Gilithin

What did your partner think 3♥ was at he time of bidding it? Was it meant as a weak takeout, invitational, or as a choice of game? This seems to be relevant as to the possible meanings he could ascribe to your 3♠ call absent the UI, whch makes it clear what is going on. 3NT seems to be a fudge, much like a Double in many other UI positions, giving partner the maximum space to sort out the problem without digging a hole. At first read I can see very little case for bidding it over 4 of a major absent the UI and there is a clear advantage to bidding it after the UI.

As Mike has mentioned, the main time this happens is after a preempt. Some pairs also play 3041 opposite strong or very weak hands and 1430 otherwise. If you want something more tailored than this, I would suggest searching out Ken Rexford's method, which uses a variety of different response structures according to the strength of the hand. I think he even made a self-published book on the convention but he certainly posted the main points on BBF if you search back a few years.

If America was serious about it, they would prevent drug companies from offering bribes to doctors for prescribing expensive named products rather than almost identical generics that cost a fraction of the price. This would affect the profits of the large drug companies and most doctors but be a major boon to patients as well as directly impacting health insurance costs for almost everyone. There's a good reason why UK drug prices came down massively when the foreunner to MHRA took most brand name produtcs off the NHS allowed drug list. America is not in a position to repeat that but at least cutting out bribes that adversely affect patients could be legislated against.

The best example I can give is that it is like the distrust of Christians who say that the Earth is flat because that is what the Bible says, regardless of how much evidence to the contrary there is. In this case, there is massive election fraud because Donald Trump says so. I can somewhat understand the faith that some put in the Bible even when it is obviously misguided. That people put a similar faith in Donald Trump is something I find completely unfathomable.

It is still the official EBU position to recommend 2 level responses as constructive, non-forcing and 3 level responses to be game forcing, as can be seen by the current (2014) system file, by the pre-completed Benji convention card, or Sandra Landy's 2009 English Bridge article, all to be found on he EBU website. The one exception listed there is Neil Rosen's 2012 English Bridge article where he recommends all new suit responses to be non-forcing, but that article is perhaps not aimed at the typical club player, also suggesting the use of a shortage ask rather than the more common Feature or Ogust conventions.

It is possible to play new suits as constructive and non-forcing but that is a minority position. The standard meaning is forcing, usually looking for the best game but occasionally being a weak hand with a big fit for opener's suit. For specifically 2♥ - 2♠, it is usual to play as invitational+, in which case auctions like 2♥ - 2♠ -- 3♥/♠ are non-forcing.

There seems to be considerably more evidence to suport Richard's opinion than that of M.B.Matthews. If moderators want to get involved, I would question on which side they should throw their weight.

Avoiding slam completely when partner has neither red ace or is missing the ♦AK seems to me even more important.

When playing Landy against a Weak NT, it is usual to play 3♣ as constructive. The downside is that you have to give up on the WJO hand type. Whether this hand would instead qualify for a red 4♣ overcall is a matter of partnership style.

I think your bidding is fine up to 3♣. Since this establishes a game force though, there is no reason not to bid 3♠ over 3♥ to get the auction back on track. Your partner now has a huge hand in context and can make some moves towards the slam. What exactly did the opponents think was cheating? You can bid what you like providing you mislead your partner just as much as you mislead them. I am not seeing any special agreements that you refused to disclose. Either there is more to the story or they are clueless.

And I am interested in North's 2♥ bid. Would most of us not bid (at least) 3♥ on that opposite a passed hand?

These are the tournaments where you can enter on one account, see the hands, and then enter on a second account later in the day, right?

I'll respond 3♣, setting clubs as trumps and asking partner what they think about slam. Assuming they are not enthusiastic they will bid 3♦ and now I ask about their hearts with 3♥, If partner has the ♥A they will now show it along with other controls, if not then they bid 3NT and now I can bid 4♣ asking if they hold a diamond control. It is not perfect - if Opener holds ♠AKQ ♥Q ♦K plus a jack or two it is tricky and requires some subtle agreements - but the approach works on the vast majority of hands in this family and is fairly simple to use.

