Impact

North 100% (more if that was possible). North holds an internally solid 7 card suit opposite a known fit (and in fact a superfit presumably if the 3S bid means anything albeit once you have shown 25+ the auction must be presumed to be GF). He also holds (counting merely HCP a 6 count opposite what is at least 25HCP). Responder could hold a blitz eg xxx xxxxx x xxxx and should still bid this way as after all opener could be AKx AKQx xxxx AKQ (or better by making the small S a C) and conceivably (?) an A or more .... As for the play, presumably you draw trumps and eliminate suits in case either minor sut has QJx falling- and assuming nothing good happens fall back on the S finesse...

I have a theory that the cue-bidding system that is most appropriate depends on the circumstances (not exactly profound piece of circular logic by definition). When you have found a fit at a low level and one hand is defined closely (whether by number of controls or covercards etc) a different method is likely to be more successful than when the hands are relatively open-ended. Additionally, the play will be quite different and the focus changes more frequently when you are in a 4-4 fit as opposed to 5 card major (opposite frequent 3 card support). Obviously I am generalising. Accordingly opposite a 5card major opening and support (which I tend to show by cover cards, I prefer a traditional style of cue bidding with the variation of using the Romex concept of NT as trump cues (once you have established that as appropriate) since opener knows the number of expected covercards and is now checking that they are the appropriate ones....and it is opener who is in control (unless he has made some short or longsuit slam try to ask responder to evaluate whether his covers are working). By contrast after 1m-1M some form of raise of M the hands are much less specified in most cases (ignoring for the moment dramatic picture bids), and general values for slam need to be confirmed. Here Italian mehtods of bidding interchangeably 1st and 2nd round controls gain. Note, that you actually don't always bid completely interchangeably: sensible rules include: skip a distributional control in a long suit shown by partner on the first scan as the difference between eg x opposite AQ(J)xx(x) and K opposite that holding is appreciable! Similarly when playing a big club or forcing pass system and opponents intervene, the knowledge of teh approximate range of real controls held by responder is crucial - and the typical limitation on most hands held by responder then makes Italian style far more efficient. The Italian style takes thought as opposed to rote - and hence it is often perceived as difficult: it is but far more satisfying. It also leads to auctions which allow not merely the knowledge of the approrpiate controls being held but also delicate probes for additional strength: another sensible dictum when palying Italian cues is that first cue below game (other than situations where it is clear from the previous auction tht slam is not possible given your hand and constraints by partner's prior bidding) requires a cue up to game but the first cue above game level shows significant extras over and beyond that shown previously. This sort of formula allows far more evaluation of medium hands and potentially solves the on-going problems that adorn many 2/1 bidding challengs/MSC problems where both hands have "something in reserve but not enough to take control". it is true dialogue bidding as opposed to question and answer - and hence requires some sensitivity. THe other tricky feature is the use of non-jump 4NT (NOT Bw/RKCB), and 5NT in the midst of cues: the multiple meanings possible for different sequences include DI (extras with no clear bid), good trumps, looking for the missing control, extras marking time etc. That is the single hardest part of these sequences and requires putting in a lot of time with a compliant partner to establish partnership wavelengths... Accordingly I prefer to use both systems of cue-bidding but the tradtional applies almost exclusively following raises of Major suit opening bids (including fit-showing jumps and switched singleton/void showing bids), while multi-cue (Italian) holds sway in all others.... The use of splinters in many auctions also makes the use of multi-cues much easier to decipher... BTW anyone who really wants to see the advantages of multi-cueing and improve his slam bidding should cease using any form of RKCB/Bw for a period as it forces you to evaluate hands for slam purposes and focus on what is needed - and the ways in which you can show/elicit the information. Also you might find that you locate more minor suit slams as you investigate the possibility - and they are about half the potential slams anyway!!! In a pick-up partnership with a good player I would prefer to play NO form of Bw/RKCB, but have agreements on fitshowing/splinters/fragments. I'd take the risk that we miss a Grand slam (only bidding the small) but our prospects of bidding more good small slams would be enormously enhanced... regards

In strong Club our relay is also similar:- 1C 1S 1NT 2C 2D 2S (5+5+) 2NT 3D (even) 3H 4H (1-6-5-1 with extra strength and 5 controls; if normal min 8-10/11 3NT ok) 4S 5S (2top Hons but not 3 top Hons in each red) 6D safest slam given DJT and when SJ &D9 there just about cold....and do not want to risk 6NT from relayer. Note Forcing Pass P 1D 1H 2C 2D 2H 2S 3C 3D 4D (where 3S would be 1-6-5-1 with min range positive, now running on extras saves space as you would still show controls over a signoff) 4H 5H 6D Oddly still no NT bid from relayer or responder.....so still 6D as do not wish a premature guess on lead through an AQ combination at NT...

