Lurpoa

Very interesting what you are saying here.... Maybe this should lead to a review of standards methods under SAYC or BWS. To me, playing SAYC or BWS2001, opening 4♥ on such a hand, is putting the partnership under pressure...Maybe not so much for the possible slam miss, but more on the decision whether to defend or sacrifice. This said, you might be 100%right: Did you publish your analysis ?

too strong for a 1♥ opening ! the 4♥rebid is limit, but should be tried - certainly for IMPS.

I think we all agree on this one.

without fit for P's colors, you can bid 2NT, even if you do not have a stopper ♣ AND no 5card ♠. and as fas a I know ACOL, you can do that too in ACOL. 2NT just shwos a weak hand, and P can pass it, if stronger you have to bid 4SuitForcing or jump to 3NT. That is the whole power of limit bidding in ACOL.

Playing SAYC or BWS2001: 4♥ . Partner knows that it is not based on a superhand, but more on distributional values. Anyway, partner is now captain and decides on any further action.

1♥. .... cannot see anything else (playing SAYC or BWS2001)

Playing BWS2001Defaults: QUOTE: In reopening-position, a one-notrump overcall shows 10-14 (by a passed hand, 10 to a maximum non-opening), a two-notrump overcall 18-19, regardless of the suit opened. UNQUOTE In SAYC, a balancing 1NT shows 10-15. So logically: 2NT=19-20.

Pass: what is wrong with that ! If I bid on this hand, what should I do on a stonger hand: like 5♠ from the king. No, in the intrest of the partnership: pass. I trust partner to come up with something....if he has some values.

I am not really familiar with GIB. (BTW: this is a SAYC and 2/1 Forum - there is another forum with more GIB experience) Playing SAYC or BWS2001: I would say that the 2♠ rebid would promess 4♠ and 5♥, and is 1round forcing (no, I cannot find any arguments, that this should be GF)

I agree with Elianna. 2NT is invitational (with less than 2 hearts): partner passes or bid 3 or 4♥.

No , no difference. But there are many versions of 2/1 around. I was referring to BWS2001, and other versions might have specific agreement on this 4th suit sequence. In BWS2001, it is by default natural.

You have a rather good point there... Rebidding ♥ will ensure finding the ♥ fit. And if you agree with partner that on any 5♠-4♥ hands you rebid ♥, it certainly is not a bad agreement, but it should be discussed. But doing it like that, you must be aware that there are also I few disavantages: 1. A 4♥ contract after this sequence is anyway rather improbable (not impossible), and if partner rebids 3♥ (which he should do, on 8HP (or more)), you might already be one too high. 2. You miss the save haven of a 2 or 3 ♦ contract in a 4-4 fit. It is all a question of bidding style, and I do not want to judge too much. I was only giving my understanding of what is written down in the SAYC booklet or in the BWStandard. I would be happy to hear other real arguments (that is why I am on this forum) and broaden my understanding of BWS2001.

Right.... with any 5 4 4, always rebid your lowest 4card. As said, naming the other color later, is natural (playing BWS2001Defaults or SAYC). And I agree, you can give all kind of meanings to that 3H bid (I like: half a stopper). But this would need agreement with your partner. Anyway make sure, you agree with your partner on the meaning of those 4th-suit sequences.

Playing BWS2001Defaults, there is no doubt: 3♥ is natural: opener has a 5♠-4♥-4♦ (and I guess, not to weakish: 13+-14-15H, else would pass 3♣). What is impossible to that ! Besides, why should it not be like that.... And I believe that playing SAYC, it is the same: in SAYC there is no such thing as a 4thcolor by opener. All this said, I believe that you should discuss and agree this with partner.

May I repeat this once more ? I am ready to play almost anything, provided you give me a consistent outline, if not a full description of your system. ... and have lots of time, bewen ow and end of april.

No, no adventures. With 3♠ I told what I had.....and partner is not interested in GS exploration....

No, cannot see any reason, to get in there.

Never doubt Mr Eric Rodwell !!! But are you sure, you read well....and understand it correctly ? What did he write exactly ?

Oh, Indeed. Was too quick to answer... didn't read the question carefully... Sorry. A good question ! And indeed you need to agree this with your partner. BWS2001 makes following suggestions: QUOTE Actions in sandwich position: Over an opposing opening bid and one-over-one response: (a) one notrump, two or more of opener's suit, or two of responder's suit is natural; (B) two notrump shows the unbid suits; © three of responder's suit asks for a stopper in that suit for three notrump (suggesting a solid suit elsewhere). Over an opposing opening and one-notrump response: (a) double is takeout of opener's suit; (B) a two-level cue-bid is similar to that bid directly over the opening bid; © two notrump shows the two lowest unbid suits. Over an opposing opening and two-over-one response: (a) a cue-bid in opener's suit or two notrump is takeout; (B) a cue-bid in responder's suit is natural. UNQUOTE I think those are very sound defaults, and I would like to recommend them to any partnership.

Playing BWS2001Defaults, it certainly is Michaels. I quote: An unpassed-hand's cue-bid in opener's suit, in either direct or reopening position, shows either a weakish or a very strong hand with (a) both majors if the cue-bid is in a minor, or (B) the unbid major and an unspecified minor if the cue-bid is in a major. The same bid by a passed hand shows a strength range consistent with security and the initial pass. end Quote. Playing ACBL SAYC ... It is less explicit.... Without specific agreement, I would asume yes..... One more thing that ACBL should specify in their next update of SAYC. Same for UNT. :rolleyes:

Certainly. 18-19H , regular, good stoppers. Ideally: - favorable vulnerability, - rather long in ♦, trap pass from P is unlikely., neither a fit in the blacks. In that case Double is NO GOOD. I do not like it particulary, but neither do I like pass....

Indeed, very, very good... I enjoyed... A I did Fred's lesson. Please, please, more of this. Is there an aechive of those lessons ?

well, wouldn't blaim, my partner if he passes. Yes, it is tough... It is important to have the same understanding as partner, and do always the same thing... Why Hugh Kelsey ?

2♠ sounds rather minimum. Nevertheless, I will almost always rebid 2NT (might depend, on state of match and colors): not really to play there, bit to give parter the option between 3 or 4 ♠. I don't really expect him to bid a 3 card ♥, but you never know......

2♥. I know that my partner with 2♠&3♥ will give preference to ♠, if it was only to keep the bidding open, and with 4♥ and a non-minimum hand he will bid 3♥.