barryallen

I do something like this, but instead of 2S being 8+ with a good suit, it is 8+ with a balanced hand. This works well when opener has an unbalanced hand because he knows immediately that, not only does responder have substantial values, he also knows that responder has some support for opener's long suit. When opener has a balanced hand the 2S bid has no real impact (versus, say, playing 2S as a natural positive). My (extensive, subjective, and possibly biased) experience playing these methods suggests that 2H negative and 2S as a balanced positive are both good things. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com thank you, Why select 8+ for your positive balanced 2♠ response? And what are your direct 3 of a suit responses over 2♣?

That was what I was trying to refer to with If having any A+K means slam is more or less guaranteed, then I suppose yes. But do you really want to restrict yourself to hands where any A+K combination guarantees slam?

I seem to recall that K-S used control showing responses to a strong 2♣ opening. Aces Scientific might have as well. (Obviously, both systems are a bit long of tooth) That is correct at least in Kaplan-Sheinwold Revisited: 2♦ = 0-3 points, If 3, not a king. 2♥ = 3-4 points, Not 2 kings or an ace. 2♠ = 2 controls, A=2, K=1 2NT = 3 kings 3♣ = 1 ace and 1 king 3♦ = 4 controls etc. thank you, but that was exactly the type of system I was running so hard from. If having any A+K means slam is more or less guaranteed, then I suppose yes. But hearing 3♣ from partner when I am about to bid ♠ may not be totally constructive in getting us to the correct position.

♣ or A♦ depending upon whether I feel we should be active or not. Tend to favour the ♣ with no inclination.

If you are trying to get the contract down, your chances have just diminished with the ♥K. I would plump for the ♠J only to find out a ♦ works best.

To offset your trump quality, any quality you do hold in trumps will be positioned correctly? And it's difficult to see much wasted in diamonds. I think this one is close and the bid would be down to the scoring system

I would lead a club every time, more than likely wrong or the question would not have been asked. If declarer happens to be 54 a good chance of getting a plus score if we can restrict the ruffing. Finding it hard to see the diamonds disappearing, which just keeps coming back to a club.

Don't dismiss control showing responses to 2♣. In competent hands, control responses can be quite good. Hence the reason that many strong club systems use control showing responses over 1♣ openings. Point showing step responses are a beginner's crutch. The big difference with something like precision, is normally opener goes into control asking once definition from partner has been obtained or not required. Precision is so good for slams because it saves so much space and allows full definition with these asking bids. When you start off with 2♣, the control response, you can be eating up your bidding space without a fit up to the 4 level and without knowledge of where the control responses are! I don't know of any top pairs that use control responses to 2♣ but would certainly like to look at any that do, or any such system which is an improvement.

When you make the 3♦ bid it is obvious the stifling effect this can have. A simple 2♣ forcing will get the job done if your system permits. These type of hands are always a problem and I have lost count of the number of times I have seen a careful sequence of bids gaining very little and doing more to direct the opposition than gain yourself. At MP's it can easily lead to a poor result and with the layout of these cards it would not surprise me of many 3NT contracts making.

The ability of the top pairs to extract a penalty from sometimes unclear / marginal situations over a weak NT never ceases to amaze me. But you do not have to go far down that ladder to find that no longer to be true. If you don't use a penalty double the weak NT opener has all the benefits without any real negative, but it cannot regularly pay without a disciplined and comprehensive structure.

♥ with the intention of switching to a ♠ at trick 2.

:) Then holding ♣QJ87xx, seeing the fall of the 10 and the significance of the question, should readily stop any further club. Picking up a convention card and looking through it could be interpreted in a similar manner, but at least that is watered down by the possibility of looking at the nature of an over call, signals or the failure to make a bid.

An alternative question would be "what do you lead from QJ10". Now according to your theory this would tell the opening lead that his partner held the 10, putting declarer at a disadvantage which would gladly have been taken advantage of with a different layout of the cards, as already seen. If the opponents have a full description of their leads on their card, case over and adjust the score as you say. The question of what would be led from QJ9xx relates to the use of coded 9's and 10's. You can comment that maybe this should be phrased better, but we have already gone over one possible pitfall of one different line. This is an unfortunate sequence of events starting from the selection of the lead, the subsequent fall of the 10 and the nature of declarers question. Anyone who believes this to be a deliberate attempt to deceive must go through life without closing an eyelid and why I would put the decision down to what the opposition have marked on their card / notes under leads. A description that fully covers the lead of the Q and declarer does not have a leg to stand on, because this situation should then never have arisen. Without that description I would readily give declarer the benefit of the small doubt that exists.

I agree. I don't really understand the 3♣ bid. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the 3♣ bid, a subsequent 4♥ bid over 3NT should make this relatively easy?

hardly partner did have a stiff T after all. ;) Who is at fault here? declarer for asking the question or the opposition for trying to take advantage of the question? The very fact that question was asked prior to any other cards being played would only lead me to believe this was more in line with the use of coded 9 or 10's. The fault here lies with not having a full written description of leads, something that can be easily passed to the declarer with no questions required. If anyone were to pose the ethics of the situation, I would lay this squarely on the opening leader for trying to take advantage of the situation. Only mitigated if a full description of your leads were available. Because an obvious inference has been made in trying to take advantage of the situation, otherwise why behave as if your nose had been put out of joint? Just to underline the whole absurdity of declarers plot, he has to mind meld with the opposition to identify the Q was led from QJxxxx (whilst holding 4 and dummy 2) and that his partner held the singleton 10 for this devious plan to bear fruit. Furthermore the fact the question was asked, whilst holding 6, would suggest that declarer has options and that the probability of the 10 being a singleton has increased significantly. Any TD worth his salt would have a wry little smile and suggest a chat at the bar after the session.

