Impact

The "Good 4M raise with a stiff somewhere" has been around since at least the 1970's and I recall an article by Joe Silver I think called "Sliver Bids" which was a neat name combining the anagram of Silver and a "sliver" being something less than a splinter! On a separate note, I think you should differentiate between 1S-3NT and 1H - 3NT as in the first case it is one step beyond the double raise, while in the second it is 2 steps. On any symmetric basis the equivalence should be DR+1 so that 1S- 3NT should be analogous to 1H-3S in order to allow equivalent room for exploration/differentiation - whatever meaning is assigned. I experimented in a relatively standard framework with sliver bids for about a decade : but the right hand did not come up. I found whether playing Acol/standard or something freakier, that the minimum forcing balanced raise was the most useful treatment ie just enough to force to game, at least enough trumps to ensure an 8 card fit, no shortage no side 5+card suit....in standard that means that a delayed game raise actually shows a decent suit (or length at any rate) and allows you to maintain a still stronger ie slam invitational raise somewhere in your system. If asked for a definition of the values I would say 4-4.5 cover cards with a maximum of about 14HCP. A preferred continuation is for opener to indicate shortage (by coding or one-unders) if interested in slam opposite no wastage. regards,

Yes, I play as Skaeran suggests - and I think Vinje codified the reasons and advantages of precisely 4th from 6 (when combined with 3rd & 5th) as both clarifying the count position for defending partner, while usually providing little solace for declarer. It is another of the instances of people adopting a "standard rule" with a simplification instead of the the full ratio. regards

FWIW I think that the situations you have specified are quite different:- 1. THe first auction assumes a base as partner (opener) has shown both values and a balanced handtype. Depending on your style and proclivities (not to mention your actual holding!) you may wish to pass, compete, invite or force. As a matter of practice I use something akin to Woolsey's transfer style here:- 2 bid suit is to play 2NT initially asks for choice of other 2 suits (if they bid a Major it is pick a minor; if they have shown 2 suits it asks for the other, if they showed a minor it asks for a Major st opener's 3D is both - continuations by responder tend to show stoppers in bid suit if revert to NT etc) 3C if not the cue bid is to play; if the cue it is a transfer to D 3D= transfer with at least invitational values to H unless H is the shown suit in which case it is GF Stayman without a stop 3H= transfer to S with at least invitational values, unless S is their shown suit in which case it is Stayman without a stop 3S= forcing bid in C 3NT= balanced without 4OM or stop This allows me to compete at the 2-level, compete with choice of suits at 3-level, compete in relevant 3 minor, invite and/or force with any relevant 5+M, and still have a transfer so it is played by the NT bidder who is more likely to hold useful values in their suit, force with Stayman and/or stop or balanced hand without stop. I gain many elements but lose to precisely a merely competitive hand (<invit) in OM at 3 -level. Note that the choice of other 2 suits allows good competition on many hands and still retains a PENALTY double for the 2-level overcall.... 2. THe second case is one in which the opponents have opened a weak 2 , partner has NOT been able to act directly and it has been passed to 4th seat. This is a very different position than above as we have only a few negative inferences about passed partner's hand. Accordingly there are at least 3 schools of thought: a) Lebensohl by advancer to allow descriptive bids to define strength as the doubler will have a huge range for his hand and allows sensible action later; :) transfers by advancer to allow definition of length and give doubler a 2nd bite - and advancer with a 2 suiter a chance to show both suits c) Scramble: using 2NT as at least 2 places to play recognising the forcing nature of the double (absent a penalty pass by advancer) a) or its evil twin which I use reverse Lebensohl (whereby a direct bid in a suit other than C is weak and a bid of a non-C , non-cue through NT is value -showing) gains whenever the first issue is to define relevant strength of advancer. Even more than over a direct double this is important - and NOTE that since responder has refrained from increasing the pre-empt directly, he is very unlikely to do so now! Given the potential light shapely double for 4th seat I rate this as the primary use to avoid getting too high with a second bid. I should add that sensibly one combines this with a direct cue as DAB for a stop, a delayed cue (ie via 2NT) as GF 2-suiter, advancer's delayed 3NT as showing half stop. Note that if doubler did not bid NT directly it is unlikely to wrongside the contract as NT is less likely to be the spot. :) has the advantage that it allows doubler to become declarer thereby putting the weak two bidder on lead but the range of the potential doubler is quite great and all too often say a potential working 9 count will be caught in a dilemma whether to bid again or not! This is a matter for partnership agreement but I consider it a lesser consideration than the method outlined as a) above. c) retains maximum safety and has the advantage of promising 5+ card length in suits bid, but also gives virtually no information as to strength - hence making bidding games/slam VERY difficult. Given that they have not promised any real strength, my view is that our constructive bidding should prevail here and that hence, option a) is preferable. 3. In this last scenario there has been an opening bid and raise by responder to 4th seat. Regardless of whether you play OBAR or not, many will balance on relatively little here - and certainly at pairs it is all but a given with short S and a semblance of a bid. Notwithstanding light openings (and indeed the different connotations of single raises from KS & R-S to courtesy) the opponents have shown substantial values -albeit the degree of substance is open to some doubt! In this instance with at least one opponent having narrowly defined his hand, you are at penalty risk if you cannot find your best spot - and your game prospects appear considerably less than in the second numbered scenario above (and much less than the first). Hence, IMHO, your target has changed to finding the best strain, which is why I think scramble is much better use of 2NT (so that an immediate bid stipulates at least 5 cards). Advancer is not prevented from bidding game eg a working 11+HCP hand with 5H and 3/4 small S which was just short of an overcall but now everything is working plus the knowledge of ruffing values opposite, but this hand is not so frequent!!! eg xxxx AJTxxx Kx Kx or similar... NB I prefer to use 2NT directly over 2S as 5+5+ H & minor as that way I double its use compared to minors only (and when you know they have the boss suit that is more important). Accordingly, to answer your first query, whereas you may choose for simplicity, to adopt the same method in all 3 circumstances, in my opinion that is neither optimal nor necessary in any practised partnership or any partnership which considers matters of theory. Further, each of the 3 separate methods may be extended to other situations where the parameters are similarly appropriate eg all NT situations can be similarly classified (this can be extended to "deemed NT auction" ) -the method over weak twos can be extemporised to bidding following a (strong) club and pre-empts -the method after the single raise can be adopted in equivalent circumstances where it is unlikely that your side holds the balance of power regards

