akhare

Chalk me up for 5♣ -- 4♠ might go down, but this hand has so much offensive potential as well...

3♥ for me -- 4♥ with better spots...

4♥ unless I am resulting this particular hand... :lol:

I think you can solve the 2C - 2M (with GF) - 2N/3C problem by making the direct 3H / 3S as 6+ invite. In other words, 2C - 2M - 2N/3C - 3M is GF. You can even try to gain some space by transferring at the 3 level after opener's 2N / 3C bid (starting with 3♦). 2♣ - 2♥ / 2♠ (forcing) - 2N / 3♣: .....P .....3C: NF, opener may carry on .....3D: GF transfer with ♥s, accept shows exactly 3 card support .....3H: GF, transfer to ♠s, accept shows 2 card support .....3S: GF, primary M and ♦ (or possibly ♣ fit and doubt about NT) .....3N: COG The 3 level structure could be: 3D: 5/5 in the majors, GI 3H / 3S: Invite with 6+

I vaguely recall a post from JanM which stated that the opponents' use of a conventional defence over their 1♣ ("could be short") opening was upheld...a search should turn it up...

A♦ (asking for attitude) for me. K♦ would ask for the unblock, but it can easily backfire in many situations even if pard holds Q♦...

P is good with opener's hand, but I won't fault the the X too much either (AQ looks good after the 1♠ overcall). However, responder's X over the presumed TOX by opener is bizarre at best...

One can always change the semantics of an immediate 2♠ to 5+♠, 4+♥ and X, then 2♥ as 5♥, 4♠ B).

One option might be play straight up transfers over 1♥, i.e.: X: 4+ ♠ 1♠: Balanced hands 1N: Transfer to ♣ 2C: Transfer to ♦ 2D: Transfer to ♥ 2♥+: TDB One can extend this idea to 1♦ - (1♠) as well: X: 4+ hearts 1N: Balanced hands 2C: Transfer to ♦, TP or GF 2D: Transfer to ♥, TP or GF 2♥+: TBD As I recall hanp and other play transfer advances even after 2♣ overcall as well...

One can still use P over (1♠) to create the GF and continue relays at +2 or so. What's more important though how to tackle the hands that don't want to relay (or at least shouldn't). The most obvious are GF hands with shortness in the overcalled suit and other semi-positive hands that may want to get the word out before it's too late ;)...

The "remaining on track" after the XX semipositive can be solved by the simple expedient of using 1♠ over 1C - (X) -- XX - (P) - 1♠, right? In the absence of the X, opener couldn't possibly have bid 1♠ over 1♥ to play and the X has already given opener a chance to bid 1♦ / 1♥...

I don't see any problems passing in tempo here...

Probably because the odds of an uncontested 1♠ - 1N auction are close to 0 -- I bet even the BBO bots will find something to bid over the 1♠ opening :lol:. To me, a 2♠ opening throws caution to the wind and always passing with this hand is way too conservative. Given the very low frequency of such hands (6 card suit, vulnerability, third seat, point range), I don't see why opening (psyching if you will) 1♠ can hurt us too much (Edit: in the context of a limited opening system where pard had complete license to open with very light hands in the first and second seats.). If pard routinely opened at the 1 level in the third seat with sub-par junk hands, I would be much more concerned about disclosing the methods to the opponents...

To complete the context, first hand would have opened most shapely 10 counts and most 11 balanced counts. Do we really expect the auction to go P - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 1N - (P) - 2♠ - (P) when the opps likely hold 23+ HCPs in between them?

Seems like to converge on 2H = SS, 2S+ = reverser, you would have to put two 2-suiters and a 1-suiter, so for example: 1C - 1D - 1N - 2C: 2D: S+D 2H: S 2S+: S+C

Edit: Deleted....

Which thread was that? Free and Richard outlined their objections to using a single bid for SP responses here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ic=37213&st=75#

Richard, Do you have the dealer script lying around? Unfortunately, the version of dealer.exe I managed to locate doesn't support altcount and I tried to approximate the QP count using the script below. The numbers I got back are very similar to yours: GF: 34.27% SP: 44.54% DN: 21.9% west1c = hcp(west)>=9 pointcount 3 2 1 0 eastGF=hcp(east) >=6 eastSP=hcp(east) >= 3 and hcp(east) <=5 eastDN=hcp(east) >= 0 and hcp(east) <=2 condition west1c and (eastGF or eastSP or eastDN) produce 10000 action frequency (hcp(west), 9, 20), frequency (hcp(east), 0, 15)

I generally agree with this structure, but since the SPs are being compressed into one single bid, why not flip it and use 1♦=SP and 1♥+ as positives? Of course, the positive steps are +1, but this scheme is much better at landing in part score after 1♣ - 1♦ (not to mention being able to use the same relays over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥): 1D: Any SP 1H: Spades, S+m / Bal -> 1N: S+C, 2C: S / S+D, 2D+ = bal 1S: Junk 1N: H / H+m -> 2D = H+C, 2H = H, 2S+ = H+D 2C: D / minors -> 2H = diamonds, 2S+ = minors 2D: Three suited 2H: Single suited clubs 2S+: Majors reversed, etc.

If undos are allowed, I might try a 3♥...oops...3♦ :D. Just kidding -- make that a straight up 3♦ for me unless we have some specific systemic agreements to handle such hands...

Adding to the chorus here -- define a QP base (A=3, K=2, Q=1) for opener (suggest 9/10) and the positive responses (suggest 6 with some 5) and don't worry about strength until after you have resolved shape. In most cases, you will know the combined strength below 3N (need in the ballpark of 20 QPs to consider slam and little less with shape).

Isn't J guarantees the T too strong? Say you lead from A9XX, dummy has XX in the suit. Pard wins K♥ and returns J♥ and declarer covers with Q♥. If the auction hasn't been informative regarding declarer's ♥ length, I don't think you can tell whether: 1) Pard has KJX only 2) Pard has KJTX(X)

There's a lot of material on opening lead structures (Rusinow, Slawinski, Vinje, etc.), but nothing much pertaining to lead structure in the middle of the hand. One common theme while defending NT contracts is the following. EDIT: The following is for illustration only and there are several such possible holdings. Give dummy an original X or XX if it helps and assume that declarer's ♥ holding (QX or Q9X or Q9XX) can't be inferred from the auction): [hv=n=sha9xxdc&w=shq8xxdc&e=shdc&s=shkjtxxdc]399|300|[/hv] Say that partner leads 4th best ♥ against 3N and you win the K♥ (dummy on the right is void in hearts). The classic recommended return here is the original 4th best ♥, but in this case declarer can stymie the defence by inserting the 8. If you return J♥ and declarer covers with QH, pard may be reluctant to lead into declarer's presumed T8. If you return T♥ and declarer covers, pard can't tell it apart from an orginal holding of KTX. What is the preferred solution to the above problem? My gut feeling is that leading the second best honour is better, but I don't have anything concrete to back it up. Also, what would you lead in the middle of the hand from the following sequences against suit contracts and no trump (assume dummy doesn't contain the missing honour and that you aren't trying to deceive declarer). AKX AKQ AKJ KQJ(XX) (A)(K)JT(xx) KQTX QT9X JT9X

Seems like 5♣ to me, unless you think that pard will interpret it as exclusion KC :)...

Seems like for purely natural responses with 5+M: 1D: SP 1H: GF 5+ spades / Bal 1S: Junk 1N: GF 5+ Hearts 2C: GF Diamonds 2D: GF Clubs is a pretty good start. Frankly, I am struggling to see why 1C - 1H SP is actually better than 1C - 1D SP in this scheme of things...