dokoko

2NT = balanced hand (see nullve's post)

Note that partner is too weak to respond. That means that game is probably out of the picture. In this situation any rebid is strength showing as with just a normal opener you would just pass. Your reason not to pass is that you think you aren't outgunned and hope partner can cooperate in competing for the partscore. So with a (strong) balanced hand you should choose between 1NT and dbl (depending on length in opp's suit) while with an unbalanced hand you may double or bid naturally. Jumping in your opened suit would be a preemptive action (you may cuebid if super-strong with a long minor), while jumping in a new suit would show a strong two-suiter interested in game if partner's meager values are in the right places. None of these bids is forcing, however.

If you read the articles correctly, the authors are just wrong. The reason for bidding 4-card suits up-the-line is that partner will cooperate in introducing his 4-card suits. So when partner doesn't bid 1♠ over 1♥ there is no fit in spades so no need to bid them. This is not the case here as partner cannot deliberately introduce a 4-card major after his double. Be aware, however, that some players mistakenly think a sequence like (1♦) dbl (-) 1♠; (2♣) pass (2♦) 2♥ suggests 5 spades. These players will have to sell out to 2m or play in the wrong major if they don't guess doubler's 4-card suit.

With two 4-card majors, I ... - bid the better one if very weak, as I don't plan to make another bid. - bid 1♠ with about 5-7(8) pts, planning to rebid hearts if I get the chance.* - cuebid with (at least) the values for a jump response.^ * As the doubler will not introduce a 4-card suit after his double I have to bid both suits economically. Same reason why you open the higher of two 5-card suits. ^ This is perfectly playable. The cuebid shows: a) a constructive or better hand with two 4-card majors (passes/raises 2M = nf) or b) a invitational or better hand with one 4-card major and a stop (rebids NT = nf) or c) any game forcing hand. Doubler bids his better major if he would have passed a 2M response, jumps to 3M as a natural invite or bids anything else as a game force.

IIRC the following structure was recommended by Eric Kokish: (2♣)dbl 2♦ = negative* 2M = nat, constructive (8-10 pts) 2NT = puppet to 3♣^ 3♣/3♦/3♥ = inv+ transfers 3♠ = transfer to 3NT lacking a ♣ stop 3NT = to play 4M = to play *Doubler usually bids 2♥ over the negative 2♦. Then responder signs off in 2M or 3♦, invites naturally with 2NT or shows a constructive hand with diamonds (8-10) with a 3♣ rebid. ^Doubler usually bids 3♣ over 2NT. Then responder shows both majors (inv+), bids 3M naturally (FG with ♣ stop) or 3NT (♦ length with a ♣ stop). 3-level transfers usually deny a ♣ stop when responder is strong enough to force to game. 4m responses (directly or via 2NT) and 4M via 2NT are used to show two-suiters (4M+6♦/5M+5♦), but the structure is playable without that.

A 2♥ rebid is natural and weak. Some might judge your hand to strong for that, but I think it's unlikely you miss game if partner passes even with a strong hand.

Seems partner and you both got what you deserved. You both were too greedy. Partner shouldn't double as he can't beat it when one of dummy's hearts is exchanged with one of your minor cards (you are likely to hold 6-7 hearts when overcalling light). You cannot win by scoring ♠7 instead of ♥K, so make sure your partner can't go wrong. From partner's point of view the situation is clear: - if ♥A can be cashed you would have ruffed ♣Q or (lacking a trump) encouraged a heart continuation. - otherwise he has to try for a trump promotion by leading a club even if declarer is out of clubs. There might be a case for not ruffing ♣Q, but encouraging hearts - playing for two down if declarer has KQJxx/xxx/K/Axxx (partner can cash ♥Q and then give you a club ruff).

There are many other hands that have to bid 1NT (e.g. 1444, 1435, 1525 or 0355 with say 10-11 pts). If 1NT was actually reduced to a) thru d), there could be a case for 2♦ showing five. But it isn't, so it can't be right for opener to pass 90% of his hands.

a double jump to just 3♣? what will you single jump to?

Without UI I bid 5♣. With UI I pass, fearing that if I bid I keep my score only if I'm wrong. Pass seems to be a LA.

Just bid 4♥ when asked to bid your suit and leave the rest to partner. Unless I have an agreement that 3NT by one partner or the other is scrambling, I would not risk it. And unless I have an agreement that passing the redouble isn't to play I wouldn't risk it either. But obviously I thought I had such an agreement; so why complain when partner does what I meant to ask for and bids his longest suit? 100% blame to East. BTW 5♥ is likely to get out for 500 unless North leads trumps in time (after ♠A followed by ♦8 North will eventually be endplayed to lead clubs). OTOH 5♦ will go for 1100. 4♠ makes 6.

