Kalvan14

I prefer 3♥ as "noise bid", since it caters for all possible distributions of opener (including 1-5-4-3) and it is the least ambiguous. With 6♥/4♦ and extras I bid 4♥ (good suit). 3♠ is 3 cards and extras; 4♠ 3 cards w/o extras. 3♦ is certainly at least 5♦. There is one point, though: given the awkwardness of this sequence in Standard, advancer should refrain as much as possible from using FSF (not this case: I agree that there is a reasonable chance for a slam)

Pass for me too. 2N is a reasonably limited bid, and pard should make an effort not to complicate life. If he bids 3♣, I will respect his wishes. More interesting would be a re-bid of 3♠. With 3 quick tricks, I probably would raise him to game.

Maybe I should have put inverted commas : "natural". After all, the structure I proposed was not exactly natural. OTOH, I do believe that my tretment was not completely conventional: the meanings of the bids could be re-constructed by logic. I'm a bit surprised by the equation natural=dangerous. Should it not be the other way around? very conventional=dangerous

X would propose a penalty (otherwise, after all the efforts, you can double for penalty the refuge suit of oppos only by N). 3♦, I suppose: it is the least of evils, and I want my partner to play the hand. My hand should be limited, assuming the (1N) was 15-17. I would be very disappointed if pard bids 3N :ph34r: At the table, I might convince myself to bid 2♥

Apparently you never played symmetric relays ;) True. I never played symmetric relays. However, I played other relay-based systems, and frankly I found them boring. Additionally, very seldom you are allowed an undisturbed auction. So you saddle yourself with a very precise system which will not be used often enough. It's a matter of taste, in anycase. Please do not construct my opinion as a libel :blink:

I do share completely this philosophy: get in, and be a nuisance for opponents. Keep them out of balance. This hand can also work: suppose they double 2S, expecting our honors under the 1 N opener. They would not be pleasantly surprised.

The main difference to DONT: you still play on the 2 level, if you run. Marlowe It's true. And actually it is one of the reasons for which I like DONT. Still, the advice not to run applies in both cases (and in particular after a vulnerable intervention) There is the human factor too: I am not so convinced that 1N opener will keep this double, in particular if it is true that there is no agreement. You never know what may happen: yesterday night, bidding goes: (1N)-2♦-(P)-P-(X). Believe it or not, doubler had ♦! It was the classic DONT hand: I had 5♣, 4♥-2-2, and partner had 5♦-4♠-3♥-1♣. My RHO could not keep the double (would have done better passing: 2♦X can be made, but it is a struggle): they ended up playing 3♣X down 3. So, it is better (on average) to pass with confidence, and hope for the best :ph34r:

I would bid 3N. My hand is a maximum for my bid of 2♣; pard will have 18-19 HCP, balanced, for his invitation. So game should be there (and will be played by the right side).

3♦ is the first choice. I will not jump to 3♠ on a 3-card fit (much less splinter :ph34r: ). The counter-indication is that 3♦ might kill the ♠ fit, and in any case consumes a lot of bidding space. There is my 2nd choice: 2♣. It saves space, is much more flexible and keeps open the possibility of supporting ♠.

Difficult to say: it must be a table decision. In any case, 5♣ is not a cast-iron contract. How many MP did you get out of 4♣ + 1?

My advice is to discuss and improve treatments and "flavors", rather than switch to a different system. SAYC is not a "bad" system: it has the right fundamentals, and can be streamlined and customised as much as you like. If you really want to change system, try 2/1 (Max Hardy's version is the one I play, and it is a bit integralist at times, but it is fun; Mike Lawrence's version is more vanilla, and possibly better for an intermediate player). Stay away from relays systems, unless your brain clicks in a particular way :lol: The best recommendations, IMHO, is to improve partnership's agreements, in particular for competitive bidding and slam trials. Defense is also an area which almost any player should improve. Discuss with your partner the hands you played, in particular the ones which got bad results.

