Gilithin

There are statistics for this online. When the major is hearts, opening 1M is not a big winner (and will be a loser on all other 1♥ openings). When the major is spades, opening 1♠ is a significant advantage on the 5♠332 hands within NT range. There are also good system design reasons for not doing it that way but most are beyond the simple comparison of a single hand type and are therefore more difficult to quantify.

Well usually I will take a few seconds to ask my partner for some basic system information. Or even if they are unresponsive at the very least take a look over their profile. Some players go so far as to go to clubs other than the MBC where some system information is implied. It is quite rare that one has to play bridge with absolutely zero information. If this is a common issue for you, you might consider amending your online habits.

There certainly used to be an article online illustrating the concept and describing what to look for to make this play. It was not specifically about leading the second highest, just about defensive surround plays more generally, but it did finish with the conclusion that the second-highest card always seems to work. Unfortunately I think the site that had this article, as well as several more that I found quite interesting, is no longer available. It is possible that a bridge player somewhere in the world saved it but sadly the chances of getting it back at this point is not high, particularly as I deleted my obsolete bridge link list and cannot even try it in Wayback Machine. Good luck though - if you do manage to find the article in question, please feel free to add a message here with a link to it.

While this is a popular (and decent) defence to transfers it is by no means the only one. Very popular internationally, particularly in North America, is to play the immediate cue as Michaels. Even if a pair do choose to play the cue as takeout, it is more common for the delayed Double to be a weaker (shape) takeout rather than penalty. You also get after transfers 2 different levels of 3X overcall (constructive/competitive) and 2 different 2NT calls (nat/minors) and most importantly the immediate Double, which in the cue takeout method is usually an overcall in the suit bid, and in the Michaels method is usually takeout of their major. In other words, transfers end up giving both sides more bidding space. In general that tends to be favourable for the side bidding constructively.

Surely you are making a forcing pass on most of these? You are typically going to be delighted if partner sends back a Double. Begs the obvious question - what exactly would you see as the key differences between a direct 3♣ raise, Pass followed by bidding clubs, and Double followed by bidding clubs?

Is it still pathetic is partner can hold a 4432 19 count? I am with blackshoe in asking which system we are playing - in (4444) Acol one might perhaps bid differently to (5542) short club?

A: "Students don't vote and old people do. Therefore if we give handouts to greys and stiff the young, we will gain votes." I doubt there is much more to it than this. How to solve it? organise students as a powerful voting bloc who can have an influence on the outcomes of elections.

If you have 1NT free, it might make sense to use it for completing the preempt tree, for example:- 1NT = ♣ or ♦ or ♥+♠ 2♦ = ♥ or ♠ 2♥ = ♥+minor 2♠ = ♠+minor 2NT = ♣+♦ When I read the title, I rather assumed you were talking about using 1NT to show a weak 4M-5m hand as an inverse to the 5M-4m hands in Muiderberg. I don't really get the advantage or switching the minimum balanced hand and the 4M-5m hand type between 1NT and 1♦. 1NT natural tends to be quite effective...

It might seem that nothing any of us "normal" people do will ever make any difference. Rather it is that we never know what is going to make a difference. Not sitting in the seat assigned to us might seem like a small thing but in the right circumstances it can inspire a movement that changes a country and eventually leads to an "impossible" POTUS. Maybe such a small step will, as Ken puts it, put Trump behind us. Maybe the GOP will now come back from its authoritarian trajectory and allow the currently extremely fragile American democracy to re-establish itself. You never know where a small step might take a nation.

The origin of -sohl methods was to be able to use a penalty double but almost immediately pairs decided that was not very good and switched back to takeout, while keeping the flexibility of the convention. In Rubensohl, I have always seen a direct 3♠ given as a stopper ask, the equivalent of a direct 3NT in US Lebensohl, while 2NT followed by 3♠ is needed for a GF hand with long clubs. The 3 steps you lose here compared with a direct 3♣ is where you get the bidding space for most of the other advantages inherent in using the transfer approach.

There is also the solution where 1NT is natural and 1♠ is either clubs or a NT hand without an adequate stopper. This sort of highlights one reason why transfers have rapidly become the modern standard - you essentially have more bidding space and therefore more freedom to arrange hands in just the way you want them.

