akhare

I disagree here -- I think it's important to score as many ruffs in hand given the relatively poor spots. Also, we don't really have length in ♥s to play a forcing game...

Well, assuming you have decided to play in NT, how about giving up exact shape resolution and starting a Q/J parity scan with an assumed shape of 4444 and scanning *all* suits in rank order (or symmetric order (H/S/C/D if you prefer)? So, in your example below: 1NT(15-17), 2♠ 2NT(mini), 3♦ ctrl 1-2 ask 3♠(5 ctrl), 4♣ -> Quack scan 4D: QJ of ♠ or neither .....4S...QJ of ♥ or neither .....4N...Q/J of ♥, QJ of ♦ or neither 4H: Q/J of ♠, QJ of ♥ or neither ....etc At the end of the last suit scan, opener skips a step in the first suit with odd quack parity holding the Q and then stops without the T. The the first odd quack parity holding is the J, opener stops and then resumes scan for the T after the relay. In the case with all even quack parity, opener starts scanning the highest suit for the T. I think that in most cases, responder should be able to locate the exact quacks without much trouble...

3.5 ♣. Will 2♣....director...oops...I mean 3♣ convey the message :P?

What method is used to discourage the original lead after having encouraged at T1? Is it (reverse) Smith Echo?

Well, you can even play this over 1D - (1♠) (a la Ambra), but I don't think that transfer responses after an overcall aren't permitted under the GCC (contrast this with transfer advances, which are explicitly permitted). Of course, if you aren't in ACBL land or play MidChart+, it definitely sounds like a good method....

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp) Incorrect. A 1♣ opener that does not promise 3+ clubs is conventional, as natural minor openings are clearly spelled out to require 3+ cards on the GCC. As such, if you open some weak NT hands 1♣, including those with only 2 clubs (like 4=4=3=2), your 1♣ is conventional. Per GCC, any defense is allowed over an opponent's conventional call. Time to bust out your 2♥ multi and 2♦ Wilcosz weak jump overcalls... +1 with RobF and hrothgar...

I don't think that there can be a canonical rule in this regard. Basically, discouragement indicates tolerance for a shift to the OS. In some cases, it might be better to encourage continuation of the suit even if it risks leading into declarer's presumed tenace because it's likely to do the least damage (and partner may have a solid holding after all). In other words, I don't think automatic discouragement out of the fear of leading into declarer's presumed tenace is the right answer though because declarer has to have a specific holding and pard may very well have a solid holding. awm, phil, et all, BTW, how does Smith Echo work in conjunction with the OS?

I am not particularly fond of them either, but will tag along if someone insists on playing. The 1M - 3M weak raise hardly ever come up in standard and the bid is better suited as a traditional LR or a mixed raise (the weak raise works much better in a limited opening system though). As others have pointed, jumping leads to more crowded auctions and allows them to make cheap lead directing / sacrifice oriented doubles of the 3m bids...

As long as it becomes GF after the second relay, it's kosher: 2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values. If say the bidding goes 1D-1H, 1N where 1N shows four hearts (just for sake of argument), then responder bids 2C as a further now GF inquiry, then one has a relay system which started with the first relay of 1H. Isn't that right? Since 1H doesn't promise GF values, then that relay system would be disallowed. I think awm addressed this question. Basically, since the 2♣ bid is GF, the 1♥ is now just part of a GF relay, though the GF wasn't established when 1♥ was bid and is therefore completely legal. If responder *didn't* have hearts for the 1♥ response *and* dropped opener short of game, it could be argued that the 1♥ response was just the start of a GI relay sequence.

As long as it becomes GF after the second relay, it's kosher: 2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values.

I missed the relay part last time around. It really depends on whether you are in ACBL-land or not. If you aren't in ACBL land, Viking Club used 1♥ as natural or start of GF relay -- someone with the book can probably post the continuations...

EDIT: I missed the relay part, see other answer below. Your NT range seems right, but I am not sure whether 2♦ as showing hands with short diamonds is necessarily the best use of the bid. You can try the following structures: 1♦: 11-13 balanced OR unbalanced with 0-5 diamonds (4441, 5m431, 5m440) ... 2♦: 6+ diamonds, may have a 4 card side suit OR 1♦: 11-13 balanced OR unbalanced with 0+ diamonds ... 2♦: 6+ diamonds, denies a 4 card major Over this the responses can be more or less natural: 1♥: 4+ 1♠: 4+ 1N: 7 - bad 12 2♣: Natural 2♦: Natural 2N: Invite with good 12ish This allows you to do things like: 1♦ - 1♥: 2♦: Good ♥ raise, could be 3 cards if unbalanced 2♥: Bad heart raise and also 1♦ - 1♠: 2♦: 2H: Good ♠ raise, could be 3 cards if unbalanced 2♠: Bad ♠ raise Anyway, this is just an outline -- and straube and I (foobar) play something very similar that works very well...

Yes indeed -- "relays" usually make eyes glaze over, but something like symmetric relays shouldn't take more than a week to learn...

Im using 4-4-4-1 and 4-4-0-5 without a five card major when the shortness is a major you have 2 possible 5-card minors for example 4-0-4-5 & 4-0-5-4 Seems like you can potentially use fairly simple scheme for the 4441 / 5440 hands starting at 2♥: 2H.....Major singleton or void ...........2S asks .....................2N = Spade singleton or void .....................3C+= Heart singleton or void 2S.....Diamond singleton or void ............2N asks ..................3C+ = same as below with diamonds 2N.....4=4=4=1 (club singleton) 3C.....4=4=5=0 3D.....4=5=4=0 3H.....5=4=4=0 (min) 3S.....5=4=4=0 (max) So, what happens to the hands like the 2S = 11-13+ NT? There are several ways to address that, the simplest being to simply compressing the NT hands into one range. After 1C...1S (transfer to NT) a sample scheme might be: ===================================== 2C: 11-13 / 16+ NT 2D: 4 hearts, not 4 spades, 8-10 2H: 4 spades, not 4 hearts, 8-10 2S: No 4 card major, 8-10 2N: Both majors, 8-10 3C: Both majors

If I pass with a straight face, they might even land in 2♠ (LHO makes a TOX with 3♠ and and RHO has 4♠ :blink:)...

Bank on the presumed bad ♣ break and lead 9♠ for good effect :ph34r:...

1) ♠ and a minor -- your partner forgot the agreement or was hedging if you had forgotten :ph34r: 2) Same as above 3) Same as above if we don't have 4C / 4D. If we do have the agreement, I don't know what makes sense -- probably a three suited hand with 5♠?

Yup -- I learnt bridge only in my late 20s, but had been playing Hearts for a few years before that. Suits and trumps weren't a problem because I had been exposed the Indian card game of 304 (three nought four) and several other simpler 3 and 2 person card games with trumps growing up...

2♠, hoping pard doesn't have the miracle 3=1=5=4 hand. However, with that hand pard will hopefully bid 3♠, right?

BTW, if your opponents want to try out these methods, you should really encourage them :P. RobF and I tried it out in a bidding room one day and it gave us a headache. Anything that causes the opponents to voluntarily sap their mental energy can only be good for our side B)...

2♥...2♠ seems easy enough. N would likely pass in a limited opening system, but others may want to stretch with 2N (QJXX of ♣s seems worthless in a suit contract). I am guessing the other table landed in 3N and made :D...

P in first seat seems normal unless playing some system that can handle a 8+ opening. Having passed, 2♦...

Small ♥ for me....seeking safety in numbers here by leading my longer suit...

1♣ looks good...now 6♥...

4♦ if you must bid -- frankly, I don't see much wrong with just passing...