dokoko

I would take it for a good diamond raise except with a very weak partner.

For me it's an obvious pass. Partner promises 4+♦ and a limited hand (~11-15); if stronger he would jump to 3♦(nonforcing!) on a shapely intermediate hand or otherwise redouble. With a limited semibalanced hand he should pass, but if he is interested in competing over 2♠/3♣ he must bid while he has the chance. BTW: Some posters tried to show values with a 2♠ bid which IMHO would need explicit agreement.

Why would 3♦ be discouraging?

Raising to 3NT is ridiculous, even if it costs only an imp. As others pointed out, responder has a difficult decision and may be forced to bid 2NT on shaded values. If he was happy to play 3NT opposite a minimum he would have bid it himself. So in fact you bid partner's hand and then blame him for overbidding. wd - typ

4th suit game forcing is a treatment for lazy players who don't want to understand which sequences are logically played as forcing and which are not. The downside is that the convention can no more be used for the hands it was created for (5cd major invitational without stopper in the 4th suit).

This contract is down two on normal good defense (trump lead) and down one on reasonable defense (West switches to a trump after cashing a pointed ace). It's reasonable not to double if you are poor defenders, but not otherwise.

Opp's suit would be hearts not diamonds here for me. So 2♦=nat, 3♦=Fit Jump. 2♥=Q raise, 3♥=mixed raise. That said I would bid 3♠ to let opps guess and later pass if they bid 4♥. I don't expect to buy it for 2♠ and don't think I should let them play 3♥ as there are at least 17 total trumps. A 3♥ mixed raise might work out better if I want to bid 4♠ when partner doesn't double 4♥.

As our 1♦ opening is always unbalanced, we would respond 1♠ as we can easily go back to diamonds if necessary.

A classic case of "Lead a trump then look at your hand" or "Lead a trump even if void".

Playing 1♦-2♠ as purely preemptive hinders constructive bidding. You may either play the jump shift as invitational and bid 1♦-1♠;2♦-2♠ with weaker hands or vice versa (dividing a range of 5-11 pts between the two). That way you can use responder's jump in his own suit as forcing and avoid a final contract of 3♠ on a misfit. Nonetheless you should have a way to show a gameforcing hand with a relatively weak 6-card major by using some artificial forcing rebid (2♦ over 1♣-1M;2♣ - 3♣ or 2oM over 1♦-1M;2♦), so your jump rebid promises a good suit.

I am always impressed how people can make a simple matter complicated. If you have 6-9 pts without sufficient support for partner's suit - as the OP suggests - you are clearly worth a bid but not at the 2-level. So either you have a suit you can bid at the 1-level or you have to bid 1NT (with or without stoppers, balanced or not). When partner opens 1♣ and you are entitled to raise on 4-card support, there is always an in-between suit you may bid so with unbalanced hands you bid that suit and with balanced hands you have a choice (you may then play 1NT to show stoppers or a narrower point count). In responding to partners opening on the 1-level you may bypass a 4-card (or even 5-card) diamond suit but you should not suppress a 4-card major as partner isn't invited to introduce a major on the 2-level without considerable extras and an unbalanced hand. So if you don't bid your major it's likely to get lost. You may, however, do as you like. If you want to suppress your major, pls do it against me.

IMO a reasonable bidding would be 1♦-1♥ 3♣-3♥ (not sure whether 3♦ may be passed) 3♠*-4♦ and control bidding to 6♦ Wests hand wants to declare, so if partner supports I prefer to play in diamonds - even at match points (but there might be some hindsight in this view).

I see no great problem in treating 2♦ as virtually forcing here if it isn't a weak-only multi. IMO, advancer's bids after a strength-showing redouble should be defined as follows: pass = penalties, wants to defend (otherwise responder may bluff you out of your best option) 2NT = two places to play or weak with hearts 3♣, 3♦ = natural, can be very weak 3♥ = natural, constructive If the redouble shows a big fit instead, you should ignore the redouble and play your normal structure (pass is still penalties). So I would bid 4♠, agreeing clubs and showing slam interest with shortness. With two useful cards partner should bid slam.

