At the very least, they need to work on the presentation. I have thought a little more about tis. Here is an example:
1
- 1
- 2NT - 3
- 3
- 3NT.
We look at what was bid and what was nor bid and try to guess/infer what is going on. Over 3
, opener could/would have bid 3
so if responder has five spades he has no worries now about missing the spade fit. Over 3
, responder could have bid 3
. Now that's a little trick since we see "opener bids three diamonds unless he has three-card support for responder's major (responder's next bid up to and including three of his original suit is nonforcing; otherwise, responder's next bid is a signoff if that is possible; otherwise, it is a choice of games if that is possible", so I guess 3 !h is non-forcing. But is it really? If opener has four hearts his hand just got better, surely he wants to raise to 4
, and if he does not have four hearts I think he wants to get out of hearts. With Hx in spades I think 3
is plausible, responder knows he does not have three spades. So I think some sequences that could be noon-forcing really could be seen as forcing. They could clear this up. And now, after 1
- 1
- 2NT - 3
- 3
- 3NT, might they wish to be in 5m or 6m? Not if m is
. If responder has a
fit along with five spades, it could have begun 1
- 1
- 2NT - 3
. Opener can still bid his three spades if he has them. But what does responder do if he has clubs? Well, if the hand is strong enough so that they might want to be in6
, he could have started with 1
- 2
if he holds, say, a 4=2=2=5 shape. And otherwise, I think that they just forget about clubs.
That's the best I can do. But really I don't know what they are saying. The plan might be fine, but the exposition leaves me confused.