bluenikki

I can't see what anyone can complain about. In popular methods, where you agree spades as early as possible, you will *not* learn about the heart queen or the diamond king (if partner had it). And partner, if she takes control, will *not* learn about the heart king or the diamond queen. It seems completely appropriate to pretend to agree hearts. (So long as 6♠ is not understood as a grand slam try.)

And if there is *no* fit to responder's 5-card major? Now you are stuck with trying to take 9 tricks in a partial misfit. Face it: a hand with a 6-card suit is almost 2-1 against having 3 cards in another particular suit. You mentioned matchpoints?

The fourth seat opening said among other things "I strongly believe we should declare this suit." So how can responder, who presumably lacks a decent 6-card suit, suggest a partscure in a different suit? No, the only sensible use of a new suit is to show a source of tricks in a hand supporting opener's suit.

But that just means that opener must treat this hand as a super tippy-top hand. No matter what counting highcard points says.

A defense: Losers-covers tells you to respond 1NT with 4333 including AQx in partner's 5-card suit. No matter how much your partnership claims *not* to be playing sound single raises, your partner will always always subconsciously play you for more offense than this if you raise directly. Whether it is phrased in terms of covering losers or not. Likewise, straining not to open 8-loser hands works. Subtracting a point for 4333 does almost as well.

In general: a balanced minimum passes at second turn unless forced. The only exception is raising partner's major with four. (Support double should *not* be made with a balanced minimum in my opinion.)

After (1♣) - P - (1♥) - ? there are two calls that show spades and diamonds -- double and 2NT. The need for a third is dubious, to be polite. And it is *not* necessary for 1♣ to be three-card for it to be the strain you need to declare.

How about, instead of making it forcing, you agree that it is passed only with a bare minimum misfit? Like 1♣ - 1♠ ; 1NT - 3♠ .

even with no spade stop?

OK then, give opener a diamond void and KQJx of clubs. From responder's point of view, would 1♥ - 2♦ ; 3♣ promise a good 4+ club suit. Mightn't it be KQx with no full spade stop? Really, bidding a terrible suit works great when a strong holding turns up opposite. Otherwise, it creates an impression that will be impossible to erase in the subsequent auction.

It is not necessary for 3♥ to have *shown* 5 for hearts to be a live possibility. Unless, 4♥ over 4♦ would have denied slam-suitable diamond support.

The point is that there is NO agreement other than what is in the notes. The bid is forcing, and responder must do the best they can. By contrast, if you play "2/1" with a stranger, you know what YOU would mean by 2NT and what YOUR continuations would mean, but your partner may have wildly different expectations. And you will not know until the hand is over.

Chiaradia, not Siniscalco

Did North think his bid promised four strong hearts? Could he have had Kxx? (I personally believe that failure to double denies 10 hcp.)

No it is not. Yes, you might have opened 3♦ tactically with 7-5. But then you bid FiVE clubs.

Of course it's a mess. But it is a well-defined mess. 2/1 may not be a mess, but it is anything but well-defined.

I have to admit I would go with the 8:5 odds and finesse trumps into the pre-emptor.

I have

Love's book gives good advice here. Don't count anything. Just watch the ♣ discards. Has everything higher than the 6 been played? If yes, you are done. If not, what is there to do except see if the ♠s are running? This won't work for all squeezes. But it shows where "automatic squeezes" got their name.

Opening all AK A hands is way different from opening all 11-point hands.

Exactly! 2NT is a *bad* opening. Do you have methods for reaching a minor-suit slam in a 4-4 or even 5-4 after a 2NT opening? Indeed, there is no good reason to make the 2NT opening weaker than 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT. We should all be doing the opposite to make the 2NT opening rarer! Carl

The common use of "default" for such a bid is misleading. A more correct description is "waiting bid giving no further information about the suit bid."

True. I asked him why, but I didn't understand his answer. For almost 20 years, my wife and I played 2NT response to any opening of a suit to show 16+ with no 6-card suit or 5-5. Opener responded control points, sort of. For example, 3♥ showed either 4 control points with no singleton or 5 with some singleton. Responder replied artificially in the next suit to confirm at least 10 control points in the partnership. After slam authorization, the auction proceeded as CONFI. (We gave no special status to the suit opened. It might contain no top honor, after all.) It worked wonderfully and easily when it came up. When was the last time you reached a winning slam in a 4-3? Carl

If you are going to play this, you must be willing to stop in FIVE notrump.

I apologize for continuing this digression. Edgar Kaplan was asked whether his weak notrump was 12-14 or 11-14 or whatever. He replied that it was 12-14. Even though he was systemically forced to open it with AKx Axx xxxx xxx, partner will never merely invite game with 13. Even though he might open it with a 15- or 16-point pile of quacks, partner will never invite game with a balanced 10. Seemed sensible, as all Kaplan's reasoning. But ACBL, as usual, opted for hcp-madness.