skjaeran

1♠ - 4♥ shows a void in my methods, so this could not happen to me. Playing normal splinters, this hand is too strong. A forcing raise (2NT) is better - you're better off to a controlled auction then. When that's said, I really can't see what hand partner should have where a grand isn't either cold or at worst on a finesse. Parnter doesn't need all this for slam, and since I really can't have what I got, he'd not try for a grand. So put me down for 7♠'s.

The problem is of course that you never can know for sure it's Y, unless you play against someone you're intimate familiar with regarding methods. For others, even if they used to play Y, they might have changed to X. And without the alert you cannot know this with certainty. If this is a common situation, where most people play the alertable Y without alerting it, you've got two possibilities. Either ask and get clarification, or assume it's X (as it should be, lacking the alert), and get an adjustment if it turns out to be Y and you're damaged. If you ask and it turns out to be Y, point out to opps that this is alertable.

Minisplinters are widely used here. Many misuse these on stronger hands than just game inv. With my previous partner we used mini-maxi splinters. 1M-4m/1♠-4♥/1♥-3♠ then showed a void and gamegoing values only, while jumps to the 3-level where 2-way: Either a minisplinter showing a singleton and gameinv values or a void and too strong for a direct voidshowing splinter. With stronger hands with a singleton we bid 2NT (GF raise). Here we would bid: 1♥ - 3♣ 3♦ - 3♠ (3♦=short ♣ isn't great but game is ok, 3♠=cue, confirming ♣ void and slammish) 4♦ - ? (4♦=last train) Responder would have to evaluate here. We might stop in game or bid slam.

I often play 2♣ - 3♦ as a positive natural bid. But then we have some minimum suit quality requirements. Normally KJTxxx or better. If not, it's often very difficult for opener to evaluate his hand.

Not double dummy bidding at all. I'd either bid like this, or bid 3NT (serious) over 3♠, to allow a 4♣ cue by partner, as Ken suggest.

I double. 5♥ might be right, of cource, but IMO it's not close.

Rude isn't enough to describe such unacceptable behaviour. I might have reported him to Bridgebase.

Pass, wtp. If partner's got a penalty pass (unlikely), we won't be defending 2♣ anyway - RHO will remove to 2♥. If partner has a penalty double and opening strenght, he'll not gamble on me being able to reopen.

4♠ would deny a cuebid in my methods, so that's out for me. I'd prefer 2NT over 2♠, but that's also a matter of agreements. Over 3♠ I'd cue 4♣, not 4♦. 4♦ would deny a ♣ control for me. Besides, I'd be very interested in a ♦ cue from partner. When partner bypasses 4♦, I'd know that slam would be 50% at best, and sign off in 4♠. I'd be happy to bid slam here if my team were underdogs in the match.

With my regular partner we open 2NT with 22+-24, and have put the 20-21(22-) NT in the 2♣ opening. Our responses to 2♣ are: 2♦=waiting 2M=natural, suggestion to play vs 20-21NT (opener not forced to pass w/20-21). 2NT=transfer to ♣, opener accept with 20-21 (responder could have a bust) 3♣=transfer to ♦, as 2NT 3♦/♥=transfer, positive, KJTxxx or better suit, opener's accept is slam inv 3♠=GF w/55m 3NT= 9-11 balanced (3334/3343) max 1 control We use 3♣ as 2nd negative after 2♣-2♦-2M. We have thus removed a lot of hands from the 2nd negative, and are able to play 2M vs 20-21NT when appropriate - applies very seldom, but gains whan that happens.

Ken, it would be nice if you edited your post and put in suit symbols..... As it is it's hard to read.

You've got absolutely no space here, so you just have to guess what you can make. I'll bid 6♥. I expect there's a good chance we can make that, but no certainty. If parner has AKxx-Axxx-KQxxx-v, he'll raise to 7. I don't think he'll raise with less.

The last question is easy. The rest of the field landed in an even higher number of bad contracts, and didn't manage to make as many contracts, good or bad, or beat as many on defense either. B)

Don't forget that there's a lot of positions where 4NT is natural, either to play or quantitative. That includes for example: Raise from xNT to 4NT = quantitative (3M) - 4m - (p) - 4NT = natural - to play Over FSF where 3NT is to play and 4NT show a stronger hand of the same kind. Etc. Here 4NT is RKC for ♥'s.

I can't really make a lead without an auction. There's always inferences to be drawn, both from calls made and not. Even a ♦ lead might be an option, but here I can't tell.

2♥. I don't consider opening 2♥ a preempt - it's a constructive call in my methods. So for me it's close between pass and 2♥ in opening seat. Give me the ♥10, and pass is no option.

I would never even give covering the slightest thought. Playing low is automatic. For the reasons given by Jutsin above. Add that declarer might have Ax - it might still be wrong to cover since the suit will then be set up.

Nice hand Josh. Adam failed to ruff with the ten - not so easy to do, one often plays just a little too fast.... Declarer probably was down to QJ8 in the end position? It's not a very frequent play - it's happened to me a couple of times (I've been able to duck to endplay opps and been on the receiving end too).

If we play t/o doubles now, that's what I do - double. If not, we probably use some variation of lebensohl now, to distinguish between invites and forcing bids. There's many variations around. If I'm able to show 5c♦, 4c♠ and a stopper, that would be perfect. But that's probably impossible. So I'd show 4c♠ and a stopper - the way I'm used to for that is to bid 2NT followed by 3♥ (cue).

I've played Walsh in combination with xyz for several years, before changing to T-Walsh some three years ago. I recomend Walsh for those who haven't tried it. Over 1♣ - 1♦, I've always rebid 1NT on all balanced 12-14 hands. 1♣ - 1♦ - 1M always promised an unbalanced hand (5+♣ or 4144/1444/4414). Over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT we rebid 2M to show an unbalanced GF, 4M + 5+♦. With a balanced hand (4M+4♦) we rebid 2♦ conv. GF.

I've got no grand slam ambitions here, so 5♠ is out. I'll bid 5NT - pick a slam, and remove 6♣ to 6♦.

This all seems like good old fashioned resulting to me. Josh, you don't know Ulf - he's no results merchant. :angry: He might have explained better why he thinks 4♣ was a really bad bid, though.

I'd not bid 3♥ inv on this hand - if that was part of my methods. A balanced 10-count with 3 small trumps isn't what partner would expect. 2♥ is fine with me. Btw, I play 3♥ as preemptive here, and have other methods to distinguish between a bad and a constructive raise (I don't play a forcing 1NT).

100% agree with Mike.

For better or worse, we play 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ promising 5+♠, so I guess 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ is out of the question with our methods. Yeah not many people play what I suggested. Playing 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ as art. GF, how do you show weak 5♠-4♥ hands? With what type of hands do you think the 2♥ art. game force gains? loses? I played something like this with one partner. The "weak" 5♠ - 4♥ hand was shown by jumping to 2♥'s over 1♦. Playing this method, the 2♥ art GF is a sure winner in GF sequences, since you gain bidding room and are better placed when it comes to rightside 3NT. What you lose is your normal meaning of 1♦ - 2♥ - whatever that is. I haven't played this method with any regular partner, so I've got little experience playing it (can't remember if it showed up at the time - it's more than 10 years ago).