mw64ahw

East's hand opposite a minimum assuming the 3♥ rebid above shows 6+♥ 1♥-2♣ 2♦ (Min) -2♥ (asks for shape) 2NT 6♥ unbalanced/3♦ (semi)balanced/3♥ 7+♥ - 4NT (Kickbo 3/5 keycards controls in all suits) with the unbalanced response, 3♣ asks for the shortage/4 card minor if that step is needed. (i.e. short ♠ would be good) Very similar opposite a non-min West, but without the intermediate stage 1♥-2♣ 2NT 6♥ unbalanced/3♦ (semi)balanced/3♥ 7+♥ - 4NT (Kickbo 3/5 keycards controls in all suits) with the unbalanced response, 3♣ asks for the shortage/4 card minor if that step is needed. (i.e. short ♠ would be good) e.g. 3♣ shortage/4 card minor ----3♦ 4 card minor --------3♥ which? ------------3♠ 4+♣ ------------3NT 4+♦ ----3♥ short ♣ 3631 ----3♠ short ♦ 3613 ----3NT short ♠ 1633

As a reminder the approach I use is based on Advancing a Nebulous 2♣ Response (bridgewinners.com). where I don't have immediate support for the opened Major With a bit of use it I now find it straightforward to remember especially as the responses after 1M-2♣-2♦-2♥ are the same, but with a Min I use similar responses structure with GF 5+♦ & 5+♥

Sorry missed that

I use responses after 2♣ as follows 2♦- any Min except as below 2♥-4♥ Min+ 2♠-4♦ non-Min+ 2NT-6+♠ with void/singleton non-Min+ etc. So similar to pescetom, but with Kickbo to 6♦ 1♠ - 2♣ 2♠ - 4♦ SI 4♠ 3 keycards w. ♠ control - 4NT ♥ control (4♥ shows 0/2/4 keycards) 5♣ ♣ control - 6♦ (use 5♠ to show ♠ control if you're looking for the grand)

What does the splinter gain rather than first setting trumps with 3♠ and then using serious/frivolous3NT or cue-bidding to establish controls in all suits? South's hand remains distributionally strong and I would take the slower route to establish a viable slam. Additionally why go the 2♣ route when Jacoby 2NT (assuming you use it) is more descriptive if played in the stricter modified form. You establish the trump suit at a lower level which gives even further room for the slam investigation.

A toss up between passing & doubling?

A modified Jacoby 2NT for me followed by the slam investigation. I reserve the 2/1 for when there is no immediate fit.

Thx

Not come across 'De Mass' and can' t find any references, but I assume its straightforward. Any further context?

No that's not what I'm suggesting for a hand up to 18 points and I think it's far from standard to give a false preference. My comment reflects Zia's partners choice knowing that a 3NT contract is not out of the question as occurred at the other table. With the actual hand 55 in the minors and 19ish total points this hand in the old style I originally learnt would have been suitable for a reverse. Not what I play now, but my current approach would end up in 3NT/5♣

Partner is 5(4)-4 either way in the minors with a limited hand (open ♣ and reverse if stronger) so I pass with a hand not good enough for the 3-level and I then find out that combined we have enough for 3NT

Sounds a bit harsh given the old version of Jacoby 2NT suggested 3 with 2 of the top 3 honours was OK. I thought I'd read on one of the forums that 3+ was used regularly in some areas, but I guess none of these were good players! I found that the standard Jacoby 2NT was underused so I'm now experimenting with a modified version. I found that whether I had 3 or 4+ GI or GF I tended to end up in the same contract, but just told everyone whether I had 3 or 4+. I'm now working with a 3+ limit+ version which has had good results so far. It's simple to remember and so far I've not seen adverse results. Simply, I respond using a combined hcp/modified losing trick count so opposite 1♠-1NT I have: 3♣-8/7.5 10+ ----3♦ asks which with 7.5 or fewer losers 3♦-7 12+ 3♥-6.5 14+ 3♠-6 16+ Higher- 5.5 or fewer 17+ Italian cue bids with 3NT showing 2+ losers (unlikely, but allows partner to stop in 3NT) The key issue I find is that my declarer play can struggle opposite 3 rather than 4+ even when the contract is makeable. The modified looking trick count partly factors in distribution, but keeps the opponents in the dark.

