fromageGB

KISS KISS A raise is always 4 cards unless you have a shortage and are ruffing with a couple of low trumps - then just treat it as 4 card.

I am not sure I fully understand, but if 2M shows diamonds and 1M 1NT 2D shows a strong hand (while 1M 1NT 2C is weak), how is this better than Riton? It seems to me there is more room over a strong 2♣ to clarify hands than over a strong 2♦.

It's also hard to criticise a penalty double, as well. You know they have at most a 9 card fit and no more than a 16 count. Do you really want to bid a competitive 3♥ on a 7 card fit when they may have only an 8 card fit?

North is too good for an immediate splinter the way we play, but can show a splinter later if the bidding develops that way. Our standard bidding would be : 1♠ 2NT (Jacoby type) 3♣ (up to a 14 count, may include a singleton) ... 3♥ (strong hand, singleton or void splinter) (on another hand 3♦ would ask for any opener singleton) 3NT (which?) (on another hand 3♠ would be no interest) ... 4♦ (2 steps = void) 4NT (keycard ask excluding hearts) ... 5♦ (2) 5NT (kings?) ... 5♣ (1 or 2, this is cheapest) 5♦ (got this as well?) ... 7♠ (yes) Easy here in that South asks. If the side suit quacks were in the other hand, South could instead of ace asking, give his "reply" so that North continues, so the outcome is not really fortuitous. Edit : Woops! Just noticed I miscounted the South hand, start again. 1♠ 2NT 3♠ (15+, no shortage) (We don't count a singleton ace as a splinter because it can lead to misevaluation) ... 3NT (heart splinter, singleton or void) (3NT substitutes for the awkward 4♥ bid which leaves no room for the inquiry) 4♣ (which?) ... 4♥ (2 steps = void) 4NT (keycard ask excluding hearts) and as above to 7♠

Quite easily if you take a sneak look at the hand copies before the event. :D

More of a throw in rather than a squeeze, but it can't lose, because whatever the distribution your Ace of clubs is always going to be a trick.

2♣ then 2NT playing a puppet variety, 2♣ then 2♠ if not. On the follow-up I can't bid the reversed minor spade slam. 4♣ from me over 3♠ would be showing some non-fitting hearts and looking for a slam in clubs. Maybe if I tried 4♣ then 5♠ partner might get the idea? I doubt it.

I'm happy with generated fractions because I look at it in a different way. I don't think one top is worth as much as another. If you played in a 4 player movement, and score 6 UK mps, by beating the other 3 pairs, then that's a top. But if you played a board against 5000 pairs and beat all 4999 of them, isn't this a more convincing victory? I don't know what the Neuberg formula would make of this scenario, but it would probably agree with me. (Or I with it!)

As Zel said. The hand was distracting people from answering the question.

A 3-seater is better, as it has the advantage that one defender does not have to sit on the knees of the other.

Don't forget that if you use X or 2♣ for both majors of unspecified lengths, you can easily get the best fit by a direct 2♥/♠ reply being to play with 4 cards or 2+ cards better in advancer's length, while a lower reply asks for doubler to bid his longer. (Numbers on the basis that a 5-2 fit is better than a 4-3 fit, but you would prefer a 4-4 to a 5-3. Or adjust to taste.) Playing X for both majors gives you a choice of different add-ons: 1) 2♦ asks for longer, while 2♣ says "I hate the majors, pass or correct to 2♦". 2) For a bit of fun, put opener on lead : 2a) If it was a 2nd seat X, 2♣ asks for longer major to be expressed by red suit transfer, 2M = this major 2b) If it was a 4th seat X, then 2♣ asks for longer major to be bid directly, red suit transfer = this major

Maybe. I intended the questions to distinguish between bidding 3♣ that says you have a long suit and want to play there, and 3♣ that says I can play here if you like, but by all means try somewhere else if you prefer. You can't have everything, and I was wondering what the common perception was. Both of these, I imagine, could be on a yarborough. I thought I played Lebensohl, and as I played it, a bid of 2NT was a prelude to a weak takeout in a long suit. If I then bid 3♦ over the 3♣ I expected partner to pass. Conversely, if I bid a direct 3♦ this was forcing. How strong that needed to be depended on what your requirement was for a takeout X. Mine was no more than an opening hand 1444 shape ideally. Consequently I would not dream of bidding a forcing 3♣ on your 8-10 count. If your minimum requirement was for the doubler to have a 17 count, then of course you lower the forcing point. Or perhaps you have 3♣ as intermediate and some other bid for a forcing call? But the weak hands seem to cater for only a responder with a long suit. What does he do with a balanced hand? I am beginning to think that it may be better to play a "playable suit scramble", and was hoping someone who has used it could comment. I was also imagining that some people may play transfer responses, because that can be done with both weak and strong hands, and can handle shorter suits or long suits.

