Impact

1. Both DAB (directional asking bid)= Western Cue Bid translated I believe, as the simple cue bid starts transfers. 2. I have the same agreement as Frances (1m) X (P) 4m which I believe to be standard 3. (1M ) X (P) 4M is undefined but consitent with other principles would be assumed to be a transfer with very long suit that does not have tenaces to protect...but I shall make a note! regards

100% agreement with gnasher on both points- at least one of us must be crazy! regards,

Sorry - it doesn't work as Ron points out. I am not a T-Rex fan : intermediate pass has a lot of problems. Ideally, you want to play qute differnent systems at different vulnerabilities - and positions. Even a less restrictive group of buffoons like the ABF has drawn the line at "2 systems", but appears to accept that some variation in 4th seat is ok eg hands which would otherwise be pre-empts etc in a non-forcing pass mode... In real life, you require a very disciplined system freak to absorb at least 2 different systems in full detail with inferences, while when I wanted to play 4....ah well regrds

When it is a Major they have bid, 3C= Transfer to OM which allows superaccepts below forcing to a higher level 3D= Stayman for OM 3H= transfer to C (note the availability of super accepts low again under 3NT with 2 available to suggest the top Honour and the suit will run anyway) 3S= transfer to D (see above) 4m= minimum GF on presumed fit 55 in minor & OM I accept that this loses on certain auctions with D which could otherwise play in 3D but it allows much greater fine tuning for invitational/pushy auctions to both game and slam in virtually all other scenarios regards

Pass - 1C (16+) 2C (8-9, 2+BCC, minor 3 suiter or D only) - 2D (relay) 2H (minor 3-suiter) - 2S (relay) 2NT (short S) - 3C (relay) 3NT (0-5-4-4 2 controls) - Pass wtp? :P

Doesn't anyone like 2D immediately which shows the fine quality of the suit ...sure by standard jumps you have too little defence but it si anotehr advertisement for fit-showing....and gives you every chance to complete the picture whatever the level it comes back to you (asuming it is not a weak jump shift). This way opener will value his D cards and get the gag when you bid C at a high level....

I have a very different take on these type of auctions from US standard. Firstly, double receiving a minimum advance, followed by new suit from doubler I take as very strong - but not forcing! I expect pretty much most 5HCP from advancer would make another noise - as would most hands with prime support. I retain jumps by doubler as agreeing advancer's suit and proposing SLAM! Accordingly, double followed by doubler's cue-bid in response to a minimum advance is GF denying prime support for advancer's suit. Advancer should clarify the nature of his holding - less by strength than by description eg extra length (beyond the presumed 4), second suit, stopper and failing all else, advancer with nothing else to say raises the cue bid suit (effectively denying more than 4 cards in his first suit, any other suit, any stopper...so whatever the GF is based on doubler knows he is facing support - albeit no significant distribution and can frequently place the contract. In the rare event that advancer held say an 8 HCP 4333 without a stop and has used this sequence he will usually be able to raise doubler's "placing of the contract" purely on cover cards). On that basis doubler has shown a GF, and advancer has lied by showing extra length in H (when he should have raised the 2S cuebid to 3S). Doubler has "emerged from the bushes by specifying his GF as based on C, and advancer should heed it by merely raising to 5C. Of course that contract is not underwritten by Lloyds, but that is what the sequence "means" in my style. After the "4H" bid by responder, the 4S bid by doubler would now confirm H fit for the long suit and suggest a cue of any values held... I am not suggesting my methods as ideal - and appreciate that the vast majority of players would double and follow a minimum advance with a cue on far more hands, but I am content that the method outlined works very well to locate fits, and only forces much higher with known tolerance for any suit doubler may have as base.... If you start with ANY agreement you will be better placed than so-called standard by the seat of your pants... regards

A lot depends on how you play your Namyats. My preferred response scheme is to indicate number of key cards in a hand which has slam potential:- Step 1: ie the intermediate step is 2 KC for the Major and good cards Step 2: ie the Major: no slam interest Step 3: 3 Key cards Step 4: 4 Key cards Opener then has control and a) may signoff in Major if missing 2KC :P bid slam if missing 1KC and some control in all suits (alternatively gambling) c) bid a new suit asking for control in that suit (NT can be the most expensive suit to ask): step responses This also facilitates bidding grands....I think it is a style which was first attributed to Rosenkranz in the 70s but I am not certain. I am sure it works pretty well... regards

