dake50

A friend of mine has a quote "I might be outsmarted on a hand, BUT I will never be out-dumbed". Assume declarer made an error. Post-mortem note the clever play, but never expect it.

I have long questioned partners on what follow bids SHOULD mean. Suggest unstopped/shortage to help make a good 3NT/4M even slam decision. That is, xfer then bid shortage lets 1NT opener choose 4-3 when 3NT misses this stop. May even alert perfecto fit for slam. The interesting question is as you suggest 'Do you steal enough 'one suit unstopped but unled' 3NT games?' to counter-balance those surely failing now on this advertised lead? My gut is these two balance nearly, but the structure to show shortage explodes the found fit slams, thus big plus.

For me 1H =Trump Asking and I captain this auction. Next asking short, controls. 2H = little slam interest: min controls, bal shape. Will you slam try? 3H = Spade short, typical(3-4 controls) H-fit 1C opener. Partner has slam info.

Are oppts about to misjudge their tricks or their fit? 3S over 3D, even 4S over 4D, or Dbl will be wrong? I think not, so 3D over 2S has little upside. I think 2D even with a D-preempt is more likely to steer them wrong in the F 1NT auction. Besides what evidence do I have that PRE-balancing is needed? Partner hears this auction too.

4C must force else why escape a 3NT partner says is a good punt after 1NT showed something. Start 4C, invite slam, may need C3-2 and S4-2 for 6C IF pard has 3xA. But may be MUCH better. My problem is finding H quacks in lieu of S solid (or ruff once) for tricks. The out is 4NT is only 1 trick higher price for slam try.

Pass now to get doubled in 4H later.

What is the point of fine tuning the info now? Preempt threw a spanner in the works expecting they will get it wrong often, yet, now I want to clarify my hand for them??? I expect this X shows a minor void, = a surprise on defense with HA not KQ/QJ.

I use xfer advances, and must show S control with 5 Neap. controls with 4H -> S slamming cue to partner's T/O double. The only question for me is D-xfer 1st, then S-cue. I fear that over-emphasizes my diamonds. Either xfer lets partner progress not fearing controls shortage.

1. 4S 2D implied no misfit. 2. 3S Lionel double. 3. 1S 1S, rebid 2H, done. 4. P But note vs #3 above, they may have 10 + 6hcp and stolen. These all assume MY methods; I answer 'what would I do? 'not 'what should you do?'

I tag 80% oppts have 8+S, 26% 8+H, 20% both majors; 90% they have game values in 1st seat. 3D to hope for mis-bid: they land in wrong suit. Or over/under-bid. Each of those 3 errors has good chances. 2nd seat, the upside for their error goes down(one will know passed pard means no slam) so all our marbles are in their mis-bid. Pass and surprise in defending.

What kind of direct action scheme prevents this hand from 2S direct? And how does that scheme hope to win now? 2S? X? Both fail for direct action, so what are they now?

Making a 'help suit' try, do you want positive help: Qx, etc. OR do you want to go game on "no 'stuff' here, partner" thus cards working in other suits?? Is the help suit bid to help game decision OR help right here only?? Not here may the help I want to decide.

Perfect minimum and slam is on: HAK, DA,CA =15hcp. Try Key card.

What's my weak 3-suit takeout? Included in immediate t/o X? then that and partner's X shows max pass, -> 4S. No weak takeouts incorporated -> P then X to 4H showing weak 3-suit takeout.

The 'awkward 7-9' fearing a minimum, didn't act. Now the minimum opener reopens to say 'your awkward must not be awkward' Isn't that saying 'partner, you don't know how to bid YOUR hand, so I will? Never minimum reopen for me. But Major accent may upgrade min.

This reminds me of a Pekiner rant by Slawinski (I think). His assertion is the bids function in the given system should be disclosed ( obstruct, invite if fit, force any, etc.) and artificial/natural. Disclose HCP only if that IS the bids function. This is closer to bridge, the real game, than using some artificial 'hcp' variable to claim 'we have disclosed our understanding'

Partner goes on with 5-losers; 6-losers with one deep. So okay toward our game. But the common win is 2S ending the auction where we want to play.

Somewhere I've seen a write-up on 3-seat 1C. That jist being GF unlikely, neg unlikely, so most middling --let neg/GF give up/catch up. That seems what you suggest.

If not 3D over 3C =where we going?, all after is looking high. 5C maybe CQx to assuage C-suit fear or better for slam.

Prime card 9: A+KQ/AQ+K/AJ+KJ/KQJ+K/KQ+KJ. At least net prime 9 on more hcp. Fear is partner w/o H-short misses reopen on 11-13.

7S fails on opening D ruff (partner has 1D); overruff (8 to K LHO). Even finding partner has S-tops. 7NT needs too many tricks from partner. I hate taking a pragmatic decision rather than the grand try. Take likely 3D-X-4 =1100, maybe more.

Partner opens light, so I see 45%+ they slam. I want them to demote 'wasted' in my suit. Wasted H-AKQ or S-AQJ which? I choose 1H.

With eg 2C for 10+, 5-suit next, 2S =10-12, 4S. Try 1D (cheapest new suit (CNS) below 2S) as an artificial force --an artifact from EFOS system. This clears other bids ambiguity. Or 1D (CNS) as Herbert neg. This bottoms other bids to a useful 7-8. And, on bust responses lets likely tenaced take out doubler declare low. I like xfer responses to takeout double. At least xfer to Majors with an odd bid to choose minor. This guarantees a second bid to partition 0-6/8-10/11+ or suit +stop or suit +suit. And super -accepts promote for fit.

Investigate with Checkback 2C, then 2NT. Leave last mistake to partner!

Zar Petrov expression: hcp +Neapolitan controls +(longest + 2nd long lengths) +(longest -shortest length). His claim is that if enough 'stuff' is considered, better evaluation arises. I note immediately no consideration to Majors over minors. And since I open 10hcp with Majors +DT; pass 12hcp with minors +quacks believing I am correct, his theory does not mesh with mine! Rather than Zar, Majors v minors need be systemically distinguished.