Gilithin

But not sex.

Take standard (or RM) Precision and reduce the maximum on your 2♣ opening by a point or two while decreasing the minimum for your club hands in 1♣. The resulting system matches your brief. You could probably do this for several families of system, getting a slightly less efficient method that you will presumably prefer.

If you are willing to forgo invites it is easy - just use S1 as the GF relay and other responses as nat nf (with 1♥ - 1NT showing ♠). If you want invites then either use Zelandakh's INV+ relay method or take S2 for your GF relay.

If you are starting from this base it is better to switch to 2-under transfers and move the balanced hands up to 1♥.

Given the association of the city with fighting men (cavaliers) and colour (browns), perhaps Cleveland Grays is worth considering? It would at least highlight one of the more interesting historical facts about the place.

Probably this.

There are at least 4 "standard" ways of playing here 1. 1♠ is natural and F1R; 2♠ is art 4SF 2. 1♠ is nat and GF; 2♠ is art 4SF 3. 1♠ is art 4SF; 2♠ is nat and GF 4. 1♠ is 2-way, possibly natural but might also be art GF This is an auction you typically need to chat about with a regular partner. It makes a difference whether Opener rebids NT with a balanced hand or you play up-the-line.

You have an extra trump if the response was 2♥. You do not have an extra trump if the response was X.

Wow, are you seriously posting that your biggest gain from Brexit is that you do not have to look at people you perceive to be foreigners? I am not too sure how one reacts to that other than placing you in the same Box101 as drewes and Chas.

The Catholic faith is primarily about guilt. If they have her feeling guilty about not telling them, and it sounds very much like that was the case, then they have in a sense already imposed their will on her and in effect exercised a form of control over her. My simple solution - have her give an extra $10 to the church collection every week in lieu of confession. I am confident the church would be more than happy with the exchange.

I am discounting for J9 doubleton and the ace being the singleton also devalues it somewhat. But the red suits are super.

This

My evaluation was 17 (and closer to 18 than 16).

Priorities need to be set though. It is hard to name a Trump official who would not need to be investigated.

For the suit below yours, the key to understanding is always the (4333) hand. 1♠ - 2♥ shows 5 because with 3433 the correct response is 2♣. It has nothing to do with bidding the lowest 4 card suit. After a 1♦ opening, we would respond 2♣ with a 3334 hand. If the 1♦ opening shows 4+ then this is typically the only shape where the 2♣ response is not 5+. If 1♦ is 3+ then you might also make the call with (32)44. After a 4+ 1♥ opening, we would always respond 2♦ with a 3343 hand of suitable strength. If 1♥ promises 5+ then we could in theory always raise with 3♥ and therefore make 2♦ 5+. But most pairs prefer to differentiate more clearly between 3 and 4 hearts rather than 4 and 5 diamonds and therefore will respond 2♦ on many of those 3343 hands.

Without special agreements: 1♠ - 2♣ is 3+ but usually 4+. It is only 3 if precisely 3433 shape. 1♠ - 2♥ is 5+. All other 2/1 calls show 4+ but the suit below (1♦ - 2♣ or 1♥ - 2♦) will usually be 5+.

Did Nisar forget the system? It looks like at least one of N-S is getting MI here!

Objectively slam is the right spot as we can set up the ♦ if both red suits break in addition to the ♣ finesse and no doubt other layouts work too; so it is above the required threshold. In reality I doubt I would get there. Unlike others I would start North off with a Double since my minimum for 2♥ is higher than most. Then South makes their good raise, either 3♥ (which I typically play as positive rather than competitive in natural) or 3♦ (if using transfers). Over this North could make a mild slam try (3♠) but with the shortage in partner's suit I suspect I would just go peacefully (4♥). As Mike mentions, it is easy to convince oneself to bid differently to get to the best contract looking at both hands - North could start with 2♥; South could treat the hand as 18 and force to game; North could make a slam try. Any of these make it easier to reach the slam so providing an auction for that would be no problem. Incidentally, there is something weird going on with E-W here that still needs clearing up. They have a super 9 card fit at favourable and yet subside in 2♠? I would expect them to be bidding 4 over 4 more often than stopping in 2. After all, if West overcalls 2♠ or East raises to 3, it is a completely different problem!

Most don't. And for those the government need to be there and offer them every opportunity to get their wish. But for those that do want to die, or are at least ambivalent about it, is it really the government's place to impose living on them? Your way of thinking is not their way of thinking; and the Republican leadership has for the most part already shown that they will follow the other way. They have not ducked it, they just spoke with a different message. It would be unwise to expect any aid from that quarter any time soon.

Thanks to pillowsky for pointing this quote out - the usual term in newspaper or magazine columns is Love All.

I guess you mean Arizona. What is going on there is definitely a bad thing. I would hope that every educated person in the world (aside from enemies of the USA) would agree with that.

Assuming no specialised gadgets are available, if I play 3 weaks I would open 2♦ planning on a 4♣ rebid. If I did not have a weak 2♦ available (Multi, Benji, etc) I would open 3♦ if the opps are NV and 4♦ if the opps are Vulnerable.

That would make sense. Looking at our hand it seems to me that we could have put partner in a perfect place to decide by bidding 5♣ over 4♠. If slam is there partner will bid 5♦ over that and now we can bid 5♥. If grand is there, partner will know to bid 5NT now assuming we play the modern-style GSF responses rather than the traditional ones, meaning that we are not committed to 7♠ on 2 of the top 3. As long as partner is sensible enough to know that we would not bid this way with terrible spades, this seems like an easy way for us to show all 5 of our cards. On the actual auction, we can surmise from the actions that either West has ♠ length or East is 6-5 (or both). In either case any suit grand we might bid will be much safer being played by partner. So we should really be deciding between 6♠, 6NT and 7♣ and 7NT as potential contracts. Of these, 6NT seems like the least likely landing spot and 7NT runs the risk of only having 3 spade tricks and 9 outside. In general, I feel that our odds of picking up the clubs and wrapping up 13 tricks, perhaps by ruffing out the ♠J, exceed the magic IMP level, so 7♣ looks like the best spot on pure probability. But it is certainly not automatic if this turns up in a UI ruling.

Why did we not bid 2♦ over 2♣ to show a good hand with ♠?