Pass= t/o GF and a) will convert 4D to 4H assuming CHO's pass was virtually a 2nd negative... :P If he doubles for "penalties" after my t/o pass I am tempted to leave it in at this vul as it is certain that CHO does not hold 4+M c) will raise 4H to 6H d) will raise 4S to 5 e) if he manages to bid at the 5 level by himself I shall investigate grand Now none of these are necessarily right, as on one view I have "only the 3 Loser hand I promised" but I think this is playing the odds. A lot depends on the meaning of that initial pass by CHO.... regards

In Oz all doubles are NOT alertable (but pre-alerts of doubles which are unusual are required - so for instance transfer doubles that we play, PODI, PORI etc). Also note that opponents can ask, and if you become the declaring side you are required to provide the additional information before they make their opening lead. By contrast a Pass which is anything but "content" or "nothing to contribute" IS alertable (as it must be because you can hardly be put on notice otherwise!!). This occurs frequently both in relay auctions and multis... regards,

Rob, The most common reverse relay I utilise is for opener with 15/16-18 after responder bids 1NT (10+ balanced) and opener shows his shape both to protect the likely 3NT declarer from revealing more and to evaluate shortage. Otherwise, although I tinkered with all sorts of ideas, in GF auctions I have found that the best relay breaks are extreme single-suiters and 2 -suiters with a suit which might be solidified by finding a singleton honour. Hence relay break in such takes the form of an asking bid in that suit...(take your choice form a plethora of asking bids but Zeta was useful). regards

No - but I would overcall over a strong NT !! Overcalling works when partner is balanced (therefore a fit) or has a big H fit (4 cards will do very nicely) and we do not overbid...and very badly when he gets either my strength or the lead wrong (yeah T high suit just screamed for the lead....from KJ). Hence I would not overcall over 1natural C directly (but might pre-balance) and certainly WOULD overcall a strong NT where I can show shape and partner will not expect a strong HCP hand... regards

5S - I paid my table money and they dealt me 11 good black cards...but I am not holding my breath in the belief that it is underwritten by anyone. regards

Just how bad is 3S? You should be ok to get to 4D at least and this gives you a shot at the Major game without overstating your strength, and your hand has been steadily improved by the bidding (shortage in their suit, real D with playing strength opposite). I know we are not vul, but there is still a bonus for game bids!! I hate people who bid this way with 5+5+Majors - but realise that that is a possible interpretation for some. regards,

I must have missed something:- After the reverse by South, the North hand is loking at 14HCP including prime support for opener's first bid suit, control of both of the other 2 suits, and his only unsupported minor Honour (the HQ) is in opener's 2nd suit. All of that screams slam, and assuming it was a pick-up partnership with no special agreements my unambiguous choice would have been 4C to clue partner in! Actually, if you could agree C with 3C, and later Kickback or KCB in C given your controls that would be fine but many peole still play the return to 3C as n-f (whether you like that or not). 2. Frankly, I don't think opener has an excuse for another bid as he has no huge extra values after responder effectively signs off in 3NT. I would be reluctant to partner North again as he obviously despises slam bonuses, and hogs the hand under all circumstances! apologies for any offence in advance :-; regards

1C= 16+ 1H= 8-19HCP, 4+S, 2+ controls (A=2, K=1) 1S= relay 2C= 4+D in hand which is not flat 2D= relay 2H= 4S & 5+D 2S= relay 3C= 4-2-5-2 3D= relay 3H= 8-11HCP exactly 2 controls 3S= relay 3NT= neither DA nor DK (or DAKQ impossible- only 2 cont) 4C= relay 4S= SK, HK no CAK or Q 4NT= relay 5H= DQ, SQ no DJ 7S = I think I know enough... In a non-relay framework, assuming you did not set up asking bids, it would be reasonable to use 4S as a picture bid: good trumps and nothing to cue.... regards

ok, I'm a bunny, and continue another D to ensure my S trick...and hope like anything that partner is not actually signalling McKenney despite your comment! Yes, I realise that a H switch could be needed if declarer is 8-2-2-1 lacking HK, but do I want to play for that precise hand? regards

3H : wtp? Sure it's a slight overbid but I have a decent 5 card suit, no wastage, and if both partner and LHO are short in S, partner can overruff... How else do I convey 5(+) H with decent values... regards