If you play American Lebensohl (aka "slow shows"): 3♥ shows 4 spades without a heart stopper 2NT followed by 3♥ shows 4 spades with a heart stopper If you play UK Lebensohl (aka "no trump, no stopper": 3♥ shows 4 spades with a heart stopper 2NT followed by 3♥ shows 4 spades without a heart stopper If you play Rubensohl (aka Transfer Lebensohl): 3♦ shows 4 spades with or without a heart stopper If you do not play any -sohl, you X for takeout. If you do not play any -sohl and also play penalty doubles, you cue bid and might have to guess if there is no spade fit.

Everyone is scared of the Jewish Nazis conquering the world...

And on the other side of things, a better declarer might be able to organise a squeeze or endplay and therefore not need to take the finesse at all.

This one depends on agreements and there are quite a lot of options. A popular method over 2♦ GF is for 2NT to be a positive with hearts. Another is to play 2NT and 3m as transfers. Either way, 2♥ is obvious. But if you play 2NT to show this hand then obviously that is what you bid! After 2♠, we again have options. The most common way of playing here is for 2NT to be any very weak hand and for 3♠/4♠ to show some values. Traditionally a direct 4♠ denies any ace but in this RKCB era it makes more sense for it to be zero key cards. If you play this way then you have a clear 4♠. The main alternative is for 2NT to deny a fit and for 4♠ to be fast arrival; in that case your rebid is 3♠.

Would your position about NATO involvement be different if Ukraine had the same energy reserves as Russia? Should oil/gas really be the main consideration when it comes to defending democracy? 2 is not the problem as the advocates of a NFZ tend to be for enforcing it only over the Western portion of the country precisely for this reason. The main issue is as hrothgar lays out, that it means a direct hot air war between NATO and Russia.

I think the best GOP candidate for 2024 is Nikki Haley (she at least seems to live in the real world) but I would agree that the chances are that either DJT or RDS will end up being chosen.

22+ does not seem reasonable to me. It seems right for it either to be game-forcing, or an Acol 2 hand type, or to fill in some specific hand types that are awkward for the rest of your structure. Assuming you go for one of the first 2, most logical would seem to be using a similar structure to the regular 2♣ auction. So over 2M, 2♠ nat, any strength; 2NT bucket, weak; 3m nat, extras, 3M extras with 1+ key cards, 4M extras with 0 key cards. And over 3♣, 3♦ Staymanic; 3M 5+ suit.

Absolutely! In the same way, Vladimir Putin is accused of having ordered an invasion of Ukraine but noone has found him guilty of it.

A timely reminder that 25% of the current SCOTUS stand accused of sexual assault. Hopefully the new Justice can reduce that slightly.

If you have a minimum balanced hand with values in their suit, why do you want to use anything other than a green card?

Most people seem to be able to find something here they like. For those that don't, just getting an extra holiday a year after surviving the pandemic has got to be worth something. Considering the current state of Congress and the Gerrymandering Obstruction Party, that's really not too bad. If you want more, vote for candidates that care more about legislating than making headlines and raising cash.

Without any gadgets at all? 2♠ - 6♠ seems to get the job done. Easy life.

If your system neither has a way to show 13-15 with a stop and no fit, nor a way of showing clubs constructively, you should probably rethink your methods. In addition to the 14 cards already pointed out, Jordan to me means bidding 2NT after a Double to show a limit raise or better. Perhaps you would like to correct the hand and describe your existing methods in more detail if you want serious advice on this auction.

Surely from a purely theoretical point of view, it makes more sense for Opener's Rebid of 2♠ to be potentially a Weak NT without a stop then to have Responder's Rebid of 2♠ not be a game force? Not only does this avoid much ambiguity, it is also much closer to the undisturbed auction meaning that is very easy to remember. I am honestly not too sure why Uwe's solution has received only criticism here. Finally, if you are playing the method where a 4441 hand rebids a forcing 2♦ over a 2♣ response (without intervention), it seems a really simple extension to allow a forcing 2♦ rebid on this type of hand. It just seems to me so much simpler to use your existing system (without an overcall) and amend it than to try and create something completely different that ends up creating more ambiguity rather than removing it.