kgr

correct 2♣ is transfer to ♦ for us. 1♠ therefore tends to show a balanced hand not wanting to bid 1NT (No stopper; or f.i 10/11HCP and a direct 2NT is not natural for us). for us:- DBL: 4+c♠ - 2♦: 6c♠, weak or GF - 3♠: 6c♠, limit - 2♠: 5c♠, 4+c♣, weak I'm trying to resist to give attention to this :)

I was South at the 2nd table. Maybe 6♥ is a better bid than 6♠, but I didn't want to give to much info to opps (not that it would make it easy for North to bid 7 then). The lead was small ♣, ruffed. ♠A,♠Q (West has 3c♠) ♥K, ♥A, ♥ ruff, ♣ruff + claim => Agree with this line?

Thanks. All posts answered my main question. 5C is control and that is best. Looks like a good way, but maybe North should bid 4D iso 4S?:3d 4d 5c 5d ?: seems to make it more difficult because South cannot bid H in a forcing way?

Thanks; All clear and I agree with all of it, except some doubts about the last line:- Why 6♦ and not 6♣? After 6♦: is it clear for North to bid 7? 3♠ iso 4♠ would have been a 3c-♠ and slam interest. I think I prefer that then iso 4SF.But North has nothing more then a 3c♠ GF hand, so I think that 4♠ is the bid in our system. I don't think that North should bid anything else (not in our system anyway).

Thanks for reply - Me and partner clearly agreed that 5C without jump was not exclusion. (we had the 2nd bidding)- One player (sitting South with the 1st bidding) of another pair that plays the same 3D agreement as we, said that having 5C here should be Exclusion (I disagreed), or that it was very clear and obvious that 5C/5D exclusion would be the best agreement to have here (I started to doubt) and that partner should even take it as exclusion without having that agreement (I disagreed again). We have a very long (too long) system description without anything about follow-up after the 3-minor cue bid. So you are somehow right about the unknown territory. And maybe 1♠ will make the bidding easier, but still I would prefer to show the Good 5-5 in a forcing way.We would take 4C as a fit-bid for H or S and 4D as a good raise for H or S. If I would have had the decision then I would bid 4D here. I agree.

That is correct, but I think that 3S would not be the correct bid by North. 3S sounds preemptive to me. We have 2D for the majors and that can be a 4-4 if at least an opening. With more distribution it can be weaker. Therefore 3D is a Good 5-5 for us.

2C is transfer D.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj72hj72dqjckq972&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+%20card%20)1h]133|200|MPs[/hv] 1♣=2+ card ♣ (Openings: 5=5=4=2) System options: 2♥=invite+ with ♣-fit (2NT by opener is then 18-19) 3♣=6-9 with ♣-fit 1♠= 6+ points without ♥-stop, no 4+c♠ 1NT=natural (2NT=weak, 2-5, ♣-fit)

(1♦)-3♦!-(Pass)-4♠ (Pass)-5♣? 3♦=Good 5-5 Majors What should 5♣ be? Is it a control (1st/2nd?) or should it be exclusion? These were the hands: [hv=pc=n&s=saqj752hat7542dqc&n=sk83hkjda753cj753&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d3d(Good%205-5%20Majors)p4sp]266|200|MPs[/hv] How to reach 7♠? At another table the bidding was: [hv=pc=n&s=saqj752hat7542dqc&n=sk83hkjda753cj753&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2cp2hp4sp6sppp]266|200|MPs[/hv] 2♣ was not 2/1; 2♥ Forcing; 4♠ showed a 3c♠ and around GF strength. How should the bidding be to reach 7♠?

Thank you for the answers. Seems that there is some preference for forcing to game. The complete deal and result: MP's [hv=pc=n&n=skqxhktxxxxdxcaxx&s=s432h2dakqj742c32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp3dppp]233|200[/hv] - 3♦: 6c♦; intermediate 3♦+1 Score: 37% (When we played the deal 3 other pairs were in 3NT making.)

