dokoko

and this action has to be established as a fact! If the UI results from an insufficient bid or call out of turn (which was ruled by the TD), there is no reason to reserve rights as the fact is clear and your rights won't disappear.

The act of reserving your rights may pass UI to your partner. So you should only "reserve" with a very good reason. IMO the only acceptable reason is to establish a fact that may be disputed later (e.g. a hesitation). A misinformation does not constitute such a fact - it can be established later if existent. If an infraction isn't obvious to everyone, the fact that it's obvious to you constitutes an information about your holdings which you are not entitled to give away as long as partner is still involved in the hand. So "reserving your rights" in a misinformation situation will alert partner - either that there is misinformation he wasn't aware of - or that you are interested in getting involved both illegal motives.

simple rule Stayman and Jacoby is on, if a) we open 1nt or 2nt or some equivalent [like 2c(str art)-2d(waiting)-2nt or 1c(str)-1d(wk)-1nt or the like] or b) we overcall 1nt or 2nt (natural) in direct or reopening position and opponents pass over the nt bid. Stayman and Jacoby is off, if 1) opponents bid over the nt bid (including dbl) or 2) nt is bid by responder (to opening or overcall) or 3) we bid a suit naturally before the nt bid. You may use these conventions in some #1 or #2 situations, but these are non-standard and require explicit discussion. You may use a convention named Checkback (which is a Stayman variation taking into account the previous bidding) in some #3 situations where opener's nt is preceded by natural bids. This is advanced stuff and requires discussion as well. Edit: reasons for a) and b) are that the basic situation is similar to responding to a nt opening. If opponents already bid naturally you might not see reason to play in their suit but you can if you want to. reasons for 1) are that in case of a dbl your objectives have changed (less need for constructive bidding, more need for weak take-outs to a suit) and in case of a non-dbl your bidding space is reduced. reasons for 2) are that you might prefer the strong hand not to be dummy and also the strong hand might want to bid a minor naturally. reasons for 3) are that the conventions would ignore the info already given which is kind of waste.

Move this to the non-natural forum, where it belongs.

wrong forum. put it to I/A!

Actually I don't quite understand why a novice should bother about an escape system from 1NT doubled. IMO you should just play naturally (run into a long suit otherwise stay); LHO might also have a problem with 1NT doubled. Against strong opposition you will remain underdog even with expert tools and against players of your level you may as well let playing skills decide. Work on those! An escape system is good to get used to weak 43-Fits, but not really needed for better results. And if playing a weak NT doubled scares you, it would make sense IMO to switch to the strong NT. (I have played the weak NT for years without a conventional escape method - now I have one for the strong NT for playing on expert level). That said, you may well choose one of the structures proposed here. But don't think new conventions make you a better player.

If opener has a very strong hand, what does responder do with one KC (in trumps) and no outside control? Play other methods I guess.

Partner promises spades (in a semibalanced hand if 2♠ would be natural now or on previous turn) and you should pass with clubs. If you can't pass partner should have some support for the red suits (no singleton).

I call this fortunate rather than unfortunate - for obvious reasons. If you want to put some serious work into this, I recommend a structure by Glen Ashton presented in his script ETM-Gold on bridgematters.com. Not easy to get familiar with, but we are very happy with it now.

This method was popular for a while in the 80's (called Marx-Sharples-Transfer), when ppl wanted to play transfers for the minors (a new gadget at that time) without using Stayman with no major. Many claimed technical merit but rather hoped to impress/confuse weaker players.

I think a good solution (in a natural context) would be to bid 2♥ with 6+ hearts INV or 5+ hearts FG and double with other hands worth a call and containing 4+ hearts. Double followed by a later heart bid could then be nonforcing. Playing transfers in competition would be even better...

To make the method work, you need at least one safe cuebid above the Turbo bid to show an odd number of KC (actually you need more than one because your cuebid promises control in the suit). Example: 4♣ sets trump, you bid 4♦, partner bids 4♠, now what? 4NT=even number of Key Cards 5♣=sign-off missing heart control What do you bid with an odd number of KC with or without the queen (there is no safe cue above 4nt)? With Kickback Turbo: 4♣ sets trump, you bid 4♦=even KC or 4♥=odd+♥-control or higher=odd, no ♥-control (depending on your hand). Now partner (lacking a ♥-control as above) will sign-off when ♥-control is missing or not enough KC. If he continues cuebidding, you should find out whether all suits are controlled and if so, the owner of ♣Q (if any) will bid above 5♣ - thus reaching slam when all suits are controlled and 4KC+Q are present. The higher the trump suit the smaller this kind of problem. In fact the main reason to sign-off immediately when you can rule out slam, is that continuing the slam-bidding gives positive info to partner: you can fill all the gaps he has shown so far! The info to opp's is less important.