I genuinely thought this piece was a tongue-in-cheek parody until I looked up M.B. Matthews. He appears to be something of a crackpot. As an example, he begins his article on US elections with: Or there is his piece on abortion: and Yeah. Beyond the simple discussion of foetus versus baby, which apparently does not exist in conservative circles, the argument that women (and girls) are evil through the "indiscretion" of allowing themselves to get raped is more than just a little abhorrent. There is also plenty more of this trash, most of it much worse than the quoted parts. If this is the guy that conservatives want to promote on forums such as this, they must have truly run out of sensible arguments and ideas.

Using the traditional (1930s/40s) method of counting, 8.5.

Maybe they could. But when the SCOTUS declares that law unconstitutional, how does it help? Well think of this Barry. Say that in the days immediately following Independence that the British infiltrated American politics and through bribery, corruption and the judicious application of useful idiots were able to gain control of the fledgling SCOTUS. Does anyone think that the Founding Fathers would have had any difficulty in declaring them traitors and removing them, either directly by impeachment, or, if the British made that politically impossible, potentially by force? Sometimes keeping democracy alive requires more than just shouting and feeling angry. The people on January 6th did what they did because they were deceived by those in power into believing America was at such a moment. It actually is, but not in the way that the lies made them believe. The question is whether people will be willing to do what is necessary before minority rule is imposed so tightly that the time for action is lost forever.

I have some more basic questions for you. How do you address the issue of the people entrusted with interpreting what the Constitution means deciding that it means something completely different that matches their political beliefs? Should you just accept that 5 or 6 unelected people backed by corrupt and bought cronies now run the country? And if not, what is the proper remedy? This seems a far more pressing issue for America than how to bring the Constitution into the 21st century.

Putin is so misunderstood - he is really just a libertarian giving freedom to the Russian people.

Maybe he was playing with a client and didn't have firm agreements about what 4♣ or 4NT would be over 3♥? Or maybe he just wanted a fast round for a smoke break. It's not like he's playing a BB here.

While this might be true of the committee members, it does not appear to be the case for the majority of the GOP caucus.

Some pairs play that a cue advance shows general strength and for those pairs this seems like a good approach. But you specified that the cue is a UCB, which is a way of showing a limit raise or better. Within a typical UCB structure, there is a simpler way of creating a constructive auction that keeps the bidding even lower than 3♣, namely 2♦. Several posters have suggested this and I see no reason to repeat what has already been written. I suggest you read a little to understand why your approach may not be optimal.

JB vs RdS and RdS will win.

That's only true after it became socially unacceptable for the villains to be non-white Americans. A few more years of Trump's gang and perhaps we can all go back to that instead.

It makes sense to differentiate in your bidding notes between auctions that are forcing to 3NT and those that are unconditionally forcing to game. If an auction is only F3NT then auctions such as 1♦ - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 2♥ -- 3♦ - 3♠ -- 4♣ - 4♦ can be non-forcing, since with slam interest Responder could have bid 4♦ directly rather than going through 3♠. If on the other hand the auction is defined as unconditionally game forcing then this 4♦ bid cannot be passed - perhaps 3♠ was meant as an advanced cur bid, or perhaps the lack of a spade stopper improved their hand, who knows? Which auctions to define in which way, and the particular circumstances when a F3NT auction can be passed in 4m are very much a matter for agreement. I am not sure it is a great topic for a more general thread but if you wish to incorporate such a feature into your regular partnership, a sound meta rule is that 4m can only be passed if the auction is F3NT and the 4m bidder looked for 3NT but was denied and either had another way of showing slam interest in the minor or cannot reasonably hold slam interest due to previously limiting their hand. Other exceptions are possible but this is at least a reasonable starting point for discussion.

Surely 4360 or even 4351 is more likely than 4162 or 4261? Do we not want partner to show us their 5 card heart suit if they have it? Or do you see that hand bidding 5♥ over 4NT? With a good player I would expect pick a slam too; but with a typical social player, I would wager that 8 or 9 times out of 10 this is a quantitative invite to 6.