bluenikki

this is 11.8 CCCC count. 11.6 without the 9s. Kaplan's point count. So it is too weak for a K-S opening. CCCC hates two honors doubleton: the ♥ J only counted .45 .

balanced minimum opener passes (or raises) at 2nd turn unless forced. Do you believe this is unbalanced?

Not even forcing for one round. However, any further bid is GF. But 1♥ - 2♣ ; 3♥ is forcing, because responder promised a 2nd bid if opener rebid below game. The jump rebid *should* be GF, but the SAYC definition document doesn't say so.

It's 4th suit and it's forcing in some sense but it's not the convention 4th-suit-forcing.

When the 4th suit is the 4th bid in the auction, it is artificial, saying nothing about the named suit. That is possible only by responder. Bidding the 4th suit later in the auction is not artificial. It says something about the suit named. Just what it says about the suit is a partnership matter. You should not spring it on your partner without discussion. My own feeling about the auction 1♦ - 1♥ ; 1♠ - 2♥ ; ? is that 3♣ cannot be a minimum 4=0=5=4. With that holding, you pass 2♥ ; partner promised 6+, after all. So if you want it to show 4+ ♣ , then it is 15-18. It doesn't matter whether you call it forcing or not. As T. Lightner wrote often, a player who has opened one of a suit has no "absolute force" in later rounds: as far as he was concerned, partner promised nothing by responding. So the closest opener has to a force is "if you had your bid, we have a game."

On your auction with west dealer: Does the 3♥ bid promise even one honor? More generally, how can west be sure that the 5-level is safe? And how does west know the ♦ king is opposite?

In general, the maximum suit shows extra length, because there are highly likely to be reasonable intermediate bids. Thus 1♣ - 1♦ ; 2♣ shows 6+ 100%. 1♣- 1♠ ; 2♣. is usually 6+ but nowhere near 100%. 1♠ - 2♥ is 5+ 100%. 1♠ - 2♣ is not. Maybe the 2/1 people play 2♣. to a major is an artificial game force, although they won't say so.

Suppose the opponents bid as follows: 2♣ shows at least one major, 2♦ shows 5+ ♥ , 2♥ shows 5+ ♠ . Then your methods sre suboptimal, if not suicidal. So it is not so simple to describe. "Double of 2♣ shows majors unless 2♣ showed majors, double of 2♦ shows ♥ unless 2♦ showed ♥..."

Unrelated to 4NT, but opener's re-open is suicidal. Partner is highly likely to have fewer than 3 ♣. In which case, his pass says he is *busted*.

That's for a penalty pass of a *balancing" double.

If you mean penalty pass shows 7 winners, that is silly. AKJxx of ♦ and a side ace is fine. At imps you don't worry about whether the penalty exceeds the value of the game you might have.

All of you *should*. The standard 60 years ago was pass denied 6 pts *including* distribution. But people pass hands better than this all the time.

If south has his pass, partner is marked with strength. So the reason for east's pass must be a preponderance of length and/or strength in ♦ . But in bridge today, there is no reason to be confident that south does have his pass. The real danger to re-opening is that south has something like Axxxxx x xxx xxx and opener has KJxx xxx AKxxx AK

2 down in 4 major, vs making 5 at other table

Whoever told your friend not to advance 2♣ in that situation did a terrible disservice.

Refers, I believe, to a famous/notorious lead by Pabis-Ticci in the 1968 Olympics final. (Partner has the club singleton, not diamond.)

Underleading AQ when opener is on your right is much worse than Ax. Leading the ace into opener from AQ is also terrible.

I kibitzed an early round of the 1984 Spingold. Stansby opened a major. Martel responded 1NT forcing. Stansby bid 2♣ . Martel bid 3♦ . Stansby alerted and explained that it showed a big ♣ fit, unrelated to the ♦ suit. Stansby bid 3NT (I think). Martel thought he hadn't conveyed the power of his hand, so he bid . 4♦ . Stansby bid 5♣. Martel thought he *still* hadn't shown the power of his hand. So he bid 5♦ . . . . . .

such as: you have reason (good or bad) to hope that it will hold, and fear that the 2nd lead in the suit will be ruffed. So the same reasons you might lead A from Axxx when partner has promised 6+ length there.

Actually, there is no logical bridge requirement for 2 followed by 2NT to be stronger than original 2NT. Rather than weaker, I mean.

for example xxxx xxxx xxx KQ is only 3.5

CCCC hates 2 honors doubleton

I respond whatever forcing raise is in clubs. As to RKC that is precisely the point: you discover there is no good way to reach slam in another suit. And if the spade fit is 5-3 you may well have only one loser there if it is side suit where there are 2 losers when it is trumps. Actually, with this kind of power, you usually want to play in NT if there is no slam. How can you do that after RKC????

If your ambition is limited to game, that's so. Do *you* have reliable methods to reach slam in a different suit after spades have been "agreed"? Does a novice? The way to avoid reaching slam in a suit with 2 losers is for the player who knows the hand is slam-zone to refuse to bid the suit first.

Focus on South. South expects to reach slam. So what he must avoid at all costs is bidding a bad suit. If South responds 2♣ ..... (Of course, North does not have an opening hand. CCCC 11.40. 10.95 without the 9s)