Impact

Limit raise : sure I love the 5 controls and 4th trump but the CK could still prove to be wasted...so a system which allows me to show the limit raise but gives opener room for a counter-try beneath 3S is preferable (and basically I will accept anything except a short suit try in C). regards,

Given your ownership of the majorQ, any card(s) partner has except DQJ must be potential defensive trick(s). OTOH you obviously have too many top controls missing to make game in D a decent proposition. 3D must have reasonable prospects and you don't want to give them the option of getting to 3NT if it is on.... 3D wtp let them have 4C but if partner (!!) were to bid 4D I would have a lot of difficulty working out his hand ... regards

2NT easy first time round intending to force to slam in D at least..... but when partner bids 4H, I have an easy 5S (GSF under USP which allows him to show HQ if he has xxxxx or longer!!). If not quite so sophisticated, 5NT as GSF.... regards

i'm with Harald:- a) we are at the one level and any other contract will be a level higher :P I have AQ9 in trumps behind the penalty passer c) there is no reason to believe we have a better reachable spot d) my partners with voids and 6+card suits tend to transfer.... I'll take my lumps... regards

Frances, 1. I gather you play weak(ish) jump overcalls and hence the problems with the some defence but not opening bid at this vul hand? That presumably produced your concern later when I think that otherwise the shape would have inclined you to bid 5m had you pre-empted. Anyway now I just say that I don't think you are forcing (and certainly would not have been had you pre-empted): Pass and hope. 2. Whatever you might think of the odds of RHO holding reds, the disparity in the suits is fairly marked, and if you double as you did the first time, how on earth will you know when it is right to pull? Either pass or show long D first time round for me.. Now partner has bid double which is not penalty oriented as I understand it on your wording (?) but takeout of C in which case my 3D bid is not merely a marked underbid but dramatically so. In any event I can hardly bid less than 5D under the circumstances....and I have no idea if there was a sensible way to investigate slam if partner has the earth... regards,

Sorry, I should have specified that specifically it was 3-3-4-3 and shown (no we don't lose that). Next in this sequence having shown 1 control only for the limited HCP we denial cue AKQ (different rules for different strengths and shapes having spent some time with this over the last 2 decades!!). eg if having shown 0-4/5 step 1=0 Q , 2=Q, 3=K, 4=QQ/A, 5=KQ 5-9 step 1= no control, 2= K, 3= A, 4=KK, 5=AK, 6=KKK 8+ positive starts with base =2 (but if signoff without control ask, not only does responder require additional values but step1=base of 3, and if "signedoff having show extras but not quantified controls, base=5) opening bid assumes base =3 As to your complaints about "multi-cues" ie A/K/short, that is a matter for the partnership to institute its own rules firstly as to when multicues apply and secondly as to how to apply them. My personal rules with partners include:- a) hand defines shape first if possible to show length of side suits :) if raising partner's suit on limited basis define your terms (eg HCP, cover cards, limit, forcing, slam-try) c) where one hand knows the other hand's cover card number, the issue is as to specific cards : so usually A before K (with NT for trumps) d) where the "numbers" are indeterminate (eg following Strong Club/FP opening and intervention then suit agreement) multi cues are appropriate but now i) on the first opportunity to show a control in a suit you do NOT show distributional controls (shortage) in partner's known long suit ii) higher NT is needed for DI iii) once you embark on this route you do NOT stick Bw/KCB etc into the middle of the auction: you went this way for a reason and you continue...whichever form of cue-bidding has been commenced. In contrast to most, I will use some form of Bw very very rarely: preferring to bid the slam direct or cue-bid: the only time I use KCB (or Kickback in more sophisticated partnerships) is simply to check that I have the requisite numbers as the prior auction should have indicated the strength .... All bidding is a compromise, but as a classical music lover and Hifi nut (but with a wife who precludes ridiculous expenditure on it) I still HATE MP3 for serious music: that is one compormise I won't make! regards

Yes - and when the strong hand relays he will find all that information relatively comfortably:- 1C 16+ 1D (neg or 8-9 flat or 20+) 1H 19/20+ 2D= 6-9 flat 2H R 3C= 4m333 3D R 3S= K 4C R 4S= DQ, SK no HAKQ 4N R 5H= CQ, DJ no SJ 6S hoping for either no C lead or favourable position or CJ still possible.... wtp? regards,