In fact East has bid his hand very well but West is in la-la land. The double by East of 6H over West's forcing pass I would take as establishing the likelihood (and fact in this instance) of East's 2 losing H. However that position should never have been reached on this hand. As Ron & Frances point out, the fact that West is holding a huge double fit in D &S after East shows his FSJ and then considerable extra distribution with 5S should make bidding 6S automatic. I would have more respect for West had he held a 6thS and the CA instead of the Q when the forcing pass could have been used to look for 7S!!! when he pulls the double of 6H to 6S (although the only expert explanation for his 4S bid could be a knowledge of the opponents' habits and an expectation of being doubled ie sandbagging). East has defined his hand extremely tightly by the FSJ and then the bid 5S: West was dead at the wheel with all the information and need to make calls (maybe he was a client??) regards

By the way, this is obviously a very similar auction to my own, except for the continuation from 3♥. I think we both agree that once shape is known, we use 3NT to play. The question is what to do with the intervening bids. Some of the various calls I know of are: Min/Max ask (with zoom to controls for a max) Control ask (or slam/queen point ask) Keycard ask for a given suit Termination bid I choose to use any space I can below 3NT for a min/max ask. This is obviously more important when you have a long minor as then you can play in 3NT opposite a minimum and seek slam opposite a max hand. (Note that in my partnerships we define a max as having 4+ controls and maximum values.) Furthermore, even making the min/max ask is a mild slam try (since you didn't just use a termination bid). This forces me to ask controls at the 4-level, but I find the tradeoff worthwhile on the game hands. On the given hand, it's possible that we might desire a maximum to seek slam, but given that any two bullets will give play for slam, I felt that the control ask was more useful. May systems use the 4♦ as the termination bid. I prefer that 4♥-->5♦ are the termination bids, whereas any intervening bids are keycard. Here there is only one intervening bid (4♦) so I can only keycard in opener's longest suit. If there are more intervening bids, I have more options. Your choices are obviously what is suited to your partnership, but it may (or may not) be something you have really thought about. I used endsignal and KCA when I played Regres in 79/80 but prefer to use straight controls with distributional hands. One of the main reasons is that KCA forces premature selection of trump suit -and is often more restrictive in the information shown. (I do use asking bids as relay breaks below game after GF established but they come up rarely). I solve the dilemma (to use AKQ points as opposed to controls or HCP) by varying slightly what we play depending on the distribution shown: By contrast with hands which have only 1 singleton, or no more than 2 doubletons (ie flat, 5332, 6322, 6331, 5422, 5431) first step shows "extras" while others deny (then since I have asked 3NT even if next step after ask is still a relay!! exception to general rule since if you were willing to go past 3NT opposite a minimum, how can you not be happy to go past 3NT with extras???). As I noted - at the table the correct bid is 6S over the 4C response for the reason you gave - and as I explained,the rest was just showing off that in this case we knew the contract was good! Off to Stage 2 Of Tream Trials this week from Sunday: first time in about 15 years that Bob & I have taken time off (our respective professions and matrimonial commitments!) to play ... regards,

