mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:37, said:
The opener fast arrived at 3NT because we had 32 points at a maximum, so he didn't think we should try a slam.
Then I decided not to bid 5♣ over 3NT because 3NT is almost always better than a 5 of a minor.
Both 6♣ and 6NT were makeable on other tables.
Do you think that, in general, traditional response to 2♣ (where anything other than 2♦ shows at least a good 5-card suit) is better than step responses?
To your last question: yes. But, as with most bridge notions from years ago, there are better mousetraps out there
I currently play a homegrown and quite complex scheme of responses, invented by my partner, but in my other partnership we play a method based on ideas from Fred Gitelman.
2D promises at least an ace or a king and is gf.
2H denies an ace or a king
2S is 8-11 hcp, balanced. Denies a five card major or 6 card minor
2N shows a 5+ major headed by at least 2/3 top honours. Opener can bid 3C on any hand with long clubs or any hand looking for the major. Responder transfers.
3 of a suit shows 6+, one loser suit, no side ace or king.
3N shows AKQJxxx in an unspecified suit (opener always knows what it is…it’s the only suit in which he has no high card)
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari