HeartA

For this hand, precision and sayc (or 2/1) makes no difference. In my version of precision, jump over 1♦ response is the same as a 2♣ opening in sayc. And this hand does not qualify for 1♣-1♦-2♥. I would bid 2♥ whether my pd opens 1♥ (sayc or 2/1 ...) or 1♣ then 1♥ over my 1♦ (precision).

In my system, 1♠ and then 2♥ shows stronger hand and usually has 2 ♥ only. With weak hand and 3+ support of pd's opening major, I show support immediately. As for this hand, 3-card support with an honor and a stiff, 2♥ is a no-brainer.

This is a subsequence of what I gave :D

This reminds me of a hand I played loooong time ago. We played precision, and my pd opened 1C, I passed (too tired to concentrate) and my LHO passed quickly. I had 6-card spade and my pd had 3. Every table reached 4♠ and went down because ♠ 4-0. We got a plus (1♣+2). I forgot the exact holding though. BTW, that was the only time I passed my pd's 1C (precision 1C) opening as I remember.

This is a simlpe hand: 1H-2H-4H. Or if you want it more complicated: 1H-2H-3D-3H-3S-4H-PPP

If ♣QJ were replaced by CK, I will pass 3NT on first hand. Partner may have ♠Kx, ♥xx, ♦AKx, ♣Axxxxxx. Since I don't have an entry to finesse ♣ even if CK on side, I will pull 3NT to 4C. I will bid 4C as well with the second hand. If 3N could be made, I don't see a problem with 5C or 4S. Maybe we have a slam.

I don't have a problem at all. I will have problem when I bid NT while opps can take the first 5 or more tricks. I lied about the length of ♣ this time by one card, and I don't think it is a bigger problem than lying about stopper. I accept the reality that no bidding system is perfect. There are always counter-example to show a bidding is "bad". Besides, if I would know pd's hand is limited, I don't have to bid at all (I have to bid PASS). I am forced to bid because there is pontential for game, and 3NT is a very likely one. If my pd jumps to 3NT after my 1NT and opps get the first 5 or more tricks, I am the one to blame.

[hv=d=s&s=skhakqxxxdqxxcqxx]133|100|The bidding goes: S W N E 1H - 1S - ?[/hv] This time, South's ♥ is solid, what should South bid after pd's 1S response?

Why? Because there are LOTS of occasion I need to bid (1)NT, which guarantees stopper on opp's suit. There is little chance I will encounter this kind situation (as I said, I don't remember I ever did). And I don't want to lie about this. Besides, I only exagerate the length of C by one card. As I said earlier, this discussion will go to nowhere. I will NEVER bid NT without stopper of opp's suit.

JL, I am with you. Zar points make sense only after fitting is found.

If 1NT becomes the final contract, it is OK with me. My problem is, what if pd has a hand (almost) strong enough to force to game? I know, you would say "pd then should check back if I really have I stopper". To me, it is absurd to check back while my NT already says stopper. And I hate too much gadgets which takes away the natural meanings of some bids. When I bid (1)NT, I guarantee stopper (at least Kx or Qxx). And if pd wants to check on slam, he will know I have some honor(s) on opp's suit. For the hand given on the thread, I will bid 2C and apologize to pd if it leads to a bad contract.

Why out of control? To dbl and then bid a suit simply shows a strong one suiter. It doesn't guarantee any support for other suits. If pd has useful cards, he is welcome to bid on, otherwise, he has to pass.

A small diamond from South at Trick #2 is the standard text play for this kind of hands (dummy has only one side entry). As defender (West), to duck first ♦ is also a text play, even with Ax.

Totally agree.

Am I dinosaur here? 2C opening usually forced to 3 of majors or 4 of minors (and new suit is usually (always?) forcing). In the sequense, 2♣-2♦-2♠-?-3♦, responder can't pass 2S or 3D.

This discussion will go to nowhere. There is noway you can bid every hand into the best contract.

2C, absolutely.

I don't think this is a good slam. 12 tricks will be made because ♥ is 2-2 AND ♣Q on side, PLUS opps don't find ♠ ruff.

When you hold a strong hand and there is strong slam potential, and you don't want your pd to convert your dbl to penalty, you better cue-bid which pd might take as Michaels though. To simply overcall would make it worse than dbl would do, because it could be passed out (very likely given ur strong holding and opp being able to open). And you would get less score than dbl opp's opening.

Good, we will get to 5C then. ;)

I will not open. I open a hand with Bergen count of 20 when HCP is at least 10 with no wasted honor. But I agree that 1C is a better opening than 1S. Now that I have opened 1C, I would bid 2S (and wish pd would not take it as a reverse).

At this situation North is expected to bid 3NT, then you can transfer to H with 4D, IMO. So what is the point of showing the spade suit ? It is generally accepted that 4-4 fit is better than 5-3 or 6-2 (even 6-3). If pd has 4-card ♠, responder wouldn't show 6-card ♥ (and opp wouldn't know the length of ♥ and ♠ before opening lead). After opening lead, it will become dummy anyway.

Agree. This time I would bid 2C. Fortunately, this kind situation doesn't happen often. I don't remember when it happened (if it ever happened) last time.

Totally agree.

"A 2/1 response guarantees to bid again". This means, any rebid from opener will not be passed and therefore, any rebid from opener is forcing. An alternative is "2/1 response forced to 2NT". In either version, a rebid of 2♠ from opener should not be passed, (thus, it is FORCING). The difference of 2/1 and 1/1 is that 1/1 responder may pass opener's rebid, though 1/1 is also forcing. Give me the evidence where it says 2/1 responder could pass opener's rebid (except 2NT).