MFA

3♠. Maximum for this.

X of 1NT is take-out of hearts, which is ok with this hand. North should bid 2♠.

"A perfecto" is a stretch. There is play for a vulnerable game opposite ♠Axxx out. As for their 5 level contract, we do have ♦AK. I'm more worried about selling to 4♥ making, but are some of you 3♦-bidders planning to get back in later? Guess not. I don't like that bid.

Why does it specifically show a good trump suit? How does one bid with compensating values and a broken suit (say KJxxxxx)? I think that trump quality is a concern, but with all those aces what is really left for partner here if not a good suit? Because partner is saying, "I dont care if you are void in ♥, this is trump". How well do you think 4H will play opposite a void in your example suit? Not especially well but such is life. Partner had had a couple of chances to produce a strong alternative, but didn't. So rebidding KJxxxxx could be all that there is left. With AKx, KJxxxxx, x, Ax for instance - how would you bid? Would your plan take you to 6♥ opposite a good hand with ♥A or ♥Q stiff? If you think 3♦->4♥ implies a solid or semi-solid suit, I would like you to point out to me what you'd do without such a suit. If you don't like my KJxxxxx, then pretend I wrote Kxxxxxxx (nine card suit).

Why does it specifically show a good trump suit? How does one bid with compensating values and a broken suit (say KJxxxxx)? I think that trump quality is a concern, but with all those aces what is really left for partner here if not a good suit?

Nice to play 3♥ (instead of 3♦) as forcing and 2♥ as invitational. Because of weak jump shifts. Without these good methods, I would try 4NT now, since partner's sequence must show a slam try.

I think that 3♦ works badly in the long run. The spades are just too important to bury like that. So I'll try 1♦. This exact hand came up in Beijing, but I think the vulnerability (and perhaps also the position) was different, so the board is probably not from there anyway.

The norwegian viking club doesn't operate with a normal 1NT response to 1♠, so one has to pass with a lot of weak hands. In the version I play, there are transfers, so we could bid 2♣ planning to get out in 2♦. But reverse the minors, and we would have to pass 1♠. I have no problem with that. With this hand I think I would prefer a pass to a normal 1NT response.

Not really. Lets say I decide to play, in the Bermuda Bowl for example - 1. Sys 1 against Pair 1 2. Sys 2 against Pair 2 3. Sys 3 against all other pairs Then I would submit 3 conventions cards in advance. What makes you think you can do that? The conditions of contest makes it possible to submit a second CC for the knockout stage but apart from that it is clearly assumed that each pair has one CC. It doesn't seem practical either. The opponents in a match must know in advance what they are facing (that's the whole point), and how could you tell them that if you have more than one CC?

I'm bidding slam for sure. Would have preferred a splinter to start with and then strong bidding from there. Perhaps partner would be able to drag up a cooperative bid at some point.

1) When the system has to be submitted in advance, it is not possible to change it from segment to segment. 2) If not, then one just brings the appropriate convention card to the table. What is the problem with that?

Lots of nice ideas, gnasher! Very interesting! One random comment: I would expect a little more from 4♥. Leaping Michaels shows a nice hand, but one has to be practical also. When they have preempted it should be assumed that partner has a few values + reasonable fit or we would get shut out too often. Unless the singleton spade turns out to be golden this hand would often disappoint partner.

After 1♣ pp 1♠ it is 1NT or 2NT. With my regular partner, I would bid 1NT, since we open 1♠ light in a precision context. Playing standard I would let partner's opening style decide.

Hmm. I would pass 1♣.

LOL, what is all this discussion police? :huh: People can discuss what they want. :D It is only a natural thing that top world class players attract some attention to their doings. Professionals of other sports can't avoid this either. :P

No alerts of style issues within the ordinary. One can ask if interested.

Nice point. But a little extreme to get it wrong in practice. Seasoned partnerships have a huge advantage when deciding if partner's carding could be trusted, or when he might be assumed to have been lazy. EDIT: I'm not talking about tempo issues; just the level of signalling.

I don't like to think of ELC as "either/or" but rather as "how strongly does this principle apply here". It is a continuous spectrum from X+♦ showing no extra values at all (100% shape, 0% values) to X+♦ showing a hand unambiguously too strong for an overcall (0% shape, 100% values). Defending high level preempts, one has to mix in some ELC, since X+bid as a strong one-suiter is not practical at some levels. At this low level, one can choose more freely where to be in the spectrum. I play some ELC here, but not enough to seriously consider a double with this hand.

lol [Note to self: Don't play poker and try to reply to tricky dburn posts at the same time.]

So many different styles of bidding :). For me, exclusion + 5NT would be similar to RCK + 5NT.

I'm not so sure it makes sense to have this 5♣ bid as exclusion. What hand decides to show the diamond suit, gets the worst possible reply, and then figures that slam is all about aces outside clubs (with spades as trumps)? Hmm. Anyway, I would certainly not bid like this unless I knew for sure that partner would be on the same wavelength. 5♠ makes sense but showing the void, if possible, would be a tad better.

Perhaps Jacoby + 3D + 5C (over 3NT)? It is a 'void', but is it also 'wood'?

Huge overkill imo. Also, why should it be wise to introduce unfamiliar types of bids when we don't have to and when they surely would be used very rarely? And I haven't even mentioned the big risk of forgets...

In my partnership we just use this simple defence. No problem so far. Me too. 1♣-p-1♥- X = normal 1♥ overcall 1♠ = T/O double 1NT = natural 2♥ = "weak jump overcall" 2♠ = natural