OleBerg

2♦ and X. 4♠ at fav. can be anything.

Wish I had 4♦ available as a good raise. (It would probably set up a force, but thats fine, even though 5♣ might make on a rainy day.) As it is, I have to settle for 4♥.

A few good things might happen too. This is XIMPS according to OP. An obvious danger, but not that frequent. A complete non-argument. You are saying that 2♠ is a bad bid, because it is a bad bid, meanwhile stating the obvious, that it is better not to make a bad bid. Come to think of it, so would I.

What we hope to gain is some Imp's (or not to lose some). Either by telling partner, that we would like a spade lead, or by causing the opponents to misjudge (this will normally only happen when partner raises). Actually the bid is more dangerous at MP's. All the times they take 200 vs their partscore or 500 vs their game, we have a very small loss at Imp's, but a disaster at MP's. Just a little math: If they take 500 vs their partscore, it will look disastrous, but it will normally only be an 8 Imp loss. If they misjudge their partscore, and go minus, we will gain 4 Imps. if 2♠ keeps them out of an otherwise making 3NT we gain 8, and if it causes us to defeat 3NT, we will gain 10. Of course 2♠ might sometimes help them, I'm just putting the numbers in perspective. Furthermore, it will be difficult for them to catch us, unless LHO has four spades. If CHO gets carried away, he needs to be educated.

The first thing I do is curse at my partner (inwardly of course) for not playing my two-way-pass system, where this is a clear 1♠ opener (9-15, 5+ spades). Now I find 2♠ mandatory, even though it is obviously dangerous.

That's not the only cost of Kickback (or other similar low-level keycard asks). A bigger cost is that you can't do things in the natural order, which is to investigate holdings in specific suits first, and then confirm that you're not missing two keycards. For example, suppose that diamonds are agreed, the bidding is currently at 4♦, and I don't have a spade control. Playing 4NT as RKCB, I can bid 4♥, see if partner cuebids 4♠, and then bid RKCB if he does. Playing Kickback, I have to either ask for keycards immediately, risking reaching slam with no spade control, or bid 4NT to show my heart control, forgoing the chance to check for keycards. One way around many of these problems, is not to ask for aces, but to show them. A method that has some following among Scandinavian experts. Normally 4 NT is used to show at least three aces out of five. (The convention is actually labeled "Culbertsons 4NT-5NT".) Any cuebid below 4NT promises one ace, and cuebids above 4NT promises two aces. The number of aces promised are adjusted for a player known to hold a limited hand, and for both players if, if one hand is known to be very strong. 5NT is used for grand exploration. If the partner of a 4NT bidder bids it, he promises the rest of the aces, while if the 4NT bidder himself bid it, he promises an extra ace. One advantage is, that when the last cuebid is the one beneath 5 of the agreed suit, which is often the case, the other player has the option of signing of (which is naturally not unconditional) in 5 of the suit. There are still problems, especially with the minor suits. (4NT then takes the place of the cuebid that is gone.) A way to solve a lot of these, is to use the kick-back-bid to show three aces: An example where the agreement shine: 1♥ - 2♣ 3♠ = Splinter Now responder has these options, if slammy: 4♣ = Slammy, denies three aces. (Hoping partner can bid 4♦.) 4♦ = At least three aces. 4♥ = Heart cue, exactly two aces. 4♠ = Spade cue, no heart cue, exactly two aces. 4NT = Diamond cue, no heart or spade cue, exactly two aces. The bids will have the same meaning for responder. Note that in all sequences where all controls are present, one player will have the chance to sign off in 5♣. This could be quite useful, as both hands are rather unlimited. This, imo, more precise bidding, also builds a better base for grand investigation. But thats for another post.

Yes, it could be 3-5-3-2 if the suit qualities dictate it. :D I'm game for an occasional psychic splinter. Sure thing. Then a raise to 3♣ could be a direct two-way Bluhmer, thus: 1♠ - 2♣ 3♣ shows four small clubs. If clubs are genuine, we have support, and if it is a singleton we have no wastage. :D

Yes, it could be 3-5-3-2 if the suit qualities dictate it. :D

I couldn't believe it took this long to find this comment being made. Me too. "I made a take out double" is not allowed. The vowel concentration is too high (58 %). B) Rik Don't come to Denmark, we have added three vowels to the alphabet, and removed W. So we have 28 letters. The three ekstra vowels looks like this (hope they show correctly): - Æ - Ø (Also the word for "Island") - Å (Also the word for a small river.)

