effervesce

Interesting. What's dbl here, given there's only 1 unbid suit? Penalty-oriented/values? If so, then 2♥ is nat, forcing. If X is takeout, then you can make a case for 2♥ NF.

Bid 3NT? :) I don't know... hmmm Rubens advances look interesting-does anyone have notes on it?

I raise to 4. Yes, it may turn a positive into a negative (or a negative into a big negative)-but 4♥ may make, they may decide to bid 4♠.... Partner should have a very good heart suit for a vul 3 level overcall.

Dbl in my partnership.

Those people would forget that partner is more likely to reopen himself when he has a stiff spade, and we are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx, and that partner is not going to pull that often with 2 spades himself, and when he has a stiff spade we would rather have an extra card somewhere else (especially if he's going to pull to that suit). Puzzling me.... We are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx Is that so? Why? Let's say for argument's sake the 4♠ bidder has an 7 card suit, headed by AK. If you have 3 of them, then there are only 3 cards remaining in the suit- making it more likely that if parter has the Q, it will drop. If you have only 1, then there are 4 cards remaining in the suit. If dummy has two, then partne will have 3. Declarer will probably play for the drop, thus allowing the Q to take a trick. The same argument applies with xx vs xxx.

I'd bid 2♠ if non-forcing. If it's forcing or game-forcing, I prefer double.

In my partnership style I don't think partner would have bid 3♥ on Axxxxxx and nothing else. Partner may have a black ace, in which case 6♥ has play. But you're certainly not going to be allowed to play in 4♥, and you were never going to stop bidding at anything short of 5♥, so why not at least try for slam in the first place? And give a lead-director against 5♦ or 5♠? If partner does have diamond values, you don't want to bid 6 over 5. In fact, a 4♦ bid, anticipating a spade bid by LHO is reasonable too.

What's partner's preempting style? Pointless without knowing that. 4♣ as a slam try is reasonable, hoping for no diamond cue, after which RKCB looks ok.

Two losers. One loser per A/K/Q missing in a suit. If partner has xx support (a reasonable chance), it's likely to have just one loser so treating it as 1 loser ok.

Happy birthday Kathryn!

By MYXOs you mean? Chris Ryall's Weak Two Archive: Myxo That is you don't mean a sound weak two, you mean quite a strong hand, and that these bids are forcing, artificial, openings? The thing I like about the idea of the OP, and the idea of multiple weak hands, is that the opening bid is non-forcing, yet no suit is known, putting a lot of pressure on the opponents. Likewise, though you can't play it much anywhere (in the link above, scroll down to the bottom to ""Wilkosz" -the Polish 2 diamond"), 2♦ as unknown major and unknown other suit, weak. That would be my first choice if allowed in Australian events. The Wilkosz 2♦ is allowed in most competitive events in Oz, however such 5+/5+ hands are relatively infrequent compared to weak twos. Thus, although I'd agree that the Wilkosz is very effective, it's relative infrequency may mean that other methods could be more effective overall.

Happy birthday Helene!

The last one (boldfaced) should probably read 4-7. Note that the 2♥ opening is a BSC and also not allowed in most events in the UK. Thanks-it's been fixed. I live in Australia, so the fact that it's BSC isn't that important here.

Whereby in 1st/2nd seats 2♦ is either a 4-7 wk two in hearts, OR 8-11 wk two in spades, and 2♥ is a 8-11 wk two in hearts OR a 4-7 weak two in spades. I've seen quite a few pairs (at least in Aus) play 2♦ as the 4-7 weak twos and 2M as the 8-11. This would compress 3 bids into two. Also, this is designed for use in a MOSCITO bidding system. In the many moscito relays i've seen so far, for example after 1♦-1♥, one relay set puts the singlesuiter rebids starting from 2♠ upwards. If the singlesuiter minimums are not possible, then this would avoid going too high when responder has only an invitational hand. By removing the minimum single-suiters from the 1♦/1♥ hand this avoids such a problem. Another side benefit is that it allows the 2♠ bid to be freed up for another purpose-for example 5+/5+ minors, weak (so 2NT is the strong response), which would in turn allow the 2NT opening to be a weak preempt in a minor. There are also some bidding benefits-after a traditional 2♦ multi 2♦-2♠-3♥-4♥ sequence, the opps know you have a huge fit and may decide to bid 4♠, or similarly sac after 2♦-2♥-2♠-4♠. After a 2♥-2♠-3♥-4♥ sequence or 2♦-2♥-2♠-4♠, you may or may not have a big fit using this two-multi system. Anyway-what do people think? :-)

16 HCP is the lowest I've seen so far. I was north on this hand: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqj9852hk83daq76c&w=shaqjt62dk4caj542&e=sah9754d852ckqt86&s=skt7643hdjt93c973]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding: (p) - 2♠ - (3♥)-4♠ (5♥) - p - (p) - 5♠ 6♥ - 6♠ - (p) - p (X) - all pass Admittedly I'm not fond of partner's unilateral sac in 6♠. but one can't complain about chalking up +1210.

6 is enough for me. 13 is too much-you only have 10 tricks off the top, and to get 3 extra tricks by ruffing is unlikely. My rule is to not bid 7 unless you can see count 13 tricks or see a good % line (>60%) for 13.

At MPs as well?

1NT. A decent 7 card suit takes precedence over a ratty 4 carder.

Tough one. Give partner Qx of clubs, and either A of spades or K of diamonds, you want to be in slam. However, 4NT may be too high if partner has nothing. I take the low road and pass after bidding 3♣ and partner bids 3NT.

How can a less-well defined 11-18 1M opening possibly be better than the forcing club 11-15 1M opening? An opening bid, that is more defined, cannot theoretically be worse in constructive bidding than another opening bid that is less well defined, of which that opening bid is a subset. For example, a 1NT opening, defined as exactly 15 HCP, cannot perform worse (when actually opened) for bidding purposes than a 1NT opening defined as 15-17 HCP. Oh, I see. You're referring to the 17-18HCP 5+M hands, for which you are saying are better opened as 1M rather than a forcing 1♣. This may be true; however, does the downside in the less-well defined 1M opening more than compensates for this benefit of opening 1M on 17-18HCP hands? Given the top precision players around the world still stick with a 15HCP max cap on the 1M opening, I doubt that this is the case.

The hand is slightly too weak for a weak-strong Michaels. I'd prefer 1♠ then 2♥. Having bid 2♣, I'm forced to bid 3♥- partner does not know that you have this good a hand.

I think RKCB has made GSF redundant nowadays, thus the 5NT bidder's partner assumed it was pick a slam.

5♦ earlier or now for me too.

Am I missing something? Pass looks normal? If partner could make 4♦ without your help, surely he'd have bid something other than 1♦, such as X or 5♦.

I'm tempted to fake a club cue on the first hand, though 4♦ is the normal bid. The second one I'll just bid 6♦.