mw64ahw

I'm a 3S slam interest player too, but you would need an above average control count by opener to make a slam given East's hand. Typically, I would prefer at least 2 keycards/Queen or 3 controls to make the try with this hand which has three 2+ losers suits

This is one of those style issues that have been debated in detail over the years Firstly is ♦ modern style promising 5? Secondly is GF absolutely forcing to game, forcing to 4m or passable on a 3m rebid. This is the key issue for partnership to decide The 3♦ bid says I don't have enough to force to game in ♦ and I don't have the ♣ stopper for 3NT. North can make 3NT on certain layouts with key cards dropping and a 4-4 club split and likewise 5♦. West isn't overcalling 2♣ so is either weak or unlikely to have 5. Systematically, my bidding simulator will pass 3♦ with North's minimum and without 2 Aces. Eagerly anticipating the reveal.

7 losers, support ,A♣ and void in ops. suit makes me want to bid 4♠

Using the Wolff Sign-off type structure. Initially 3♣-3♦-3NT as a slam try in ♦ allowing opener to cue ♣ to show the King. Following sequences can then establish further controls and convert to a NT slam if available. I avoid 4NT as this risks being passed when you have a source of tricks. Gerber is possible, but which flavour do you play?; Min/Max, Kings, other. Other bids 3♣-3♦-3M shortage 3♣-3♦-4♣ SI 3♦ looking for 3NT no shortage 3M slam try in Major playing Walsh

After 2♣

Is a support X in play here?

A case for playing the style where the 1NT overcall doesn't guarantee a stopper. Alternatively play Power As and NT takeouts.

Not sure about Acol, but playing 2/1 TW variation 1♣ - 1♠ GI 1NT Balanced 12-14/18-19 - 2NT ♦ transfer 4♣ 18-19 SI control - 4♠ 1/3 KCs ♠ control 2+ ♦ honours. (4♦ would deny 2+/3) 4NT ♥ control - 5NT K♥ 6NT I can count the tricks

On the 2nd example I would start cue-bidding at 3♠ given trumps are set. Missing a suit denies the control. Decide what 3NT over 3♥ means. In this case I use it to deny 2/3 top honours and a ♠ control On the 1st example I combine keycard showing with cue-bidding (Kickbo) which is an extension to Italian cue-bidding. The first step shows an even number of keycards. Any other step shows an odd number of keycards plus a 2nd round control or void. 4NT here would be a proxy for ♠. Further cue-bidding can occur above 5X starting with 5X+1 showing all keycards without QX, looking for the grand. Also it should be Kx(x), singleton.

The hand plays 4♦ natural opposite a min. No special agreements. Partner can raise with extras, look for slam when strong.

This is a 7 loser hand using a modified approach and only 13 hcp so for me the playing strength is not there and 2♥ would be my bid. As East I have slam intentions so continue with 3♦ as I don't want to have retrospectively shown a ♣ control and would expect to see West bid 4♥ with their hand. Playing Kickbo after this finds the 2 ♣ losers so you stop in 5♥. Playing a Kaplan Inversion and Nebulous 2♣ approach the auction starts 1♥-2♣ 2♦ Min-2♥ Shape? 3♥ self-sustaining. This allows you to stop in 4♥ when a ♣ cue-bid isn't forthcoming. A Gazzilli type approach within KI also allows you to distinguish between hcp strengths. In this case a direct 3♥ is the 6 loser hand with lower hcp while a delayed 3♥ shows the stronger hcp hand.

Rule of 20 suggests 1♠ I prefer 2/3 honours for 4♠

[hv=pc=n&w=s4hajt864da53cqj9&e=saq762h7dkqj94ca4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1sp?]266|200[/hv]

On the above hand; after revaluation South's hand looks strong enough for a slam try assuming the 3♥ bid shows 6+playing tricks at equal vulnerability At this vulnerability 3NT may also be makeable, but I would favour ♥

Not what I play, but a weak 2 in ♠ with 6+ seems the most logical as a natural bid, given you have 1♠ available for shorter/stronger bids, although doesn't GIB play it as a Soloway Jump-shift?

I tend to favour ♠ so still a Texas transfer unless the suit is v. poor.

Playing Texas transfers would show 6M no interest in slam so going the slow route and bidding 4♠ after 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣-3NT would show 6♠ SI and partner is expected to take things forward. I use 5♣ in this instance showing a single(3/5) keyboards and ♣ control.

I would be tempted to go with 4♥ although 2♥ would be the more natural response for me

Reiterating a check I always make when considering a slam based on a modified loosing trick count. I use other refinements too, but I find this approach invaluable when slam seeking. Hand 1 - 3♦ shows a minimum MLT of 6/5.5. South has an MLT of 9 & 2 keycards 19-5.5-9=5.5-level so a slam is marginal. Hand 2 - 2NT shows a minimum MLT of 6/5.5. North has ~7.5 and 3 keycards so 19-5.5-7.5 = 6-level and worth a slam once a suit is established Hand 3 - North has an MLT of ~5.5 opposite South with an assumed 7.5 so 19-7.5-5.5=6-level. From my perspective you have already signalled support so a 4♣ cue-bid is preferable to 4♦. I also happen to play 4♦ as invitational in this scenario.

You have a 2nd suit in this example so calling it say; an ultra weak Frelling 2♠ may solve that specific issue? Although that may fall foul of Cii if defined as non-natural. Perhaps a petition to revert?

If you play Kaplan Inversion then finding the 8 card fit ceases to be an issue, but then makes the hand less interesting. Also playing some sort of Gazzilli type response followed by 3♥/3NT rather than 3♥ directly enables some better refinement in describing strength. If you have FOMO then 3NT/4♥ also work.

Thanks As you say TW has nothing to do with this, but my issue is that in the TW version I use 2♥ remains pre-emptive so the first X for me is negative or 11+ leaving little room over 2♠ to move forward.

2♥ looks standard here, but the initial X for me in a Transfer Walsh context is ♥ or 10/11+hcp. The 2nd X would confirm 11+ w. or w/o ♥. I now wondered having taken this route (as OP has) what the correct bid should be when North is max. 2NT & 3♣ Min? 3♦ ? Max. 3♥ X+♣3♥ Pass/Correct Max? 3♠ ? Max. 3NT ♣ & ♠ Max. Any further thoughts?

The key here appears to be the interpretation of responder's first bid. It needs to show limit raise values after which North is distributionally strong enough to invite game. South after revaluation can take it to game knowing North's short ♥ suit opposite the singleton ♠ will play well.

In the first example assuming 2♣ is 3+ I tend to pick the suit where I can count the most keycards plus Queen. If equal I pick the Major. In a GF context I would treat 3♠ as a slam invite. With ♣ favouured I use 4♦+ (Kickbo control showing) rather than RKC as this initiates both a keycard and control check. This may be delayed if 3♦/3♥ is an intermediate bid. In the 2nd example responder has to make the SI move given 1NT has defined strength. Again I use the same principles as above.