You have five bids here but only four denominations available at the next level: Diamonds transfer to hearts Hearts transfer to spades Other minor natural (but other minor could be diamonds which is a transfer above) Spades forcing in other minor minor Stayman (but minor could be diamonds which is a transfer above) Apologies for absence of clarity: where the opened suit is a minor, order of priority is 1) maintain standard transfers to both Majors as available (ie D to H, H to S) 2) effectively then C becomes Staymanic 3) lowest S is transfer to unopened minor Again - quick posting without checking. THat is just my preference these days. I think that "standard" is usually just "system on" over a standard (as opposed to Raptor/Polish etc) NT overcall. Whereas that may have some advantages in simplicity, it is clearly less than efficient use of space. I particularly like the ability to super accept below the M and then, potentially retransfer whenit is S; and similarly the ability to differentiate between the most likely to run holdings (where 6 card minors are likely) and those which won't... regards

Wayne, The first issue you have to deal with is whether the suit could be "a poor 4 carder" as in some versions of Symmetric or Blue club which would mena that you might want to lay in that suit. Assuming that is not the case, the next issue is whether sytemically your NT overcall promised a stopper. Assuming that it does - you do not need a checkback. I use a treatment from BW which expects that in the case of a 5+M shown we do NOT wish to play in their suit. Hence, sacrificing Puppet Stayman, a) lowest C is transfer to Other Major (which allows at least one superaccept below the OM, 2 in the case where it is S) implying 5+OM B ) lowest D is Stayman - implying likely 4OM c) H is transfer to C (note that we have 2 superaccepts available to clarify relative quality of superaccept ie 2 top hons etc) d) S is transfer to D (see above). If their suit shown is a minor, simple transfers (D &H) to both H & S, om natural nf, S= forcing in om and m= Stayman. regards, fred

I have used many things but can claim to be the inventor (albeit great minds think alike) of transfers and then step 1 is any GF 5-5 (with relays available and setting suits etc) but all steps other than step 1 are transfers showing shortage in next suit up ie 2D to 2H and then 2S= 5+H & 5+other 2NT= 5+H & short C 3C= 5+H & short D 3D= 5+H & short S 3H= 6H invit Opener can agree suit or bid shortage to ask for a second suit (which can only be 4 cards in length). Combine this with Stayman (which incorporates a full relay set below 3NT and then allows control asks and location as Mikeh notes) and garbage Stayman, while higher bids are:- 3C= both minors weakish (5+5+) 3D= both Majors invit (5+5+) 3M= fragment with 54 minors 4m= texas and that is a lot simpler than Scanian regards

It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT. Of course, those issues are related to whether there's a cuebid, but not the same. After 1NT or 1♣, we know that we might want to play in any suit and we probably don't care about stoppers for NT, because the opponents haven't shown a long suit they might run against us. After a multi 2♥ we need to explore both possible suits to play in and stoppers - that's tough. Jan, You are creating a straw tiger: the very fact that you cannot find a defence with which you are happy is a basis for outlawing the initial move! If anything, that tends to suggest that the particular initial move has MORE merit. I agree that 2H opening showing either Major is much harder to defend against than a 2D opening of the same sort. However the "initial double for takeout/strength, 2nd double for takeout and third and subsequent doubles for penalties " is remarkably effective notwithstanding its lack of sophistication. Frankly, bridge bidding always involves compromises (both in constructive and in competitive auctions) and that is part of the charm. Were a single system "perfect" everyone would adopt it but different people view different compromises as more readily acceptable. Even if one offered a small technical advantage but the other gave better results on a different set of parameters (eg a less likely set of hands) there would be a case for seeking to utilise the technically infereior on the grounds of "variance". With due respect, established players have an edge in cardplay - and their understanding of the most common and familiar bidding. Hte y seek to preserve that, and will tend to be reluctant to permit anything that impinges on that edge. The charm of the game is in the (almost) infinite variation - not restricted merely to play and defence possibilities. In almost every jurisdiction, the problem of adequate disclosure is a constant one- and all the more from the experienced partnerships who descibe a sequence as "natural" or "bridge". Now, consider the auction 1m - 1H 1NT as to whether opener denies 4S, or shows a balanced hand etc. When I first learnt bridge, the auction denied 4S; since that time a more common view is that it "shows the character of the hand opposite the response" - and hence does NOT deny 4S. Either is quite conceivable but a regular partnership will have an understanding and should express it as a matter of course prior to the opening lead. Instead it is frequently like drawing teeth. Contrast this with a "complex" system in which not only the specific positive features should be disclosed but also the negative inferences which are given as a matter of course. regards