I play the 2♣ as a relay with the relay break of 2♠ showing weak with 3+♠. Then 3♦ 5134, 3♥ 5314 & 3♣ other shapes. In this case 2♣ is NF so a bit of a guess as to the meaning of 3♦

Good point - possibly a distributional strong, but hcp light hand i.e. 5044 with 15/16 hcp

I think there is an argument here for adapting the Jacoby 2NT to allow differentiation between an 8 & 7.5 looser hand to allow for the marginal slam tries. However you play I would have thought a 1NT or Power Double is much more descriptive than 1♠ with a flat hand

I guess 5134/5044/5035 with 17+hcp. With the singletons working I bid 4♦ looking for the marginal slam if North has extras

I'd call that a distributional rather than hcp reverse with a view to taking it to 4♣ with that hcp & length

If it helps I play 1♦-1♠ as GF/GI with the follow-ups below 1NT 3+♦(5+4+3x) --2♣ 4+♥ 2 under transfers completes with 3 --2♦ 4+♠ 2 under transfers completes with 3 --2♥ 4+♣ --2♠ 5+♦ --2NT 3343 Min --3♣ 4♥4♠ --3♦ 5♥4♠ --3♥ 4♥5♠ --3♠ 5♥5♠ short ♣ --3NT 3343 non-Min --4♣ 5♥5♠ short ♦ --4♦ 5+♦ SI 2♣ (444x) --2♦ Short suit? etc -- ... 2-suited stronger hands 2♦ 6+♦ not 6430 --2♥ Shape/Strength? --2♠ 5+♥2+♦ Min --2NT 5+♠2+♦ Min -- ... 2♥ 4♥6+♦ Min not 6430 2♠ 4♥6+♦ Min not 6430 2NT 5♣♦ Min 3♣ 4♣6♦ Min 3♦ semi-balanced w/o 3M 3♥ 4♥6+♦ non-Min not 6430 3♠ 4♥6+♦ non-Min not 6430 3NT 5♣♦ non-Min Subsequent relays further define the shortage/strength For non-GF hands 1♦ 1♥ 4+♥/♠/both or any 3+♣&♦ 1NT 4/5♣ 2♣ 6+♣ 2♦ 5+♦ 2♥ 6+♥ 2♠ 6+♠ 2NT 5+♣♦ Inv 3♣ 5+♦ preemptive or max. with shape

The above is the auction I would have had about 6 months ago, but with a steady partner and lots of ideas from various forums we tweaked our approach sequentially as below: Moved to 4♣ as the keycard ask in the above sequence Put all limit+ 3+ support into a Jacoby 2NT style bid Modified the 2NT bid to show levels of strength. Switched to Italian Q bids & keycard showing rather than asking. This would now result in the following auction for me 1♠-2NT (3+ limit+) 3♠ (shows 16/17hcp w. MLT<=6)-4♣ (slam interest with ♣ control & a ♠ honour) 4♦ (♦ control)-4♠ (denies ♥ control) 5♣ (1/3/5 keycards w. ♣-must be a void here- & ♥ controls)-5NT (we have all keycards, denies Q♠) 6♠ (sign-off) Yes it could go down still, but worth a try

4♣ for me. Counting hcps; North has them in the reds. A slam is on if North has more than the minimum with South contributing 2 keycards

I'm passing with 14(35) & 5-10 total points as 3♥ may struggle opposite a minimum, but likely make game with 7-10 opposite the above hand. I prefer to force the issue rather than miss the game contract.

Tricky one - it's a distributionally strong hand with intermediate values. I think both 2♥/♠ are too weak on this one. 3♠ would be OK and show the intermediate values, but I'm tempted to bid 2♣ as I play this as a forcing relay followed by 2NT (4+♥) (bar any relay break).

I assume that 2♠ doesn't show 6♠ as 4♠ wasn't reached. I do think that an approach is needed that shows 6+. When I started playing I learnt that this was what a rebid of a Major meant. Having Hx should then make a final contract more obvious. On the above hand I play 1♠-2♦ (or 2♥ see recent bbo link https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/85538-1s-2h-as-gf-5d/) 2♥ (Min denies 4♥)-2♠ (define further) 2NT (6+♠ unbalanced)-4♠/3♣ (further ask)/4♦ (SI showing ♦ control with a ♠ honour) The 2NT bid denies 3+♦, 4♥ has already been denied so partner is in a position to place the contract, look for a ♣ fit or try for the marginal slam.

With 18 points the other hands share 22 points between them. I would expect partner to bid with 5/6. Typically I would still open 1♠ and if partner passes you may not be making game with support lacking. If you open 2♣ you are likely to end up playing in a minimum of 3X if partner has little or 2♠ if partner has nothing. Can you count the tricks even without ♠ support? With a 5 card minor instead of the Major I would be opening 2♣ with 3.5 losers with opener's 2nd bid being 3(one below the short suit). This enables responder to immediately place the contract. With 5 in the Major you may miss the 5-3 fit.

I count shortage to open and would add 1 point for the 5 card suit, but wouldnt't upgrade further. I no longer play 1♥-3♥ as a limit raise, but as preemptive. For me any limit plus raise now goes through 2♠ for ♥ with subsequent bids defining the Modified Loosing Trick count and hence the final contract. I find this a more straightforward approach as the MLT broadly covers the revaluation decision.