Interesting as both for the lead and further bidding I might have been tempted to try a fit-jump of 3C given my suit quality there and 4thsS together with shortage in D. Against a "utility" opening a la precision, it is even more useful to get in with suit fit and let them guess so that would have been my choice. As the auction has actually proceeded, If my 2D bid promised support for S and was forcing to 2S, I would take overcaller's pass as "not awful for the overcall" ie at least some positive move whereas his reversion to 2S would have been minimum. However, if the 2D could have concealed a myriad ofhands - including those without S support, his pass might be necessary to allow description of my hand. These matters are for agreement. I play Rubens advances - and hence the issue of support is clarified immediately.... I am tempted now to bid 3D virtually regardless - as that should clue him in on my shortage (by contrast a redouble he might interpret XX as more scattered general strength). Regards

Funny hand- old-fashioned jumpshift to 2S: partner's raise to 3S would then show the missing top Honour...and he knows your minimums strength.... Assuming that you have allocated a different meaning to the jump-shift and the auction has commenced as you predicated to 2S, 2NT is either A) some forcing enquiry (eg how many S raise and max/min...distributions/cue at 4 level with 4 card support and max....) OR ;) depending on agreement the start of a long/ short suit trial 3lower ranking= A) help wanted if A) above selected, or B) the obverse of B) above. I tend to prefer selection A) so that I am now in a position to find out the extent and quality of his minimum raise.... one option of rexsponses which is most favourable when the minor is D and the Major is S is as follows 3C= 3 card support but shortage Hi/Lo by agreement 3D= 3 card support but no singleton 3H= 3 card support but shortage obverse to 3C 3S= minimum of minima with 4 card support higher= 4card support with relevant cue by agreement eg NT= trump cue, other =1st/2nd by agreement Of course in the situation which is less convenient (H raise & C =minor) you can recover the ground by allocating 2S as the forcing enquiry.... Note that using such an enquiry you will uncover a shortage in say C with 3 card support or a useful 4 card support and your issue will be one of judgement dependent on the stregths of your minor suit openings (with minimum raises) eg Axx xxx AQxxxx x is good enough? but presumably Axx xx Axxxxx Ax control rich 3 card raise... while a minimum (of minima) 4 card raise in a strong NT structure presumably would be of no interest whatsoever as by definition it would deny a shortage presumably.

A. No, 2S must/should be forcing to 3C, so 3S simply says I have a fit for S but is NF B. Is there an upper limit on your FSJ? Assuming no upper limit, and noting that it is forcing to 3C, 2 reasonable strategies suggest themselves, a) 2NT which must be forcing having regard to first criterion/assumption which, by corollary, enables you to set 3S forcing after he bids the expected 3C. If he makes any stronger sounding bid, your stratospheric ride is ensured... ; :lol: depending on your agreement, I assume a new suit by opener is a cue agreeing C as trumps so a jump (other than to 4S) would be either a cue agreeing partner's last bd suit (S) or a splinter....and that depends on your agreements. For that reason alone I would favour strategy a) - and it looks right to have the lead come up to your hand.

Peter, 1) "You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was." If you accept that people have a right to self-determination, they then have a state and they make the rules regarding migration/immigration to that state. Your point being??? 2) Utopia is the only state in which there is no injustice. Every time we make a law, draw a boundary or any real or artificial distinction there are hard luck cases or those of injustice. We would all love to see a world where it is not so - but it doesn't happen. So, one hopes that steps are taken to attempt to minimise the injustice. 3) You seem to feel that all Palestinians have been dealt this huge injustice. I can understand that in the case of any who were forcibly removed from property or had it appropriated, but that is only a small minority on any basis that I have read - even giving credence to the more pro-Palestinian accounts. 4) You have never come to grips with the basic tenet that the Palestinians deny the Jews and Israel the right of existence. On the other hnad you seem to feel that a minority (of Palestinians) alleged economic injustice outweighs the right to exist of the Jews. That is an interesting view of "injustice". 5) When referring to the dispossessed you never acknowledge or have regard to the plight of Jews a) who lost their land/possessions by being in the wrong part of partition at the relevant time; :lol: who were dospossessed and forced to flee from the various Arab states in the Middle East over the succeeding decades- and a complete lack of compensation for those persons from the same Arab states who bleat about Palestinians (and which states benefited by expropriating property. You might have thought that would weigh heavily on the scales of injustice. Or is the real difficulty, that one tiny nation (geographically and demographically), actually provided succour and refuge to victims - while all the surrounding nations with far greater orders of magnitude of land and population declined to provide succour and refuge to the victims with whom they empathised? 6) "General attitude to Arabs": well, I'll take each person on his/her merits -regardless of background, race, creed or colour -or even bridge-playing (or denigrating some: card-pulling) ability! However, if and when someone says "you don't have a right to exist", I get a little concerned and am unlikely to make of that person my best friend. Indeed a little wariness is in order: even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you. Fortunately, living in a nation which encourages tolerance of all, virtually any minority recognises it is just that, and unites in love of sport and general laissez faire. I suggest your comment is - at best- unfair. At worst I could turn the tables and accuse you of anti-semitism, but I don't. I don't know you. It would be unfair and improper to do so. I am attempting to deal with arguments - and attempt to sway someone whom I see as making continuing emotional pleas to consider additional facts and /or premises in an attempt to convince him - or at least mitigate a perceived antipathy. I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration. 7) As to partisanship: who if anyone can be totally unbiased? We are all biased or prejudiced by our backgrounds, family inculcation and the knowledge that we have acquired and its sources. If I watched and read "Greater Israel" propaganda thart would be no better than (pardon the pun) taking as gospel what is broadcast on Al Jazeera. Proof of partisanship by reference to some undefined basis of the participants in a conflict (which for some is life and death) seems somewhat irrelevant. When self-interest is at stake there will always be a measure of "partisanship". I suggested that I - as did ben Gurion- could understand or even empathise with another's feelings. Understanding the source of their anger might help to find an answer but the mere perception of the reason for the anger is not a justification; it is an explanation. There are undoubtedly crazies on both sides. No group is completely right but the implementation of any policy requires compromises THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH - not those that start from a premise of the complete destruction of one group. No matter how moderate, that is the problem that any Israeli has to deal with - and I am obviously sympathetic to THAT problem. regards