East, ie the response to the takeout double.

"3♣ to play" means "I have a longish club suit and I don't want you to bid" "3♣ non-forcing but promising nothing other than some clubs" implies "playable in clubs, but probably also an unspecified elsewhere", as you would have for a Cansino 2♣ takeout of 1NT, for example. This is close to what you mean, I think, but without a positive aspect. I shall change the wording.

I would have thought the part score was more important against a strong NT. Getting to a playable contract beats getting to game, in my view.

I am interested in seeing what people play here. In asking for names I can check for combinations of answers, to save having 64 questions! Please answer without reference to the hand below. Edit : which is no longer there. ** I was wondering whether the reply to the double should be based not on having a strong hand or a single-suiter, but whether it should cater to 4 card suits, such as a scrambling NT. That 2NT reply would normally have overcaller bidding 4 card suits up the line to find a reasonable fit, but if he has only one, he starts with 3♣ (which is the only one that therefore may be shorter than 4 card). Does anyone (I'm expecting it to be not the majority) have experience of such methods and can give any comment on them? ** in homage to the Avon gorge rock climbing guide for the description of the delicate climb "Fingerrip" which concludes "followed by a strenuous pull on a minute flake that is no longer there". And no, I can't remember how I finished it.

> Pass by dealer or second hand shows 0-8 or 16+ points > The most successful (responses) have proved to be point count responses with the pass being 0-6 or 16+ and a semi-positive showing 7-8 points I quite like the idea of the bidding going pass out when opponents have a normal 2♣ open.

I'm posting a non-expert reply because I don't see why experts should have everything for themselves. A) 3♠ B) ♠6. I would love to play ♠J as a heart signal, but it is possible that partner with 5 would assume the suit breaks 3532, so attempt to give me a ruff. C) ♥2 to not give a diamond trick away and indicate a guard in diamonds.

I don't like any method where a bid shows a particular major and an unspecified minor. If you go the the 3-level in search of a fit that is not there, then you don't attempt to try. They seem to work only opposite a rare hand with length in both minors, so in general they are a waste of bid. I much prefer simpler bid of a minor showing that 4m + unspecifed 5M. Now you can play a known minor fit by passing, or find overcaller's major. Both at the 2-level. I also like a natural 2M so that partner knows what I have, and as I want a call that shows 4+4+ both majors, it has to be X.

Whenever I have a semi-balanced hand, because 1♦ has a shortage or is 6 cards. I see your point, though, if you have a minimum 3-card suit.

I may be a bit obtuse at 2 in the morning this part of the world, but I don't see the point of responder inviting if opener is showing a 2-point range. If it is to invite requesting a 3 card suit, then let opener invite if he has it. By dropping xyz completely, you have more freedom in your responses, and can probably cater for more hand shapes, or better definition.

I think you might achieve the same result when you bid 2NT and opener shows a diamond shortage, or you show a heart shortage, depending on your methods. Sorry, off topic. Back on topic, while I agree with fit jumps in other places, certainly not after a club open that could be a doubleton.

Yes we do get to stop in 2H. Opener will not normally invite on a doubleton. But you are right that when opener has 3, and a 17/18 count, we play in 3H invitation declined when you will be safer playing in 2H. However, 3H is not that unsafe when you are a combined 21+ 9 card fit or a 23+ 8 card fit. There is no accuracy problem. Opener would be the one making the invitation, not responder, and only opener knows if his side suits are suitable or not. You have the advantage on that, but I think your suggestion has these bigger drawbacks : you do not have the pre-empt of 1C 2M when you want it - when the points break around 20/20 and the other side may or may not have a major fit if your weak 5 card major opposite a strong opener goes down the same route as the weaker WJS you are wrongsiding that whereas I am not your weak 54xx is wrongsided when it plays in hearts in fact if you use XYZ or similar, all your weak or invitational major contracts are wrongsided, unless it is a version I am unfamiliar with if your WJS goes 1C:1red, 1M:pass, this is a wake up call to the opposition and you give them an easy ride if your WJS goes 1C:1red, 1M:2M, then I think you have problems trying to describe a stronger 6 card suit where opener may have game on but may want to play in 2M.

Joey - As you will discover, Zel (Zelandakh) is indeed an expert in bridge theory. You will find over time that his ideas and comments are well worth exploration.

Less than a year ago a club chairman here took me to one side and said I shouldn't really be playing transfer responses, and even though I explained it was the same principle as making transfer responses to 1NT, he wasn't satisfied until I showed him they were both EBU level 3, the acceptability rating at that time. He didn't seem happy, though. The EBU are to be congratulated on the new level 4 regulation (level 3 has been abandoned), because a number of illogical constraints have disappeared.