CamHenry

1♦-1♥ 16+, not GF/0-7 almost any 1N-2♣ 16-19/5-card puppet Keri 2♦-2♠ no 5cM/4♥, not 4♠ 3N . maximum, no 4-card ♥

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: Auction 1: 1♦-1N 16+, not GF/weak-or-slam try, 6+ ♣ to an honour 2N-3♥ Extras, no support/fragment 3♠-4♠ This auction is untidy, and could end up playing 3NT or a club partscore. I think it's a good argument against treating a responding hand this good as a weak takeout: we'll save that feature for Kxxxxxx and out. Auction 2: 1♦-1♥ 16+, not GF/0-7 almost any 1♠-2♠ suit (NF)/support 3♥-4♠ long suit game try/to play An alternative auction if S is feeling pushy is a self-splinter of 4♣, but that still gets a signoff from N.

The second auction did have the 1♠ overcall, but I'd misformatted it. It's because of the overcall that 3♠ is definitely a "let's choose the right game" call. It may agree clubs. I'd need to ask Matt what he thinks would happen here! I think we would not intend to treat the S hand as balanced. There's about a 15% chance that we would do so, based on the singleton being an ace, the weakness of the ♥ suit, and the flattish distribution.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: N may decide to open 1♣ (nebulous), in which case: 1♣-1♠ 10-15, no 5cM, unbalanced/any 15+, establishes a GF 2♣-2♥ Natural, minimum, denies a 4cM/5+cards, natural 3♣-3♠ Still minimum, waiting/showing a stop 3NT To play If N is feeling frisky, he has a 9-11 NT available: 1N-2♦ 9-11 "balanced"/transfer to ♥ 2♥-3♠ No 4-card support/second suit, GF 3NT To play If N passes: P-1♦ 16+, non-GF 1♠-2♣ 8+ almost any/single-suited ♦ OR both majors OR short ♣ 2N-3N Suggestion of NT/to play So any way around, we play 3NT by N.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond A lot here depends on whether S decides to treat the hand as balanced or as two-suited reds. Also, I notice that our system notes are unclear on the start 1♦-1♥-(1♠). If S decides to treat the hand as balanced: 2♣-2♦ Weak 2♦, OR weak both majors, OR GF both majors, OR 20-23 bal/pass-or-correct (weak) 2N-3♣ 20-23 bal/modified 5-card puppet Stayman 3♦-3♥ 3N end If S decides to show both reds: 1♦-1♥-(1♠) 16+, excluding GF/0-7, denying weak takeout 2♦-3♣ Natural, denies a semi-solid 6-card suit/natural, good hand for the 1♥ response 3♠-4♦ Establishes a GF/3-or-5 CPs (A=2, K=1, ♣Q=1) 4♠-6♣ 8+ CPs, second-round ♠ control/To play (no chance of double-counting K/singleton) This auction is a little murky, as it may be that 3♠ asks for a stopper, and it may be that 4♦ agrees diamonds - so this could go wrong. We might play 6♦, for example, which would not be disastrous on these hands but could cause problems on a bad ♣ split.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond 1♦-1♥ 16+ excluding GF / 0-7, no weak takeout 1N-2♥ 17-19 bal / transfer 2♠-3♣ denies 4-card support / GF second suit 4♠ to play

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond This South hand is an absolute minimum, but the fact we've got 6-7 CPs makes it tempting to open 1♦. I'll give both auctions: 1♦-1♠ 16+, excluding GF / 8+ almost any 2♠-2N Single-suited ♣ OR short ♠ OR both reds / relay 3♦-3♥ Both reds, ♥ not longer / suit preference 4♣-4♥ 4,6 or (since we're playing ♥) 7 CPs / signoff If South decides to open 1♥: 1♥-1♠ 10-15, 4+ ♥, possible longer minor / forcing enquiry (typically denies 4♥) 3♦-4♥ Maximum (could be a little worse), 5+♥, 4+♦, ♦ could be longer / To play

South is still unlimited - we tend to be quite cautious about looking for grands since (95% of the time) we are playing in a field where bidding the slam is enough to win IMPs. It's possible that N uses another method to look for slam - 4♦ should be a nebulous slam try, asking for first-round controls - but we would have difficulty locating the ♣Q on any sequence. It's the knowledge that we can't find out that makes us stop in 6.

OK, I've done the first five. No real surprises so far.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: If S treats the hand as balanced: 1♦-1♠ 16+, excluding GF/8+ almost any 1N-2♥ 16-19 balanced/transfer 2♠-3N Denies 4-card support/Choice of games end If S shows shape: 1♦-1♠ 16+, excluding GF/8+ almost any 2♠-2N Single-suited ♣ OR both reds OR short ♠/Relay 3♦-3♥ Both reds, better ♦/♥ preference 3♠-3N Waiting bid/Suggestion of contract It's possible that N would decide to just bid 3NT instead of suggesting the ♥ fit, and it's possible that S would end up bidding 4♥ on this start.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1♠ 16+, excluding GF/8+ almost any 1N-2♣ 17-19 balanced/asking for 5-card major 2♦-2♥ No 5cM/4♠, no statement about ♥ 3N No 4cM, minimum

