bluenikki

Yes, we play 2NT response for 16+ hands with no 6-card or 5-5. Artificial replies. (Opener can take over.) But I thought we were alone.

A 4333 hand with slam interest can never take command except in a relay system. If you use rkc, for example, your subsequent placing of the contract would be a wild stab. Do any of the proposed methods let partner know you are *this* strong?

Never re-open. the opps always have a GAME.

My comment was misplaced, it seems. Play, and mark on cc, that pass over 1-level rdbl shows 4+ in dbled suit. (not necessarily any values) . Then you can, indeed must, bid one of the suits requested, no matter what the UI might be.

You should agree and put on cc that pass of 1-level rdbl promises 4+ in dbled suit.

You didn't specify form of scoring. If partner is going to pass a 1!h, you are highly likely to go minus in 1NT, whiile you may scramble a plus in 1!H. But you can't allow that worry to affect you. If partner has 4 !h and 7 pts, opening 1NT may miss a game. Or even many 6 pt hands. This is a serious risk of the 1NT opening. But opening 1!h in most other situations will leave you worrying whether partner really has a clear notion of what you have.

When you have a doubleton is when upside down shines. When you have an honor you can show it. When you have no honor you (SHOULD) want to discourage, and you can conveniently.

The point of reverse attitude/standard count: You hold . K932. Partner's opening lead is this suit, won by dummy's ace. You play the 2. Your next signal in this suit is supposed to be count. But you must not waste the 9! So udca forces you to falsecard.

4NT with void is ......

North should certainly be interested in slam. Does North have a bid that asks for good trumps? If not, why not?

Actujally, it's better if you're dummy. But the main thing is when you've given a detailed description of your shape and honor location, you must not end up on defense.

If you choose to describe your 2-suiters with such accuracy, you'd better end up as declarer! The information is far more useful to the opponents than to your partner.

You do not build a system based on exploiting psychic bidding. You just pay off.

Absurd. What is your reference for shading second double? When doubler fails to pass in later rounds, it is reserved for game interest opposite roughly nothing. It's advancer's job to do all the partnership's overbidding.

Of course advancer bids 1S with 3=4=3=3, < 9. But only in that case. Why is partner passing over raise with clubs plus values? Wait. Are you suggesting that (1H) - x - (2H) - P ; (P) - x would not show the same 20+ that bidding a suit would? That is madness. Advancer bears complete responsibility for competing for partscore.

By the way, are you assuming that advancer to double of 1H will bid 3-card S instead of 4-card minor??? Your partners must think they are the world's greatest declarer.

With 3064/3073, choose between flawed double and flawed non-simple overcall. With 2074, choose between flawed non-simple overcall and flawed unusual NT. 3-3 spades undoubled at 1-level is not so bad if they do not guess opening trump lead. And you won't play 3-3 spades above 1-level.

Never make a simple overcall with a void in opener's suit. Find a different call, no matter how flawed.

The problem with double is not when partner has 5 C and a bad hand. The problem is when partner has 5 C and a fair hand. And jumps to 3C with 9 including D shortness.

Regardless of the original question, it is unplayable for the jump from 3 to 5 of a minor to be "fast arrival." Has it ever worked out in any of your experiences? Best use of the double jump was suggested by Peter Weichsel: Double jump raise to 5 of a minor means the same thing that double jump raise to 5 of a major would mean in your partnership.

On this auction, are you sure 2NT is least of evils? I would have thought default rebid is false preference.

Simple to *describe*. Not the same as simple to play.

"without full stopper" indeed! how about with 432?

Did partner think 4♠ was forcing?

If so, then there must be many publications that say so. Can you cite 3?