Ben, First of all, i disagree with you about the value of A=2 K=1 controls as the answer to the number of controls question in many cases it is sufficient knowledge to know whether to continue towards slam or not (whereas AKQ points will not be definitive). If proceeding towards slam an A is different from 2 K - and each may be of advantage but premature decisions on trumps can be very costly too....there are many varieties of hands which may play in different denominations depending on overall strength/controls (eg NT v 5/6/7minor or Major game as opposed to higher minor contract etc). In answer to your question about setting trumps, it is not done until the relay player sets the final contract (which allows you to change tacks as in for example the Polish league bidding match where you were probably going to play in S until you realise that the Moysian 6D with KQx opposite your AJTx is superior). Trumps are set following GF relays:- a) by a reversion to a suit (no- 1-step relay) below 3NT if you wish to step out of relay B) above 3NT by any non-1 step relay as terminal. The options will allow you (certainly with 20-20 hindsight) to get the path right....most relay players end up using the relays on 95+% hands as the handtypes on which relay breaks are advantageous become more obvious with time (but only that 20/20 hindsight will let you know when the singleton J was crucial and you should have broken relay...!) regards

1h =10-15, 4+H 1S= Relay 2H= 4H, 5+C 2S= R 2NT= shortS 3C=R 3D= 1-4-3-5 3H= R 3S= max to show ie Qs 3NT=R 4C= 3 controls 4D=R 5D=CKQ, HK noQ, DK 5H= R 5NT= DQ, no CJ 6D conclusion paying off if SJ but good 6D Note the key is not just locatingthe cards but the knowledge opener has more to show in Qs & Js than bare minimum... regards

1C (16+) 1D (lacking 2 controls) 1NT (16-18/19) 2C (Stayman) 2D 3D (GF for various reasons long D, implies unbal & 8+) 3H 3S (shape) 5C (nothing here all prime) 6D NB we stop in 5D opposite KQxx x QJxxxx xx Ken should like this: when a bid at a lower level is a cue bid, the jump in that denomination is a denial with super max elsewhere (not going to be available all the time eg H & C reversed, but then you just go through your cue bid) regards

The more D he has the more likely a minimum slam is possible (eg x KJxx Axxxxx xx) but the bidding makes it more likely that he holds at least 2S....so I think a 3C general cue with a descriptive response to elicit distribution and one below game slam-try in H may be enough (you do not want to be in slam opposite most minimum 4-4-4-1 after the 1S overcall but do you really believe they have 10C between them on this auction? yes 3-7 is possible). I like Wayne's general plan but do not know how partenr will distinguish between great minima eg my example and others...

With the West hand I would push with 5NT as a) HQ working on bidding, hence :P we expect 32-34HCP, c ) known 8card fit (which may not be good if C) d) opener has a choice and canot expect better opposite a passed hand Sure it may go down but how craven do you want to be? On the bidding not clear whether 4D merely shows 5+D with extra strength or more descriptive, but I think West is craven: after all slam try with xx xx Axxxx Kxxx and this hand is much better distribution and strength (admittedly my example passes 3NT).

1D (16+) 1D (various) 1H (19+) 2D (6-9 flat or 10+flat lacking 2 controls) 2H ® 3C (4m333) 3D ® 3S( 3-3-4-3 8+) 4C ® 4D (1K) 4H ® 5C (DQ, SK no H Hon) ??depending on whether you think they will lead C, and where the CK is located, but the luck of relays is bad in this instance so responder is declarer in S.... Probably slightly better than 50%: tehy might not lead C when CK is offside... regards,

I use 3M as fragment rather than shortage (yes there are arguments both ways) and continuations for last 20 years:- 3NT= T (as responder could have relayed...) 4M= T 4m= strong and encouraging 4NT= you pick a minor with no preference usually 3-3 with less than perfecto 5m= wastage and clear preference 4OM= typically 44m suggesting play in shorter minor ie 44 fit to enable pitch... regards

What do 1-4-5-3 and 3-4-5-1 and 1-4-3-5 and 3-4-1-5 open in your system? If they open 1♦, what do they rebid after the 1♥ relay? We open 1H with 4+H & could be canape in any suit - albeit longer S only if holding at least 5H, but the hands with both minors are taken out of the 1H bid. 1S= 5+S but excludes hands with 5+H (ie max of 4H only). So the simple answer to your question is to open 1H with 4H & longer minor. Effectively the rationale behind the system choice is manifold:- S is the most important suit as you can outbid the opponents When opening with a "utility" 1D bid responder only caters for 4S (not 4H) as when opener holds 4/5H he holds both minors When holding H, we adopt the Blue Club style of "preference" in general terms only reverting to H with 3card support - so that canape is assumed. Accordingly raise directly to the 2-level with 3 card support and ruffing value but not to 3 -level and have many forms of fit raise and relays (also a 2D response is limited with 5S & 3H!!) while transfers elsewhere.. regards,