Gerardo, Thank you for correcting the formatting previously. Fairly obviously, I do not know how to intersperse the quotation withmy comments to achieve the format. I request your assistance again. Peter, THe use of dismissive and derogatory comment such as "disingenuous" does nothing for your argument, but tends to be an attack on the man (as opposed to playing the ball - or merely ad hominem classically). Your claim of "various oppressors" of "the Palestinians" is interesting. Firstly, define your "Palestine": do you mean the British mandate following WW1, the Roman colony, Israel plus other areas? Bear in mind that with the exceptions of the Roman colony and the British mandate, there has not been a single state "Palestine" - or any people who so identified themselves! The concept is a recent one - but that does not make it wrong - just don't try to wrap it in centuries of historical conflict. Otherwise you might as well say that various areas of the Middle East (or the Balkans or Europe or anywhere else) have been conquered and reconquered..... Similarly when you allege "Jews were one seventh of the population of Palestine" - are you taking that definition of "Palestine" as the British Mandate at the date of partition? The changing boundaries and carving up of areas into smaller groups ahs gone on for centuries: post WW1 rampant nationalism and self-determination. Post WW2 India and Pakistan andcontinues today with the continuing fragmentation of what used to be known as Yugoslavia (Monte Negro's separation from Serbia being the most recent). It is a formula for a majority of people of a particular persuasion to obtain autonomy. Whether it is sensible, economically viable or practical is another issue. Pragamatism dictates that it has occurred as a worldwide phenomenon, and that we accept it. If your point is that there is injustice in the form of drawing borders - you are right: there always will be whenever an artificial distinction is drawn. There will be injustice on both sides of the line. If your point is as to strict division of territory on per capita basis at the time, again live with it: it doesn't happen. Every chronicle I have read suggests the British did the future state of Israel no favours in its division but I accept that someone will alwaysfeel disadvantaged. As to your comment about "dividing off one portion of their country":- a) there was no "country" extant at the time - if anything the "Palestinians" really were no more than Syrians and Jordanians (and let us not examine too closely Jordan and its antecedents !!) . Facetiously, they did not play football as a state, have a separate government or appear at Olympic Games. Realistically there was no single differentiating characteristic to argue that those living in that area were a separate people. :lol: rightly or wrongly, it happens all the time: break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire, USSR....it is the right of people to form their own groups and secede as they will. It may yet happen in another construct: Iraq. It is not necessarily progress, but self-determination is apparently part of human nature... c) it is not as if the group annexed all the best areas or valuable economic assets - they certainly did not get oil (blame Moses?). I suggest what really annoyed many was that land was sold to Jews at what appeared to be a high price for uncultivated and generally believed to be unarable land - which was then rendered arable. THe vendors moved from self-congratulation at their own cleverness to irritation that they had been underpaid. there are few things as annoying as humiliation - and watching your neighbour progress after you had the opportunity for decades but did not avail yourself thereof, tends to be frustrating. I agree with you and Ben Gurion as to an understanding of their frustration but that does not make it right. You might note that Ben-Gurion referred to "the Arabs" as opposed to Palestinians. All sorts of explanations aside from religious ones can be posited: curseof an outsider, uniting your own impoverished populace against an external force, a perceived attack on Western colonialism, distracting your own populations from their own economic woes, support from USSR against a democratic/capitalist foothold in the area, remnants of support of Nazi Germany- and nobody really knows which of those and other influences and their relative extent was dominant or even contributing. In any event, more than 2 generations have passed but if anything the positions have become more entrenched fuelled by money while keeping the Arab population in comparative penury - perhaps to keep their attention focused? If I lived in comparable circumstances exposed to continuing propaganda I too might feel as tehy do. I can understand how and why they feel that way - but that does not mean I accept it as logically correct, much less their "solution". Elianna, One further point about the bombing of the King David Hotel which certainly fits a definition of terrorism: warning was conveyed to the British in much the same way as the Irish conveyed occasional warning to their victims in England, but the warning was ignored. That does not make it right - or remove it from "terrorist " classification as far as I am concerned - but there was some concern for innocent civilian population evinced, albeit insufficient.

