Lurpoa

2♣. Risk is to great that this hand will be passed out, if you open 1X.

Your hand is not of much help to partner, if he has a ♦/♣ hand. No I, in the interest of the partnership, I'll go for 4♥. If partner has some toppers in the minors, a 4Major contract in the 5-2 fit should be playable.

3♠. What else George ?

Very usefull considerations...

Yes, a lot has been written on the subject, and systems are built upon it. It is indeed important that you have good agreements with your partner on the subject. Playing SAYC - which has no special guidelines on the subject - I like to handel it as follows. 15H: 1M and rebidding as if I have only 14 (P knows I can have 15) 16H: almost always: 1NT, else to dificult to rebid 17H: 1M and rebidding as if I have 18H.

No, I do not think your hand is good enough for a 2♠ rebid.: without that spade fit, your hand is pretty minimal. Don't you think so. I would simply rebid 2♦ (there is also a point for 2NT, but I do not like that).

Renewing my search....

Right; and part of BWS2001 !

Playing BWS2001 or SAYC: no checkback on a rebid of 2NT. Many variations of WoIf are around, and you should agree with partner on all possible sequences.

Indeed. Wolf (or the improved Parrot) can be very usefull. But as always, they need a lot of agreement with partner on all the possible sequences.....and it's field of application. I like to play those conventions very much, but only with a very, very regular partner, with whom I have discussed a lot.

I play BWS2001; no checkback after a rebid of 2NT. The same goes if I play SAYC. Any reason why you absolutely need checkback here ? Did you take into account the possible disadvantages when agreeing to play checkback ? Maybe you should change your poll: third option, no checkback. Can you do that ?

It is really something you should agree with your partner. If you agreed with partner to play that 3♦ as checkback, you better also agree with her, on the meaning of other bids.

Well, I play BWS2001 (with BART), and in this sequence 3♦ is preemptive to play (Not invitational).

Playing SAYC or BWS2001, or any basic system withour special agreements on those bids: 1, 2, 3rd: always premptive. Contrary to what you say it can done without problems on a 7card, and occasionally on a 6card. Most important is to look at the vulnerabilities and respect the 234 rule. Agreed in 3rd, it can be a little stronger, but try to visualize partner's hand: two questions, (1) are there hands on which I could make four, and partner has no ace or less than 5H: then you must open 4H, but hen why not a 2C opener ? - (2) are ther hands on which I could make 6: partner passed but he can still have 2 aces and K of trumps...... open 1 in this case. In 4th: I can make 4 on my own, 4 exactly and no more or less. I did not open 2C because I have only my color. If partner bid now a new color, it is a control bid, he is trying to find out if his Ks will be working.

bid 4♠ over 3NT. You do not have a sure entry to you spades to play in 3NT.

A typical 4♠ hand I would say. For MP, you can withhold and and bid 3♠: I would not.

1♣ opening is ok. Too strong for 5♣ opener. 2♣ is OK: partner is now warned. 3♣: oh, but I have something !

2♦ can be very weak, and partner with 14H will pass. With that hand, you want to show partner, you have some values..... That is whole dilemma of this hand, and I guess, that is why this treath was started.

2♦ can be very weak. With that ha

Yes indeed, an interesting problem, which you need to discuss with you partner. It all depends on how weak the re-opening double can be. I don't think SAYC or BWS2001 are defining that minimum, but I believe that 10H (2points less, than a direct double) are widely accepted. 10 good points, because the reopener also promesses 2 Defensive tricks, in case you want to convert his double to penalty. So the answers to the balancing double, should be as for a direct double, plus 2 points.. Widely accepted are: 1NT= 9 -12, with stop 2NT= 13-14, with stop cue-bid = at least game intrest and creates a force until a suit is bid twice or gmae is reached. With those agreements: 1NT seems to be the best description.....

Yes, tu; THEY did.

Right !

I don't think the question is "forcing of not ?" , but: does this sequnece show slam-intrest or just a game-going hand, which is not sure if 3NT is the best contract. Tx for your input.

Well, well.... indeed... reading the SAYC boklet, I think you are right. I wasn't really aware of that... and would have corrected with a 44 in the majors. But thinking about it, after the slam-intrest, it cannot hurt, to show the 4card spades too.... at the 3level...it is still possible, responder has 4♠ and 5 or more in his minor.

Over 2♣ your partner has to double. Else you will run into problems. And that is what happened. :)