Jinksy

It seems like the question is one about meta-agreements. Presumably (but not necessarily) meta-agreements for redoubles, in which case mine would be 'XX is for blood if it can be' - which to me would normally be up to the three level (though wank seemed to be claiming in another thread that was a level too high), but here it obviously can.

The chance of a ruff must be small with 10 cards between the suits. You also have the layout I mentioned above, and another small chance I just thought of - finding P with 3622 and an opp showing out on a ruff of the third ♦, marking the S finesse. At MP 7N is prob better in a strong room, but most of the time I bid MP grands, I prefer to bid the one I'm most likely to make.

P has denied the Q♠.

Btw, maybe I'm channeling mikeh, but why did I blast RKCB if I didn't know what I was going to do over all the responses? I seem to have given up a bunch of cueing room, and whateever 3N might have been. On this bidding I deserve to hear 5♠ over 4N when he has AQx KJxxxxx Q Jx.

I'm bidding 7♥ to cover against the possibility of his AK♣ being doubleton. The tiny risk of a first round ruff is surely outweighed by the chance that he's 1642, and we have a ruffing finesse for the contract. ETA: We might also gain if he's 2632 with Jxx in Ds. I think then it's better odds than a straight finesse to play to drop the QS in three rounds of the suit then try to squeeze E in the pointy suits if it doesn't show up.

Another option is to put HCP maxes with 45 dist through something like Gazzilli, and save reverses to show specifically this dist. We've been trying it for a while, and while I was wary that we'd be overloading the Gazz bid as a result, so far it hasn't caused any problems - and is obviously a lifesaver whenever you do get a 5-6.

Tough hands. I seriously doubt we have the power to make 3N, so I'm not bothering about stop asks. I'll opt for 4♣ on the grounds that it's the best description, and everything from now on must be NF. P can pass, correct to 4♦, try 4♠ with a decent 5-card suit, or raise me to 5m, and I'll pass any of the above. Not at all confident about it, though.

Both systems are in common use throughout the world, so tell us little about where they were playing, and still less about the opponents' system, which matters more here. Jumping from that statement to the idea that the alleged North American standard should be the OP's seems presumptuous to me.

True, but the words 'in North America' were equally unhelpful. OP never mentioned their location (and we still don't know what the opps' system was). I also don't know what value the subset of regular tournament players has. They're still a hefty minority. At least appealing to experts gives you some inkling of what the optimal system might be. Tournament players come with too much random noise to provide much evidence for anything.

I very much dislike conflating 'standard' and 'standard expert treatment'. In this country, you'll find 2♦ as a Benji bid is possibly the closest thing we have to a standard bid of 2♦, and 2N in response to partner's 1N very much has a standard meaning (esp without discussion) of 'inviting 3N'. But I doubt you'll find any top pairs playing the former, and very few playing the latter. 'Standard expert treatment' is irrelevant to this thread. The OP's partner's assertion was effectively 'so many regular players play it my way that you made a mistake by not understanding it that way'. The honest/humbler response is to recognise that with so many different systems around, and no easily accessible authoritative respository of bids labelled as 'standard', there's no such thing - and therefore that each time P make a misinterpretable bid, he's taking a risk that you're on the same wavelength. That might be a deliberate calculated risk if he's aware of different interpretations and either expects you to share his or thinks he'll be able to scramble something sensible if you don't, or an accidental risk if he didn't even realise you might take it differently (as in the OP). In neither case is it helpful for you (or anyone else) to assert any standard. You can most helpfully tell him how you understood it, clarify with him what it will mean if it comes up again, and perhaps tell him that in your experience, most people play it your way without discussion, so he can update his future priors. The whole concept of 'standard' seems like a cheap way to seek a moral highground when partnership understanding has come off the rails.

Good point. N has an easy 3N. But S has no business bidding 3♦ and giving him the chance.

I think quantitative, because you have other ways of agreeing ♠s, and you're a limited hand opposite unlimited, so don't want to captain unnecessarily. You could have rebid 3N instead of 3♣, or 4♣ directly, or 4♣ over 3♦, so your hand can't be that single-suited, which makes 4♣ now a ♠ cue in my book. If you wanted to support ♦s, you could have done so a round earlier, so I think 4♦ now would also be a ♠ cue (though less confident about this than the two surrounding bids). 4♥ is obviously not natural. Even if you think 4m should be natural, that would surely make 4♥ some sort of Last Trainy bid, so you're covered for all hands except semi-fitting maxes. If it were RKCB, I think it would be a huge overbid, since P hasn't promised any source of tricks, just a hand with (at least) enough values to scrape for game. As quant, I think it's better, but still too much for me. Your sources of tricks look likely to be beset by entry problems. P likely has a stiff ♣ or worse opposite. He might not even have a sixth ♠ if he wants to keep 3N in the picture. The only plausible slam looks like 6♣, but if P's not strong enough to bid over 3N himself, that's probably no better than on a ♥ finesse and possibly much worse. It being a BBO random doesn't help, but I'll bid 3N and hope S can recover from completely misbidding his hand thus far.