Aside from the value judgment made in your first statement, just examine the position: one side takes as its base point the destruction and extermination of the other. If you happen to be the "other" oddly enough you might consider that not to be negotiable.- ie a concession that cannot be made so that you can live for another day. If the baseline mentality is maintained any concession is just heading further towards that ultimate losing point. So, until that fundamental change is made (and remember Arafat's Arabic commentary to his people that Oslo was just the start to destroy the Jews), negotiation has a very limited place. So Israel must give to the various Arabs and palestinians but the Arab states owe nothing to the Jews - or indeed to theirown brethren? Israel took in the Jews from the other states but the Arab states appear to take a delight in distracting their own populations with rages against Israel while providing precious little aid to their Palestinian brethren (withtheexception of bounties for the families of suicide bombers!) Israel's position has always meant that one decisive battle could mean its elimination - no matter how many wars it won. Nothing has changed. Part of being a state is taking responsibility for your citizens and their actions: providing aid (financial and security) not to mention encouragement to terrorist organisations, and then protesting that thestate cannot be held responsible holds no water, and such sophistry should not be permitted to protect them. To such an extent even Dubbya can get it right: and it doesn't matter whether it is the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ghadaffi in Libya, Assad in Damscus, Sauds in Saudi or Ayatallohs in Iran. THe governments are responsible for their citiazens and what goes on and emanates from their borders. A few assumptions : anti- Palestinian and "historical injustice against the Palestinians". In fact, although there has not been a Palestinian state previously (and certainly not an Arab one), by all means let them have a separate state. On the side of history, you can trace the injustices fgor centuries, but there has been a Jewish presence in the area (and a significant one at that) for thousands of years. Admittedly modern Zionism dates from a much later period - but so what? What precisely was the nature of the individual injustice of which you speak: 1948partition? Why is or was that an injustice? You don't undo centuries or millenia at the stroke of a pen calling it "injustice". Every time a conflict has arisen in history, injustice has been done but you can't right all the wrongs or restore descendants to their origins without causing an awful lot of intervening injustice (but then again I don't believe in affirmative action either : as system which merely benefits current groups while paying lipservice to their progenitors). Regardless of the rights or wrongs, prior to 1948 partition there was a significant Jewish population - and no reason why they should not be self-governing. BTW if you check your sources I think that you will find that the Jordanians killed more "Palestinians" circa 1970 than the Israelis have overall, but of course that does not seem to count. When you stack statistics of those killed you take a Western viewpoint conveniently to suggest injustice by loss of life: but it is only one side (the Israeli) which has placed the Western huge premium on individual life. In fact it is percisely that premium and point that they attempt to preserve. Regards and hoping that a discussion can be kept cordial - and the premises considered with the same rationale that you might accord to different bidding systems...

I am no apologist for much of Israel's policy but let's take a few basic points:- 1. The Palestinians (along with a number of nations) deny Israel's right to exist; 2. The preferred method for many of the Palestinians (I hesitate to claim a majority - but the polls I have seen on the web suggest it would be so) is the elimination of every Israeli Jew; 3. In furthering the aim set out in 2 above a not insignificant number are prepared to sacrifice their own lives as suicide bombers; 4. The suicicide bombers have widespreaad support from nations and from the Palestinian "government"; 5. Even moderates who deplore suicide bombers, support the continued bombing and killing of civilians (including women and children). Under these circumstances, when your basic right to exist is denied (and as a race you have seen what happened), peaceful negotiation is not going to lead to anything except your extermination. By contrast, I happen to agree that there is little or no point in Israel's occupation of West Bank and /or Gaza - and probably never was. The Golan Heights has some security value (but increasingly little compared to 1967). The policy of settlement and "Greater Israel" was - at best- ill-advised or a poor negotiating tactic partly at least created by the bizarre nature of israeli politics and proportional representation in the Knesset as we watched the 2 main parties form alliances with oddball parties (some of the ultra-orthodox being the worst offenders) and hijacking both domestic and foreign policy. As for the "Right of Return" and compensation: ignoring for the moment the arguments about the basis and reason that many left (the arab armies sweeping all before them and the desire not to be in the way for some, yes discrimination against others...) it seems strange that the same arab states which scream for a right of return exercised all kinds of expropriation against Jews living in those states following variously 1948, 1956 & 1967 and there has never been any suggestion of compensation.....he who seeks equity, must first do equity. A Jewish state (and I have some difficulty with a religious state of any kind) would cease to exist as a predominantly Jewish state by natural birthrate if all the "Palestinians and their claimed descendants" were permitted return. Now you may argue that would be no bad thing but I have a more than sneaking suspicion that the reintegration would be worse than separatism: the cure being worse than the disease. Funny thing about the Palesinian authorities: they want recognition as a state but they don't want the responsibility for curbing their citizens in taking action against Israel. Finally, whatever you may think of the various policies (and Anglo-Saxons are predisposed to notions of fairplay and take the side of the underdog when one side has a dramatically higher order of firepower than the other), the very basis of any state's compact with its citizens is their protection: so Israel has very little choice in pursuing and protecting its own, and trying to attain a situation in which people can gather for coffee, a meal , a celebration or transport without fearing for their lives on a daily basis. When your nation is tiny and surrounded there are only so may compromises and concessions you can give - each in the hope that it will halt the desire for the cessation of your existence. Oddly enough each concession results in the the Oliver Twist mentality: "Please Sir, may I have some more". When what you are talking about is a right to exist and breathe, it doesn't come much more basic.... Sure, we would all like to see mutual respect and tolerance - but it isn't happening in a any hurry. I think it was Golda Meir who presciently suggested in the 1960's that there will only be peace when the arabs love their own children more than they hate the Jews. In societies which praise, honour and reward suicide bombers I wouldn't hold my breath. Also remember that what in Western society might pass for gratitude or appreciation is frequently lost: I believe the USA is or was the largest single donor to the Palestinians but that does not result in gratitude, instead they are the great Satan. The whole mindset has to be changed but the West is obsessed with its own notions and expectations without examining those of the people they are trying to help. By now, you might have thought that the penny would have dropped that giving regular aid does not make a group grateful - just reliant upon it, budgeting for it as a given and very upset when it is not increased as is their right! (and I note that applies across the board). here endeth the rant