See my previous reply for details of the Kokish-Kraft methods.

By just giving a very short outline of the method I hoped to attract comments by ppl who are somewhat familiar with the concept. Till now spotlight7 seems to be the only one who has an idea of the method. As i said in my OP, using 4trump+1 (e.g. 4♥ with a ♦-fit) as the Turbo bid seems far superior to the original version of using 4nt. The Turbo bid usually is used to show an even number of KC while bidding above shows an odd number (and a control of the bid suit). You might define a "Reverse-Turbo" Convention where the Turbo bid would show an odd number of KC while bidding above would show an even number (and a control). My question was (and still is): Are there any logical reasons to prefer Turbo to Reverse-Turbo or vice versa?

I started playing Kickback Turbo with my regular partner several months ago. This is a method combining cuebidding and KC showing. A special bid in a cuebidding sequence is defined as "Turbo bid"; this bid shows (depending on agreement) an even or an odd number of keycards. A cuebid bypassing the Turbo bid shows the other parity and a specific control. The original version (by Fantunes) used 4NT as the Turbo bid, today AFAIK 4Trump+1 is more popular. Other things being equal, it is immateriel which parity is shown by the Turbo bid. But experience tells that in bridge other things are rarely equal. I wonder whether there are technical reasons to prefer one option to the other. You are invited to share your ideas and/or experiences.

Why should opener be allowed to pass the stolen bid double (except for KQJT9 perhaps). There is about as much need for a penalty pass as there is for a pass of an uncontested Jacoby transfer bid. The only technical advantage stolen bid can claim is right-siding a 2M contract. If you give up on some 2h contracts for fear of a mistimed penalty pass (and on some 4h contracts as well) you get the worst of two worlds. A "stolen bid worked out well" structure - if it exists - would be no less complicated as the cited "advanced Sohls" and probably won't be stolen bid any more. You may defend stolen bid for simplicity, but not for technical merit.

We use this: 1NT = transfer, 5+♣, usually 6♣ (but 3325 shape poss) when less than inv 2♣ = constructive+ raise, can be slightly less than inv when holding 4+♦ 2♦ = "dubious" raise, usually 3-4♦, less than inv (not 4♦+max), might be 3325-shape 2NT is nat+inv, 3♦ is preemptive

#1 2♥ #2 dbl #3 pass #4 6♠

I don't like your 1NT and 2♣ responses. IMO you should use 2NT to take ambiguity out of 2♣. If opps come in with a major, it might be difficult to sort out otherwise.

100% South. By bidding BW with plenty of space available he denies interest in learning about a possible void. Partner might want to ask for ♦K, however.

As you don't mention it, i guess we play 5-card majors with a nonforcing 1NT response. IMO 2♠ would not be 3 normally but something like 9-10 pts with ♠Kx (probably with something nice in clubs). I see no reason why 2♣ should show 5, on most unbalanced hands north should bid his second suit to help south competing with a fit. If opponents bid on the 3-level, a 3♠ would be competitive, as partner has shown a useful max with only 2cd-support, north should be able to judge game prospects without consulting partner.

Easy dbl, primarily shows values. To make this tricky, change the hand to ♠KT854 ♥K864 ♦J82 ♣9. There I would have a problem, because dbl would get us to game. But I think I would double and raise 3M to 4.

"Forcing 1 round" is just a more precise wording meaning the same as "forcing". I would call a rebid-promising call "auto-forcing" (German Standard calls it "selbstforcierend").

I recently read the Bird/Anthias books on opening leads (review). Although tbh DD analysis proofs nothing, I like the ideas and want to do some research on the subject. Is there any useful free software available to generate deals which match a given bidding and analyze them on double dummy basis (like that used by the authors)? Thanks for your help.

If working on your bidding means learning new conventions, you should definitely work on your play (including defense).