Lurpoa

You made a very good analysis !

How smart, even down-voting my search for a partner.... What a waste of young energy...... Anyway, I think BWS2001 is a very good directive, and I would very much like to play it with a regular partner. ... Any well documented system ...

♥♥♥One more idea, when the IT-guys calculate the reputation, they should take into account the Reputation and Knowledge of the down or up-voter, by weighting their votes. And to avoid miss-use of the vote, make a correlation of the votes given by each of the persons involved.

♥♥♥ Yes, this is a very good idea. However, I believe the concept of "negative reputation" should be confirmed by several down-votes, on several subjects, by a certain number of people and over a certain laps of time. Reputation should also be confirmed by the person's knowledge of bridge (of which his current ranking is "a" measure"). I am certain the IT-guys here can combine all those things into a solution. Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster, but just to learn something by exchanging ideas, and preferably not getting insulted, but even that is not important..... Therefore, this whole idea of "Reputation" and "down/up voting" might not be so good: it inhibits the exchange of opinions.

♥♥♥ Sorry, didn't notice the 1♣ opening. As said, I would have opened as W with 1♦. But now: 1♦ overcall is OK. No, not a 2♦ overcall, which, will make it impossible to find a 44♠ fit. If over 1♦ partner gets enthousiastic, you can bid 2♦ or pass/support his ♠, depending on bidding style.

3NT is still a possibility. Unlees they are red, and we not (in which case I pass), I would bid 2NT: confirming a good 1NT bid,and indicating the ♦ stopper.

♥ A 2♠ overcall is no good: - the spades are not good enough. - and 2 outside aces , make this simply impossible. 1♠ is the best bid: the lack of honnor points is compensated by the extra-lenght.

♥ No, 2♦ is awfull. And also a vulnerable 3♦ bid is not good. And indeed, 6♦ might be the practical bid in this competitive auction.... On the other side, we might have a grand slam, or might be missing 2 keycards: 4♠ or 4NT is my bid (depending on agreements with parter): at least Partner, will get the message, that we own this hand......even if they further compete with 5♠.

And indeed, I open on the W-hand: 1♦....♥♥♥

All a matter of style....and agreements with partner.... I do not like 2♦, two reasons: - too strong - a fourcard♠. I do not like 1♦: too weak. I will take my chance in a pass.....

♥ Yes, this is also a hand on which, playing support doubles, I would bid 2♠. If I keep silent on this round, my partner will not understand my further bidding, on his possible double or other bid.

How is it possible to downvote an article, wich only asks for an explanation. ?

♥ No doubt: ACBL SAYC: your double is penalty. BWS2001Defaults 2/1: "A double of a natural two- or three-level overcall is negative, of a higher bid is for penalty." Mind that you can easily change those defaults, and that anyway it is best to have them confirmed by the partnership.

♥ I do not think this has anything to do with ACBL SAYC: no support double in SAYC. In BWS2001: yes, in this situation, support double applies. So basically, 2S denies a 3 card support. It also denies the willingness to play 1SX. So probably long ♣ without ♠ stopper, but could be a strong (slam ambitions) GF hand with ♥.

♥ Is it ? Can you elaborate please. Thank you.

♥ Maybe I got your partnership understanding wrong. From your proposal I understood that a 2♦ bid was forcing, and that is was done to discover a possible ♠fit. I wanted to say that that is a little dangerous.... I think it is better to bid directly 2♥, to warn partner that possibly you have a very weak hand in♥. If ♥ do not suit him, but he has a reasonable hand he still can bid 2♠, which is forcing one round, to discover a ♠ fit. With a weak hand he simply passes 2♥, and we stay very low (at the risk of missing a ♠fit): with the 2♦ bid as you proposes you play at least in 3♥....or 3♠... Isn't it ?

Listening to all the comments, yes, agreed. Pass

♥ How nice.... I didn't think about the possiblity of a pass and a 2♦bid if the XX gets passed out. So yes, I agree with your viewpoint: 2♦ direct is a 5card, the delayed 2♦ is only a 4 card, and the lowest of 2, and invites to bid a higher ranking 4card, if not 4-3. This said, comming back to the hand: do we still go for a game try in ♠ after 2♦. I think yes.

♥ ... and that is why every excuse should be good to balance and protect partner.

♥ Difficult decision... Might depend on the state of the match.... Today: 5♠.

♥ Isn't that expecting a little too much from partner ?

♥ Eeast seems to be weak.....did we expect anything else ? It might have been wise to pass, if the vulnerabilities were reveresd. But here we do not want to miss the vulnerable game. So give it one more try: 2♠. Anyway it is not sure that 2♦ is a better contract than 2♠, probably not, even if it was only for the strong hand on the table.

♥ Taking into acount the principle of preparedness, it is good practice to always bid your longest suit first. With longer ♣ and enough strength (...) bid 2♣ and then over 2NT 3♠. So you need at least 12H to do so.

♥ Yes I agree that the best use for that 4♥ bid is an autosplinter. But really that is something your partnership should have agreed upon begore using that sequence.

♥ 2♦. On which I will hear to all probablity: 2♥ Partner show a hand with 5♥s (at least), less than 3♠s and not stong enough for a direct 2♥ bid (we do not play NFB); ie around 8H. On this I will bid 2♠; hopefully he understands this is the end; only with Ax in spades, he could take further action.