That probably isn't playable, unless you also play that 1D-1H-2C-P 2D could be on 4 (and is the catch-all rebid for opener when he can't rebid 2N). A better approach is to rebid 2NT on all weak notrumps that don't have five diamonds or club support. Then 2♦ can promise five, 2♠ can promise shape and extras, and 3♣ can promise real support. The downside is that sometime we reach 2NT without a heart stop, but when they haven't raised hearts that's a fairly rare occurrence. In any case, I don't see how it helps to be able to rebid 2♠ on a 4342 13-count. If responder doesn't have six clubs, doesn't have enough for game, and doesn't have a heart stop, what is he supposed to bid? Whatever he does, I don't see why that should be better than being in 2NT from opener's side. I would not play 2♣ in that sequence as GF. As such, you then have the additional bid of PASS as part of your descriptive responses? I am curious for anyone bidding 3♥ over the original sequence as to how they differentiate between a partial and full stop?

The question I was posing was who should be in charge of this slam investigation? Because I find it difficult to visualise being able to fully describe this hand sufficiently to partner? So the question of hiding the ♠ suit then has less significance? That said, I am in favour of your position but do not believe it is totally clear cut. The one thing I strongly disagree with is what openers hand actually was, this is totally irrelevant.

Your auction shows that "fair" Diam 5 card suit and keeps the Sp suit a "secret" for the moment. Is this a case of giving or receiving information?

The big negative to this is that partner may have to make a decision based upon zero information. I would always bid 2♥ in this situation giving full clarity at the earliest opportunity, so partner can make any decision informed. The trouble is that standard methods don't differentiate between offensive hands and defensive hands. If you are going to support in exactly the same way on ♠xxx ♥QJx ♦Kx ♣QJxxx and ♠KJx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AJxxx partner is hardly in a great position to make a correct decision if LHO bids Whereas passing on the first, intending to support later, and supporting immediately on the second, allows us to differentiate; which in turn allow us to make the correct final decision more often. I fully agree that the concept of being able to describe a variety of shapes and points in support of partner is available. What I am questioning is whether it is wise to hide a strong raise to 2 of his suit and the ensuing problems it can subsequently cause? I just cannot see the logic standing up! If pass showed that bid alone then there is no issue, but that is not what you are saying is it? You have no idea of partners strength and shape beyond a certain point, but you can give partner a very good idea of your hand for him to make any subsequent decisions with a degree of accuracy?

The big negative to this is that partner may have to make a decision based upon zero information. I would always bid 2♥ in this situation giving full clarity at the earliest opportunity, so partner can make any decision informed. As for reversing the 2♥/2♠ meaning I am struggling with the logic in this situation. Surely better to put the natural block in immediately when the opposition may be unsure of their combined strength?

Unlike many I prefer nfb's and in situations such as these would try and differentiate between sign off and forcing. Having 3♣ available as a force would allow me 3♥ as weak 2 card support and partner requiring more than shown to be comfortable to proceed to game.

Out of interest, given the original hand of [hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxxdj10xcakjxx]133|100|[/hv] with minor point / shape changes to the non spade suits, would any change their position regarding a 1NT or 2♠ response?

Agree with the 2NT over 2♠, but that is not the position we find ourselves in and it comes down to 3NT or 4♠. 3NT has the benefit of being 1 trick less but there may communication problems. The only problems I can envisage would be because opener is weaker than advertised but greater shape, that being the case 3NT would get pulled so I do not see a down side to 3NT?

Normally I use the 5 of an agreed major as small slam force with the following steps when partner has first introduced the suit. pass: does not hold 2 of the top 3 honours 5NT: 2 of top 3 honours, no additional length than already inferred 6♣: 2 of top 3 honours, additional length 6♦: 3 of top 3 honours, no additional length than already inferred 6♥: 3 of top 3 honours, additional length 6♠: 3 of top 3 honours, additional length, + I don't know why, but have never considered the response over a NT opening and it's subsequent permutations. I suppose retaining the 5NT bid as 2 of top 3, all suit bids showing a second suit with AKQ of trumps and direct raise to 6 showing AKQ with no side suit worthy of mention. With no agreement any step forward will lead us to a small slam, so 5NT looks as good as any with a maximum, giving partner that bit of space if he requires. But with no agreement and outside aces, I cannot see this going past 6♠ and that is what I would bid.

So having overstated his hand by bidding 2♣, opener now takes control and drives slam? As played in England, 3♠ doesn't promise the earth: xxx xxx Kxx Axxx would be sufficient, and slam is hopeless opposite that. Against that, xxx Qxx xxx Axxx would probably not be worth 3♠, and slam is cold. Those examples, not unsurprisingly, tell us that Blackwood isn't the answer. If you start with 2♣, a possible sequence is: 2♣ - 2♦ 2♠ - 3♠ 4♥ - 4NT (4♥ really should be a second suit here) 5♠ - 5NT (opener knows of a ten-card fit, so shows ♠Q) 6♥ - 7NT (6♥ = ♥K) Responder, knowing of seven spades opposite, can count 13 tricks. If you are playing this system I do not feel opening 2♣ is a poor choice, maybe not the best example. The original Acol 2 would normally be far stronger but I don't believe it would come as a big surprise for anyone to open this one today? Would agree that the 4♥ bid would represent a second suit completing the picture, as opener has the opportunity to bid 3NT or possibility of 4♣ to get things rolling. Once you get that 4♥ bid it gives you a very good picture of openers hand and you would expect to find that length in the ♠ and the ♥ suit headed by the AK, given your holding. Once you get that 4♥ bid and what that signifies, either partner should be capable of seeing this to 7?