Kalvan14

Yes. But I am willing to learn: is there a sure forcing sequence after 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-3♣, assuming that now 3♠ would not be forcing? Don't tell me 3♥, pretty please: introducing a second possibly artificial suit when I've a GF hand with values in the black suit would be too much for me :blink:

No profit in being result merchants. 4♠ might have made, same as 5♥. I'm more surprised hearing that in the other room they went up to 5♠ BTW, pard's 3♥ is fine with me: 4♥ shows a much stronger hand, and pass...well no comment on "pass" :blink:

2♦ and then 3♠ over any rebid is certainly forcing (if this is not true, it must be a strange system: the only game forcing auction would start with a SJ :blink: ). I'm not yet sure about the strain (it might be spades - most likely , but also clubs and NT have chances). I want to play game, but I'm a bit sceptic about slam chances (unless pard rebids 2♠ over 2♦: in this case I'd bid 4N RKC, but it is the one and only case). Asking for KC with this hand (where I've 3 possible strains to play in and pard has already limited his hand) is certainly the path I'm not going to take.

I'd find difficult to understand if 1m-2m-2M shows 4 cards, or is just a stopper denying a stopper in OM. The main reason for excluding minors is to simplify the auction aimed to 3N

2♠ is a FSF, and in normal situations you'd raise it with 4 cards. However, opener cannot have 4 spades: he is establishing a GF situation, either aimed to play 3N (should be the majority of the cases) or with a very unbalanced hand in the minors, and in the latter case he will bid on. 3♠ is the last thing he wants to hear (and, IMO, in this auction should show an insufficient stopper in spades). 2N is the most practical and flexible re-bid: advancer hand is not too strong, but the minor Qs are very good cards, and the A in spades too. Let's hear what pard re-bids now: 6m might easily be there

75% S (6♠ is unwarranted and unnecessary), 75% N (his bid was 6♠; messed around with 5♣, and finally took a wild gambling over 6♠).

It is possible to have IM including 4M (and there are good systems to show that). Unfortunately, it requires to go for a completely artificial auction after 1m-2m. It is as always a matter of advantages vs. draw-backs, and of priorities. My approach is the standard one (1m-2m denies 4M), which simplifies life a lot, and has more interdictive power. The 4M contracts are written off immediately, and the most likely contract is 3N (if advancer is not minimum), or a contract in m (partial or game). It also gives less information to oppos (opener's hand can well include majors, and very often does).

2♠ should be mostly pre-emptive. If the double shows both majors, any bid at 2-level should be fit-showing in spades and invitational, while the cue-bid is a forcing raise.

I suppose that the bidding should go on something like: 4♥ (cue-bid) - 4♠ (cue bid, and certainly the ace) - 4N (last train; certainly not RKC). Alternatively, 4♥ - 4N (denying spade A, but showing extras: KQJxx xx Kx Axxx)-6♣. There is not much pard can have for his opening once he denies a stopper in hearts. 6♣ should be there 9 times out of ten.

Always a surprise: I'd not have anticipated such different opinions on 2♣ and 2♦ meanings.

Without any agreement? In a new partnership? I'd bid 4N (for the minors) and start thinking who might be a better partner B) There should be plenty to choose from

Non-vul and playing MP I will always venture 2♣ (actually I would do it at the first opportunity: in my partnership, (1♣)-2♣ shows clubs). Assuming I could not bid 2♣ in the direct seat, I'd have bid 1♠. Why loose the opportunity to show a 5-card major NV and at 1-level? Do you prefer to come back later on? At 2 or 3 level? Which makes me think of another twixt: if oppos play Walsh (i.e., bypassing diamonds with a major in a non-GF hand), RHO's 1♠ might be a semi-psyche. I agree that it is a bit farfetched, but.... Going back to the original bidding: against my best judgment, I've refrained from overcalling on 1st round. Refusing to bid 2♣ now [and 2♣ is certainly natural in this auction] would really be too much for me.

Which percentage of the population will be able to get in the boat? I'm a sceptic, and will tell you: 1.5% of the overall population (i.e. something like 100 millions). The distribution will not be uniform: I'd anticipate that in the developed countries 5 to 10% of the population will have access to the new techniques, while in Africa it is mole likely to be .1%. China is not increasing its population (or at least it is increasing at a very low rate); still the base is quite large. OTOH, China in the past was laways under the risk of a famine, and nowadays no more. Human rights are not exactly cherished, but it is obvious that the bulk of the population lives better than before (I said better: not much better, much less at an acceptable level). India has also improved a lot, under a better regime, but without really stopping its growth. Africa is probably the victim of a lot of bad luck, and worse management obviously. Argentina is just the victim of bad management.

