RichMor

I think remember an example from 'Super' precision where a 3NT response to an opening 1♣ showed some solid 7-card suit. Opener could usually figure it out or could relay with 4♣ to ask. RichM

I think 5♠ should be a specific ask since the bid consumes a lot of space. Best use is probably asking for 2 top Spade honors. Responder can have side suit controls and a source of tricks and some Spade holding like 5 small. 5NT GSF won't work if it asks for top 3 honors. RichM

Well, it's a minimum hand that has not been improved by the bidding. I think the choice is close between pass and double. I would probably pass now and pass again if pard reopens with a double. RichM

I think the double should be takeout and the given hand is not suitable for such action.

Well, they definition isn't unclear, but I agree a lot of people do not know what a HSGT is. Most people without gadgets use natural (long suit) game tries as was the case in the OP and mistakenly call them HSGT. HSGT is asking partner if he can stop three quick losers in the suit. When opener has KQxx in the suit as in the OP case, opener does not need partner's help in THAT suit. Typical holding for opener who uses HSGT is Qxx, Jxx or even xxx or xxxx. Responder accepts HSGT only if he can give a positive answer to the question asked, and the acceptance or rejection has nothing to do with minimums or maximums or anything else than the suit being asked. Positive response is void, singleton, doubleton, Kx (or longer) Ax (or longer), KQx, even QJx. If there is room below three of the agreed suit, responder can sometimes make a "counter offer" in another suit, suggesting values there AND denying the asked-for holding in the HSGT suit at the same time. This is a very good explanation of HSGT and follow ups.

Pass. We can't be -500 against 3♣ :rolleyes:

pass, 2♦, pass - GLP

It's not really that bad. He should be eligible for parole in just 75 years. Hang on Bernie, hang on. :(

If you use a minimum opening rule-of-thumb like: 7 or fewer losers in the LTC, 2.5 or more defensive tricks then hands 1 and 3 are openers and hand 2 is not.

Hmmmm. If the auction went 1♠ -- 2♥ 4♣/♦ wouldn't that sound like a splinter raise of Hearts with shortness in a minor ?

I think many would use 2NT in the sequence 1♥ - (2♠) - 2NT as something other than natural (and non forcing ?) As Fluffy mentions, you can play Rubensohl (transfers). Or you can play some form of good/bad 2NT which distinguishes between direct and delayed Heart raises. So it's hard to say what a 'standard' treatment is among scientific bidders. RichM

South cue bid twice. That was enough, wasn't it. :unsure:

Don't know if I am old school or what, but I think this is a fairly common treatment when we open and the opps make an artificial 2-suited overcall: 1. With defensive values in both of the opps' suits, responder should Pass and then Double the run out. 2. With offensive values, responder should bid or raise. Use 'unusual vs unusual' if you wish. 3. With defensive values in one of the opps' suits, responder should Double. Then opener can Double the run out with defensive values, bid with extra offense, or Pass which is forcing. Responder can then Double or bid. If there is no direct run out as in: 1NT - (2NT) - X - (Pass) Pass - (3m) - ? then responder (who made the initial Double) can Double the delayed run out with a good 3+ or Pass with a weaker holding. Opener now gets another chance to Double or bid. This follows THE LAW pretty much. We Double them at the three level with 5 or more trumps and bid with fewer.

Ken, The para about the 'death hand' is confusing to me, If opener can splinter over a 2♣ response with 5=0=4=4, doesn't responder with 2=4=4=3 knows about a Diamond fit? Thanks, RichM

Good idea, 'Last Train' in competition. How often do we want to introduce a new suit at the 4 level when pard overcalls ?

How about a transfer and then an auto-splinter jump to 4♦. Overcaller can judge the amount of Diamond waste. With the example hand you posted, overcaller can put on the brakes.

That sounds about right as best I remember. Also, I think the 'Sharif 3 Diamonds' was any solid 7-card suit.

I know it's not one bid but 5NT as GSF seems like the way to go. If pard replies 7♣, bid 7NT for all the matchpoints. If pard replies 6♣, then Pass or 6♠ if you think the field will be there. If only one bid allowed then 6♠.

I guess I don't have firm agreements with my partners on this, but I would certainly respond 2♦ with Kxx Axxx AKx Jxx rather than responding 2♣ barring any special understandings. I think with a 3433 hand, I'd be choose to bid my better minor and while I might pick clubs if things were close, I'm certainly not bidding 2♣ on xxx vs 2♦ on AKQ :) I certainly wouldn't call that standard 2/1. Part of the purpose behind responding 2♣ on balanced hands is so 2♦ can always promise a real suit. The hand is similar to one that appeared in an old MSC problem. A small plurality voted for 2♣ but several voted for 2♦. The vote assumed 2NT was a forcing major raise. I have no strong opinion but would generally respond 2♣ with 3=4=3=3 unless the Diamonds were much stronger. RichM

Pass again, which is forcing.

Would you accept "necessary but not sufficient?" Absolutely ! In 'flat world 2.0', learning is a continuous necessity. Even IT geezers like me have to keep up with the technology. But as you say, it's not sufficient. RichM

How did the people who were responsible for the financial mess do out of the financial mess? I.e., did the profit or did they suffer? I think this is a case of misaligned incentives and externalities. They made decisions that made sense for them (I.e., they were rational utility maximizers) but these decisions were horrible for the economy in general and some of the firms they were at. Greed isn't always good and the invisible hand doesn't always make rational self interest lead to good things for everyone. OK, evil is a bad thing. But the point of my post is this, a well educated group of people in an industry sector - finance for example - is not a guarantee of general prosperity and happiness. Friedman seems to assume or imply that all we need to do is ramp up our educational system, stand back, and watch the economy soar. IMO, this assumption should be examined. RichM

Hmmm. Mr. Friedman mentions the current financial disaster and then moves on to bemoan the state of American education. OK. It's all true, I guess. But aren't the bozos who blew up the economy a well-educated bunch; MBAs and other advanced degrees, the best and the brightest, etc. ?

Mostly agree with gnasher's analysis although I would respond with 2♦ instead of 2♣. The auction would develop on the same lines: 1♥ - 2♦ 2♠ - 2NT 3♦ - 3♥ where 3♦ completes opener's pattern and 3♥ shows some support. Responder now knows that the Club Ace is facing shortness and the Diamond suit is facing probable 3-card length. Opener now knows that the KJx in Diamonds is a useful holding facing a decent Diamond suit - something opener would not know if responder had initialy bid 2♣. But who makes a slam try and how ? If opener launches RKCB, before or after some cue bids, the 5♥ response could be the actual hand or: ♠)Axx ♥)JT ♦)AQxx ♣)Kxxx where slam is not so hot. If responder launches RKCB opener's reply could be the actual hand or: ♠AJxx ♥AQxxx ♦)KJx ♣x where again slam is not good. A straight cue bidding approach won't help either facing the alternate hand for responder. If you get there, good for you mate. :rolleyes:

Ron, You can speak for me since you said the same thing I would have said. Josh, Yes sort of. A limit raise by a passed hand shows more shape and a 2NT response by a passed hand shows more strength. Both would deliver good 4-card support or maybe 5-card support. If the opening was on a 4-card suit this gives some protection. If you play Drury as well, then 2♣ shows 3-card or weak 4-card support. Of course this all goes out the window if pard opens dreck in third position. RichM