Naturalish methods:- 1H (5+H) - 3S (bal flat forcing raise minimum GF) 4D (short S)- 4H (wastage) 4S (excl RKC) - 4NT (1/4 excl S) 5C (TQ?) - 5H (no) P Not saying this is a great auction but it is realistic and establishes the likely problem. IMPACT:- P (16+) 1S (10-19 flat) 1NT ® 2H (4m333) 2C ® 2S (3-3-3-4) 2NT ® 3S (fair+13+, with 5controls A=2, K=1) 4C ® 4D (no CA/K or AKQ) 4H ® 5C (no DA/K but control in both M) 5D ® 5NT (CQ, 2 of top 3S - has to be AK controls, no 2nd in H) 6NT to protect the lead and they may even lead H!!! note responder could have pointed Js as well. The slam is effectively about the same as 6H and slightly inferior to 6C but has the virtue that the strong hand is concealed and no information given which may elicit a favourable lead (eg H or D). Interesting because if responder downgrades his hand (wrongly IMHO as aside from the quality of the C, once partner locates 11HCP in controls he won't look for more) to a poor 13 (bidding 3C instead of 3S) having shown his distribution we would stop at 5H. regards

Although we use relays, the situation is analogous as our 1D opening (in strongC) is unbalanced. 1H is a relay but not GF, just general enquiry: responses: 1S= 4S unbal 1NT= short S (1-4-4-4 or 0-5-4-4 or 0-4-4-5 or 0-4-5-4) 2C= 4D & 5+C 2D= 4C & 5+D 2H= 5+D & 5+C with short S 2S= 5+D & 5+C with equal Majors 2NT= 5+D & 5+C with short H THe equivalent to your original question is 1D- 1S (not forcing but natural) ? Pass= ok 1NT= 3-suited short S (incl 5431) 2m= usually 6+ suit (2C may be 55m 2H= 0-5-4-4 (alternative treatment m55) 2S= nat 2NT= any of max 6+m atleast AKJ OR 3-1 (54) max OR 4S voidH m54 3m= 6+m max but suit <AKJ 3H= S raise with C suit 3S= S raise with D suit 3NT= 4C= S raise with long C and short H 4D= S raise with long D and short H 4H= S raise with long C and short D 4S= S raise with long D and short C regards

I understood the classic to be "Don't piss against the wind".... regards :blink:

Well , on Monday we played against the team which finished 5th in BB last month and on the 3rd board I went off in a game where I thought I could have made on a slightly better line, and one opponent smirked. I hunkered down and played error -free tiger bridge for the remainder of the night. result: 48 imps to 3 in our favour. PS I think the alternative line is better but Deep Finesses says I should still have failed... Go over the hands win lose or draw to see what else could be done. If I think that with the information available I would make the same bids/plays again, I have played as well as it is possible for me...but even recognition of potential double-dummy positions and/or additional chances to give the opponents room to go wrong are worthy of consideration for the (continual) learning curve... NB we criticised our teammate in game who failed to take a safety play to cater for trumps 4-0 offside AND a sidesuit breaking 4-1 (even more so as the initial safety play does NOT cost a trick on the actual lie of the cards: trumps 2-2 and sidesuit 3-2), so it is well to be brutal to yourselves on analysis... I think it is very rare to have a session where you can say it was truly error-free : MAYBE ONCE A YEAR AFTER CLOSE ANALYSIS IF REALLY ON-SONG based on this style (and at MP pairs it is almost impossible). What happens is that most of us focus on the matches we lose where we actually played pretty well and the cards & opponents "conspired to beat us" eg you bid 3 good (better than 60%) slams all of which fail and your opponents bid none of them OR system plays a part in dictating declarer and the killing lead comes from one side etc These things happen - but then so do the hands where system /luck favours you in similar dollops: it is just that you don't tend to recognise that for what it is! My partner loves to win, whereas I look for something akin to practical perfection for satisfaction..... regards

Sure, I should have been more precise and stated "likely" as a qualifier, but partner will assume the length, and I prefer to maintain the consistency of the approach to 4NT for ease of memory and dealing with a class of hands (eg 6D & 5H, perhaps 6+D & 4H depending on style) which leaves partner with some prospect of evaluating correctly.... regards

With due respect, given the suit opened, shouldn't 4NT show at least 4 HEARTS (if not 5H if your style allows you to open 1D with a 5card H suit)??? I tend to use the 4NT as extreme shape with at least 6 in suit opened (and usually 5+ in higher suit unless not possible eg opened 1H and same auction followed). Hence double is a nicer bid (still implies D long)..and brings all suits into play (albeit partner less likely to hold long H and values as failed to make negative double playing traditionally..) regards