I prefer to play inv+ transfers. That way a strong opener usually knows when to investigate slam. Playing your methods IMO North has an obvious 4♣ rebid. This is forcing because opener has to accept the transfer with any weak hand. I would take 3♠ as either stopper ask or ♥ support as North should bid naturally with a strong unbalanced hand.

Welcome to the Forum. You might as well ask to be told how to play bridge in 100 words.

No. The trick ruffed with the trump card that shouldn't be there is won by the offending player. He will lead to the next trick. The one trick penalty applies, removing the trick in question at the end. If the TD judges the non-offending side damaged - i.e. they would have won more tricks without the revoke - then he will replace the final score by what he thinks is appropriate; there are defined procedures how he should work that out. In the former laws there was a two trick penalty for winning a later trick with a card that could have legally been played instead of revoking; this part of the rule has now disappeared.

Some thirty years ago, a friend of mine was playing a grand slam in a team event when his RHO led out of turn. We had a "rule" concerning leads out of turn, which went as follows: When a player doesn't know he isn't on lead, he is high favorite not to find the best lead. So when in doubt you should accept the lead out of turn. My friend did exactly that - only to see his LHO ruff the first trick. Instead of winning 13 imps, he lost 17. So we updated our "rule": When in doubt accept the lead. In a grand slam, however, ask offender's partner to lead the suit in question.

You are both right! If the lead out of turn is refused, the lead card becomes a major penalty card. As the partner of the offender is on lead, the existence of the MPC gives declarer three options one of them being to forbid the lead of the suit of the MPC; in this case the ♦A ceases to be a penalty card and West could have led anything else after winning trick 1 (but understandably didn't).

You might consider playing Gazzilli (1M-1NT-2♣ is nat or 16+) where opener's rebids of 2♦♥♠ limit his hand.

I very much prefer 2♥ to show a weak hand (0-3 without a king) and show a suit only when it's worthwile (KQxxxx or better). With all other hands I respond 2♦. So later raises of opener's suit show some help while with good help I might temporize with an advance cuebid.

What about responder holding no major? Whst about NT rebids after 1m opening? What about opps overcalling? Price is too high IMO to be guaranteed the 4th card in a minor. Operators pls move this to non-natural!

Is it really desirable to eliminate luck? IMO if luck wasn't a factor many ppl would drop out as they would constantly be confronted with the fact that they are bad players. With luck being a factor, even bad players sometimes have at least so-so results and you can accredit good results to your skill and bad results to your luck. Wouldn't bridge be sad for many without that?

I like to play 2♦ as a game-forcing relay. You can use the available space to locate your fit and look for slam possibilities. IMO responder should bid 2♦ on most game-going hands to not interfere with opener's bidding plan; other bids should show a KQxxxx-or-better suit. After 2♣-2♦ you may rebid 2NT on all balanced hands or use a Kokish style 2♥ with considerable extra strength - as you prefer. Playing this way you need a weak 2♥ response (my definition is 0-3 pts without a king or 4 jacks) to stop short of game when opener only has a semi-forcing hand. After that, opener may pass or bid 2♠/2NT nonforcing; any 3-level rebid is forcing to game. An interesting idea which I adopted recently with my regular partner is to use 2♠ to show any good suit (as specified above) allowing opener to ask with 2NT or bid his own suits as planned. Responder would rebid naturally (3NT shows AKQxxx in any suit), jumping or raising to show fit for opener. The knowledge that responder has a quality suit should help investigating slam possibilities.

It's a question of bidding space. After 1♣(1♠)2♦ it is opener's duty to show hearts as he can do so without consuming space. This obviously isn't a reverse as it was responder who forced the bidding beyond 2♣. This would be different if 4th hand had raised to 2♠. Once a minor is agreed it generally is more useful to show stoppers than new suits. You may, however, agree otherwise with partner. In fact, with a sensible partner I would play 1♣(1♠)2♦(-)3♦(-)3♥ shows a stopper while 1♣(1♠)2♦(2♠)3♦(-)3♥ shows a suit. But this may be too sophisticated for many players.

Once you ask yourself what the term "non-forcing relay" could possibly mean, there is only one solution. In fact the expected answer "pass or correct" might suggest that partner's next bid is meant to set the final contract, what we all know isn't true. The inability to put themselves in opponents' (or even partner's) shoes limits the possible improvement of many players. If you have no idea how other people are thinking how can you interprete their actions.

You should accept that different people call the same thing differently. That's why you should not just name the convention used but explain it's meaning. And when opponents describe their bid with a term you are unfamiliar with ask for further explanation. That way you will learn that what they call "nonforcing relay" is in fact what you would call "pass or correct". BTW I have sometimes even heard the term "weak relay". While technically this describes the same situation, as a TD I would judge this as MI when the weak relay happens to be bid with some misfitting 15-count.

If you don't even think of 6NT, then pls accept that those who did (and managed to get there) earn their top. First improve your approach and judgement, then address methods. You cannot reach a contract you don't even think of.