Ken, If you review my post earlier you will note that I knew when opener bid 3H that he held precisely 6-4-2-1 and when he then responded 4C that he held 4 controls (counting A=2 K=1). htat means you know you are missing the SK & 1A (which cannot be SA since you know you hold 12S between the 2 hands. At that point, since relayer's own controls ensure that opener must hold 2A it does not matter which sidesuit A he holds in the sense that the slam cannot be worse than 50% (if they lead a D through the K and opener holds neither the A nor the Q). However, there is a reasonable argument for continuing the relay sequence both because it may be cold and because you might get enough information to bid 6NT if playing pairs. In this instance, the information is neutral and insufficient to place the contract in 6NT as you know you are missing the 13thS (the K) but do not know whether opener holds singleton CA (inwhich case his shown D top Honour is the Q)or effectively DA. On a purely empirical basis the auction should be concluded by bidding 6S since you know it is really "50% at worst" when opener showed 4 controls, but because each of the relay systems can show off - we all did!! regards

South dealer 1S 1NT relay 2H= exactly 4H 2S=relay 3H= 6-4-2-1 3S=relay 4C= 4 cont (A=2) 4D= relay (concerned that lead through DK etc) 4H= no SAK 4S= relay 5D= HA but not Q. D top 6S I count 12 tricks whether D Q OR A regards

A lot depends on what you double with: if partner doubles because he has a weak NT - then it is silly BUT if you accept the prototypical 4-1-4-4 this hand is worth getting to 2S without being pushed there (and it will help partner evaluate for competition and game anything else). I concede your distribution is sterile, the suit less than robust and you would rather that the HA was elsewhere but you have 4 cards in the Major partner invited you to bid, no wasted values (absent HT) and a bare 9HCP. Every time you look at your hand and see only the 4333 shape you ignore the fact that partner has implied some shape (or considerable additional values). I would be less enamoured getting to the 3-level but I think this is just good enough to bid 2H (transfer advance to takeout double) which will allow doubler room to make an intelligent (or other) decision...mind you it is borderline. As between 1S, 2S and 1NT - notwithstanding my enormous respect for Jeff Rubens, I am not yet in the school that bids 1NT unless I have a 5 card suit and values.... Notwithstanding the inherent unlikelihood of holding 0-4HCP that range of 0-8/9 is very wide and if I can make a "limit" bid in one hit, I will. Take away even a S pip and I am much less sanguine so it is borderline... regards

Answers inserted into quote below The object is to :_ a) sign off in any suit B) show all forms of distributional Invitational hands c) describe minimum slam-try hands (single and 2 suiters) with outside shortage that will have a good play for slam opposite no wastage d) relay with remainder GF that is accomplished (with some artificiality)