As one who has played FP on and off for 30 years:- a) it is relatively easy to develop generic defences to the different ferts depending on your orientation and vul (my preferred defence depends on both opponents' vul and our vul); :) in pairs events where irregular partnerships are playing, it DOES have the potential to slow the movement as there will be some discussion as a matter of course by that partnership; c) LOLs are remarkably undisturbed by the course of proceedings; d) the "wouldbes" who are most vocal about their own skills and the pros when playing with clients are the most put out; e) the more exotic and precise the system the more likely full disclosure, including negative inferences is likely to be - partly because it HAS been thought out/discussed, partly because of a perceived need to be ethical and a flagbearer and partly because of a desire to win on merit - rather than just to win (ok this last maybe personal)! Seriously the number of options and negative inferences that have to be extracted from experienced/expert players who are playing "natural" can be like drawing teeth! regards

What is East's hand :- - he is presumed to hold 5S assuming SQ lead was singleton; - I think we assume he holds 4H (possibly only 3H ie 5-3 in Majors with no minor shortage but then surely with a 6th H West would bid 3H at his 2nd turn given a virtual certainty of 1-6-4-2?) and then minors 2-2 as with 5S & 4H and a shortage ANYONE would bid more than 2H. However if that is the case West is 1-5-5-2 and eschewed Michaels. On balance I have been converted to East being 5-3-3-2 as otherwise West is VERY shapely (at least 55 in reds or 2 black singletons) and likely to have taken another bid over 2S having received H support. - If East is 5-4-2-2 presumably he has few values but the assumption about not holding the DK is not strong given that he only holds 2D and would hate to see 4DXX as the contract... Whatever the value of the foregoing, I am all the more inclined to take the D finesse as I place West with D length and it is a legitimate disposal of the problem although the scissors looks great (but then falls shy of the CA being with RHO). regards

I don't disagree with most of your conclusion Adam, but I think your medical/pharmaceutical example is poorly chosen. The point that Ming was trying to make (I think) was that society makes certain choices eg as between the beneficial recipients of organ donations based on "discrimination" other than life-threatening bases eg expected longevity of recipient if successful (contrast the needs of an 85 year old and a 15 year old for the same organ to take an extreme example) - ability to pay (at least in USA as I understand it if the 85 year old has sufficient money the organ will be found....) Just because it is a matter of life and death ("necessity") does not obviate the need to make choices and allocate resources between people who compete for them. Ming (effervesce) was not stipulating that the options taken in his examples are "correct" - merely that such decisions which effectively involve discrimination/subsidy/tax ARE taken as a matter of course - and are a necessary part of government (to gauge this, one only need observe that the failure to make a positive decision is a decision , a position that everyone involved with gametheory positions is familiar). Which decisions, and to what extent they are made to regulate and/or intervene in what might otherwise occur is precisely the role of government. Anyone may legitimately argue about any single decision's merit, but I thought Ming meant that decisions in general were the business of government in its role in society (and in a democracy the unpopular decisions will have the effect of determining a government's fate). It is unfortunate that popularity which comes into sway at fairly regular intervals marked by elections (as opposed to longterm good decisionmaking) is the arbiter of the system. That of course is the problem with democracy: it lets the people vote B) In fact to paraphrase Churchill, democracy is an awful system - it is just that all the others are worse (unless you accept ME as your benevolent tyrant - but perhaps my benevolence may not last based on historical precedent :D Disclaimer: To the extent that I have misrepresented anyone's views or words I apologise. Please note prior to the flamethrowers' actions that heretofore I have not actually specified a single policy - just a process and perhaps clarification of others' words. Oh yes incidentally I happen to be in favour of equal rights (to the extent that "marriage" confers benefits) for gays - and just about any other group too! OTOH I am sufficiently "out there" that I believe that humans' desire to reproduce has not slackened overall, but that the resources of the planet are such that there is no need to subsidise additional reproduction: the one thing we have too many of in this world is people! Hence, I would not subsidise "baby bonus" schemes which have become prevalent (as opposed to safety nets and welfare for the children who did not possess an option as opposed to the parents who did!). You see it is possible to be logically opposed to anything: even a "motherhood" proposition! :unsure: regards