Lurpoa

Yes, looking for a partner for regular play on BBO. I can adopt to any system (as long as there is a good desciption of it available), but would prefer a 2/1system, and why not BWS2001Defaults. My profile: 929288, if that tells you anything.

2♠ - partner should know that after the 1NT, this can be on slightly shaded values. To bid 2♠ is the more important, that we have the ♠, and opps need now to go to 3level.

Indeed ! Why look for complicated gadgets, on this simple sequence.

Playing BWS2001, there is something called the "principle of slow arriving". So 3NT shows a hand without extras: 12-14(15) H, more or less regular hand, might be single in one of partner's suits. 2NT would show a regular hand, with slam-ambitions

I would not open 1♣ here. You risk a pass.... Your first worry is not to miss a ♣slam, but to reach a possible game contract. That is why 2♣ is a better opener: if not 3NT, a ♣ game or ♥game are not far away.

What do you mean ? SAYC ? BWS2001 ?

SAYC please, KISS please: 3♠ exactly what you have. and if you agreed to play BWS2001Defaults, indeed, I quote: Inresponding to a major-suit opening over an overcall: (a) a double is negative through three spades; (b) two notrump is natural (invitational) and nonforcing (jump ornot); © over a simple overcall, a cue-bid shows a raise withgame-invitational or greater strength, and a jump cue-bid is asplinter (direct jump-raises are preemptive); (d) four-notrump is Key-Card Blackwood (jump or not); (e) a jump-shift ispreemptive.SO ALSO 3♠. This hand is not strong enough for a cue-bid.

4♦ is completely wrong. I would have started with a Negative double (the 5 card, and the ♦fit compensates the lack of HP), and later I can bid 2 or (if needed) 3♦.

What are the vulnerabilites ? At equal vul: I bid 4♠. Parter has a ♥void and should have at least 4card♠ (a bicolore in the minors is a far away possibility). Only if they are vul and we not I would consider a penalty double, and only if I feel we we are ahead in the match.

2♠, no doubt....

Yes, this is a GFhand (ten of ♠ is very helpfull). In BWS2001 1NT, is only semi forcing, and a direct raise or 2NT bid would guarantee a 4card: so 2♣. Playing SAYC, I guess 4♠, although this hand is really maximum,would be the best bid.

small to K, if it holds; 9 from hand, hoping for T, Q or A double if it is taken by A, the 9 hoping for Q double.

K and J from Top, hoping for T double

Playing BWS2001Defaults: After Our Major-Suit Opening ..... a jump-shift shows more than ordinary game-going strength (the equivalent of 16-plus HCP), a substantial suit (at least five-cardlength with at least two of the top three honours), and one of threehand-types: balanced, one-suited, support ..... Passed-Hand Situations: a jump-shift other than threeclubs is a strong raise with length in the suit bid; Very good, and rather frequent sequences......:)

Yes, all very, very valid considerations. But don't we have false problem here ? Both options, approaches, as you call them, are not mutual exclusive. It is just that they belong to different levels of the overall "signalling framework".: - "Signalling what partner needs" is a basic principle and belongs probably to the lowest level of the framework. - While the "formal rules" belongs to the application level and the how (like UDCA....) belong to the implementation level. Note that - and you have touched the subject - "what partner needs" is a problem in itself....

Signalling what partner needs... that is the first thing... No doubt.

Yes, that is a good remark ! With a ♦ stopper and ♥, it looks better to bid NT....else partner has problems if he doesn't have a ♦stopper.

Split ranges are part of BWS2001-defaults I agree with most of the above comments concerning vulnerabilty considerations. The messages is: take care if vulnerable !

3♥ = 4 card, GF, and partner may bid 4♥ if he has 4. My Meta-rule: if a bid can be natural, it is. This interpretation is part of BWS2001. But again, it is the kind of bid that you should have discussed with partner, and without agreement, it is natural.

I would guess that 3♣ shows a good ♠ raise, or is is asking for a stop. If you bid ♥ now, it shows ♥ (normally a 5card) and a good hand (10H or more). It look like a light 1♠ opening or a light 2♣ overcall. In doubt I trust my partner. (later I can always blame him :))

Again a question of partnership agreement. Mainly considerations of vulnerabilty. You must suppose a fit, and the count your "winners". The result: -4 favorable vul, -2 unfavorble.

Right you are. 4♥ of 3♠ depending on methods you agreed with partner.

right you are.... yes 4♥ is our bid.....

3♥ They might have (probly they have) 4♠, let them find it, we do not have 4♥ (unlikely)

Books are written on the subject......:) ... and will be written.... :)