karlson

Actually, uh, what do you respond to 1♣ with a 3343 hand and 18 HCP? (or, more generally, a 3343 hand and x HCP?) 4-10: 1N 11-13 (or whatever you consider inv): 2N 13-15 and 16-18 can have 3d and 3N in some order. The rest of what I play is 1c-? 1d-2d as Adam described 2M both minors (4-5)+ short M, either 8-12 or very strong 2N natural invitational with 4-5 diamonds and not 4 clubs. 3c weak 3d 13-15 balanced 3M both minors short M gf 3N 16-18 balanced We have some artificiality after 1s to sort out all the club hands but it usually works out and there's plenty of room. The 2M bids are quite descriptive and have some preemptive effect, and also help take a tricky set of hands out of 1s. Also there's the nice inference that a sequence like 1c-p-1s-2M-p-p-x is basically always 10+ balanced. I'm sure you could make it work if you wanted to play weak jump shifts though.

Seems that a lot of people think double was penalty. I was assuming it wasn't -- my preferred treatment would be takeout/flexible, so 4s was not at all unexpected and doesn't have to be on 7 spades.

I'm sure it won't be popular, but I would answer keycard here. Everything else seems too weird.

Hey, that's my structure :D I agree with the benefits Adam mentioned, but I think the biggest benefit is actually that opener holding an unbalanced hand with clubs is much better prepared to compete over 1c-p-1s-2M (or not compete over 1c-p-1n-2M) than over a more standard 1c-p-1s-2M which could have as few as three or maybe even two clubs. The biggest downside is having to bid 1c-1n instead of 1c-1s on xxx xxx Axxx xxx or something. If you're willing to pass 1c with a lot of hands, then it's less of a big deal.

1. I think it should be normal to raise to 2h with this shape and a minimum. 2. If I actually knew partner had less than 5 hearts, I would pass. If partner could have 5, I think you have to bid 3h now. 3. After 3s, I would bid 4s, sounds like my hand is terrible for 3n if partner can't bid it now.

I would bid 3s with such disparity in the majors.

I'd double this too.

Nah, not for me this time. Their tricks are coming from clubs, not spades. If partner has hearts bottled up and a club trick he might try the spec double himself.

4n seems like enough to me, and I'm not really dying to emphasize clubs with the scattered values. Can still get to them if partner bids them over 4n.

Edit: I just noticed Justin suggested playing it differently over 1s than over 1h -- maybe that's the best compromise; we didn't really want two different systems. Anyway, I wrote the below without realizing that. I play the transfers more or less as described in two regular partnerships. I've been very happy with the distinction of 3 and 4 card raises (we actually play that the 3-card raise is 2d and is NF(!) which I think is cool (BWDH bids 2n over 1M)), but overall I'm not convinced it's a huge gain. A big problem hand is 1453 over 1d-1s (you more or less have to rebid 1n showing clubs which isn't great), and you'd also kind of like a natural 1n with 1444 hands. I know kenrexford plays the 1n rebid as 3-suited short in M, which seems a little inefficient to me, but maybe he'll chime in on how much he likes it. Anyway, if it were up to me, I would play that the 1n rebid is natural, usually short in M, but leaves you the option of opening 3352 or xx42 hands with 1d instead of 1c. But if you're set on playing a real unbalanced diamond, I think the transfers work pretty well. A benefit which wasn't mentioned explicitly is that it solves the false preference problem -- responder with 2-3 in the minors doesn't have to bid 2d over 1n showing clubs since opener will have another shot with a good hand, so you get to the right minor partial more often.

I think this is where transfer advances to overcalls and transfers over 1M-x should differ strongly, but many people don't formally make the distinction. I think that 2c...2s should show josh's hand here -- yes, it may be at the three level before you get to show spades, but if opener doesn't show a diamond fit, then it might be just as well. With constructive values and no real spade fit, you could start with xx perhaps, and partner is extremely likely to be on lead, so the lead-direct is worth a lot. On the other hand on a sequence like (1c)-1s-(p) I think 2c (showing diamonds) followed by 2s is really much better to play as constructive values with decent diamonds and Hx in spades. In that case it is more likely to be your hand, and you arguably have a wider range for the 1s bidder to sort out. As for the actual hand, I don't understand why I wouldn't try to get both suits in and bid 2c...2h.

I would bid 2h the first time if it's available (as a fit jump). I guess from the poll options that it's not, but then again, xx would have never crossed my mind, so I'm not trusting the poll options.

I think 4333 is getting a worse rap than it deserves. If you have weak side suits, playing in the major will usually score at least one more trick unless partner also happens to be 4333. The extreme would be for instance a hand like KQJx Axx xxx xxx where any doubleton in partner's hand is likely to be a useful ruffing value. I think it's clear to stayman with that at any form of scoring, despite the chorus here. Otoh all of gnome's examples look much more like 1n-3n to me. Edit: just noticed that this is almost exactly what jdonn and gwnn said, sorry.

It's been pointed out that most of the hands i imagine opener having on the second one don't actually have a heart cue, so I guess then I'm convinced by natural but this auction almost doesn't exist.

I think both are cues, I would not bid 3n with 3 decent hearts on the first one or two decent hearts on the second one, and I think the 4d bidder should have real diamonds both times.

I think the second is clearly NF and the first could go either way, but I would have assumed forcing normally.

Wide range. Lose when opener has the good hand. That said, for me this is just not quite enough offense for 3♦ on the first round.

Agree with Josh, 3♦ seems obvious enough. I wouldn't have any beef with 2♦ on the last round either.

Or you could play the kokish version I like where 3s shows a real fit and 3h can be a doubleton (and you show spades by bidding 2h-2n). I would also bid 4c and hope that partner bids 4h.

I think rusinow is a big win against NT, since you retain your power lead and also have the ability to cash a high one from AK. Don't care much either way against suit contracts. (Agree with Josh that you need some exceptions (I just use no rusinow in partner's suit, the one where you preempted seems unusual enough to me to not worry about it, obviously I see his logic)).

I think kfay more or less has it right. He got himself stuck in a corner with the unusual 1♦ response, followed by a double (probably great if partner can pass, but as he found out, doesn't really work out well when he can't). At that point, I bet pretty much anything he did was going to end up with him playing in diamonds unless he bid 3n now. Since diamonds were probably going to be a terrible strain, he had no choice but to gamble on 3n. So all the gushing about the daring 3n bid seems a little weird to me. Not to take anything away from him, he certainly played extremely well (I think the 4♥ hand from a few boards before that was quite cool).

I play as many takeout doubles as anyone, and it would not occur to me that this one was not penalty.

It's hard to think of any hand where I would say "no matter what lho's suit is, I want to defend doubled". If you don't want to commit, just pass. They never know to pass out 2c. Maybe partner will have a takeout double of their suit. Maybe you'll realize that you don't really want to defend after all. You're never worse off than if they had just bid their suit. I'll keep my stayman, btw, I think it's perfectly useful.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse. I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass. I was assuming 3♦ 100% pinpointed our club shortness, so partner would not necessarily make a club cue.

I think I've done enough, I pass.