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: we do have a "spades or both minors" preempt available, but I doubt either of us would open it second in at red on this... heap. So, S opens 1♦: 1♦-1♥ 16+, excluding GF / 0-7, no 6-card suit to an honour 2♠-?? 2♠ here is "almost-GF, single-suited" - much like an Acol 2, but definitely NF. N may pass here, or may try 3♦, in which case: -3♦ showing a suit 5♦-end Anything else is NF, and when N shows diamonds with spade shortage this hand is worth a bid. To be honest, I think 5♦ is resulting and we're more likely to subside in 2♠. It is possible that S decides his hand is worth a GF, though 4 losers is a bit much. In that case the auction runs: 3♥-3♠ Spades, weak or GF / transfer completion 4♣-4♠ 8 or 10 CPs / I don't care, we're not playing slam

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1♠ 16+, excluding GF / 8+ almost any 2♥-2♠ single-suited ♠ OR short ♠ OR both minors / relay 3♦-4N both minors, longer ♦ / RKCB 5♠-6♦ 2 with Q / to play The jump to Keycard is inelegant, but it works because N has such good controls and because S has promised at least 5-4 (and in that case will have quite concentrated values).

OK, here's an auction using our homebrew system. It's currently lacking a name as it's moved away from its old one. 1♦ - 1♠ --- 16+, excluding GF hands / 8+, excluding some immediate slam tries 2♥ - 2♠ --- ♠ single-suited OR short ♠ OR both minors / relay 2NT - 4♣ --- Single-suited option/setting suit, mild slam try (4 or 6 control points) 4♦ - 4♠ --- Mild acceptance (5-6 CPs) / signoff

Though I'm (another) latecomer to this exercise, I do have a question. Matt (mjj29) and I play a strong diamond system, so would it be worth me joining in a later stage? I intend to look at the auctions so far and see what I can learn, in any case. (The reason for the strong diamond rather than club is that we didn't want an intermediate 2♣ opening, and therefore our 1♣ opening needs more room for disambiguation)

For many pairs, passing in this situation is still a penalty pass: "I don't care that responder is showing strength, I reckon we've got them beat". One of the primary arguments in favour of this decision is that otherwise it's all too easy to psych the XX, and make oppo have a very difficult position. Sure, GIB should probably bid 1♥ here as the lesser of evils: but that's a different topic.

The important thing I missed was "both opponents follow to the ♠A". I was addressing the question of what to play at trick 3, not trick 4 - so now I agree with the small spade.

Why small? If spades are 5-0, we're down already but high spade-spade works just as well. If spades are 4-1, we're fine either way; if N (who doubled) has 3 spades and 3 hearts, he will win a small one and give his partner a heart ruff. I think high spade-spade avoids this risk. Is there a layout where it is inferior?

The big question is "do NS play transfer breaks here?". If 3♦ shows a bad hand for diamonds, and 4♣shows clubs with ♦ support, then some slam try in ♦ is an LA. If 4♣ shows its own suit, effectively saying "I don't care that you have ♦, I have great ♣", then a slam try in ♣ is suggested. I agree with your analysis (once I re-read it and understood properly), but I think the premise in this part is imperfect.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa82hatdkj942c752&n=sq9hkj9875daq7c98&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h1s2dp2hp2np3dppp]266|200[/hv] (4-card majors) Obviously a ♥ partscore scores better than ♦, and when you pick up the ♥Q game makes without further difficulty. Unfortunately, we found the lower-scoring partscore so lost a fair few MPs. Who should have bid more strongly? S could support ♥ after the 2♥ rebid; N's 3♦ shows more of a minimum than the hand really is. What should we have done differently?

OK, so there's no clear conclusion here either. We decided that coming in second time round was better, or at least it was what we'd do, but that we'd forgive a 1♦ opening. 2♦ just seemed wrong.

4NT would have been specific aces.

[hv=pc=n&s=sh5dkqj983ckt9843]133|100[/hv] First in, none vul. Would you open this hand, playing 2/1? Playing Acol? If so, would you open 1♦ or 2♦ (weak)? Partner and I decided that it was very marginal, and we got a good result so didn't worry too much, but some opinions from those better qualified than me would be much appreciated!

On further consideration, I rule 9 tricks N/S - it's beyond careless for W to throw the ♦A when the lead is in dummy; it's not beyond careless for E/W to cash their ♦A then two spades, before knocking out the ♥K. This is careless but not grotesque: E could well decide to cash out. I would emphasise the participants' right to appeal here, as E/W could make a case that, after the ♦A and a spade from W, E will find the ♥ switch as his partner is marked with the J.

Remembering the rules about "the most favourable result at all probable", I ask South what his plan was if E had followed suit on the clubs. If he was planning to cash out 3 more club tricks and the ♥K, that's 8 tricks to declarer; the defense have 3 remaining top tricks and it is plausible that they will keep at least one winning heart between them. There is no option even for an idiot squeeze on the run of the clubs. If, however, declarer says he was planning to knock out the ♦A, that establishes three more tricks for him (as the cards lie), but it would be irrational for W not to switch to a spade at that stage. I make it 9 tricks to declarer, as EW take their cards while they're still good.