MP's [hv=pc=n&s=s432h2dakqj742c32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp]133|200[/hv] Our system: - 1NT: Non-forcing - 3♦: 6c♦; intermediate - 2♦ followed by 3♦: GF ...Or if you prefer: how do you bid this hand with your system?

For info both hands and the bidding: [hv=pc=n&s=saq752hkdkj87432c&n=skjt643hq52dca852&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s2h2n(4+cS%2C%2010+HCP)p3h(12-14%2C%20any%20void)dpp4c(Probably%20void%20C%20%5BNorth%20expected%20RDBL%20for%20H%20void%5D)dr(1st%20control%20C)p4d(1st/2nd%20control)p4h(No%20H-control)p5c(control%20%5B%3F%5D)p5d(1st/2nd%20control)p6sppp]266|200|MP's[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq752hkdkj8742c2]133|100[/hv] Is this also a 1♦ opener? [hv=pc=n&s=saq752h2daq8742c2]133|100[/hv] and this?

I think it will be most logic to have:- Any bid is forcing (except 4♣) - 4♦: fit-bid - 4♥: to play - 4♠: splinter - 5♦: to play

Thanks for the answer And when partner bids 1NT or 2♣, then you reverse in ♠?

3♣=6c♣; intermediate (10-15 HCP) From our system: "Fit-bid: When opps compete then we play for responder splinters in suits promised by the opps and fit-bids in other suits. A jump by Opener in competition is a splinter." It says nothing about advancer. (1♠)-3♣-(Pass)-4♦ => Is it best to have 4♦ here as fit-bid or as splinter? => ...and 5♦?

My partner had following hand at MP's: [hv=pc=n&s=saq752hkdkj87432c]133|100[/hv] - What do you open? - If you open 1♦, will you reverse if partner bids 1NT or always bid Spade if opps compete?

Opps bidding 2-suited: 2♦=Majors, 2NT=♣&♥ 1) PASS and DBL 1♦-(2♦!)-Pass-(2♠) Pass-(Pass)-DBL 1♦-(2NT!)-Pass-(3♣) Pass-(Pass)-DBL 2) DBL AND DBL 1♦-(2♦!)-DBL-(2♠) Pass-(Pass)-DBL 1♦-(2NT!)-DBL-(3♣) Pass-(Pass)-DBL Note: Direct DBL shows interest to penalize. Question: How do you play DBL+DBL versus Pass+DBL here; what do they both show?

Thank you for the comments... ...but you are also very welcome to give your opinion on the question in OP.

1♣-(1♠)-2♦!-(2♠) ? 2♦=transfer ♥ (not 6c♥ and invite, then we bid 3♥) We play that 2NT is a good raise in last suit (Gorilla) and 3♥ is competitive. Given these agreements, I had a discussion with my partner. - 2NT=4c♥ and exactly extras, never GF <=> 2NT is 4c♥ and extras, possibly very strong - 3♠=♥-fit, GF <=> asks stopper - DBL=3c♥ support, extras OR stopper asks <=> 3c♥ support extras OR GF What is best?

Thanks. good searching :)

Thank you! DBL shows exactly 4c♥, with longer ♥ we bid 2♦. It can also go 1♣-(2♠)-DBL-(Pass) (DBL also showing a 4c♥)

My question comes from a discussion with my partner. We agree that opening 1♦ is better with the weak hand: e.g with: xx=Qxx=AJxx=KQxx 1♣-(1♠)-DBL-(Pass) versus 1♦-(1♠)-DBL-(Pass) => To my surprise this agreement is not in line with forum posters above. We disagree about the strong hands. My partner also prefers to open 1♦ with the 18-19 hand, but with that strength I prefer to open 1♣, as I don't see the need to open 1♦.

Completing the transfer shows exactly a 3-card, unlimited, for us.

Suppose you prefer to lead 3rd/low against NT. Do you prefer to have exceptions on this? - From AQT2 we will lead 2 What do you lead from a bad holding?: - 8642 Or from a low sequence?: - 9862 - 986 - 8752 - 8742 - 875 ...