Everyone has said sensible things - including the one-step for concentrated values. On this hand the short suit is important because:- CK is of little value & CQ of none; the only Q (except trumps which partner already knows is valuable) which could be of use is in D, and any other secondary D Honours are useful. If he holds A he knows they are good cards - and most K (excluding CK) while trump Q is a good value. On close decisions you want him to focus on lesser useful fitting Honours and showing short C in this scenario is the most likely to elicit useful assistance under your scheme, regards

You will make if D32 unless you mispick the ending (opponents have 4H and 2 black A, if H bereak worse than 53 you are down anyway) - so one risk is that LHO forces you to unguard a suit. You are likely off if you generate an extra trick for the opponents (D4-1) unless that hand (responder presumably) has no entry - and then you need CA onside. Since only dummy can guard C in the likely event of being forced to guess you must avoid playing SK from hand. So, cash DAQ - if they break you have 6 tricks and should take them,and must exit with S honour from dummy as opener can cash H and CA otherwise and make you guess...and you will play West for CA if he leads low.. If D do not break, you have to assume that RHO (responder) holds 4D (note cashing DAQ means that you would pick up West's 4D anyway assuming a sing J/T) and no entry. In these circumstances you need 2S and C to go with the H, 3D. Now the key is to realise that you will have to find 4 discards from dummy and be in position to lead a C towards dummy...and that opener does not hold 4S! You actually cannot cover all reasonable possibilities if you have played DAQ first as a good defender can stop you coming to hand. For that reason (and the likelihood that if D don't break West is unlikely to hold 4 given his H lenght), there is good reason to eschew the best play in the D suit and instead play DKQ ending in hand to lead a S hoping opener (assuming non-breaking D) is 3-5-1-4...if he wins that trick you are home, otherwise just play 2nd S and you retain D entry to hand to lead C up...

Oz at Commonwealth (National) level has 2 houses:- the lower house where Bills (legislation) is written and the Prime Minister as leader of the governing party sits and the Senate (House of Review). Both chambers are elected by preferential voting:- in the lower House you vote for the candidate standing in your electorate, and must number in order of preference for all candidates. First preferences are taken, and candidates eliminated in each electorate with all "his" first preferences being distributed to the second preference of those who voted for him, until one candidate eventually has 50% of the vote... In the Senate you vote on the same preferential basis for the allocated number of senators for your state (and the process works in the same fashion in the sense that if your state has 7 senators your first 7 votes are your first preference, and once any person reaches 50% they are elected but the preferences are then redistributed of those eliminated....) NB IN OZ VOTING IS COMPULSORY ie you must roll up to vote or face a small fine, but note that other than confirming that you are given a ballot paper and your name taken, you could leave it blank, scrawl all over it or otherwise render it invalid or actually vote!!! We also have complete seaparation of the judiciary which is appointed - not elected at any level....

I am with the slam-try crowd. In principle I agree with the 4S bid (as it keeps 6 or even 7C in the picture), but my 2nd choice (say 85 on MSC) would be a direct 5H bid, which might be even better if that first H pip was significant. By contrast, remove the HJ and I am MUCH less sanguine about the whole hand (which might seem a little wimpy), but would still make a move - just Out of interest how many would make the same move if the H & C were reversed? To my mind this is a superprime 14HCP all in controls (including first round in their suit), with the exception of the HQJ which is my long suit....this is a slam try in my book opposite partner's takeout double which effectively forced to the 3-level.

