fromageGB

Glen is right : a relay is an asking bid, by definition. If some people find certain words offensive, then you use an alternative word that means the same thing. 3♣ in response to 2NT is an asking bid, and if other words may cause upset, I am happy with this description. Similar to the situation I am sometimes in when partner opens a potentially short club. "An opening hand, but not necessarily long clubs or strong, it could be a doubleton." "So it's an asking club?" "Yes, it usually denies a 5 card major and asks me what I have." I've never thought of describing it as a relay !

Yes, of course partner can make a transfer break, but this is rare and normally the transfer is completed. Some people never transfer break. The point is that the transfer implies a holding in a specific suit. A puppet doesn't.

Is the Hexagon guarded? Well, the Pentagon is, so I suppose the Hexagon will be, but more so.

Not a chance. We find 4-3 major fits when the 3 card suit has a shortage, not otherwise. And do I want to be in 4♠ on whatever bidding you may concoct?. No. It makes only because you happen to have 10 tricks off the top. How common is that? Normally you have to lose a trick to set a suit up.

I don't play this way, so tell me, if 5♣ asks for kings, if partner has the spade presumably he bids 5♠, but what if he does not, but has the club king? 5NT or 6♣ - would 5NT deny the club king? Or 5♦ deny both?

I wouldn't worry about what the national organisation says is acceptable or not, as anything you are likely to have been taught, or methods that people will play with you at the clubs, will be OK. As hrothgar says, it's difficult to start bridge with a relay system, because there is so much that must be absorbed in one sitting. People learn by starting with something natural and simple, then gradually add on individual tweaks, conventions and adjustments one at a time. Some people then realise it is messy, or inefficient, so throw the whole lot away and start with a clean sheet. But by then, of course, they have already absorbed a lot of understanding. It is probably worth clarifying what a relay bid is, as many get mixed up with the similar terms "transfer", "relay" and "puppet". A transfer is a request to bid a suit, typically the next suit up, and implies a holding in that suit. A relay is a cheap bid to say "tell me more about your hand", where the other hand has a choice of bids he can make. A puppet is a request to bid a suit, usually the next step, and implies nothing at all about that suit, but keeps the bidding low so that the puppet bidder can describe his hand. What makes it confusing is that even common convention names get it wrong. "Puppet stayman" over 2NT for example, uses 3♣ as a relay, not a puppet. Many people describe a Lebensohl 2NT bid as " a transfer to clubs", when in fact it is a puppet to clubs, and the 2NT bidder could well have a different suit. (If the opposition describe one of their bids as a transfer, best ask them what it means, if it affects your bid.)

We would not be in this position, as when we might or might not have a spade control we will be serious opposite serious, or a super-serious. But I agree, it is better not to get there. Such "unlimited opposite unlimited" sequences are rare.

Yes. Your terms -> my terms compare as you expected. minimumish -> non-serious frivolous -> serious serious -> super-serious I will keep to my terms in the following, so I will let you make the translation. This is true : we do have sequences where both hands are unlimited, and with (my) serious hand want to express it. For example, after 1♥ 2♠ GF 4 card support we have both sides showing a shortage if there is one, then we are at the 3♥ level and the non-serious/serious comes into play with neither side limited. The majority of bidding sequences are of course limited, but unlimited ones are in there as well. I will go into more detail. Take the case of a limited hand first. If the known limited hand is about to bid and we are below 3♥, he always bids 3♥. The other hand bids: 3♠ = super-serious denial of spades 3NT = super-serious denial of clubs 4♣ = super-serious denial of diamonds 4♥ = non-serious or just serious. A sign off. (The definition of serious is that the hand needs partner to have extra values, and the limited nature already expressed excludes this.) 4♠ = ace ask, rare because you can always look for an extra control first. So we have responder bidding the missing control for opener to ace ask, or to deny it by bidding 4♥, after which the super-serious hand can continue anyway if he was just checking for an extra control. If the hand opposite a known limited hand is about to bid when the bidding is at or beneath 3♥, the bids are exactly the same (as if partner had bid 3♥). I think the above scenario is fine. It may have an advantage over yours in that the limited hand does not need to show a control if the other hand is not looking. Take the case of 2 unlimited hands. We are now only in particular circumstances, such as either partner having shown a shortage if there is one after a J2N start. If the shortage is not spades, it is shown beneath the level of 3♥. Your categorisation of the hand into non-serious/serious/super-serious is of course rejudged in the light of partner's shortage. The non-shortage hand now bids: 3♥ = non-serious . . => and a super-serious partner continues as above 3♠ = serious or super-serious, asks for spade control 3NT = serious or super-serious, asks for club control 4♣ = serious or super-serious, asks for diamond control 4♦ = serious, not missing any control - the cooperative bit 4♠ = the rare super-serious straight ace ask with no checks Over the 4♦, partner ace asks if serious, or bids 4♥ if non-serious. (The 4♦ bid can also be used as a relay for the other hand to ace ask, if he is known to be serious (such as an opener making a serious rebid) and you suspect he will be in a better position to judge whether there are 13 tricks.) Over the serious or super-serious one-under denial, partner bids the suit to show control (of course he may also choose to take control and ace ask) and when he bids the suit you can then ace ask if super-serious, or bid 4♥ if serious. This is the cooperative bit. Partner knows you must be serious, and can now ace ask if he too is serious. If partner does not have the asked-for control, he signs off in 4♥. If the shortage after the 2M+1 ask is in spades, this is shown by a 3♥ bid. If partner bids this, (a) you are non-serious You no longer have the ability to bid 3♥ when non-serious, so have to bid 3♠ as non-serious. Partner can now no longer make a one-under denial in spades, but of course he has control there. His 3NT and 4♣ are serious or super-serious one-under denials as normal. His 4♦ is again serious, not missing any control - the cooperative bit. You are back with the bidding above, and have lost nothing. (b) you are serious or super-serious 3NT = one-under denial, etc, and again you can't deny spades, but partner has control. Again you have full cooperation and nothing lost. If there was a game forcing sequence when one side bids 3♥ to set the suit without having shown spade control, and with both sides unlimited, then the spade control or lack of is unknowable. But there are not too many of these.

