What does a transfer in response to an opening no-trump guarantee in terms of high cards? And how about a Stayman response?

Minnie Mouse, Woodland Hills, Calif.

A transfer shows five cards or more in the implied major, typically six in a minor. (If you don't play minor-suit transfers, ignore this clause!) But it guarantees absolutely NOTHING about high cards! Responder's plan should be to describe his range at the next turn — be it to play, invite to game, or drive to slam. Opener simply obeys the transfer whether he likes it or not, and awaits further information. Some play that Stayman always guarantees an invitation or better; I don't.

I held ♠ J-10-3, ♥ Q-5-3, ♦ A-9-5, ♣ Q-10-3-2, and heard my LHO open one diamond. My partner bid one spade and the next hand bid three diamonds, weak. Should I have raised to three spades, or passed, or doubled?

Lumber Yard, Denver, Colo.

In competition one can be pushed to a single level higher than you intended to bid, but not two levels. Since you would happily have bid two spades over two diamonds, take the push to three spades. For the record, double here shows a good hand, primarily for takeout, perhaps a king better than your actual hand.

What sort of hand should I have expected from my partner when he passed over one diamond on his right, but then doubled when his LHO responded in spades and his RHO raised that suit?

Backed into a Corner, Franklin, Tenn.

Normally, the only hands you pass on initially, then double in a live auction like this (as opposed to an auction where you are balancing after two passes) are those where you are long in the opponents' first-bid suit, short in the suit they have bid and raised. Here a perfect hand would be a 1-4-4-4 shape with 13-plus HCP.

With both sides vulnerable I was dealt ♠ J-10-3, ♥ 5, ♦ A-10-8-6-4-3-2, ♣ Q-4, and elected to open a three-level pre-empt. My partner complained that I should have had a better suit. What do you think?

Frisky, Dover, Del.

Nonvulnerable in first or second seat, and in third seat at any vulnerability, bidding three diamonds seems right. Vulnerable in first seat one might open only two diamonds with such a flawed suit, and in second seat the weak-two seems clearly right (in fact passing would not be totally unreasonable there — though I must admit I am rarely that disciplined).

My partner had the following hand: ♠ K-Q-10-9, ♥ A-J-9-4-3, ♦ 6-5, ♣ 10-4. After three passes she also passed, giving us a below average in an otherwise really good session. Would you open this hand? Knowing the field was not too good, would it make a difference?

Mill Stone, Hoboken, N.J.

Yes I would open — though I might open one spade I admit, to facilitate the rebid. It is very close, but note that it is more tempting to open vulnerable than at favorable vulnerability. The logic is that partner rates to be the one who might pass the 11 count. When the opponents don't bid and are non-vulnerable, they rarely have even moderately good hands anymore.