The easy answer first: we don't double on strong single-suiters. Double always shows tolerance - 3+ cards in principle - for both majors. Tthere are nightmare hands where you have to double without that as the least of all evils, but as a matter of principle we don't double-then-bid on single-suited hands so e.g. 3D x P 3H P 3S is roughly 5-3 in the majors, NF but with significant extra values. Now, about this debate about what to do after (4C) - 4H. In common with most people I would stretch to reach the right denomination, so I would just about bid 4C on xx KQxx Kxxxx xx. I imagine you would follow your 4C - 4D - 4H scheme similarly on a weaker hand. That means the doubler needs a real powerhouse to want to make a slam try. If he doesn't have diamonds opposite my 4C cue - or they opened 3D - it is difficult for him to try for slam in one suit but not others. He could bid 5H to show a slam try in either major, if applicable, though I do agree that's clumsy. If he has a slam try opposite only hearts he's in trouble. But doesn't your method have the complementary problem? What if responder decides he has a slam try opposite heart support? It's a matter of valuation, not method, that I chose to pass 4H by the doubler, but if I was a little stronger I can easily make a try agreeing whatever suit the doubler has last bid. But if you bid 4C-4D-4H I assume doubler is expected to pass with heart support unless he has an exceptional hand - so how do you show 5 diamonds, 4 hearts and a slam try? (while we're at it, what does 3C x P 4D mean in your methods - how about 4-4 in the majors, choice of games?) I have to admit to being dubious about the merits of losing responder's natural 3NT bid, particularly at matchpoints, but am prepared to be convinced if you can be suitably convincing. I would guess the loss is least when opponents are vulnerable, and greatest when you are vul against not? Paragraph 1: thanks for the clarification - not a compromise I am thrilled to make but at least I begin to understand your style here. Paragraph 2: no -generally I continue the transfers and play specialised bids from jump up to show enormous 2 suiters and single-suiters. Generally one of the advantages of the loss of the natural 3NT by advancer (on auctions other than over 3C X) is the puppet allows a cue bid where you can show strength with 4 cards in the relevant Major (and utilise the follow up of 4NT as slam-try balancedish as no transfer without 4 cards in the relevant major(s)). Accordingly, whereas there is always a judgement issue as to the appropriate range "to come again" or boost the auction a level, there are more "safeguards" in place - albeit at a cost as you note. Notwithstanding your explanation at paragraph 1, it would make me queasy to have to bid as you specify with anything from a very bare push to game with M44, through the sort of hand we talk about here up to and including presumably quite decent 5+5+ - and doubler knowing that such possibilities aboundhas to make a decision whether he will simply make a non-forcing game bid or does he now punt on the same style as responding to European multi 2D (ie pass or convert)??? Paragraph 3: 100% correct: the worst position is we are vul and they are not and the risk that 3NT played from advancer's side after a takeout double is correct.....I might add that having the style of agreement we do, it places greater focus on overcalling rather than doubling in close cases with a decent suit - whereas my guess is that the corollary to your style would be the reverse inference (ie lends itself to the double rather than the overcall on the close cases). "It's simply a case of Chacun a son Gout" (or "shocking awesome gout" if you recognise the reference to my favourite pun from Flanders & Swan Madeira M'dear - and being English you have a chance but I was dragged up on such alternating with Tom Lehrer instead of the more usual nursery rhymes and jingles) cf http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/hat_mader.html

Frances, When advancing a double of 3C, I only use transfer advances from 4C with the remainder natural...so I concede a guess with 44 and just game strength - but figure I gain on most other shapes. Actually, I have a bizarre scheme over doubles of other 3-level bids to use 3NT as a somewhat Lebensohlish scheme in conjunction with transfer advances. Not only is it counter-intuitive (as it frequently prevents you playing 3NT from responder's side as a direct response to the takeout double) but it gives much more definition for almost all other game/slam auctions. My thought initially was that this would be too great a loss (since 3NT seems intrinsically worthwhile over pre-empts) but a friend's simulation of 1,000 hands (perhaps an insufficient sample size) with the constraints specified for the takeout double, suggested otherwise. On that basis I have persuaded a partner to play the method (mad as it sounds) - with no major losses over 2 years (due to the method) but only playing once a week on average... THe most obvious potential loss is the game with the positional stopper and minor values in responder's hand (note with reasonable values and without a relevant 4card Major appropriate to the takeout) where neither 5minor nor a penalty double works. As I noted I thought such hands would be more frequent than both have been shown by sample and by anecdote to date.... I still have difficulty with your knowing to pass partner's 4H on the earlier stipulated auction, or would doubler be presumed to have bid a a higher level if he had greater ambitions if H was one of your suits (in which case what do you do with a stronger singlesuiter?) Like all bridgebidding you have to compromise somewhere....

Life is full of little disappointments......play with finesse to avoid the finesse... Is that a thread hijack?

Oz is in for the first time since 1974 - and we have a competitive team but it will take a lot of good fortune for our team to make it into the second round (japan which led Germany 2-0 this morning our time, BRAZIL and Croatia). Anything could happen in this group (except that Brazil should get through easily, but a priori despite the rankings, I think Croatia are favourites for the second spot but they are temperamental...) BRAZIL is the team to watch (as is the case most of the time, and the team most unbiased observers would pay to watch) and must start favourites... HOLLAND (Netherlands if you will) is my "dark horse" as they appear to hate their coach less than usual - and not to hate each other for about the first time since 1978! Dream final would be Brazil v Holland....and the occasion might not overwhelm them all so we would see a beautiful game.... Germany will overachieve but are relatively (excluding Ballack) untalented. Italy have such a negative mindset but deserve some good fortune after their hideous luck last time round with questionable refereeing costing them a lot but who knows how the scandals will affect them? Argentina seems to have slipped off everyone's radar but they are at least worthy semifinalists, albeit South American teams have had historical difficulty in Europe (except Brazil in Sweden) and modern football sees almost all teams' stars playing with European clubs so perhaps this aphorism has less place than previously? Spain and Portugal are likely to implode as usual although Spain should make the 1/4F. England may meet Germany in round 2 - and although England is more talented, the Germans know how to win but the English.....don't. Czechs have an underrated side but the vagaries of thedraw are likely to pitch them against Brazil in the second round (unless they finish top of their group thereby sending Italy against Brazil in round 2), but if they somehow finish top of their group they would be likely semifinalists... If I am right Germany will have to play England or Sweden in round 2 (with the alternative opponent meeting Poland and then likely to face Argentina ). On that basis Germany faces Holland in a 1/4F (could be bloody) but the Dutch have SO much more talent this time round if they can hold their nerve... Italy would face France (unless Schevchenko goes ballistic), but the French Sweden v Argentina Brazil v Spain in the others. From which it follows that I do not rate USA in football despite the FIFA ratings! Well you can all laugh