No. I do play frivolous 3NT - except I prefer the term non-serious, as that is much more descriptive, a serious hand having additional values. I introduced to the thread the idea of one-under denial cue bids when we were talking about bidding serious opposite a limited hand. There, 4♥ is the non-serious bid, so 3♠ is serious denial in spades, 3NT serious denial in clubs, 4♣ serious denial in diamonds. You can do it in all suits. You are right, when partner is unlimited, there is no room to do everything. As you said, you cannot show a serious hand missing a spade control. 4♦ is an ambiguous bid. It shows either (a) a serious hand possibly missing a spade control that wants partner to ace ask if he has extras. If he has, and does, then you may be missing a spade control but you have the safety of both hands having extras. or (b) a super-serious hand (that wants to ace ask opposite a minimum) that is missing a spade control. (If you were not missing a control you would have ace asked immediately.) Non-serious partner of course now bids 4♥ and you ace ask. However, if he has no spade control he knows you don't, so shows no aces. This method does have a danger of perhaps occasionally getting too high when spades are open, but has the advantage of always allowing cooperative ace asking when both sides have extras that are insufficient on their own. With denial cue bids I am sure you have a problem where you are missing the control under the trump suit. Keeping with hearts as trumps, you bid 4♦, and partner is stuck. If he doesn't have it, he has to bid 4♥ and you stop there OK, but if he has it, but in a minimum hand, what does he do? I guess he replies with his ace response as if you were asking, but you have lost the ability to have cooperative ace asking when both sides have extras that are insufficient on their own. Which is better, an unknown spade control but have the facility of cooperative ace asking, or definite knowledge of controls but no cooperative asking?

No, bypassing others but stopping on the one you don't control is simply called denial cue bids. I like them. My general preference for one-under denial is this, though: When responder has made an unlimited bid, you can be in a mid range where you are too strong for non-serious, but not strong enough to commit to ace asking on your own, if control bidding shows that all suits are guarded. Take a typical 2 over 1 sequence with major suit agreement at 3♥ - both hands are opening values and you have 4 hcp more than you might. If both of you are like this and nobody shows it, you miss slam. But your 16 is not enough to ace ask if responder may be minimum for his bid. 3♠ is non-serious. If you can bid "one-under" a suit where you have a blank, then whatever the suit, if partner bids it, you are home and dry. Say you are xx in diamonds, but have something in the other suits. Over 3♥ you bid 4♣ (serious, showing spades and clubs). Partner obligingly bids 4♦ to show that control. You could of course now bid 4♠ to ask for aces, but you are not really good enough (say scattered values but no solid side suit). You bid 4♥. The fact that you have already shown a serious hand by not bidding 3♠, and the fact that partner knows all the suits are controlled, puts him in a position where he can pass with a minimum hand, but happily ace ask if he has additional values too. Playing straight denial cue bids, I don't think you can do this. (No doubt Zel or some other enthusiast for them will tell me how.)

I never knew psyches like this were taught to beginners. That was the basis of my reply.

Let me pose a counter-question. How many times is 4♥ a sensible contract when you have an opening bid on your left, and a response on your right, giving you an expected maximum 23 count 4-4 fit with a 4-1 break against you? I think 1NT would win on a frequency basis.

I suppose this depends on your agreements. Our simple one is that a NT bid in competition shows stop(s) in the suit bid on your right, not the left. If you had KJxx of the suit on your left, a couple of leads through and it is no stop at all. KJxx of the suit on the right is much better. In this particular sequence as partner is expected to be short in the opening suit and to have something himself in the suit on your right, there is a strong argument that our agreement should not apply, and that 1NT should show something of the suit on your left, not the right. But then, with everything on the wrong side for you, it is probably not a good bid. You are going to get a heart lead through partner, and clubs through you. Sometimes partner doubles with something in opener's suit and can stand the NT, or raise, or just accepts that there is no fit in the other suits so passes as nowhere better to go.