What was never addressed in all of this is the dichotomy between bidding and play. If a player, at the table, finds a new exotic cardplay position eg Seres or Sydney squeeze - he is universally hailed. In North America, at least, bidding is supposed to run on tramtracks apparently. It is largely a means to get to the important or real bridge: the play. Part of the charm is running into unfamiliar positions and having to think it out there and then to find your answer : they call the game "bridge". Objections that no one has done the work for you, or specified an "optimal" defence does not stop you composing something on the psot (with the possibility of refinement for longer sessions of play later) and working out what partner would take it to mean, based on general principles & agreements in place is what a large part of the game is about. It often seems to me that the professional expert community has a vested interest in the status quo as it preserves their advantage to the greatest degree - but unfortunately it also limits the game to something considerably less than its definition! OTOH a failure to give proper and full disclosure is ludicrous - yet I suggest that more so-called natural bidders do so than artificial bidders. Experienced international partnerships have many explicit agreements and many more implicit assumptions/agreements. It is only appropriate that at the conclusion of the auction complete explanations including negative inferences should be given: that is full disclosure. Recently the national body here (Oz) specified that if you played HUM you had to submit 5 copies of not merely the WBF type material (card, pre-alerts, suggested defence etc) but FULL SYSTEM. I pointed out that this was serious discrimination and should not be permitted unless the same rule applied to all systems!!! I don't think - other than for the purposes of profit - too many top line partnerships publish their full system notes and understandings: maybe they should in the interests of transparency, but if so it should be a level playing field for all! regards

Actually, a lot depends on the meaning of partner's double. Assuming it is semi-classical responsive, there is a very good argument that your best bid now at this UNFAV vul is an invitational 5D (basically the disparity between your suits is too great for C to be used for slam purposes: reverse the minor Honours so DKxxxx and CAKQx and 4NT is the right bid). The problem with 5D is that while partner should read it as invitational to 6m, it doesn't sound like it -AND if he has to make any close decision he will look at his questionable trumps and pass. For that reason I will bid 6D at this vul. Tactically, this wins if they decide to sacrifice, and realistically to find out whether partner has the right minor suit Honours to make 6C is ambitious in the same sense that fans of Yes, Minister and Yes Prime Minister would hear a decision described by Sir Humphrey as "courageous". If you accept the likelihood that partner has a doubleton S, no great length in a side suit, your strongest suit for slam is D - so getting lucky with the right C cards is just a crapshoot (to redress the balance for the US-oriented). By contrast you will win in D almost every time partner has the DJ, and now it is just a question of whether you have a discard for C on H or run C (or squeeze LHO opponent between C & H). Sure you MAY have 2 top losers but what has partner doubled on: surely 2 bullets and a working Q is needed as minimum??? You hold virtually all the other significant Honours in the suits excluding S. If he knows you will stretch to double with shortage he MUST have serious values to double, and in real life he won't have an excuse to raise (ok he will be tempted if he holds 3A) but that applies equally from 5 to 6. Damn the torpedoes....6D at the table anyway (and I am usually a scientific bidder but there just is no sensible process to extract the RIGHT information when one of your suits is SO strong). Prepared to be ridiculed (but equally convinced of the pragmatism of my bid), Regards,