1♠-3♠ is a very simple bid. It asks whether you have more than minimum or not. Here you obviously have more. As long as you don't get this simple answer right, don't care about slam. Sorry if I am a bit harsh, but if you want to improve you should work on the basics. Once you have reached a reasonable level in your competitive and game bidding you may try to bid slams. I know it's fun to do some extraordinary things, but this is not the way to get better. BTW: Before you talk (or write) about a hand, have at least a second look on it. Talking about slam with two fast club losers is ridiculous.

Imps is probably better when learning because it's easier to define your goal in play: Find a way to make your contract. Go for overtricks only when your contract is safe. Avoid toying around in the bidding. When your contract is reasonable, you will get good results by good play. When your contract is unreasonable, you will mostly get bad results no matter how you play; sometimes you will get good results because you are lucky. Don't play fancy conventions - they won't bid your hands for you. And don't overvalue results. Try to find out whether your result (good or bad) was due to your bidding or play (good or bad) or due to good or bad luck; if the former, try to learn from it, if the latter go on to the nextboard. Not every contract that fails was misbid or misplayed. And not every contract that makes was well bid and played. Try to find partners who give advice. Don't try to learn from bots.

Congrats if you bid these hands to 7♥! A former teammate of mine was known for being in every slam on a 4-3-fit and bringing them home if at all possible. Why then didn't he win national (let alone international) titles? He was always looking for exceptions and lost on the unexceptional hands.

If you thought partner's suit is good enough to play opposite a void (as you obviously did), then why not bid 3♠ over 3♥ (cuebid agreeing hearts).

I haven't 2 of 4, I have 3 of 4 (and 5 of 6).

Those who bid 1♦-1♥;2♣-4♥ how would you reach slam with North holding ♠Axx ♥- ♦Axxxxx ♣AQxx (yes may go down on clubs 52) or ♠Axx ♥- ♦AKxxxx ♣Axxx. For his 4♥-bid South may hold ♥KJ10xxxx.

1♦(unbalanced) - 1♥; 1NT(4+♣) - 3♥(setting trump); 3♠(1st/2nd round control) - 4♣(dito, serious slam interest); 4♦(Last Train) - 4♥(I'm done); pass From North's point of view, there is a trump loser and a probable club loser. South would not bid 4♥ with solid trumps or a second black control.

How come that when opening a thread started by Lovera, I usually expect a monologue? ;)

In fact you have menace cards in all four suits, but if opp's guards are all well placed (i.e. over the menaces as pointed out by Cyberyeti and The_Badger) the U of Clyde Love's BLUE is wrong for any squeeze. If you allow the heart menace to be duplicated, i.e. ♥Kxxx with South, there is a 100% line, as U is true for squeezes including the duplicated menace. [hv=pc=n&s=skj432hk632dakck2&n=saqhaq54d432caqt4&]399|300[/hv] Cash ♠AQ and ♥AK. 1. If one of the majors splits, you are home. 2. Otherwise if one opponent guards both majors, cash ♣KAQ (discarding a heart) and ♦AK squeezing him in the majors. 3. If no major splits and each opponent guards one of them, cash ♥Q, ♦AK and ♠KJ (discarding dummy's red cards) squeezing the opponent holding ♣Jxxx (if any). To execute the appropriate squeeze declarer has to give up the heart menace under the control, keeping the heart menace over the control. Therefore it is essential to find out who controls the hearts.

This sounds as if you shouldn't go against the field freely. But this is only true if - the field's choice is superior or - you have a definite edge in the play of the hand (this includes defensive play) or - you prefer average minus to a 50-50 top-or-bottom shot. Otherwise go against the field if it seems right.

Why wouldn't opener ask with 1♣-1♠;1NT? When 1♠ shows clubs or balanced, why not the minimum balanced range (up to whatever the follow-up structure can reasonably handle)?

A somewhat similar structure can be played vs. a natural 2♦ opening - obviously without an artificial negative: - 2NT includes a weak hand with clubs, otherwise same follow-up. - 3♣ is nat inv (nonforcing) - 3♠ shows/includes strong club hands (your choice) - other bids unchanged As there is no artificial negative, advancer should invite or force to game a bit more aggressively IMO. If you prefer, you might use 3M via 2NT to show constructive hands and keep invitations up to strength. I modified Kokish's structure as follows: A direct 4m response to the double shows 4♥&6om (nat=inv, opp's m=FG), while 4m via 2NT shows 4♠&6om.