4♥. I am strongly convinced I can play game in 4♥; I am equally convinced that a slam is out of the question (don't like looking for miracle hands). Btw, all red I don't think that oppos are playing funny games

3♠, 4♣ is a "smart" bid which might easily back-fire. I like rather the concept of an auction 3♠-3N-4♦, showing good diamond and fit; it's a good use of an "unpossible" bid, but I'd use it just with a partner in whom I've a lot of confidence :P

5♠, I think there is no doubt. Which - IMO - should be forward going. with a weak hand I should pass 5♦X

Double, and then 2N over 1N or 2♦ by partner. 4♥ (or more likely 3N) are not out of the question. 2♣ in the balancing sit is a much weaker bid than in any other position. 3♣ with just 5 cards and with a hearts suit does not appeal to me. 1N shows 11-14 in a standard treatment. Limey, in the balancing sit a direct cue-bid is a strong take-out; and 2N shows 19-21: in a standard treatment, two-suiters are not used. Edit: I had not realised that 1N would be up to 16sh. Bit of a wide range but it makes the 1N option more attractive

2♣, no doubt

Playing 2/1, 1♦-2♣ is GF. Opener rebids 2♦ with 5 cards, or 2M with 4 cards (diamonds can theoretically be 3 cards). 2N denies either 5♦ or 4 in M. The opener's strength is still uncertain, but the auction is already committed to game. 3♣ would show 4 cards support and a maximum hand. It would be a bit strange, since with 4-4 in the minors and 18 HCP opener would start with 1♣. Note: if 2♣ is not GF, the situation is a bit more mixed. Still 2M is forcing, and 3♣ is forcing too. 2N would not be possible, since it might be passed out: with 18-19 and 3-3-4-3, the only rebid is 3N. After an IMR, 2N is not forcing. Re-bid 2M (or even 2♦, if the opening was in clubs). In principle these show stoppers for NT, but cater also for stronger hands. There is always the possibility of rebidding 3N, but this would show a 3-3-3-4, IMO.

Double. No hesitation. I'm sure I can force them in either hearts or diamonds. 500 is almost certainly there (but 200 is in the bank)

May I submit that noone was able to predict the explosion of cellular phones, personal computers, internet, electronics in general? It is also well known (and proven) that it is impossible to predict what will happen after a singularity point. I'm overall reasonably optimist about the future of the world. There will be significant progresses in all the sciences, in particular biological sciences; and I also believe that life-span will be significantly enhanced in the next few decades (provided that suitable techniques are not yet available to a selected few, i mean). The question is: which percentage of the human race will be able to afford these new techniques? We live in a world where life expectancy still goes from 35 years in the most deprived areas to 75-80 in the advanced ones. Quite an imbalance, not to mention the basic injustice of the thing. It would still be just peanuts compared to a worlds where the privileged ones can live 2 or 3 centuries (or more), while the unpriviliged ones are still stuck with their cheap 35-years lifespan.

If opener has bid just one minor, it makes more sense to keep the sequence 1m-1♠-2m-2♥ non forcing (catering for weakish/invitational hands). You might also play 1m-2♥ as reverse flannery (weak), but it sounds like a very unnatural bid. If opener shows both minors (1♦-1♠-2♣), I'm afraid that 2♥ is FSF: it is impossible to stop on a dime, and anyway I'd be surprised if 2♥ were the only (or even the best) spot to play.

You are quite welcome in agreeing with your partner any special meaning (such as 6 cards and 14-16) for a 2♦ opening in 4th seat. I've just some difficulty in understanding how this relate to the thread: the bid posted by Mike777 appeared to be coming out of a natural (or semi-natural) auction: Standard American or 2/1. I'm quite sure he'd have informed us of other options which might have influenced opener's choice.

Practice is the most important factor in improving your bridge skills: most often bridge "problems" are repetitive. It is very important to recognise these situations, and learn to generalise. Reading good bridge books helps a lot too, in particular for declarer's play and defense, but also for bidding theory. The best thing is certainly to play friendly matches, and take the time afterwards to discuss the hands with your partner: look for things which went wront, and ask yourselves why; but look also for things which went right, and evaluate if the result was justified or sheer luck.

It is certainly not a standard approach to bidding