Frances, With respect, the problem with your plan is that you cue bid to show a 2-suiter and then pass if your partner bids one of your suits!! I may well have misunderstood your methods BUT I do not know how poor doubler is to ever get to slam unless he is forced to return cue with extra values and 2 suits (or balanced) so that you can start suit investigation at the 5level! I know many propound the dogma never to bid a grandslam after a pre-empt but it appears that on the above basis you have virtually no prospect of meaningful exploration. By contrast MHO is 4C: transfer to D and then bid 4H if he merely accepts the transfer. The advantage of the transfer heere is that with extras he may elect to do something else....nothing is perfect but this at least offers both suits with slam prospects.... No offence intended BTW

What does a 4522 or 45(31) min bid? I guess 2♥. MOSTLY PASS 1NT WITH NO SIDE SUT SHOWN AND MINIMUM SEMI-BALANCED - BUT IF H QULAITY HIGH MAY BID 2H. WHEN THEY COME IN WE PLAY PENALTY DOUBLES AFTER THIS START! We have a similar option. I could have started with an artificial (and NF!) 2♣, which show any game invite (nominally 10-12) without 3 card support. Partner bids up to 2NT naturally (still some ambiguity on canape) with any min and bids 3♣+ naturally with a max. There are other systems, but we have been quite happy with this structure. 1NT for us shows ♠. Currently it shows 4+ spades and 6-9, but we may make 1NT forcing and increase that range to 12. (So that a hand with 6 spades and no heart fit doesn't fear a pass from partner. 2♠ for us is currently a fit jump.) I had my choice here too. Perhaps it wasn't wisest on this hand to start with relaying. If I had started with 2♣, I'd probably play in 2♦ on the hand. However, I felt I might also miss a lot of good games. An opener of 11, 12, or 13 opposite a responding hand of 12 is often difficult in standard as well as relay. IF YOU HAVE THE INVITATIONAL GADGET OF 2C AVAILABLE IT DOES SEEM INCONSISTENT NOT TO UTILISE IT WITH A HAND WHICH FITS THE PARAMETERS PRETTY WELL - AND I ASSUME YOU OPEN MOST REASONABLE LOOKING 10s - SO WITH A HAND WHICH IS COMPLETELY LACKING IN SUPPORT (xx) THIS IS A BARE INVITATIONAL HAND. N/V WE OPEN 1D (FORCING PASS STRUCTURE WITH 1H EITHER 5-9 UNSUITABLE FOR SINGLESUITED OR 2-SUITED PRE-EMPT OR 10-15 SINGLESUITED IN C) WHICH ALLOWS 1S AS A VALUE BID ABOUT 7/8-12 DENYING PRIME SUPPORT EITHER QUASI-BAL OR LONG C In our old methods, I could have bid a natural 2NT. We know play that as a Jacoby-like raise. I agree with Richard on this that it is important to be able to show support immediately and not let the opponents into the auction easily when we have a fit. On more complicated hands I might decide to relay even with support, or when it goes (P) - 1M - (P) - ? I would be more tempted as well. SORRY I WOULD ALWAYS SHOW SUYPPORT DIRECTLY TOO - BUT SUGGESTED 2NT AFTER THE INITIAL RELAY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONTINUING THE RELAY PROCESS - NOW PARTNER WILL MOVE ONLY WITH A MAX....CERTAINLY IT IS STILL REASONABLE OVER THE 3SUITER BID... Give partner a 12 count and then give partner a 14 count. In 2/1 the auction will start 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♦ - ? is partner 5431 or 5440? Where do you want to play? Do you feel confident to pass 3♦ when partner is min? In SAYC the auction will start 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2NT - ? And now it will be up to opener to decide whether to pass or bid on. Opener will presumably pass any min because of the misfit. In other words, I don't think this hand is any *harder* just because it's a relay problem. And playing in ♠ won't necessarily be a disaster if ♠ are weak. Even xxxxx AKQx QJxx --- has chances if ♠ are 3-3. I don't think it's obvious to bid 3NT (hence the poll). I think your two reasons (which are really that his hand is known and yours unknown) is simply just a case to play in 4♠. YES- TYPICALLY THAT WAS ONE OF THEREASONS WE WOULD GIVE PARTNER FOR CHOOSING 4S AND WHY I MENTION IT. HISTORICALLY EVERY TIME THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO GET CLEVER AND AVOID THE 3NT BID OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS WITH THESE SORTS OF DILEMMAS WE HAVE ONLY MADE MATTERS WORSE. THAT IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE I ADMIT, BUT IT HAS HAD A STRONG INFLUENCE UPON US....WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO MAKE THE DOWN THE MIDDLE CHOICE BUT I CONFESS I WOULD NOT RELAY HAPPILY WITH THAT RESPONDER'S HAND, AND NOT SURE AN ADDITIONAL J SHOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT TEND TO RELAY ON AUTOPILOT WITH MOST 13s WHICH LACK SUPPORT... We actually do. But I know that my partner is not confident on this part of the system yet. Our zoom is actually that you only zoom with a max and 4+ controls. So 3♥ = 5440 min or <4 controls, 3♠ = 5440 max, 4 controls, 3NT = 5440 max, 4+ controls. We never zoom past 3NT. So if I can trust partner to have his bid (he did), then he didn't have a max with 4 controls. I don't think it helped me too much on deciding which game though. JUST THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD/SHOULD HAVE HAD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM HIS 3H BID AS OPPOSED TO ZOOMING... Thanks for your input. PLEASURE see inserts