A. The 2NT opening I understand (particularly with the DK6) the opening of 2NT - but it is not for nothing that 2NT is often described as "slamkiller". Hands which 5422 and particularly 6322 will provide far more options in suit contracts. Moreover this hand is MUCH better than 20-21 (see below) B. the D slam-try by South is completely misconceived :not because the hand is not worthy of a slam-try, but because the slam-try should be made as a BALANCED hand keeping options open as for suit play: 5332 is clearly a balanced shape! Aside from the particular hand it is only necessary to reflect on the number of different potential contracts: NT, C or S opposite a normal 5332 North hand which are likely to be far superior to D .... Unless you have an agreement to the contrary, a single-suited slam-try should promise at least a 6 card suit. C. North's acceptance of the slam-try: his hand is all prime (and has a source of tricks) despite minimum straight HCP and only doubleton D. However, assuming he expected a 6+ card D suit this was actually a GOOD bid as I would evaluate the hand as excellent in response to any slam try!!! ANALYSIS of blame: 10-15% to North for opening 2NT with a hand which is very comfortable starting with 1C and reversing to give a picture of the hand. Incidentally I would evaluate the North hand as too STRONG for a 20-21HCP 2NT: those A are worth extra and the only J are long with Honour concentrations and intermediates. On a "HCP" scale I would evaluate this hand as closer to 23 than 21!! By contrast, the vast majority of the blame (85-90%) should be accorded South who has a quantitative slam-try opposite a "20-21" balanced hand. Aside from relay systems for whom bidding 7C should be child's play eg P=16+ 2C= D singlesuiter 2D= relay 2S= D singlesuiter with <3H 2NT= relay 3C= 3-2-5-3 3D= relay 3NT= 8-11HCP with 3 controlpoints (A=2) 4C= relay 4H= topD, no top S 4S=relay 4NT=no CA/K 5C=R 5S= top H, 2nd top D, no SQ 5NT=R 6D= CQ but no DJ 7C = conclusion (as placed HK, DAQ, CQ), noting that had South held Jxx Kx AQxxx xxx he would have bid 6C and North have passed to last relay!! (note it would be easyusing AKQ points too as the vital Q would be known early as denials imply C Hon earlier). Bidding playing rudimentary standard agreements perhaps:- 1C 1D 1H forcing unbal 3C invitational 4D Kickback 4H= 1KC 4S TQ? 5H= yes & HK but no SK 5NT more? 6C= no Pass probably It would take a push (but conceivable) for North to bid &c on the inference that South's 1D bid would be on 5, since he did not bid NT, but bid 1D and depend on other systemic inferences... Even opposite a 2NT opening (and this hand is a decent 22/3 count if you want to treat it as balanced) but if it had started as 2NT showing 20-21 so a quantitative invitation is appropriate:- 2NT 4NT 5C accepting and suggesting suit 5D cue 5H 5NT (HK) 6C If opener had shown balanced 22-24, I think this is a good enough responder's hand to insist on slam, and even investigate grandslam. Slightly more sophisticated methods include CONFI and SUPERCONFI where having determined the slam range for balanced hands, you check for controls before investigating suit prospects (CONFI is only a slam try but SUPERCONFI assumes 6NT at worst). Once you have determined a reasonably sophisticated system such as a puppet 3S to 3NT (and presumably a direct 3NT in response to 2NT puppets to 4C) you have room to use extensions of the puppet to ask for controls... under those circumstances 7C IS still tough to bid because it has to assume that responder will find 1 control missing, and find that it is a non-essential control (eg equivalent of alternative hand for opener Ax AQx Kxx AKxxx with at least 2 additional Jacks, but note that minor Js make 7C excellent- and you need more for a 23count: so minor Js make it almost cold, Major Js means you require 32 breaks or at least 1 plus a squeeze) regards

My 4C bid would be a transfer to D - which pretty much describes my hand (extra D but unwilling to punish partner for his balance)...and leaves him room to do more (new suit now from him is very strong and forcing!!). Had my D been headed by AK, I would certainly commit to at least game - even AQJ I think. regards,

No. Sure I have the HK (probably behind the A), but -unless partner has a fabulous reason to do otherwise he is going to lead a red suit on this bidding (against a high S contract); - I do not know whether he should be leading H or D (depends on who has the red Q in all likelihood); - if , on this bidding they stop in 5S it pretty much marks the D lead - and why should I dissuade him from that? - if they continue to a slam in S, he knows that I have no clear preference for H - which is accurate. Sure, we can hypothesise a hand where declarer holds DAQ and we have a black A so that failing to lead a H is deadly, but just as easily we can hypothesise a hand where the D lead will beat the contract. If my partner is good, he understands these matters - and does not double to hear the sound of his own voice. All things being equal (they rarely are) on this bidding, unless they stop at 5S without my double, he will tend to lead his stronger red suit - and that is what I want AFAIK! I want my partners to take my lead directing doubles sensibly - and the one thing I don't want to do is divert him from a potentially sensible "natural" lead. If I didn't hold the Dtop Hon, I WOULD double 5H not just for the H lead but to stop the putative D lead. Actually if I held the DA, I would probably also double 5H as I want that suit led (so I can then cash DA) but realistically that could be wrong if we had 2 top D against their contract!! Still you pays your money and takes your chances. Hope this methodology helps: it is not a guarantee of success, but more defensible with a good partner than "reflex doubles" regards

Reluctant as I am to agree with Josh (on just about anything), I hold a REALLY good suit , a very good 2nd suit and 22HCP on the first hand. It really is a case of never being able to persuade partner of what I have if I don't open 2C in a natural system. If my suits were significantly weaker I would have more sympathy for opening at the one level, or indeed if I held the dreaded 4441/5440 shape so that I just have too much to describe when starting at the 2-level with an indeterminate bid. It is just as much an "error" and a risk to start at the one level and then play catch-up, as it is to force with the risk of pre-emption. Aside from the good and bad things that could happen to each the biggest downside and one for which there is no exculpation in teams (yes I know it's only MP) is being passed out at the one level with a gmae in hand