1. Assuming 2/1 GF I think that with 4 card good trump support Opener should have taken the opportunity to splinter if that was part of the partnership agreement (having done so he obviously does not have enough to move over responder's subsequent 4H). 2. In the absence of a splinter by opener, and the 3H non-minimum - or perhaps lacking "picture jump" eg 5-4-2-2 concentrated values in S &H, I assume responder's bid is a cue (as opposed to shape or concentration) based on the following:- a) denial of a REAL S cue (ie SA/K) but ambivalent as to distributional shortage in S or holding SQ; :P denial of C control c) I don't know what 3NT or its absence would imply but I like the agreement that after such a start it is NOT natural and either is an early DI or similar including as an alternative trump Honour(s) possibly turbo even. On the assumption of at least a) & :) above opener COULD move -just-but if he assumed that this was a mere "courtesy cue" and denied whatever 3NT would show, he would not move. The problem is the poor S suit with the lead coming through the exposed K, no obvious source of side suit tricks but opener does hold very good trumps and the crucial CA. In my view had opener described his hand with the splinter he would not have caught himself in the conundrum that followed (made far worse by the absence of agreements). Rule: All things being equal, describe if a description is available - particularly with a minimum! regards,

I cannot imagine accepting 4H and doubling for penalties when I could either force them to bid 5H (sufficient bid) or something else with the resulting penalty (both bidding and lead potentially) given partner has indicated a slam suitable hand for S (in fact by his action virtually said Slam is on if we have enough KC). This is NOT a co-operative dialogue but rather having shown the limit (slightly understated IMHO for S) of the hand partner has asked a single slam-determinative question : to which we should supply a straight answer. The HUGE disadvantage of 1430 with the particular method is that holding one KC it gives partner room to go wrong if you double (he shouldn't but it does whereas if you passed over 4H it must be encouraging - but that is second step!! on your agreement - so for safety I bet you wish you were playing the inferior 0314 on this particular hand). THe other important point is that by accepting you save room in a slam -suitable situation where the SQ may be important to show. Hence I bid double (first step of the insufficient bid) and hope to survive. Note unfortunately the logic in the particular auction where Keycards are being requested does not directly apply to other auctions where cue-bidding or non-suit agreement is pertinent. regards,

Agree with most points made by others:- 1. I hate and despise the 1S bid: it does not help unless opener raises S with at least 4, as we have not shown our support, have not GF and have not shown a significant length of suit. A relay, an dindeterminate but GF 2C or even a GF raise is better. Over 1H-1S if forced 2H(?) - why not 4D? or is that a splinter? At least you are putting partner in the picture and giving a clue. Opener's hands with very long suits but some defensive strength are well-suited (sic!) to a combination of NAMYATS and Acol twos if played. This has too much defensive outside strength for my style of NAMYATS and is the absolute bottom end of a Courtney-Acol two! 2. I think opener did fine with 3S which we interpret initially as DAB: the 2 Aces are good but the singleton opposite the presumed solid 7D is not ideal, neither is the doubleton small in S! As an aside I play that when a DAB is doubled :- Pass=semistop/singlestop such that XX asks (bid 3NT with full stop only) XX= xx(x....) 3NT= 1.5(+) stops suit= singleton in their suit cue = void in their suit On that basis, XX is correct from responder - and now opener knows there is no wastage (albeit no knowledge of values) opposite and may punt 5D (over which responder MUST bid 6 with 2 bullets) or bid 4H unless that confirms a 4card H raise (but if it shows 7solid D and good 3H and extras the problem for responder is his doubleton S with poor trumps) or prevaricate with 4D. Of course a lot of people play 3S as a general force (which makes other bids more specific and many typically just invitational) but leaves you guessing on dialogue bidding as opposed to interrogation. If 3S established a GF, the rebid of 4D is sufficient albeit not providing much solace or information about the H quality. Another possibility is that it shows a GF but denies 4card H support in which case 4H is OK but you haven't necessarily shown a D suit of quite this power (and virtual self-sufficiency)...anyway slam fail(ed when both red suits broke 4-1 but then there would be no story).. regards,

I think it is a combination of early Acol-induced training (including 4sf) and the useful space principle, which I was applying before it was published as USP - that leaves me in agreement with Frances: 3H sets H and after that short of a jump to the slam level, we are laying in H!! Of course, it is interesting whether with an unknown partner from a different locality such inferences could be drawn - and had 4th suit been higher than reversion opener's first bid suit, it would have been harder to guess (without prior agreement). My personal preference would be for lowest available bid as substitute 4sf (USP) but that is a long way from "standard practice" and not something I would pull on even an expert partner without discussion (I have mellowed). However, if I was to sit down with an expert and minimum (say 2-5minutes max)bidding discussion revolving around some form of standard my inclination would be the following meta-agreements in order of priority:- 1. Useful Space Principle 2. Fit-showing jumps 3. New suit forcing 4. ???Majors opening 5. basis of minors 6. opening NT strength regards