fromageGB

This is the big problem with the concept of "comparable call" in many situations. If an illegal insufficient bid is made, what can the meaning be? If it has no meaning in the system (and systems I play have no meaning assigned to an insufficient bid, do yours?) then how can another bid be said to have an equivalent meaning? I think more work needs to be done on this rule, and rapidly.

True for serious if you play that, but if you play frivolous/non-serious, the potential 3NT bidder will not know there is not enough for slam unless partner has made a limited bid or limited his hand in some way. In that case, non-serious does not apply, as there is no point. Therefore if you play non-serious, 3NT in this situation will always be to play.

Precisely. I "always" play 2/1 GF but had to play as a stand-in partner in a club teams match. She played a 2/1 as "forcing". When pressed, she said "forcing to 2NT". I then asked about a sequence 1♠ 2♦, 2♠, which she said could be passed. I think many normal players don't think about it or have it defined. They just expect things to work out. We agreed for the match that it was forcing to 2 of opener's first major, and had to live with that.

Seriously though, of course you should learn to cue bid, but that applies only if trumps have been agreed. Often as the strong "trump agreer", not in a sequence already GF, you cannot cue bid because trumps are not agreed, and you can't bid 3T because it is not forcing. Other sequences too must agree at 4T, and when this is the case you do need the ability to investigate beyond. IMHO ace asking is more important than cue bidding, and Italian or not, cue bidding is not going to help when you are missing the AKQ of trumps.

This is much simpler than RKCB. The steps are a logical and simple 1,2,3, and there is no asking for the Q, because you have already included this. What could be simpler? Yes, if you have an undisclosed 10 card fit you can no longer ignore the Q, but this has never been useful to me when playing RKCB, as far as I recall. A partner with a good memory says he has only once done that, and the Q turned up in 3 and lost. If that ability is your most important priority then choose your poison, but I have never needed it, and simplicity with no practical ambiguity is more important for me. The method also has a number of other advantages you do not get with RKCB: Assuming you use the space between 5T and 6T to discover all the side Ks and the ability to ask for or show "extras", a 1 or 2 reply also enables you to discover some agreed specifics, such as the Qs of the suits bid apart from trumps, in the space you would have otherwise used for the trump Q. It can be used without change for void asking (exclusion asking) where you ask with a bid >4T in the suit to be ignored. Say with hearts trumps and a club void, 5♣ asks; partner with the 2 aces you need replies 5♠, and you can still discover both side Kings and extras before deciding on 6 or 7. And also bear in mind that when you do have a 10 card fit, sometimes that is known by partner so you can agree to ignore the Q if you wish, and if unknown, three quarters of the time you will have the Q anyway.

I open 1♥. No idea who is going to bid what, don't know how strong partner is. How it develops is up to the opponents. Pass could be tricky, because it denies this hand, and if partner later keeps taking my hearts out, I could not blame him.

Exploring what? You have all the space above the "3" reply for Kings etc if you are happy with 6 and considering 7. This is the current "simple" method, and I would suggest retaining it, not going to flawed RKCB, but moving later to something better involving an asking bid of perhaps 4T+1 (next step up from trumps) that has no ambiguity. Alternatively, if the trump Q is your immediate consideration, why not treat this as a 6th Ace? There is then no need to "ask for the Q". You can stop in 5T missing 2, bid 6T missing one, or look for 7T by checking side Ks and Qs if you have all 6 aces. It makes bidding easier. Ideally the ace asking bid should be the next step up from 4T, but without that you can still have 4NT as the ask, with "0" signing off in 5T, and otherwise in steps for 1, 2, 3. You use the same modulus 4 duality, so for example with hearts as trumps and 4NT asks : 5♣ = 1 or 5 5♦ = 2 or 6 5♥ = 0 or 4 5♠ = 3. Because of the 4NT starting point, you would not ask unless 3 were enough for small slam. (Note, with RKCB 2+Q commits to slam.) If the asking bid was 4♠, with hearts as trumps, then you can cope with any reply. Much simpler than RKCB and the same basic method as used now.