If it was imps and we decide to play to make:- If S are 4-4, you are basically down unless you can work miracles in H or D. Since establishing D means letting them in twice you will be down if you play to establish D (barring DA onside and QJ tight when RHO flies DA). Even if S are 5-3 you have to duck a S to break communication AND pick (if possible) the red A the long S holder. By contrast the H suit offers a genuine play for the contract: 3 H tricks: HAJ(x), J9(x) onside. My inclination if trying to make the contract is simply to run the HT if it is not covered. There are other positions including dropping the stiff 9 offside that also work for this line. That is the most straightforward and the way I would have played at the table. At MP (which is not my game!!) I have a more than sneaking suspicion that you should be playing for -1!! regards

I just noticed that - unlike most others - when I last posted, my sidebar showed "warn(0%)" and then 4 orange rectangles (correction 5 such! ). What does this mean, and why is it in place? NB although I comment on forums, I have never played on BBO (for a variety of reasons) , and query whether it is in some way connected. AFAIK I have neither used immoderate language nor engaged in even moderately controversial debate (with the possible exception of advocacy of relays, light openings, ferts and 2-way actions which may include weakness for very strong hands). Just curious.... regards

2S= simple preference but is NOT the equivalent of a reversion to set a trump suit in the position of 2/1 GF style (after a 2/1). These 2 positions are not analogous - and seems (absent specific partnership agreements) to be the root of a few correspondents' arguments. After responder establishes that opener has at least a doubleton S, 4S appears clearcut. When opener has rebid his C - showing a hand which he is willing to let responder believe is about 6 cards in length or equivalence (albeit there are hands in most standard systems where he does not hold such), it is the height of optimism on the part of responder to look for slam - and worse to proceed uninvited to the 5-level! Hands which fit for slam tend to look like long C with no values there: eg KQ Kxx AJx xxxxxx or 7C with neither A nor K!! That is against the odds to look for, and the problem is that if he has a slightly less suitable hand but rich in controls he will move - and thereby get you to a hopeless or at least against the odds slam:- eg Kx Kxx Kx ATxxxx 5 controls including Keycards in both your suits, and slam is awful, but if you make any slam-going move, opener legitimately should believe he has gold. regards

late to this but I pass in tempo. Sure I have the points but too many ways to lose: a) 3NT requires not just specific Honours but also specific length given that the lead comes through partner AND they opened at unfav (make it Jxx and I am MUCH more likely to find that bid) :ph34r: double is awful as my Kx in S is insufficient support for partner if he bids S at ANY level c) 4C is wrong because it should show at least a 6th C at this level, and because whatever he has, he will misevaluate (if he passes 4C we will probably go down, my guess is that if he raises to 5 we will certainly be down and if he tries for slam we would have had a good shot at game - but then that is imagining hands with which I would move in each circumstance if I was advancer). d) 4NT is crazy because we have too few minor cards and too many losing H. When you have been there a few times it is easier to pass in tempo. If it comes back in 4H I still pass - and pay off if they have fixed us. regards

There are a lot of different schemes out there. I have experimented with a number over the last decade and my current preference is:- NT are natural (positional advantage) X of overcall up to & including 3D = transfer other simple bids are transfers. The scheme changes a little depending upon whether we opened a Major or an amorphous minor. Following an amorphous minor opening:- transfer INTO their suit promises at least 1x 4unbid Major with game-going values transfer of their suit DENIES 1 x4M and acts as DAB (directional asking bid ie for stopper and tends to imply balanced lacking stop) If we opened a Major:- transfer into their suit shows DAB and cue of their suit is raise (slightly greater efficiency arises by reversing these two bids but the additional fudge factor of being able to transfer into their suit and accept the transfer with no clear direction OR with the hand which is super good and has self-supporting suit!! counterbalances this in practice). I accept that the corollaries to this style in giving up low-level negative doubles are far more suited to limited opening style systems, and a number of wrinkles are specifically aimed at our 4M canape (except S) style eg 1H (3D) 3S= DAB 1S (3D) 3H=DAB !!!! THe reason to distinguish between 3D overcall and higher is the avaialbility of a bid to suggest 3NT without a stopper in the suit. If they pre-empt higher than 3D, a reversion to more traditional methods is superior IMHO. Non-acceptance of the transfer will depend on range and style of bidding (eg different meaning if very wide-ranging openings per standard style). We raise per-emptively, new suit extreme distribution and all jumps are fit (typically fragment) in the context of limited style (big Club or strong Pass) main range openings. regards,