Personally, the only worry I have about a 3 card raise with xxx is that in case of Moysian, there are less chances of a dummy reversal. Sure, pard might blow a trick with the lead sometimes, but this applies to so many other situations (where we open/respond with terrible suits) that, IMO, it cannot be the main issue, provided the immediate raise eases the rest of the possible auctions. All in all, when the hand is balanced, suits texture, controls, quacks, and tenaces are the main indicators I use for my choice. Quite true. OTOH, when you open a poor suit (or bid the classic 1m-1M with 8xxx), most of the times it is an action dictated by the system you play. Here, you are already stretching a bit, since there is a 1N alternative: I would prefer not to stretch twice.

Sorry, guys: I will never consider 2♠ as showing spades. Even the idea of having 2♠ and 3♦ as short suit trials is a bit farfetched. If you try to build up a conventional structure catering for all competitive bid situations you will never see the end. Better, IMO, to agree on a basic structure as natural as possible.

Actually, I was not sure of 4♦, cue or transfer. And my 4♥ couldn't be wrong: if 4♦ were transfer, 4♥ showed acceptance; if 4♦ were cue-bid, 4♥ showed ♥A. Over my pd's 4♠, I think I had obligation to keep the bidding going. I didn't wnat to bid 5♣ for 2 reasons: 1) No Ace in ♣, 2) didn't want to give pd's impression I had a solid ♣ suit. Ok, I understand your worries, even if I am still surprised 4♦ meaning can be in doubt. 4N is a very misleading bid, though. You can play all the suits, with the only exception of ♦, or NT. What about bidding 5♦ (my preference) or 5♠?

It is not a crime staying out of this ♥ game, even if it is IMP and vul. S might stretch, betting that pard has a ♦ singleton, and hoping ♥ are not 4-1. I would ask again: seeing 26 cards, are you really troubled not being in game?

I would not consider 1N : in my book, it is a much more serious hand. Pass is a bit shy, but could be a winning action; 2♣ has the advantage of giving a lead to pard, and is mildly pre-emptive. 2♣, without great joy.

A tough one: pre-empts sometimes succeed. This said, and considering that 3♠ does not promise anything [maybe not even 4♠ :lol: ], I will content myself with a 4♥ bid. I may loose a slam, true; the 5-level is not safe either. If pard bids again, that's great. If not, it's karma.

I agree with the 2♥ bid: not many points, but good shape and 5 hearts. I cannot leave 3NX: 4♣ is probably the best (even if I agree that it looks like 4♥ only). OTOH, pard is strong (at least 18-19 HCP), and might be short in ♥

3N is a horrible bid: does not describe the hand (it gives more the impression of being based on a long, running ♣ suit, rater than a balanced strong hand). I am quite surprised that 4♦ is regarded as a transfer to ♥: in my view, it was a forcing bid, asking to choose between ♥ and ♠. N has his own share of guilt: the pass over 4N (which was kind of a tricky bid in any case) is at better very shy

Most of the blame is with S (should really bid 3♥); N could keep the bid open with 4♣ in any case (N hand is pretty good, and playing IMP there is not even the 3N obsession). I have been playing an unlimited IMR for quite a long time, and never found any major problem, though. The criss-cross works if you have both minors; it is a bit more awkward when you have just the other minor, though.

Most of the bids were horrible :D OTOH, I am going against the tide: 3N was a theoretically horrible bid, but in practice helped N, pinpointing the real problem (40% of S HCP are in ♦). Probably, best bid after this is 5♠ (ok, you can have a slam in ♠ with A♣ and Axxxx or QJxxx in ♠; OTOH, in practice N has lost too many levels, and has not yet communicated the ♠ fit). Best is to renounce the Grand (which is unlikely after the 3N, in any case), and assume a bad split in ♠

I'll go with Cherdano's line

I could not say it better

I doubt that, even in an Indy, someone will pass 3♠. if it goes 3♠-3N, I'll bid 4♥, with a smile :D

Well, notwithstanding my aggressivity (or maybe just for that :D ) I would not bid 1♥. I would like to have a defensive trick to do that. OTOH, I will be happiest of coming in later on. Btw, I assume you alert your 1-over-1 bids.