bluenikki

Who cares about 100%? The question is 60%. The right general agreement about high preempts of partner's opening is that raises below game are forcing and jump raises are slam tries. Suppose the reds were switched. You open 1♥, and over 3♠ your partner, a stranger, bids 5♥. How do you take that? "Please bid slam with a ♠ control," right? Peter Weichsel advocated that the jump raise to 5 of a minor should mean the same as a jump raise to 5 of a major in the same context.

5♦ will make way more ofteen than 3NT. You are making my point: the subtle choice between games is unavailable now. And the minor will make way moree often.

If opener lacks the [diamonds ace, 3NT is certainly not safer than 5♦. If opener bids 3NT whenever he stops ♠ , how will you know?

You did not say you probably don't have a game. You said you were "very unlikely" to have a game. Yes a 7-hcp must be carefully constructed. That does not mean a 10-hcp must. On the contrary.

Are you suggesting that further developments might bring you in at the THREE level?

No, but overcaller should run to 3♣. Never pass out a low-level penalty double or penalty pass unless you are *certain* running will make it worse. Not just *fear* you will make it worse.

Of course, you mean RHO bids 2♦ natural. And should say so for that level.

The literature gives not enough thought about what to do after the 5♥ response to RKCB. Just because slam is poor in the agreed suit, doesn't mean there is no good slam. How about 5NT = "pick a strain" and cheapest unbid suit for the grand slam try? Of course, you shouldn't bid RKCB if you are not already sure of the best strain, but people do it all the time.

No "that book." All books that mention the opening.

Half your possible suit slams will be in a minor. You provide an elaborate structure for the other half.

But of course the books say that opening 6 of a suit shows a hand whose only loser is the missing A or K of trumps.

Is from time to time monthly?

But can you be sure both you and your partner will remember it 10 months later when the first appropriate hand arrives?

In Kaplan-Scheinwold, it is forcing to 6NT at least, beginning the partnership's bidding decent suits to try to locate a suitable strain for 7.

1♥ would not deny spades, but if advancer bids over 1♥ opener will strain not to introduce spades at 2 level. I am not putting any words in anyone's mouth. I'm simply saying that intervenor's choice of doubling rather than overcalling, however inferior, was irrelevant to the final result. *Because* a player who would bid 1♥ over double (an abomination) would certainly double 1♠.

But you would bid 1♥ over double???? Shutting out a possible ♠ contract???? That's nuts.

Negative double by north over 1♠ is much more attractive (at least to me) than 1♥ over double.

I'm sure 1♠ is best. So what? If you were doubling 4♥ after T-O-dbl what will keep you from doubling after 1♠?

Notice you do not recognized any subdivision of "penalty" double. The main message of a penalty-oriented double is misfit for partner's suit and this may be the last chance for a plus.

We were given only the options of takeout and penalty, with no way to vote for optional or penalty-oriented. What do you do if your majors are reversed and you have 2 more hcp in minors? In that case, you would *not* want a spade rebid without semi-solidity and *not* want a 3-card 4♦.

In fact, there was never in the history of bridge a period when constructive bidding followed high-card points. Culbertson was dogmatic in restricting the use of point count to notrump auctions. Goren had a hard time getting acceptance of the high-cards-plus-distribution count for suit bidding. And for good reason. Axx x Kxxx Axxxx facing x Axx Axxxx Kxxx If the other hands have no singleton, you make 7 of either minor. If they have no void, you make 5 of either minor.

The background fact is that a 1♥ responder is unlikely both to have a ♠ suit and a hand that will pass 1NT. Less likely than you might think if you haven't done the tedious computation. So you should rebid 1♠ only if you don't have clear positionsl reason to declare 1NT. I would say that hand 1 has no particular reason to be declarer, so 1♠ it is. In hand 2 you have tenace positions in both majors, so 1NT

It is disaster-prone to rely on the alleged meaning of an opponent's bid for the meaning of your own bids.

The west hand is *not* too weak for a constructive limit raise. It has 11 Goren dummy points: 3 for singleton, 1 point promotion for the trump jack. In terms of losing trick count, it covers 4 potential losers: 3 in hearts and 1 in diamonds.