I know I am really nitpicking (sorry), but you should also be allowed to jump if it describes your hand precisely, and helps define the rest of the system (and doesn't get you to high). For instance normal preempts or WJS. Oh, and splinter for sure.

Voted 4NT. With my regular partner, I have a firm agreement, that this is Quantitative. Slam is by no means certain. If 4NT is RKCB I am stuck with a strange 4♣.

4♦. I don't fear 4NT. Or 5♣/♦.

4♠ If they compete, I double to show it was bid to make. That might backfire horribly on this hand, but selling out to 5♣/♥ is to poor for me.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras. This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..) In Denmark it is more or less standard, at least among experts, that when you are forced to game, fourth suit shows you have no good bid. This keeps all other options "pure". So in the sequence: 1♣ - 1♦ 2♠ - 2NT = Promises at least one full stopper. 3♣ = Guarantees three card support. 3♦ = Shows a decent six-card suit. I like it.

ditto Notto. Of course it depends on how likely you think the opponents are to bid 6. But if you take that for granted, you need very specific agreements to be able to distinguish AKxxx from AQxxx in spades. if you try to tell me, that this hand: ♠ AK222 ♥ 2222 ♦ A22 ♣ 2 and many like it, would have taken a stronger route, I dont believe you. And AK clubs has value in some sense, as it virtually insures that partner has the A♦. Funny, but AK of clubs can actually be of negative value (for the combined hands.), as it decreases the chance of the hand being a "5 or 7" hand. (I.e. no chance for 6♠-1 at the other table, when you are in 7♠ -2.)

One thing is certain, I would start: 1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ as I play it as forcing for one round, while 2♠ is artificial. Either one of these would then happen: 1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ - 1NT 2♥* - 3♣ (2♥ = 4. suit forcing) 3♦ - 3NT or 1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥* - 3♣ (2♥ = 4. suit forcing) 3♦ - 3♥* (3♥ = Repeated 4. suit forcing) 4♣ - Now, playing with myself, I would consider 4♣ to be forcing, and raise it to 5.

A bit pessimistic. 5 or 6 level, and right denomination naturally has to have a very high priority, but you should be able to bid at least a few of those grands with 18 tricks piling down the roof.

Yeah seriously north had the most obvious bid ever, and south had a pass. Sorry for lack of LOL clarity. If I was qualified to LOL, I would never explain my LOL's. So an unqulified LOL at explaining your LOL. LOL at having to be qualified to LOL someone Seconded. LOL I do not consider you two to be qualified to LOL. So I can only LOL at your LOL'ing me for thinking you have to be LOL.

If you check Law 73C, you will se that among the things that can carry UI is: "...gesture, mannerism...haste" So if you can gather from partners attitude, that he has a minimum, you are obliged not to use that information. This in turn means, that out of several logical alternatives, you are not allowed to make the bid/(play) that the UI points towards. I still have to see a ruling though, that said a player couldn't pass. I would like to hear if anyone has examples. And mostly for Gnasher (or anyone who knows): Can you tell me where there is an on-line copy of the laws, that it is possible to copy/paste? Thanks in advance.

Yeah seriously north had the most obvious bid ever, and south had a pass. Sorry for lack of LOL clarity. If I was qualified to LOL, I would never explain my LOL's. So an unqulified LOL at explaining your LOL.

Any 7-card ♠-suit is worth a call over (1♥) - Pass - (1NT) at MP's.

lol, are non-broke players supposed to make insufficient bids? the broke partner would make the insufficient bid, then pass to bar you. (mild humor) And the TD would enforce Law 23, adjusting the score. (Got the humor, just love Law 23.)

Easy 1♠. Not that I believe in the dogma, but should partner choose to lead K from Kx in spades (Edit: vs NT of course), I'd welcome it. The ♠8 is a great card, without it 1♠ would be more dubious. Being an overbidder, I'd still do it though. Edit: Hadn't seen second sequence. Even more obvious, as partner is less limited, and I am on lead vs heart-contracts.

Don't like Phils logic either. Even if I suspect I have a 30% it's no reason to bid reckless. Go with the percentages, and if that means salvaging 30%, then so be it. Then on the other hand, I find 2♦ to be standout. The hand is something like 2 tricks more worth in diamonds, than in NT with partner on lead. So white vs white, where -2 may not be bad for us, and +100 might not be good, I compete fiercely.

At Mp's with no-one vulnerable, I might conjure up a double. Any other scoring or vulnerabilety, and I pass easily. Note that you should compete more fiercely when all are white, than when you opponents are vulnerable. With opponents vulnerable, two down undoubled is an "out" that will sometimes make your day.