I must have missed something in the translation as I thought the problem suggested invitational natural ie good suit in C with 6+cards and I hold what....so I check that we are playing with same deck/board first. The 3m natural I response was designed a) to make it easier to reach 3NT with running suit and :wacko: to plug the hole in the system created by either 2/1 GF and/or forcing NT. Assuming that is the case and there is no room left for mistaken assumptions (gee looking at my hand it sounds more like a S raise of some description), I follow the Punish Partner Principle: so he must have at least 7C to at least JT (or any 8card C suit I guess), and about 10-11HCP (lower would be unacceptable given the quality of his suit, and with focus on controls and WITHOUT a S top Honour as doubleton S Honour would be better bid in almost any other fashion) so I am almost left with HAK DK as his Honours - now if he has a singleton S I want to be in 6C, so I bid 4C forcing!!!

5D as he had a bid of 3S available too so typically he holds DQxxx (given overcaller's D), some modicum of distribution and one control card. They almost certainly make 4S - so let's make them guess at favourable...where we are likely to go for 300 or 500

Inclined to bid 2H because although 2C helps partner to evaluate with CQ, his most likely rebid would be 2S, after which my 3H sounds like a 17 count 64; as he bids 3NT on his 7/8 count and I convert to 4H losing the 4 tricks (or so for which I was booked)... Nothing about the 1S reply thrills me, and the feature of my hand is the routine in H & 7th. Note if you retain the distribution but make it void QJT9xxx xx AKQx so that I hold an 8 tricker in H it is a whole different ballgame

1. Sure 2S is good and 3NT/4H is on the cards, I have 7 likely tricks for NT and he has made a competitive 2/1 which promises (at least) a rebid. No other bid will leave me better placed...do I assume you were not playing Fit-showing jumps so that his 2H bid already excluded 5+H with 4+D? 1a) I assume partner's 3H simply confirmed length (usually 6th H?), and no S stopper. I also assume that he would have bid 3m descriptive had he held 4cards in one of those suits (again assuming no FSJ) 2. Yes, my Pass (over 4S) is forcing. 2S forced to game & as I have H tolerance and shortage in their suit, having forced to game I am encouraging him to either bid my suit - or with a suitable hand of his own to bid 5H (double from him would suggest a misfit for D without great H). 3. After he bid 5D I start to think about 6H & 3D (although it is still conceivable that he has only 5H & 3D with 32 in blacks but virtually no wastage). Given that he has no D Honour a reasonable minimum hand for him might be xx AKQxx xxx xxx if that includes DT 11 tricks is fair+ Change the hand slightly so it is xx AKxxxx Txx Kx and I am not unhappy about slam prospects....but if CKx was only Qx I would be much less sanguine. Is xx KQxxx xxx KQx not also possible..... If I pass now I should abide by his likely double as he cannot be much stronger (he was willing to stop at 5D after all) and has lousy D from his own standpoint. If he is relatively good controls HAK & CK it must be obvious that I am asking him to bid on, but if he is quacky not so (the difficult hand will be solid H and out but if he held that surely he would have picture -jumped to 4H????) Given how bad he COULD be, I will let him make the final decision/error by passing over 5S - and abide by his decision. 4. the only excuse (besides incompetence) for the oppos bidding is a presumed black double fit....which tends to support my pass over 5S to encourage bidding 6 (and if he bids 5NT or 6C I will convert to D) but if he doubles I will subside as any bid over his double would be a GST! regards

1. A good player who bid like RHO is saying "please double me" , but.. 2. Partner with extreme Majors - at least 55 would bid 4D presumably, so even if his X is ostensibly takeout, he has some defence. 3. I pass (really only wrong if partner is something like Kxxx Qxxxx x Kxx or longer C eg 4-3-1-5 so now we get 0/1C, perhaps 2S and 1D on worst case scenario)...but hey that's life, and you cater for everything else with less than no guarantee against bidding 3NT which would bet on taking 9 before they get 5! Any other bid is wired surely....