OleBerg

I'll settle for 5♦ and hope they don't lead a thrumph.

Yes, bad example hand, written in a hurry. I still consider the points valid however.

Normally Ace or King. Exception: Might be singleton (or Void) if the cuebidder have either: - Certain knowledge of ten thrumph's in the combined hands (Quite unlikely here.) - A hand where you feel confident partners suit need not be established. An example hand of the second type: ♠Kx ♥x ♦ KQJ10x ♣ AJxxx I wont preclude other exceptions, but they dont spring to mind.

How about 6(+) diamonds and 4 hearts? (With 6(+) diamonds and four spades, you could open more hands at the 1-level.)

FYP

My partner and I have the meta-agreement never to start with a double, when we have a single-suited strong hand. We solve this in various ways in various places. In fourth hand we include these hands in Michaels. I woulnd't expect a pick-up expert partner to be in on this.

Many hands are allowed to break the transfer. You only complete the transfer, if you would have passed the rebid partner is transfering to. Otherwise you bid what you would have bid, if partner had made the natural bid. Example: 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - ??? 2♦ = I would have passed a natural 2♦ rebid. 2♥+ = This is the bid I would have made, if you had made a normal 2♥ rebid.

Take-out of clubs.

I include the 2-5-3-3 in the 2♦ transfer after 1♥-1♠.

This isn't Gazilli, but it is definitely my favourite after 1♥-1♠ 1NT = Transfer to clubs, shows 4+ clubs, unlimited*. 2♣ = Transfer to diamonds, shows 4+ diamonds, unlimited*. 2♦ = Transfer to hearts, shows all hands not otherwise mentioned, unlimited*. 2♥ = Minimum with 3-card spade-support. * These unlimited bids are of course limited by not opening 2♣. The only thing you loose, is the ability to play 1NT, but all your other bidding becomes more accurate. I use all 2♠+ bids to show spades-support (with 3 hearts showing 6 hearts and only 3 spades), but I wouldn't mind changing that, if partner insisted. Continuations: On 1NT and 2♣ responder bids what he would normally have bid on 2♣ and 2♦. Completing the transfer shows he would have passed. Responder need not go to great length to find an alternative to completing the transfer, as partner has another chance to bid. Likewise on 2♥, but note the sequence: 1♥-1♠ 2♦-2♥ 2♠ = 3 card-spade support and more than a minimum. This is one of my all time favourites: - You free a lot of 4-card support bids, including minisplinter. - Minor suits are shown unambigously. - Three-card supports are shown unambigously, and you can play 2♥, when responder is 4-2-x-x or 4-3-x-x and has decided to bid 1♠. - In non-fit auctions, you keep the bidding low, allowing more for exploration.

I'd feel somewhat smug, if I had thougth of this at the table: I cash a heart honour at trick two. This will prevent RHO from making that ducking-trick. And even though it is a good play, it is not that unimagineable. RHO might easily have a hand, where he can see the game is over if he takes the trick. This way to play hearts loses when LHO has Qxxx of hearts, but how likely is that in wiew of the 2♥ bid? Probably depends on the opponents. (And even thoughg less likely, it wins immidiately, when RHO has the single ♥Q.) After the heart honour I return to hand in diamonds, not clubs. This will place me better, no matter who wins the ♥Q, and what that person returns. (At least thats what I think before coffee.)

I am not a doubler myself, but All the reds will only be a problem in partnerships without proper agreements (i.e. partner shouldn't do that, if your agreements are that such a hand is an overcall.)

FYP

[hv=pc=n&s=sk76hqj43dk9852c3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1c]133|200[/hv] Imps

You know, the guy who discovered milk; excactly what was he doing with that cow?

4♠ WTFP?

I am not sure i understand yoyr questions, but: 1♥ would have shown 16+ Bluffs or creativeness is allowed.

In a stroke of mild insanity, you have agreed to play this system with a complete nutcase. (pass) - Pass1 - (pass) - 1♦2 (pass) - Pass3 - (1NT) - X??? 1 = 0-8 or 16+, any distribution. 2 = 9-15, no 5-card major, no one-suited minor. 3 = your possible replies to 1♦ were: 1♥ = Strong relay. 1♠/2♣/2♦ = The weak hand but constructive. 1NT = The weak hand but constructive, with hearts. 2♥+ = Strong hand, preferring natural bidding. Yes, partner has been self-medicating again, but nonetheless you have to try and assign some kind of meaning to his bid. What does the double show,and why?

Since you asked for a rule of thumb, I'll definitely go with the forcing pass, for reasons weel-explained by others. It is only if you have the energy for very specific agreements, I can see an idée in a non-forcing pass. Lets use the sequence you desribe: If 2♠ shows exactly three-card-support, and the opponents are bidding naturally (i.e. 3♣ does not promise or indicate spade-support), then there could be a point in being able to sell out. Our combined hands could have detoriated so much during the bidding, that it makes sense. Especially if we are vulnerable. You would still be able to show the bad hand that suggests defending (pass), a bad that wants to compete (3♥), a penalty (X) and a game-try (3♦). But had they bid diamonds, or if partner can have four, or if 3♣ shows spade support, or if we are white vs red, I'd much prefer the forcing pass.

Wrong forum.

1♦ - 1♥ 2nt - 3♥ = I have five hearts, might have four spades. 3♠ = I have four spades, but only four hearts.

655321

Model railways.

Yes

LOL