An easy answer : I wouldn't. This is probably why the recommended methods have changed, if they have. However, 1NT/2NT shows good heart stops, and it is possible partner with good hearts in a good hand will bid 2♥/3♥ to suggest hearts as an alternative contract.

I don't see how it matters what method you use in the context Art was talking out, using what is effectively minorwood : "A suggestion for those who use key-card responses to the minor suit slam try". IF you want to stop in 5m, if 4♦ is followed by a 4♥ denial (the worst case) and then 4♠ asks regardless, a reply of 2 steps, 5♣ still allows a Q ask of 5♦. No Q = pass, Q = bid the cheapest K. So what difference 3014 or 4103? In practice, after a missing ace, with partner having a doubleton in the suit and a 2NT open, you would agree that the sign-off will be 5NT rather 5♦. So 5♦ = Q ask, no Q = 5NT, Q = bid the cheapest K.

A nice example, and you are right, it doesn't need any maths. Not sure if my brain can handle the strain, but it is not every hand you need to do this. I must practice. I've always worked out the combinations of 2 cards from 4 as 4*3/2*1 = 6, and I have never noticed the fact that this equals 3+2+1. And 2 from 5 is 5*4/2*1 = 10 = 4+3+2+1. Pretty. I think the trick at the table must be the visualisation/realisation that the chances of QJxx is the same as xx on the other side. I would be tempted to attempt to work out the chance of QJxx being in 4 cards of 6, and get bogged down.

No. The questions are multitudinous, and are not clear. It is a complex situation, and sometimes bidding sequences are impossible to handle unless you have suitably complex (non-beginner) methods. You just have to guess, and punt. "simple, newbie techniques" that you ask for probably do not exist. This is part of the exciting bridge development process. "I can't handle this, let's learn something new". You can't read the Iliad after a one day course in Greek.

4. Perhaps your confusion is because in the similar sequence 1♥ X 2♥ X, this responsive double does not show hearts, but shows a better minor than spades, but can play in spades if partner wants. Over a minor bid and support, the responsive double would show both equal majors, typically 44xx. However, I also play your given sequence as takeout, with equal liking for both suits. I would bid 1NT with hearts.

Of course, there is not much point in 4NT RKCB when looking for a small slam in clubs, as the wrong response will commit you to 6♣ anyway. Unfortunately, beginners don't have enough tools available. The methods taught are not sufficient.

Whenever you forget the system agreements you are liable to get a disaster, and you were let off lightly. It could have easily been a negative score and huge swing. I don't think it matters so much what the agreements are, as much as you both remember them, and mistakes like this aid the memory. If you play quantitative 4NT, I suggest it should not apply when partner has shown a suit. Treat it as ace asking in that suit, so over 4NT show 3 aces. 6♣ is then a reasonable "punt" from partner. There are other methods with partner's hand, but I would not suggest anything else for a beginner. You have slam values if there is a club fit. Transfers over NT interference (not just the stolen X, but all higher calls, too) is a good start, if you normally play transfers over 1NT.

I would add that precisely because of your point 3, a 1♣ light opening in 3rd seat is somewhat safer than a light opening in a major. Having 3 cards in both majors also allows him to pass 1M, so it makes it safer still. Sometimes light openers work, sometimes they don't. You try to strike a balance by experience. I sometimes play with someone who hates light openers (so I don't) and light overcalls (so I will have at least a 10 count) but I don't think that is the right approach.

I see I am the only person who voted for 5♠ Maybe that's why I don't play at the top level, but I have no confidence in getting 4NT down.

Given the methods, I bid (and voted for) 2♦. But I think 2♠ is MUCH better for an initial bid.

In fact it is better than that. Say spades are trumps. When you are playing the normal "bid the suit shows a control" method, you can change to a one-under denial cue bid in all suits, not just clubs. For example, 4♦ necessarily shows both clubs and diamonds, but wants partner to show a control in hearts. Often in this situation the serious hand is open in only one of the suits, and this enables a missing control to be found "naturally" in any suit. It can also be useful where you have controls in all suits, but would really like to know of one in partner's hand to bolster, say, your Axx, before you commit to ace asking. There isn't any confusion if it is consistent with your system. I play a non-serious 3NT which is 3♠ over 3♥ with 3NT as a serious spade cue, and have never had a problem with that. The rest of the system has 1♥ 3♣ and 1♠ 3♦ as weaker Bergen (ie 3M-2), 1♥ 2♠ is GF 4 card support (ie "jacoby" 2M+1), so therefore 3M+1 = non-serious. It enables all the responses to be the same, whether in hearts or spades, in all your methods.

3♥, seems easy. But better to have 2NT weaker than 3, even if only after a 4SF if you want it that way normally. BTW, I don't think it is necessary to limit your hand if you have the agreement that 2NT shows extras, because surely any other bid denies extras.