Lurpoa

I see no reason to be agressive here.... not yet... So ♣. Which one, will depend on partnership agreements.

There is something to say for a revision ! Personnally I like the docucment a lot. It covers a wide range of bidding sequences and I like to check my bidding against the BWS2001 defaults. To me it is a measure on how sound my systems are. I have made a BBO-CC of it and defined it as my Preferred system. The problem (:) )is that nobody plays that system... It would be nice to revive it, by a new group of experts. At least some of grey areas could be solved, or better explicited. I have some notes (defining doubtfull sequence), which could be helpfull. A sine qua non for a revision is the involvement of BWS, or that they transfer ownership to some other body, with enough weight, to "impose" the revision. NB: By the way, could we have this Discussion under "2/1 and SAYC" not here under "General".

I voted zero. Which doesn't mean I will always leave it in. By the way: the less spades I have, the more partner "could" have, the more reason to leave the double in. The fact he did bid 1NT, limits his hand. I will count him for 3 sure tricks. I will need 2.5 quick tricks to leave it in. This would be the case on a normal opening. However if my opening was weak, but distributional, I will bid. could this be called a DSIP double ? Cooperative ? The question I ask mysel here: if this is for IMPS: is that double really usefull ? Maybe if they are vul, yes. (DSIP=Do Something Intelligent Partner).

Indeed the system doesn't matter: 1♠. All other bids are worse.:)

Playing SAYC: 3♣ Playing BWS200 (includes, inverted minors: 2♣. 3NT cannot be far away, hopefully, P can rebid NT...

My "meta-rule": Double is for penalty if Either of us has made an earlier penalty double (or a penalty pass of a takeout double).

That is a very good point you are making there. Yes, it is a matter of bidding style. Make sure you and partner have the same understandings !

on BBO: no doubt for me, I assume ACBL SAYC. Nothing else.

4♥. No adventures: partner need too much....

Sorry, could you explain ? From my point of view 4♦ is a delayed support: why did I first bid ♣, if if was not that I am too strong for a 3♦ bid. I guess you even could play this as limit.... but I wouldn't dare to pass this with an occasional partner. On the other side4♣: partner, I have a reasonable hand with long ♣....and (depending on what a 3♠bid would mean in your system): I do not like an NT contract.

Yes please, contact me... I am ready to play almost anything, provided you give me a consistent outline, if not a full description of your system.

I think those messges come sometimes a little quick. What is the exaxt timing ? I think it could be usefull to set up a utility for short leaves, with the possibility to leave a message "will be back at XX.XX", so partner know you will be back before your tournament starts, and are not sitting death in front of your computer.

For those who double, for as far as you have clear arrangements, that that is for T/O (playing with an occasional partner, I am not so sure of that...) what do you expect partner to do ??? bid 4H with a 5 card ? Bid 4D with 3 or 4 ? In that case I prefer to bid 4H myself.....It might have a making chance....even in 4-3. I regret I did not bid 2♠ in stead of Double.

Maybe it is a good idea to bid 2♥. If LHO bid 4♠, You can bid 5♣: and play 5♣ ! But indeed, the risk is to miss 6♣.... even if opps stay low.... No, I go for a 2♣ bid: only if oppss jump to 4♠ it could go wrong. But if my LHO can indeed bid 4♠, it smells like slam time ! and 5♥ will give a choice to partner ! So no, I am not afraid of a 4♠bid

Playing BWS2001. Not so so sure 4♣ is game force. It should not be - I also like to show a competitive hand with good ♣. 4♦ smells much more as GF: good hand, at least 3♦. On this hand I will bid 4♦. If partner bid 4♥, I will bid 5♣.

I confirm: I cannot resize the CC's... A printing option would be very usefull.

Well, it is a "default" agreement I like to play with my partners... It is easy to remember and it has worked well for me, but, I agree, I am "relatively" new in this game. And I agree that this sequence is rather unprobable, but still: a light opening, and.... and indeed 3NT "might" make, but in that case they also go for four-number figure: MATCH over !!! I do not think it is worthwile making an exception to our default, just for this case, which anyway might score. Nevertheless, thank you for your comment, but I was aware of that....:)

You definitily need a partnership agreement for this. But a good agreement is: Double is for penalty once either of us has bid a natural notrump earlier in the auction. The initial double could have been on a NT-hand (18-20). and 1NT promesses stop with 8-11H !

RED, I have absolutely no reason to bid 4♠. Besides, 4♥ may go down. And true, partner might have a super hand, on which we can make 4♠ and 4♥ only 2 down... But so it is.... It is largely compensated by all those average hand, on which ♠ doesn't make, but neither does 4♥.

Got this wrong again !!! Yes, it is up to the 4♠ to make a decision here. Yes, 5♠, seems some kind of an insurance...... HURRAY ! I do not think that you can call this a FP situation: if E has a worthless hand, he passes. PS - once again I learned.... tu all for those discussions....:) ♥

Oh yes, for the 4♠ bidder, that is clear ! But for the poor doubler, who now has to take a decision, on the so-called FP (?) from partner, that is not so clear. From his viewpoint, 4♠ could be on a bare minimum.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Want to tell it the whole world: ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ This free lesson was simply Super !!!! I loved it Thank you, Fred. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Forcing Pass. Yes, I could agree to play that in this situation (but it is not clearcut !). But I think that, if you agreed to play FP, you also should have agreed what a double by opener means ? Without that information, difficult to decide....4♠ might be bid on a marginal hand, with 6 card ((14-15H).

One more aspect: Playing Negative Doubles, Balancing is important to to protect partner, if he has a penalty pass.

This is not my definition of a Responsive Double. (A responsive double is after a T/O double by partner.) I agree however with your argumentation. Maybe (?) you could call such a double Competitive or Cooperative (with all te agreements going with those). It might be common, but without any agreements with partner, i wouldn't consider such a double automatically as T/O. And with all sympathy I have for your competitive viewpoint, there are circumstances in which, and opponents against who, me and partner want to have the double of 3S availble for penalty.