agumperz

Yes. One of the worst sequences in bridge is: 1NT -- 2♣ 2♦ -- 2NT (invitational with no 4M) ... You have just drawn a road map for a major suit lead. Pass or blast serves you much better than this sequence. If my partner insists on playing this method, I just pass-or-blast without telling them, boycotting this invitational sequence. Here is a simple structure that does not add too much complexity which is better. Stayman is bid with one of these hand types: * weak, three suited, short in clubs (will pass any response) * weak, both majors (will convert 2♦ to 2♥) * one + 4M and inv+ values * exactly 5-spades, unbalanced and exactly inv values. Sequences 1NT -- 2♣ 2♦ -- ? 2♥ = both majors weak 2♠ = 5 spades, unbalanced and invitational 2NT = invitational with one or 2 4M 1NT -- 2♣ 2♥ -- ? 2♠ = 5 spades, unbalanced and invitational 2NT = natural and invitational, 4-spades 1NT -- 2♥ 2♠ -- ? 2NT = balanced and invitational 3X = normal 1NT -- 2♦ 2♥ -- ? 2♠ = 5 hearts, unbalanced invitational 2NT = 5 hearts, balanced and invitational 1NT -- 2♠ = artificial size ask 2NT = min 3♣ = max 2!S is bid either with a balanced invitation, or with clubs (any strength) 1NT -- 2♠ 2NT -- ? P = balanced invite 3♣ = weak with clubs 3X = 6+ clubs, shortness in bid suit and GF 3NT = 6+ clubs, GF, no shortness, mild slam invite. In this structure, you get better invites with hands like: ♠KT9xx, ♥x, ♦Axxx, ♣JTx You can show 5 spades and invitational values in an unbalanced hand. You lose the silly Stayman sequence where you both force partner to show his major shortness and reveal your own while inviting to 3NT on a flat hand. More Complex Alternatives 1. Adopt Puppet Stayman responses to 1NT. 2. Adopt Second round transfers after Jacoby. Both of these are good methods, but require more work.

Has BBO considered adding an Audio feature to teaching tables? I would be delighted if you did. It would be extremely useful for teaching. I suspect many bridge teachers and students would happily pay a moderate hourly charge for audio conferencing at teaching tables.

It could show: * Spades and clubs, GF values, and heart shortness. For example, Jxxxx, --, AQxx, AQJx. (Responder did not fit-jump since his values are in the minors rather than the blacks) * Primary spades and secondary clubs and offer COG: KJxxxx, x, AKx, AJx Andrew Andrew

One problem was your methods. Standard methods don't have enough ways to describe hands after 1H-1S auctions. You could adopt the Gazzilli convention. Playing Gazzilli, opener has an easy 3C rebid promising approx 14-16 HCP and 5-5 or better in the rounded suits. After that descriptive beginning the auction should go smoothly. Playing standard methods, I like 2C better than 2H. Partner is more likely to keep the auction open over 2C than over 2H and it has the side benefit of allowing partner to evaluate more accurately opposite this hand. Finally, as others have commented 4H is a clear overbid. Responder's hand is worth no more than 3H. Andrew

Under normal circumstances the suit would be better, and I don't think the norm has changed. When I suggested 4C, I was improvising a response that I thought was most descriptive and would focus partner on evaluating his cards accurately. A 4C call informs him that his hypothetical club honors are valuable, while his secondary red suit honors are not. Andrew

If you want to adopt better methods after a forcing NT, try Gazilli. I have been very happy with it so far. Andrew

Before the days of keycard blackwood, a raise to 5S in some auctions asked partner to bid slam with good trumps. However, it was a dubious idea then (how many times is it right to drive to the 5-level with weak trumps?) and it is virtually completely unnecessary today now it is easy to ask for the king and queen of trumps via RKC. IMO, 5M calls should virtually always ask for a control in a specific suit. When two side suits have been bid, then 5M asks about the unbid suit. When only one suit has been bid, 5M asks about control of the bid suit. In the actual auction if you were missing a red suit control, you would cuebid 5C or 5D to see if partner can cue the missing control in return. You could make the agreement that 5C by opener asks for a club control instead of showing, but you'd wait a long time before using it again. I would not want to make a special agreement for this specific auction. Its too likely to get forgotten. Andrew

Interesting problem. The hand is well-suited for a scientific bidding approach. If there are two club losers, they are not going anywhere so an unscientific jump to 6S has no chance to score up an unmakable slam on a bad lead. Further, 6C might be a far superior slam, facing something like: xxxx KQx xxx Kxx So I would reject the leap to 6S as a poor choice. I'd start with 1C planning to get both my suits in via a strong JS to 2S. When partner responds 1S, unfortunately, its no longer possible to show a hand this strong. However, at least we can start with a descriptive forcing spade raise of 4C. Auction 1 1C -- 1S 4C! -- 4S 5S! -- 7S 4C = Forcing spade raise with long clubs, normally 6-4 in the blacks 5S = a demand to bid slam if responder controls clubs. 7S = 1st and second club control and Q-fifth of trump. What else can partner need? Over 4C responder should recognize that he has a fine hand for slam purposes, but a 5C cuebid would be too rich. Opener might hold: AKJx, x Kx, KQJTxx. Opener will continue with 5S which show first round control of both reds and excellent trumps. This is a demand to bid slam if responder can control clubs. Holding the 5th spade plus first and second round club control responder can bid the grand. Here is an alternative auction starting with 2C: Auction 2 2C -- 2D 3C -- 3S 5S! -- 7S 5S = bid slam with a club control Either auction would get you to a marginal slam opposite: xxxxx Kxx KQxx x But I think the odds favor the aggressive 5S bid. Andrew