Few systems that date back over 40 years can now be described as 'very standard'. Without discussion, I would have taken it the same way the OP meant it. Also it has nothing to do with Standard American or 2/1. The opponents have opened, so your system is all off except where you've agreed otherwise. More relevant than what you play is what they play - if they were playing 4cm and a strong NT, 3♣ preemptive seems pretty bent. If they're playing strong NT and 1♣ as any balanced, it seems like a pretty sensible choice. Anywhere in the middle is partnership agreement or, without discussion, partnership prayer.

If you bid it that way, why can't south bid 6♦ over 6♣ saying 'pick a different slam'?

Ok. *Ragh, spit! spit!* S's hand doesn't seem anything like a GF to me, unless you guys have exceptionally sound openings (1950s style 13+ would maybe do it). Then 3N seems not to acheive much except preempting partner. There's a good chance he's got shortage opposite, esp if 3♣ showed extra distribution, so why not explore other options while you have room? I don't like [3h] without an honour, but I think it's better than committing to 3N with Qxxx opposite x as your stop in the marked suit. Alternatively, if you play 3♠ as natural in a GF, you could try that. Even 3♦ might work, since your suit's pretty meaty. After 4♦ in the actual auction, 4N looks pretty crusty. Given that you're a bare minimum for this alleged GF and P's just shown that your Q♠ is wasted, I don't see much value in suddenly captaining and (presumably) planning to drag the level up to 6 if P shows up with 2KCs. Lastly, I don't much like the 5N response, which to me shows a void you expect to be doing something useful. Given S's earlier 3N bid, there's every chance he has KJxx or similar in the suit. If so he probably has a few extras to have pushed for slam like this, but that doesn't suddenly make your void a major asset, esp in a hand with only 3 trumps, 2 of them honours. Sure, honest KC count takes you to slam anyway, but there's no point in showing the void except if you think grand might be on, which looks remote here. Meanwhile, it might give the opps crucial info about the opening lead.

How you bid these surely depends heavily on partnership agreements about strength of reverse, continuations etc. I would fidget and probably open the N hand 1♣. Then who knows? My best first effort: 1♣ 1♠ 2♥* 3♣** 3♦*** 4♦ 5♣ 5♦ Pass * Yuck. I'm hoping to have the playing strength to back it up as long as he doesn't rebid ♠s. If I didn't plan to rebid this, I don't know why I opened 1♣. ** Showing ♦s. *** Min, NF. Not happy with any of this. So maybe what I should learn from that is to open 1♥ on the N hand after all. Then: 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦* 3♣ 3♦ 3N** 4♥ Pass * GF ** Stuck for anything sane; Hamman's law I guess it's a better MP contract, probably a better contract even at IMPs.

Didn't notice this bit initially. If you open 4♥ and 4♠ comes back around to you, will you bid five?

I've already said, and at least one of the forum's strongest players has corroborated that X is not a command. I cannot imagine a clearer pull than the N hand.

We're a little high for mandatory patterning out. South needs to make a decision about whether it looks more likely (and by how much) that your game is making or that theirs is going off. With two bullets, the king of their suit, several quick losers and shortage in P's first suit, I think it looks clear.

I'm not sure why I opened this 1♥ - I won't be happy whether it's passed out or whether people start bidding. Third in 4♥ looks more plausible. 5♥ also tempting, and I certainly prefer it to 1.

100% to N. All of S's calls seem reasonable to me, not sure I like any of N's: 1) 1♦ - too aggressive for me on this aceless hand. I prefer both 2♦ and pass, though I don't think 1♦ is awful. 2) 2♠ depends on your forcing pass agreements. 3) P's X is a suggestion, not a command. This has approx 0 defensive tricks, rather than the 2-ish P might expect, and excellent support for P's primary suit. 4N as two places to play looks right having got this far. S will bid 5♣, which GiB will probably make and mortals will prob go off in, but prob not by more than 2 (and maybe undoubled).

At IMPs a ♠ lead stands out a mile. At MPs I consider a more passive ♥ lead, then probably lead a ♠ anyway.

As far as I can see, competing aggressively should have lower expectation the stronger you are (relative to the field), and aggressive constructive bidding the reverse. That doesn't imply that either is necessarily a good/bad idea on any strength disparity, but does leave room for people's 'boasts' to be honestly based on a different set of premises than those someone as strong as you would start from. That doesn't apply to me, of course - I just bid aggressively to impress the ladies.

Is the NT system described somewhere? I saw some tips at the top, but mostly was just guessing both at my own bids and his.

I'm confused by this one. I don't see info on what continuations we're using, so I tried 3♦, which landed us in a cold 3N. Are we supposed to bid to 6♣ somehow?