection goes? (I can't wait to see how many of you relay-system advocates agree with the following:) Is it not a semantic contradiction if not hypocracy that the acbl permits staymanish bids and its derivatives, checkback bids that say nothing about strength of hand or if it's GF or not, and asking bids such as game tries that ask a question but says nothing about the bidder's holding in the game try-bid suit. Yet, the acbl does not permit relay systems unless (and only at mid-chart+ level) it's a GF hand. and it doesn't permit 1NT forcing GF. Oh, I don't know...maybe I'm stretching things too far. If so, then I can always say that it "must be the medication speaking". ;) :P :D :angry:

Have you ever noticed how much of this forum is devoted to trying to 1) clarify between either-or meanings of bids (and plays/signals): the bid means either this or it means that, and trying to come up with a way to have it be either, and 2) trying to invent the better mouse trap, a better response structure or meaning of a bid? (disclaimer: the following is not currently GCC or mid-chart approved.) WELL, Here's the solution to all your problems (tongue currently well in cheek, BTW) for use before, between, or after sessions and only (preferably) after a cocktail or two. (or 3, 4, 5, 6 etc.) It's called One Word Bridge: Everything is the same except that you are permitted to add one (and only one) word to your bid. Examples: "1 Raptor NT" or "2 constructive ♠s", or "4 fit-bid ♣s". If nothing else, this significantly cuts down on bidding misunderstandings. (n.b.: psyching you selection of one word is not permitted.) Anyway, If you are in that type of mood that we all have experienced at some point or another during a tournament, you might wish to give it a try. Used to play this many many years ago and had a blast. Would be laughing so hard. And it also led to some interesting discussions about hand valuation such as "you really think that's worth a limit raise?" etc. [Just leave a few drops in the bottle for the director who let you borrow the board so you could have a deck of cards to play with.]

Passing wins if you reach 4Sp "painfully" so that you play it doubled, but the risk of seeing the hand passed from all the others that would have 10 points is too great. Petko This is kinda why I chose to open 1♠ and then see what partner and opps do: Maybe I will get some indication of 1) if there's the possibility of partner having enough bullets for us to make slam, and 2) whether it sounds like the opps have good cards, and to see if I can get a sense of whether or to shrug and just bid 4S or if I think I can operate safely here to try to elicit a dbl of 4S. Change my suit to hearts, and I would just open "10, I mean 4 Hearts" lolololololol

I finally understand the bidding, I think: assuming that P opened 1M, rho overcalled 1NT (natural), and it's now my bid, I play something that is easy on the memory. I basically respond as though partner had opened 1NT. To wit: 2C = stayman, 2D is transfer, 2H is transfer, etc so that 2NT can be whatever you decide you want it to mean. Hey, if you're going to play FOC (Front Of Card) when opps interfere over your 1NT bid, why change things because they bid the NT instead of you?

Is puff angry because he/she didn't overcall 1 spade to start with?

Man, I hope P has decent diamonds for his 2-level overcall. I bid 2♠, just might raise to 3 should Partner rebid 2NT. I play sound overcalls. This is a deck of cards with 60HCP, and opps are light and distributional. I think............................

I have to Double !-check, but I think Kantar considers this a double-suit agreement where there are 6 key cards and two key queens. I just don't remember the responses to show the queens, I think 5S shows queen of lower suit. Man, am I glad I downloaded and printed out all 23 of his chapters when it was still free on his web site. Now, If only I could remember anything that I read....................................................................

I agree with 3D fnj on hand 1, and 4C on hand 2.

My favourite? Transfer splinter 3C = diam singleton 3D = heart singleton etc.. Very Interesting I prefer 4-suit transfers with pre-acceptance and all 3-level bids as direct splinters, primarily because it seems to fit in with my preferred 1NT range of 13-16. Since I play with few people in real life (I have no time), and with my favorite P once every year or so if I'm lucky, this has seemed easiest on memory slots. But, I think that the transfer splinter have a lot of merit, and must give it some serious consideration. I also like the ETM use of the 2-spade bid: I need to go to my bridge matters site and read up on this some more. I am pleased to find someone else out there who plays something similar, and not the 5-5 minors and major splinters a la "conventional expert wisdom". I rarely get these 5-5 hands except for weak 5-5 reds or weak 5-5 blacks, but frequently get dealt hands that I would splinter with. BTW, I still strongly dislike strong NTs lolololol Just don't like opening 1m on balanced minimums: it's too easy for opps to compete over. If you are going to compete over my balanced hands, you are starting at the 2-level.

There is rarely an incorrect place to post on this forum, so welcome and post away. SAYC actually originated around 1970-71 when the acbl came out with simplified convention cards for games where relatively few conventions were used. It was physically smaller than a regular convention card then (and now), and IT WAS YELLOW. I think I still have one somewhere around (I keep stupid things like that) - need to locate it. :P