The sort of hand where this happens is usually a distributional one, I think. I can never remember hands, but constructing a simple example that does not involve asking for Kings (which would be easier) : Red against Green, partner opens 1♠ and RHO (a sensible player) overcalls 4♥. He can be expected to have about KQJT in 8 hearts. You too are distributional, with ♠ Kxxx ♥ x ♦ AKQJxx ♣ xx and it is your bid. You have quite a few tricks. You have 2 of the 5 aces. 4NT RKCB is obvious. IF partner has 3 aces, then you can check for the trump Q, then bid 7♠. If that Q is missing, 6♠ is probably solid. If partner has 2 aces, then 6♠ is an excellent chance. If partner has just one ace, then 5♠ is a good spot, although you hope his clubs are guarded. You bid 4NT, it is passed to opener who bids 5♣. Your lucky day, so check for the Q (yes), bid 7♠. * * * That's quite reasonable, isn't it? * * * Partner has ♠QJTxx ♥Kx ♦xx ♣KQJx and they take their 3 aces for 3 down. It is that "0 or 3" ambiguity that is the problem. "0 or 4" is much safer.

I think you are missing something important here. If partner has 3 or 4 and jumps to 6T (trumps), then you have completely lost the ability to investigate 7. Yet it is precisely when partner is that strong you do want to be able to investigate before deciding on 6 or 7. Why play something so bad in this context, when you could play something that either has no duality / ambiguity at all, or play something where the duality comprises a bigger difference in the two values, that has less likelihood of causing a problem?

I can't agree with this. Having a bid with two meanings is to be avoided is possible, but if not, they need to be identifiable in practice. Playing RKCB with a difference of 3, I have had hands that cannot distinguish between 0 and 3, or 1 or 4, because partner could logically have either. Playing a difference of 4 makes it much clearer - there is a significant difference between them. It is not right to say that you should not be asking if the 3-difference can cause you to go wrong.

This is one I had not thought of. It could be difficult getting back to team-mates after 2NT 3NT, 4♥ 4NT (X). Or maybe 2NT 6NT (X). I think it is so awkward, anything could be right. I will not argue against Pass, because you are much more likely to avoid a terrible score by coming into the bidding later, but for me, it fits my style for natural weak 2♥.

The problem with this approach is that having asked and heard of your meagre real aces, partner may not ask further, but sign off. * * * My partnerships' approach is that after a splinter, if partner has slam desires he will always bid the next step as a singleton or void ask, with next step reply being singleton, and void being higher, an ace response if 2-steps up would have been your ace asking bid. This method is no good if after a round of bidding your splinter is itself the suit beneath trumps, eg 1♠ 2♣, 2♥ 4♦, but there is no problem with other splinter suits. Also no problem for an immediate splinter, say 1♠ 4♥, that is defined as singleton because a separate sequence is used for a specifically void hearts (Similar to Vampyr's idea, but just the one suit.) If your splinters may be strong, such that the splinterer may wish to slam if partner fails to ask, then we utilise an alternative "ace ask" that defines the void. Therefore in fact my example "problem" sequence above is not a problem, and must be a singleton. * * * However, I cannot answer the OP question because I do not myself play RKCB void responses. I have no way to show a void as teller if I have not previously splintered.

It makes the difficulty of such a method even more impossible if the overcalls are ambiguous. For example, 2♣ (2♠) where overcaller has either clubs (2♠ is a puppet to clubs, if left) or both reds (he takes the clubs (if left) out to diamonds). Now it is impossible for a "garbage" responder to know what his holding is worth. My choice of defender action is pass/double to show/deny "values", ie your requirement for a positive unopposed reply to 2♣. Then opener can call as he deems appropriate.

This seems contradictory in that the main aim is to bid balanced hands better, yet you are reducing the space available to do so. Thing I'll stick with what I have.

To me it's an opening hand, a good 11 and two 5 card suits suffice for me. I'd open 1M always on an {x5}{6x}. With a hand strong enough for a reverse, I'd open a minor. Even then you need a decent agreement over how to handle continuations. In the absence of such the other day with diamonds and spades, I could not describe the major as 5 cards. I rebid it, but that 3♠ rebid could have been a general force to allow partner to bid 3NT if he had the clubs. 5-3 fit missed. Of course, agreements such as "a reverse forces a transfer" allows responder to show 3 card support. If you are going to open this hand 1♦ you have to be sure you have methods to find a 5-3 major fit at the 2 or 3 level. What if partner was weaker and not able to make a forcing bid or bids?

