Kapi Blas

East definitely has to move although I feel like double with West's hand is a better option than 4♥. Double isn't penalty if opponents are known to have 9 card suit playing on 3 level.

The only problem is that there won't be 1♦ but 1♠ instead. In polish club 1♦ is either 0-6 any, 7-11 without 4 card major or 16+ balanced.

1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦ 2 NT - 3♣ 3♦ - 3♥ 3 NT - 4♣ 4 NT - 5♣ 5♦ - 5♥ 6♥ 2♣ - 11-15 5+♥4♣ or any 16+ 2♦ - 8-11 2 NT - 18-21 6+♥ 3♣ - 4+♣, denies 3-card support 3♦ - waiting 3♥ - 2 card fit 3 NT - non-serious 4♣ - cue 4 NT - RKCB 5♣ - 1 5♦ - Queen? 5♥ - no Queen

1♥ seems to be the best option. Why would you ever consider passing this hand? It's 20/20 deal at best, moreover opponents probably have strength advantage. We have great shape and our partner is a passed hand. If we pass our partner won't start the bidding either and we will never make a sound during the bidding. If our LHO has like 18 HCP and RHO is 9-10 HCP it would be much harder for them to bid to the right contract with our interference.

Why would you ever play for lower percentage play instead of the better one? I can't imagine anyone covering this 10 with Q, ever. Opponents probably knows that you have 9-card suit and even if it would be 8-card there is no reason to raise with the Q because playing 10 from 10xxx to KJxx is therefore incorrect line of play. Playing for drop seems pretty obvious here.

I think that professional players open lighter sometimes because they have much better judgment. I remember one deal of BB where Justin Hackett upgraded his 18 HCP balanced hand to 2NT 20-21 because he had good shape and his honors were well placed. I saw Meckwell's upgrading theirs 14 or 15 counts to 1♣ opening or Geir Helgemo opening 2♣GF on 14 HCP . I truly believe that most of the professional pairs play more sound than intermediate players. Let's see for example on this 2 hands, you play 2/1 with mini-multi 2♦ and 5-5 2M's: ♣Kxx ♦Axxxx ♥Kxx ♠Qxx 12 HCP, both intermediate and pro player would probably open this 1♦ but: ♣xxx ♦AKQxxx ♥xxx ♠x I can imagine plenty of pro's opening this 1♦ but I don't think many intermediate's would.

2♣- 2♦ 3♦ - 4♦* 4♥ - 4♠ 5♣ - 5♥** 6♣*** - 7♦**** * - definitely forcing, might be slam seeking ** - we must realize that we have some serious values, partner didn't bid 4 NT so he is probably looking for some specific cue bid *** - asking for 3rd round control in ♣ **** - got it! At the point where our partner bids 5♥ we only need either Q♣ or doubleton♣. 6♣ is obviously asking about 3rd round control in ♣. After all I believe that novice par would never get to 7♦. Slam bidding isn't easy and you need to have some good tools, excellent hand evaluation and a lot of imagination to be really good at it. I'm pretty sure that me and my partner would miss that obvious slam. Edit. I can't see how can you possibly get to the Grand Slam after bidding 5♣ as a splinter. You can't check if a responder has K♥ or not.

You are obviously right. It depends on agreements and 3♣ as natural is probably the better use in this case but i think you need to have some tools to know when the actual cue bidding starts after this sequence. I'm really curious why people bid 2♠ instead of 1♠ with GF hand. I can't see any advantages of taking away so much bidding space.

If 4♣ would be showing 5-5 shape and 3♣ 5-4 shape what would be 2NT used for?

I can't imagine my partner leaving 3♦ after my double unless he has some 5-5 shape with ♦. How often penalty double can be used in this situation? Rarely i belive. That's why by agreement in my partnership all doubles to preempts are takeout except of for example this situation. 1♠ - 2♥ - 4♠ - pass pass - ? double - showing strong hand with some defensive tricks, partner decides if he wants to go higher or play 4♠ doubled

So at first let's look at this particular sequence 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♣. Obviously it depends on agreements but it makes no sense to consider 4♣ as cue bid rather than splinter. By definition splinter is a double-jump bid in a side suit when you have already agreed your trumps and it's showing singleton or void. I believe 3♣ should be considered as cue bid because it doesn't take away our bidding space. It isn't bad if splinter takes a lot of space because it is much more descriptive than simply just a cue bid. The most important part about discovering whether the cue bid is showing shortness or 1st/2nd round control is base of your system. All professional partnerships can show almost exact shape of the openers hand if needed so it isn't hard for them to distinguish the type of cue bid because all the shortages were usually shown earlier. It is much harder when your opponents interfere and takes away you space and then you must guess whether the cue bid is shortage or control but sometimes you can deal with it in some specific situations: 1♠ - 3♦ - ? For example here information about diamond shortness in the responders might be very needed. 4♣ - 12+ HCP with 3+♠, there is pretty much no need for this bid to show ♣, with strong single-suited hand with clubs you will double 4♦ - SPLINTER 12+ HCP ♠ fit and ♦ shortage

4NT as any 2 suiter. If partner bids 5♣ you pass, if 5♦ you bid 5♥.

I play this way in this sequence: 1M - 2♣ ? 2♦- 4+ diamonds 2♥- 4+ hearths, or no other viable bid if opener bid ♥ 2♠- 4+ spades, or no other viable bid if opener bid ♠ And now: 1M - 2♣ 2♦ - ? 2M - 15+ with 3 card fit 2 in the other major - 12+ with clubs, denies fit, relay 2NT - 12+ balanced, relay 3♣ - 15+ single suited hand with clubs, denies fit, relay 3M - 12-14 with 3 card fit

Hi guys! I would really love to hear your opinions about this stuff. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both methods and which of these 2 is superior? Since i began to play bridge 2 years ago I always played Semi-forcing NT. Now I'm thinking of switching it to Forcing just as i changed my 1♣ opening a little bit.

You're making some good points here. The only thing is about this sequence: 1M-2♣* 2♦**-2M *** P. * "NAT, BAL or Drury". Forcing to 2M or game (or, alternatively, to 2M, 3♣ or game) ** ART MIN *** 3c limit raise 2♣ as a Nat, Bal or Drury obviously makes sense to me. The first thing is why would you like 2♦ a minimum and not 4+♦? The second thing is if u use 2M in this sequence as limit raise you must bid GF hands with 3 card fit as 3M I suppose, that's a lot of wasted bidding space when you are propably seeking slam or something.