I play a similar system but would have chosen 1NT as my response: unless opener is maximum, I do not believe that game is a great be (yes I'll miss some 12 opposite 12 with no great fit), and his options over my 1NT bid are:- 2minor = possibly canape, only revert to 2H with 3 card support (old Blue Club principle) 2H= natural - usually 6carder 2S= at least 5H & 5S 2NT= invitational, responder may sign off in C, enquire for 4S/5H both, show a fair 5card S suit forcing, force with C below 3NT, pass or accept 3any= max with at least 5 cards in new suit named 3H= natural Frankly I would have been better placed to make a decision with max/min knowledge and we might well have played 3D if he is min with this handshape. I do not know what you use the 2NT bid to mean over other bids - but even if you considered it a relay to begin with, this hand is barely worth 2NT natural givig partner options... These sorts of hands (ignoring the strength disparity problem vor the moment) become guesswork in relay as the correct choice often depends on suit quality - and you have no knowledge of that whatsoever: eg loaded in S & D and you probably want to play in 4S (which would be disastrous if his S are weak). In the self-executed endplay you bid 3NT and hope.....but when you think about it, you know that a) now he will play the contract and it will be a roadmap for defenders; ;) if it goes double from either opponent the only saving grace is that he will play it (but you may/should remove to 4D which he will still play!) As an aside, you should zoom/run on to show controls/max/min to 3NT with what I assume is your last designated shape as presumably your responses to 2H are along the lines of :- 2S= Hi shortage 2NT= 4-4-4-1 3C= 4-4-5-0 3D= 4-5-4-0 So, once you get to last pattern you zoom to at least 3NT (the style I use depends on the number of steps available up to and including 3NT st if only 2 steps first is max and 3NT =min but if more than 2 steps may be step 1= min, others show controls...). That would not necessarily help you in this instance but it will in many others... Also with 5S & 4H precisely we open 1S (play 5 card S suit but only 4 card H suit so that with longer S the H suit must be at least 5) which takes some of the ambiguity out of our Major suit auctions. With opener's actual shape the auction would start 1S from him and now a relay of 1NT would be preferred unhappily to receive 2C (3suiter 5-440 or 4+D), and gives you another awful choice between continuing the relay, bidding 2NT (awful ) or 3D with those 4D or 2S. I think I would have bid 2S having denied a S raise - and now opener picks me for balanced/ ish to good to pass 1S....and is pretty wellplaced. regards

I think that you will find that despite the familial problem, there is no empirical evidence of human to human transmission - in fact the reverse: exposure to the same causes. http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://w...3BPVQ60eYO1g,jY This is the difference between some of the "news releases" and "reports" filed by/with yahoo, and other sources which occasionally rely on facts.....which do not make for such sensational news. Not saying that it couldn't - or won't happen - just not yet on the available evidence!

Isn't 3NT an underbid? It will miss slam if responder passes with, say, AKJxx xx Kxx Axx? I think responder would pass 3NT with even a slightly better hand than that. Josh, I agree you give up certain types of hand but showing extra values in these auctions is always hard after a one-over-one and 4SF at a high level in standard methods. My theory has always been to relinquish the extra with no fit, as the prospect of 6NT (or more) always requires so much substantial extra. Accordingly, you may have extra values (in this case maximal extra values!!!) and it becomes easy to push. Sure, you can create easy 15 HCP with the right J (particularly SJ) where no further move is made and 6NT is laydown, but the philosophy allows you to reach many more making minor suit slams (and GS) while only jumping to 4NT with the hand just short of a forcing bid - thereby allowing leeway for partner. Obviously "fit slams" require fewer values and hence are more frequently occurring. Except for the rare perfecto, the substantial extra values needed for 6NT give both players an opportunity to push. Here, when you know the style, it is always going to be easier to have extra values with opener (who makes the 3NT call). It is not perfect, but again is an example of a philosophy of treatment being applied to effect a compromise. I have a gut feeling (and it is only that ie no empirical data) that many of the methods which focus on NT slams arise from pairs bridge (MP) but if you play more imps, your focus tends to be quite different in terms of origin of methods. If you look at old BW "You be the Judge" columns many focus on the inability to determine extra values in standard after one-over-one starts. I would be interested to hear what you think both of the philosophy and the anecdotal basis above...

This is exactly the sort of action which should be reported to your local bridge ombudsman:- of itself it may be just idiosyncratic but if enough people report these matters it allows a database to be built up. As an aside, on the optimistic side, if the actions are those of a relatively inexperienced person and/or completely innocent, the ombudsman in his role can have a word to that person about the proprieties and that such actions could be misconstrued.....thereby defusing a potentially explosive matter before it goes active!

Ok , I'm normally a relay bidder but this looks biddable:- 1♥ - 1♠ 2♦ - 3♣ = 4SF 3NT - 4♣ =only forcing easy bid with perhaps 5H the alternative 4♦cue for C - 4♠ cue 4NT DI huge extras- 5♦ cueing beyond 5-level must be looking for grand 5♥ - 5♠ cues 5NT trumps & more- 7♣ I think that without knowing about the SJ, 7NT is just too tough.... THere is a lot to be said for cue-bidding and I truly believe that if you remove RKCB/Bw from most players' arsenal it would actually improve their bidding longterm!