beatrix45

You have some play for 6♠, but the percentage is too low to justify bidding it unless you are behind and need a board.

I think that better bidding would have been for you to have bid 3♦ over 2♥. The idea that it would have been a game force is foolish unless (for reasons unknown) you play 2♥ as a game force. You have limited your hand with 1NT, so a simple preference to 3♦ shows nothing extra which is pretty much what you got.

We have accidently stumbled upon a "serious" issue. How mechanical can you make cue bidding just because you play 2/1 with serious/nonserious 3NT? The hand in question could not be a better minimum for slam - two bullets and significant trump fillers. Would a 4♥ cue bid made en passant stampede partner into an ill advised slam investigation? I don't think it should. Of course, I don't think a 4♦ cue bid should be mechanical either. One and all are welcome to join us in our weekly Wednesday afternoon 10 cent Chicago event. Cash only.

Bidding a 4-bagger like it was a 5+ bagger is OK (out of desperation) if you are playing opposite a weak or Kamikazi NT opener and you are very weak yourself. Playing Xfers opposite weak NT openers makes no sense to me, although a few top pairs do so for reasons I don't understand. You might enjoy googling 'moscow escapes bridge'.

Why did your partner bid only 2♥? Did partner think you were a bad dummy player with the 2♥ bid and then revise his/her opinion a moment later with the 4♥ bid. Your line of play seems OK. You have too many losers if the ♣ hook is off since failure to see a ♠ lead or continuation marks the ♠ ace as being offside. Ducking the ♦ was OK since RHO is the dangerous hand. The longshot endplay (which works) is very low percentage, to put it mildly.

Thanks for the erudite reference on left and right hand driving. I was just wondering about that earlier today. Am I correct in my recollection that Underground foot traffic in London keeps to the right just as Subway foot traffic in NYC? No matter, once a freeway system is built, that die is cast. Converting over to the other side of the road becomes too expensive. Changing over bidding systems is also not without cost. P.S. The problems of driving on what for you is the 'wrong' side of the road are not to be sneezed at. I tried it in Australia once. When my Aussie cousins came to Canada, they planned to drive to see us and then go on to Toronto in a rental car. About 20 minutes outside the Seattle airport, they called for help. Needless to say, the rest of their round the world trip was mostly by air.

Obviously 2♥ is the book bid, but 1♠ is not crazy since you want a ♠ lead if you end up defending. If LHO is bouncing up and down in his/her chair in eager anticipation, you might just want to do it.

Imo, you are blameless. Your partner's hand is an absolute minimum in so many ways. Just bidding 2♠ is marginal to say the least. Jumping to game over your 3♥ trial bid is ........ Unless you are romantically involved, I would advise finding a new partner.

Rather complicated and unusual auction. 3♠ should represent a very strong ♥ fit (minimum of four cards), the ♠ ace, and a maximum hand. Opener is committing to 10 tricks whereas partner was only proposing a contract for 8 tricks. Granted, responder might have passed 2♣ with a bad hand, but he/she is not promising very much other than five ♥ and another high card or two. Opener may have three small clubs, relying on the opponents to have nine or ten between them. Oops. Just read your subsequent post. Shame on you for opening 1NT. Double shame on you for compounding your initial error by bidding 3♠. Always remember, bidding is a language. Respect it, and it will reward you.

The reason that SAYC and 2/1 players almost always bid 1♦ is the negative double. Usually, the negative double only absolutely guarantees the other major, but sometimes a competitive auction takes an unexpected turn at an unexpectedly high level. You don't want to get jammed up. There are a fair number of auctions where partner is basing his/her aggressive bidding on either a fit with your first suit or having both the unbid suits. Keep in mind, a 1♣ open only promises three, but a one ♦ open almost guarantees four. If partner can't smoke out the absence of the dreaded 4-4-3-2 distribution in a competitive auction, your problems are more than just systemic.

Xfers with a 4 cd suit are a lie sometimes used to escape partner's 1NT opener when you have a hopelessly weak hand and are non-vul. It can work on a given hand, but it erodes confidence. It can occasionally get you in serious trouble when pard superaccepts. It's like having a man who lies about having sex with some floozie. It may be the best way to go in the short term, but eventually it usually becomes a problem. P.S. For what it is worth, I don't see the sense in playing Xfers over the weak NT. Fantunes and others do it, but they have a very complex and integrated system. Google 'Moscow Escapes' just for fun.

Damn Sam! After 80 years it is hard to even find a new variation on the original 2♣ asking for majors Stayman Convention that is even playable. The subject is not dead. More subtle approaches from real players like Meckwell and Fantunes make sense in the context of their systems.

