bluenikki

You have this exactly backward. The weak hand's 7+ suit may well be the only strain that can make a high contract. the 2♣ opener is supposed to have aces and kings to add tricks even when misfitting responder's suit. Where responder may contribute nothing in a misfit. If the weak hand must temporize for 3 rounds, his suit will sound like.a cue bid

You seem to think that a positive response equals slam zone for every strain. That is a very hard way to play.

Play the jump to 5♣ over 2NT to demand pass with no top !c honor, 6♣ with 1, 7♣ with both and all aces, some other suit with both but a missing ace. I am sure this is the right meaning for the double jump, but I would not risk it unless the partnership had talked about it very recently. I am not so sure the present responding hand is quite strong enough, though.

As I understand it, the purpose is to *conceal* the nature of your hand from your mine-field partner.

Indeed, but that is not the point. Whenever you show a good hand with a long suit, there is a tangible risk that the robot opposite will go bonkers. Apparently, they were never instructed to avoid blackwood with 32 in an unbid suit.

For that matter, you can construct many 22-pt hands that would be cold for 6NT opposite that junkpile. But that's not the point. Or are you suggesting that the present hand with an added jack should also open only 2NT? Sure the south opening was an overbid. But that contributed 0% to the result.

As far as I can see, there is no jack that can be added to the south hand that will bring slam to 50%. The club jack adds nothing. The diamond jack only adds 1 trick potentially. The heart jack adds play. If both major queens lie under the jacks, a 33 heart split or a squeeze in the reds gets you home. But those are terrible odds. So south's overbid is irrelevant.

Forcing is not the same as promising a suit playable at slam opposite a void. 2♥ then 4♥ promises such a suit. But denies enough side strength to take over. Somethng like a side ace and the queen of one of opener's suits. If you bid only 3♥ , you will be forced to take over. That is, forced to guess.

The sensible wild gamble is 5NT

that is for opener, not responder

8: 3 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 2 in ♦, 1 in ♣

Oops, I meant the ♥ queen. Which was indeed useless as it turned out.

The responding hand potentially covers 4 losers, leaving out the possibility of the 10th trump covering a loser. Single raise shows 3 potential covers, so is an underbid. Basically, it assumes the ♦ queen is useless. Jumping to 4 assumes essentially that opener lacks the ♠ queen, so that the 10th trump is not a duplicated value. Personally, I raise to 3.

In the example, the right way is to investigate slam and if it looks poor STOP IN 5N, making 100% of the time. Can you do that?

gloing down in 5 major 15% of the time is a catastrophe.

OK there is 6NT even with 2 ♠ losers. Do *you* have a method of reaching 5NT in the event the ♠ king is missing?

Absolutely!!!!! Down in 5 of a major 33% of the time is a catastrophe.

You may not be *likely* to be set at 5. But that's not the issue. Going down 40% of the time is unacceptable. If you're missing QJxxx in trump and an ace ....

If the partnership is missing the trump queen, the chance of 2 trump losers is significant. And it is very rare for the rest of the hand to be so solid that the chance of a 3rd loser can be discounted. And if it is that solid, then what are you doing playing in a suit?

The system definition document says that opener's simple rebid of the suit opened shows minimum-range strength. The document does not say what it shows in the suit. (The reason for playing SAYC is that it allows no unstated agreements. You can add agreements if you want but you cannot *assume* any. No such thing as "just bridge.")

It *should* be that asking without the queen is very rare. Because your chances of going down in 5 are then very real.

Not if it got me to slam missing 2 aces. If 4♣ would be slam interest, it is a better idea anyway. You are in no position to decide on 7 facing 2 aces. Maybe partner is.

Or, at any rate, why you can't play 1430 in clubs.

In his 1972 book "Slam Bidding," Hugh Kelsey recommended that quantitative 4NT be treated as nonforcing Blackwood. the teller passes with poorish controls and shows aces otherwise. Then asker's 5NT shows two missing aces. (If you desperately need kings, bid 6♣.)

46% of your high card points are in your short suits. That balaces the heck out of it.