[Trinidad]

If it were allowed, I would bid 3.6129445803♠. It isn't, so I like 4♠.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Well Don, I have done a bit of relay counting on this and it seems that when you get rid of invites you can have complete shape resolution by 4D without giving up on any major hand types. See what you think of this...

2S = 5 spades, 4+ minor, 0-3 hearts
==
2N = GF relay *
3C = pass/correct
3D = good hand with hearts
3H = good spade raise

--
2S - 2N
=======
3C = 4+ diamonds, 0-3 clubs (3D = relay (below), 3H = good hand with clubs)
3D = 5 clubs (4D = good hand with diamonds)
... - 3H = relay
... - ... - 3S = 5125
... - ... - 3N = 5215
... - ... - 4C = 5035
... - ... - 4D = 5305
3H = 4 clubs, 1-2 hearts (4D = good hand with diamonds)
... - 3S = relay
... - ... - 3N = 5224
... - ... - 4C = 5134
3S = 5314 (4D = good hand with diamonds)
3N = 5044
4C = 6+ clubs
4D = 6+ diamonds

--
2S - 2N; 3C - 3D
================
3H = 4 diamonds
... - 3S = relay
... - ... - 3N = 5242
... - ... - 4C = 5143
... - ... - 4D = 5341
3S = 5152
3N = 5251
4C = 5053
4D = 5350

A little something else is noticeable with this structure too. Have you ever had the situation where you have a GF responding hand opposite clubs but not diamonds, or vice versa? With this you could actually play 2S - 2NT; 3m - 3S as non-forcing, which would allow you to get out in 3S opposite most shapes from Opener (only not opposite 5224 or 5134). Anyway, that is the reason for the *.

As usual with relay structure you have to think carefully about relay breaks. Here Opener is well enough defined that I think 4m natural is obvious. I would play this as a slam try as per my normal 4m structure (next step declines, others key cards) but I know from your posts that you generally prefer minorwood. Similarly, since heart-based hands will start with 3D you do not need a natural 4H. This could be used similarly as a slam try in spades (4S decline, otherwise show key cards) or you could treat it in the same way as minorwood and use it as a cheap RKCB for spades.

Anyway, have a look over it and see if I missed anything obvious. Otherwise I think the outline of something decent might be in there somewhere...

[gwnn]

 gwnn, on 2011-November-03, 07:07, said:

Dank je wel Rik I ordered it. Chances are I won't read a lot of it but who knows?

This book is quite funny and a little bit biased in favour of the convention it is writing about (surprise, surprise). But that's what I need, now I will slowly forget about my initial suspicions about the unsoundness of Muiderberg (because I am forced to play it, like it or not).

[whereagles]

Vulnerable I find it is slightly unsound, in the the sense that you either do it with unsuitable hands or let it get rusty

[haka9]

 gwnn, on 2011-November-03, 07:08, said:

Yesterday I bid 4♠ after

p-p-2♠-3♥
all vulnerable MP's

with Jxxx xx AQx QTxx, was that ok? I promise I won't post every hand that comes up.

OK to bid 4♠, but I would bid 3♠ any vulnerable MP's.

haka9