guido

A. Definition of strength/shape of calls. (this does not require/imply artificially) B. Utility 1NT response C. Takeout Doubles S.Garton Churchill and partners did remarkably well with this toolbox.

The double is known as Snapdragon, at least in the parts of the U.S. where I have played. A Google search indicates that this is a common dame for this double.

Just to clarify the Queen ask: To ask for the Trump queen, makes the cheapest non-trump suit bid (not trumps, not NT) The return to the trump suit denies the Queen of trumps Jumping in the trump suit shows the trump queen and denies any kings in the side suits Bidding any non-trump suit shows the trump Queen and the king in the bid suit Do not show a king higher than six of the agreed to trump suit .. some players use 5N to show a king of an "excluded" suit. The most common problems with RKC is knowing: a) is the call vanilla Blackwood or RKC? b) what's trump? c) knowing if the partnership is playing the first step as 0-3 OR 1-4

3♥ seems clear. As I passed hand, it is highly unlikely I haveahand good enough for bidding three of a higher suit without support. Hence, 3♥ is/should be a fit non-jump.

In addition to the other comments (with which I agree),in my partnerships, a double here would be lead directing. Specifically, make an unusual lead: here that means not a diamond. Since doubling a freely bid slam to increase the penalty makes so little sense, it is common to use the double to direct the lead (e.g.,I have a black suit void, find it).

You also asked if it were a good idea to use 1NT as a take-out device. The Baron system used 1NT as a light shapely takeout, promising a void or stiff in the opened suit. The advantage was to eliminate such hands from a take-out double which often showed an off-shape intermediary hand (a hand that would now be bid with a simple overcall). Advancer was not under pressure to jump with a moderate hand to invite. The original Neapolitan system used 1NT similarly (although the lower limit was higher). This was quickly abandoned, however. The rationale for this bid was that their overcalls where limited, so takeout doubles were often off-shape. Removing a "perfectly" shaped takeout from the double simplified the bidding. In modern defensive bidding in which the overcall can be quite strong, there is much less reason for this type of take-out bid.

I like something similar ... "pudding raise" junky 13-15, 3334. Pretty much the same as your Pancake raise, except we emphasis the junkiness of the honors

You also forgot to note that some of us play reverse hesitations, inverted bidding card slapping, and two-way staring,

I think the relative value of small from two depends on your opening lead style. If your partnership leads conservatively, this is an excellent apporach. It is less helpful if the partnership often leads from Hxx(x)

Since your 2C and 2H responses give specific information about a suit or suits not bid, they are not "natural" calls. I'm fairly sure that is the ACBL's intent. I am more than fairly sure it's a muddle. At any rate, I would alert both calls. I would not be upset in the opponents did not, but I WOULD expect a delayed alert before the opening lead. 2C with a doubleton when 4-5-2-2 is different. "Everyone" knows you rebid 2C with this over a forcing 1NT and partner expects you to hold 3+ clubs. The same is not true if you rebid 2C with 5-3-3-2.

I agree that is true if your partner knows your tendencies. If you are playing with a pick-up partner, then I think it is misleading -- you have no agreement either through discussion or history. Also, if the only time you open with a 4-card major is when own something extreme (e.g., Axx-AKQJ-xxx-xxx) the alert would also be misleading, imho. Youo are bidding your 5-card major <grin>

You are required to tell the opponents your agreements, not the hand you hold. Agreements are both explicit and implied,however. If you "never" forget agreements with your partner of the moment (i.e., she/he has no reason to think you have anything other than a weak major two-suiter) than a simple explanation of the agreement suffices. If, however, this partner knows you forget agreements, you need to let the opponents know that also.

It was indeed Frank Vine ... "How I Challenged the Champs and Made Them Cry" if I correctly recall. Very funny as almost all his articles were.

There is nothing new about using 1NT as a strong artificial opening. The Vienna System was used by the players who wont eh first world championship (in 1937 if I recall correctly). 1NT was strong, artificial but less than a game force (2 of a suit openings were natural, game forcing and asking bids). Arno (aka Little Roman) used 1NT as it's only strong opening. It was used by one pair who won quite a few World Championships in the 60s As mentioned, Romex uses 1NT as an artificial intermediate hand (too strong for 1 of a suit; too weak for a game force.

Mike: It obviously was NOT "obvious" as your partner saw your 5C bid correctly and decided to pass. I'm afraid you are stuck with your 5C contract.

The only condition which would change my vote is location. If i were in England, I'd say "No bid" rather than "pass."

I think one's odds of winning improve if you do things differently than the (better) opposition. The key is to do things differently, but just as well .. or as close to that goal as possible. My opinion is that the best way to do this is in the bidding and the best way to that is by increasing the differences in system. For example... 1) It is likely that your opponents are going to be playing a strongish 1NT opening (15-17 or 14-16), so use a weak NT. 2) If your opponents at the other table are playing Precision, play standard (or vice versa). If you are systemically versatile, play Blue Team or Acol or Polish or any other approach that is reasonable but different. 3) Use a similar strategy in your defensive and preemptive bidding. 4) Underbidding (in close situations) is likely to be more effective than overbidding in constructive auctions.

I have no idea what is expert standard. FWIW, I like: pass denies a control (1st or 2nd) in the bid suit. Partner can then XX to force Key Card answers. XX is 0-3 with the trump queen, 1st step is 0-3 sans queen and higher bids are normal.

For what it is worth, Bobby Wolff had a long-running campaign to punish those guilty of SD (his abbreviation for System Disruption). He light still be campaigning for it for all I know.

Nonsense. A preempt is not a sacrifice, per se. In 4th seat a preempt can be useful as both a descriptive call and to discourage opponents' bidding when you strong offense and minimal defense.

I suggest that ALWAYS taking time to think about the hand after dummy comes down is a good idea. As third hand, this not only assists in not giving declarer information by hesitating later in the play when she/he can draw a useful inference but also protects you from giving your partner UI. As declarer, I also suggest you take a little time before playing from dummy.

There is nothing new in Bridge. :) The Churchill method from the thirties used no forcing opening. The original Roth-Stone system from the fifties used 2C as a weak two and no forcing opening n matchpoints (2C was artificial and forcing when playing total points -- this was pre-IMPs).

Spiral Scan from some of the later iterations of Romex did something like this in a more sophisticated way. I think Ultimate Club used a fairly straight fowared version of negative cuebidding.

It might be interesting to see the results of the same questionnaire asking about one's regular partner. I'd be wiling to bet (with your money, of course) that a large majority would rate partner lower on bookishness. I'd guess (not even bet with your money) that the responses would be more extreme (i.e., more 1s and 5s) on many of the questions.

Being seriously old, I believe in preparedness. I open 1♠ so that I can rebid ♥ at almost any any level. If the opponents were barred from the bidding, I'd open 1♥ if playing a forcing ♣ or ♦ system. I must admit that if I were playing Flannery (a fine convention which I encourage all my opponents to use), I would be tempted to use it on this hand. Except for the midnight Swiss, though, I'd probably be strong enough to resist the temptation.