Well, North has a clear serious 3NT. The issue is what differentiates 4♠ versus 4♦? Personally, I still think the cue bid of 4♦ has to show some extras besides a ♦ control.

Oh dear, I am a silly goose who lost track of the bidding. Opposite an unlimited 2/1 response showing clubs and spade support, North probably should offer a serious 3NT, I guess. Having failed to do so, at least 4♦ offers a second chance. Imo., South was still wrong in skipping over a 4♥ cue - after all, North showed extras. He could have bid 4♠ over 3♠.

My goodness! The North hand has 17 HCP opposite a 10 HCP (more or less) limit raise. This does not stir one's imagination to start looking for slam. That said, it is a very, very nice 17HCP given the auction. Perfect, it seems to me, for a non-serious advance to 4♦ - one last try. You hit partner with a near perfecto - two round suit aces, QJx in trumps, and the ♦ Queen to boot. Off you go. You simply cannot mechanically code slam bidding in bridge - there are just not enough words or rounds of bidding.

Harumph! I first experimented with cue bidding aces and kings equivalently in 1970 when I took up the Blue Team Club system for a time. It worked better than you might think, but it certainly had its drawbacks. Better is to have certain broad guidelines as to when a cue bid shows an ace - eg. when made by a strong hand versus when it may be as little as an unsupported king - when made by a weak hand. Either way, Dorothy Hayden was spot on when she said that good slam bidding is conversational. It is never mechanical. Serious and non-serious 3NT are a wise addition to the 2/1 tool box, if you agree how to play them. On this hand, N bypassing 4♣ holding a stiff Q in partner's suit makes common sense to me. The 4♦ bid should very likely show the ace, but it is just a very mild gesture toward slam. This does not excuse South from not bidding 4♥ with a very good hand for slam. Subsequently, South can take the bit holding two aces and QJx of trumps.

Etaion Shurdlu. Like it or not, bridge bidding is a language. No matter how good or bad your ideas may be, you can't just make it up as you go along as it pleases you. The 2/1 approach goes to extreme efforts to create an extra round of bidding for cue bidding or some other form of slam investigation. I certainly cannot say that coded responses and/or relays might not someday turn out to be useful and accepted by everyone, but right now you gotta sprechen die lingo.

Just out of curiosity, what would 4♥ show in your world and why?

100% South, imo. North cue bid in ♦ (whether serious or non-serious is of no matter), so not showing a ♥ control in passing says "either I have no ♥ control" or "I have a terrible hand for slam". Of course, South had no such thing - two round suit aces and QJx in trumps. Really.

Thank heavens! Finally, the whistle has been blown on the bridge chaos that prevails below our southern border. The infamous ACBL cartel is the most evil, imo.

North made a truly terrible bid. Partner is a passed hand showing something like 5-5 in the majors or even more extreme shape. The opponents almost certainly have the majority of the high cards. You have a 9+ card spade fit and can ruff two or three hearts. The ♦ hook should be on 85%+. Count'em. 4♠ (more or less), two or three ♥ ruffs, and 2♦. Bid 3♠and hope you can defeat 4 of a minor if they bid it.

I really hate to challenge something that bears the name of two legends of the game. That said, I keep seeing people quoting the K and R evaluation of a given bridge hand, and sometimes the result just does not make sense to me. The idea is often whether to upgrade or downgrade the ordinary Milton Work/Goren point count hand evaluation for purposes of making an opening bid. What's up with KnR?

In North America it is acceptable to raise on three once in a while. The caveat is that it be the right sort of hand, and that no other bid is as descriptive. The right sort of hand is not that common. You need to have a ruffing value. You have to be able to play opposite Jxxx (sorry if you responded on 8xxx). Trump support of Q10x is pretty much a minimum. Cowboy up and learn to play the occasional 4-3 fit. Opponents will learn not to balance so recklessly when they are unsure if you have seven trumps or nine.

In the early 1990's a pair from the American Midwest named Meckstroth and Rodwell started to play the Kamakazi 1NT opener. Many others copied them, and much discussion ensued, both at the bars after the game and in the bridge literature of the time. Eventually, an old guy from California named Marshall Miles came up with a best practice system to use when playing it. Sue Emery, the editor at the time, published it in the ACBL monthly bulletin. Mr. Miles system did not use transfers, and he argued against their use with any weak notrump opener, quite convincingly, imo.

Kalamute exists where it has always existed - about 30 km off the paved road in central British Columbia. Every 100 years we become visible to the rest of the human race - very briefly.