dake50

............ ....void ................842 ................Q8643 ................QJT72 8632..........................J74 J6............................KQ953 JT2...........................97 A954..........................K63 ................AKQT95 ................AT7 ................AK5 ................8 First East 3rd seat deviates to open 2H. - - - 1C . 18+ bal or clubs OR 5losers-5controls-5+spades - 1D- 2S . 0-7 . - .F1 - 2D- 3D . 5+D, 2NT is bust . - .D-fit - 5D. . reasonable if not best.

..........A84 ..........A94 ..........A954 ..........K72 ..........Q ..........KQ5 ..........KQJT7 ..........AT98 2D-4C- 5+diamonds, 13-17 - D-keys 4NT-6D. 2+Q - try

..........K4 ..........98763 ..........7542 ..........AK ..........AQJ982 ..........QJ5 ..........AK ..........T6 1C-2D- 18+bal or clubs; or 5losers+5controls+5+spades - 8+, 5+hearts 2H-2S- 3+hearts or accepting for info - no HA,K,Q 4H Done talking. Get a survey of how this is going. That the discussion is pointedly intending their best judgment. Then batch 5 or 10. I seldom can predict which days I can get back to see other mind's suggestions. But I don't want to miss the live time on any hand.

'kgr' 2♦ over 1♠: transfer ♥ ***I Play this also. This hand just wants partner to know long hearts. *** But it could have been S-fit but asking H-help for 4S. *** Or even H-lead expecting opponents to bid on. *** Transfers in competition almost solve the "is that bid forcing?" without intensive discussion. A one-scheme-fits-all auctions.

Are you thinking of 100 hands for a system advocate to bid to a final contract and compare the final contracts? Thus each advocate to argue his own why his system excels? Or bid these 100 and you will decide which score best - like CTChamps? In addition, what defensive bidding will you allow? Anything goes against 1C-force, but constrained against 1C: 2+Clubs? 1. Produce the 100 E-W bid these hands. Let each advocate show his reasons for his systems bidding. That would induce a heated discussion: MINE is best vs. NO IT AIN"T - mine is better. I would love to see that reasoning. 2. Or produce the 100 double-dummy hands(all 4 hands shown). Let advocates defend their reasons for good final contracts AND why their lesser contracts are systemically accepted. I would love to see those justifacations also.

How about changing your question into How near is system A to matching "what is in the cards"? Then nearness of B and nearness of C. The bids that most nearly reflect what the play can do semm to concretely compare the systems thus transitive. Trying to imagine some "perfect" defense to each is a mirage - can never be sure "best" is found.

Agree Fluffy, but I'll look for my 19+ opener.

Did partner already not free bid 3C with C:AKxxxx + one of {DQ,HQ,HA,SK}? Or D:QJxxxx +CAK? If he confidently does not have one of those, what does he have? SKx +HA +{CA, CK} seems a minimum negX pushing to the 3-level. I try 2NT expecting 3NT.

As Codo, Q-bid now, but even a Q-bid, say 3S, puts us likely right back into 4C ask/show when partner bids 3NT. Maybe he can 4C ask, but can we quit in 4NT? I like 4C agrees clubs, after a Q-bid now, then his 4D! is minorwood. Unfortunately, only 5C quits if we start this path.

If you can find it, Larry Hammick did a survey of the most common slams by shapes. He partitioned "big stuff"=33hcp, typically well-bid; 5xtrumps +5xside +control,control was most common so try to find those; side suit ruffed good, a hard one to diagnose in the auction; ruffs in dummy for tricks, the splinter cases; crossruff, another hard one to recognise. For sure that mindset to describe slam tries has merit.

QJxxx Ax Jxxx xx ***4S loses 2xC +DA +SK offsides? I'll try that one forever.

I actually like 4D. Not for sure we are outgunned and partner is well placed. Shoot this one out in 4S. Aside, how about S:Axxxx H:KJx D:Qx C:xxx for 4D also? Won't that win DQ in defence? Won't that mislead them over 4S?

Many who play power doubles in a OS context do play Herbert Negatives. Josh Sher thinks its 'unplayable' without a negative. I don't quite agree, but you see the point. *** Agree, almost. *** I use a transfer scheme, but the lowest transfer may be a "Joker" to keep low. *** This makes non-Joker transfers have +-5 useful points. *** Of course, a Power Doubler has a demand bid: "show me your *** double negative = "Joker"; or something else to show 5+ points. *** I don't reserve a bid as 'Herbert Negative' when that info seldom matters *** immediatly - just blabbing "I got nothing" to opponents. *** Yet a mechanism if/when Power Doubler needs to know.

Are you intending to compare their published works OR theory of their bids?? I don't see much difference in each theory. Yes, some details contrast. Develop your own scheme. Base that on some sense of payoff whether personally assumed or statistically shown. Play it to assemble your own payoff experience.

You bid **4D** showing slam interest and at least 5-4 blacks with D-void.

My favorite tactic verses distributional interference is to bid 4M WHEN it's borderline. Do opponents want to defend a close game (blabbed by their shape showing) or often take a phantom sac. Intend to double any set looking like 500+. Thus bidding on is at least mildly slammish. So eg. an immediate double shows Hearts are OK and not as much as an Ace over a positive (prime 12). It paid handsomely and often.

Instead of invite or not-that-strong characterizing Neg-FB, how about "if you fit my suit and a prime card minimum or better you ARE invited". This suit needs to be suggested just in case you like it. Partner's max but misfit is warned. Partner, with Qx tolerance and some extras is encouraged.

Missing S:AQJ +H:K +D:Q +C:AQ =18, then, assuming we'll make this thing, S:AJ +H:K +C:A are East. And D:Q10 falls as we need D:8 entry OR guess C:A single. Too tired to continue this analysis. I think I start thinking correctly.

The counter argument is how many bal are mis-bid with your 1C bal hands rebid? I think those are handled well after 1C. So, as you suggest, something for 2NT. I like solid spades with a side void, leaving both 'Namyats' 4C and 4D as solid hearts, bid void. Even solid minor with a side void can be untangled: which minor?/which void? At least I have a difficult-to-describe shape in 2NT.

What is so damaging about the information leak? They know you have 4 spades if you bid 3N and that your partner has 4 hearts. Most of the time they will have a normal club lead given that we are 5-1 in the minors. Maybe sometimes they will have had a choice of which minor and would have gotten it wrong, but that is way less likely than us just belonging somewhere other than 3N imo. *** Agree. Maybe even as unusual as partner plays 4H on a 4-3, or I'm in 4S on 4-3. I'm gaming this even if its 5D. Unless partner has unreliable judgment, let him decide "3NT! or not 3NT, maybe here?" Even just maybe partner has 5xH??!!

See no better choice than 4H relaying them to 4S. And they think 4S is cheap insurance, but it makes 5xS + 5xD.

No con works. I might try 5C as if C-void, but their inference is "why did he not hope for 7M to Lightner double and a set?" That'll get them to 7M if they see that lie. No busy bid, eg. 3NT, 3S, etc. will keep them from thinking "why is he fooling around?" and so inferring "we have grand". 4D,5D may get them to be satisfied with 4M,5M, but each alerts opponents that I fear something big for them. So I will pass. Let it be.

S9 if that shows top of this suit. S3 if 3rd is our agreement. Partner must be prepared for Spades, unless he has Semi-Solid hearts and intended 4H over my 3S.

set 5♦ dake? really? -- Fluffy *** Play 5D to not lose DA +HK +[C-ruff or lose control in a crossruff plan] *** Propose your play. Even double dummy!