I'm sure my partners will remove the double if they have nothing significant to contribute to a defence, as my double is not penalty but a passable takeout. A flat heap with 4 spades will bid. Your partnerships obviously have a different understanding.

And another Yes No from me. It is a decisive "no", because I do feel my double is forcing if partner does not have good hearts and controls, and partner likely has nothing.

A, B A if weak, B if stronger A

A A Yes If I have an agreement that 2♥ is always 4 then of course it changes my bid. But we have an explicit agreement that a 3-suiter raises on a 3 card suit as if it was 4, because of the value of immediate ruffing in the short trump hand.

So allow me to state differently : weak NT bidders preempt their partner more than they preempt the opponents, so I doubt if that is the intention of the weak adherents. That said, I don't think doubling for penalty at matchpoints is a good idea at any strength. The hand type to make that double is so rare that the call is far better utilised as part of your descriptive bidding structure whether you make it with intent to disrupt or construct. My preference is to double with both majors, but each to his own. At IMPs the missed opportunity for a possible big score brings the use of the penalty double back in contention.

I think you need to distinguish between "splinters" and "control bids". I would assume the former is a jump to show support for partner's suit, and the latter a forcing bid made after support has already been agreed, the control bid (or "cue" bid) being game forcing. The control bid is usefully either Ace or void, or depending on your methods, any of A, K, void, singleton. This helps slam judgement. The splinter should be singleton or void in my view, and never an Ace. If you have shortage your partner knows exactly how to revalue his hand, but if your splinter was an Ace, he has dramatically come to the wrong valuation. Well, the drama happens later, when you end in obviously the wrong contract. Splinters that may be singleton or void happen more often than restricting it to just one of those (and if you did so restrict what would you do with the other hands?) , and ambiguity is not really a major problem. It certainly is potentially a problem if you go on to ask for for aces, so it is good to have a follow-up bid over the splinter to ask whether it is singleton or void, if you intend to perhaps later ask for aces. For my partnerships we use the next step to ask "singleton or void?" with a 2-step response, and because you can't do this with a splinter in the suit beneath trumps, we reserve that bid for singleton only, and employ a different bid somewhere (for us a 3NT reply) to show a void in the suit beneath trumps.

For 4 pairs I think it best to play teams of 4, IMPs. You want equal number of boards with each of your 3 opponent pairs, which fits 24 boards nicely. Sit in pairs randomly, then play boards 1-8 as one independent match, then getting together with the pair in the other direction at the other table to score IMPs as a team of 4. All except one pair rotate positions, then play boards 9-16 and score, and repeat for 17-24. Each pair then sums their 3 lots of IMPs to get a pair score for the night. For 5 pairs I would draw straws to see who goes home, then play as above. The dismissed pair gets its partnership recorded so that when it happens again, it is excluded from that draw, and subsequent draws when 5 pairs turn up, until everyone has been sent home once, then start a new record. For 6 pairs and up play normal matchpoints and normal movements with a sit out if necessary.

No, you have it completely wrong. We like the cultural influence, and we do not mind political influence, but we object, strongly, to political control.

Surely the answer is to leave on the original date, no extension, and start building customs posts / areas and staffing them and HMRC HQ. Normal international trading arrangements apply until countries / trading blocks create a mutual trade agreement (except of course a 300% tariff on Boeing aircraft). That will certainly cause a change of EU strategy, as an agreement is in their interests as well as ours. Their current plan is to refuse to enter discussions until UK changes its mind about leaving. Problem solved, and a salutary lesson for other people thinking of abandoning the sinking ship. So UK should announce that we are leaving, be seen to be getting prepared (why it has taken us 2 years to get nowhere beats me, as well as Corbyn) and then we have a decent chance of being treated seriously.

Absolutely. As to what 3C means, Stephen gave an excellent answer. For me, this is just part of my non-Bergen 4 card support methods, and 1C (p) 2M is 6 card natural NF up to 8hcp, so that 9/10 can be shown by a simple bid and a rebid.