Siegmund

Many people do use the space between 2M and 3M for things other than slamming (patterning out, in some cases considering alternative contracts, in some cases allowing the 2M bid on 2 rather than 3).... The space between 3M and 4M is almost always used for cuebids. And if you are going to cuebid, it can be very useful to have bids that say "I want to hear you make the first cuebid." If we have agreed hearts, for instance, I can cuebid 3S if I have the SA; if I don't I might bid 3H to demand partner tell me whether he has the SA or not. You can put 3N to a similar use instead of serious/frivolous (once you are already at 3M -- not much need for a jump from 2M to 3N for that.)

Apologizing for being off-topic... At three of the four places I have worked, 30 hours has always been considered "full time" (including being allowed/required to participate in the company health plan)... and at the fourth, a minute over 20 hours was. I was actually surprised to find out, after seeing your post, that up to 35 hours was still considered part time some places.

Unusual agreements that rake in good results: With two partners, we don't use Michaels, but instead use cuebids to show otherwise hard-to-bid 4-5 overcalls (1C-2C 4S 5+Red, 1D-2D 4M 5+C, 1H-2H 4S 5+min, plus 1C-2D 4H 5+D and 1D-2H 4S 5+H.) I find we lose very little on the 5-5s by bidding them naturally, and gain a lot from finding 4-4 and even 4-3 fits at the 2-level that nobody else in the room is getting to. Related to the above, we gain quite a bit any time we use pass-or-correct / paradox methods, whether after cuebids, in our notrump defense, or a few other places, vs. the typical American pair who always asks with 2NT after 1M-2M if he wants to know overcaller's major, always bids 2D over partner's 2C DONT bid if he doesn't like clubs, etc. My answer would have been Wilkosz in a heartbeat, if I had anywhere except BBO I could legally play it. I dream of living long enough to see it brought back to respectability:)

@Twofer: I don't mean to be rude... but why do you title the thread "inverted minor raises" when your question is aimed at people who DON'T play them? Criss-cross: with some partners I play this as 8-10, and the inverted raise as 11+. With these partners is makes sense to have the criss-cross raise be on, and the inverted raise be off, by a passed hand. In this case my immediate single raise is 6-9 and usually exactly 4 cards. 1C-2D can certainly be a useful sequence. There are alternatives, like using 2S or 2NT to show the "1D-3C" hand, to free up 2D.

Returning to bridge... It is a highly regional thing, in my experience. In the two states I have played in the most (Alaska and Montana) standard is the extreme-majority position even by the local experts. Play in Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, you better look at every pair's convention card. In general it seems the bigger the city, the greater the likelihood that a random opponent will be playing udca. Opposite to OP, I find that UDCA is vastly more common on BBO than it is in any (north american) live venue I've ever played. At times I've joked "all my live partners play standard and all my internet partners play UDCA." From a technical standpoint I think the difference between the two methods is too tiny to give either one a clear advantage. One common situation I find more comfortable playing standard is playing doubletons (high to unblock and high to show two and high to show positive attitude all overlap -- while in UDCA somewhere around Jx, high to unblock and low to signal honestly come into conflict. I also find the mental effort is reduced if 3/5 leads are combined with standard signals - and conversely 4th best leads with udca - so that first hand and third hand are "playing the same system." Faced with a partner who is accustomed to 4th best and standard, I usually opt for converting him to 3rd and 5th rather than converting him to udca.

Best reason yet I've seen to switch to Chrome. I don't suppose it can do the same while actually playing?

If you aren't going to resolve shape first and scan in order of importance, there really is no good reason not to simply scan them in their natural order and play some souped-up type of natural cuebidding. Sweep cues are highly effective, in the hands of a pair that pays attention to all the inferences. But they too - and standard cuebids for that matter - work a lot better if you know about singletons before you start cuebidding, even if you don't know full shape.

I am surprised to see so much hate for the 1S bid. I happen to play that 3H shows this hand exactly -- 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-4-5 or 4-0-5-4, whatever partner's next bid is sets trumps and then we can cuebid -- but absent that, 1S seems obvious. Once it goes 1D-1S-1NT we know partner has a fourth diamond (he is not 4-4-3-2 if he doesn't raise spades immediately) so I am fine with a nice simple 1D-1S-1NT-3D, forcing and setting trumps. Of course those who play that as invitational will have an extra step going through NMF first. But I don't see any problem with losing the club suit; if we have a fit in both minors we are going to choose the 4-4 fit in diamonds.

Double and 2C can have any meaning you wish. To be GCC, 2D and higher must contain a known suit. Multi-Landy is Midchart only because of the 2D bid. Similarly CRASH's 2D bid is Midchart, but people often adapt with something like X=color 2C=shape 2D=majors 2NT=minors which is GCC. As noted above, there are several ACBL districts that allow "GCC+any notrump defense" in their regionals. Side games at an NABC will always be GCC.

Some pass-or-correct calls are conventional, like the 2S response to multi showing better hearts than spades. Others, like the 2H response to multi, announce what contract you want to play if partner has one hand, and say nothing about how high you plan to go if he doesn't. The pass-or-correct calls you will see in an ACBL GCC event are overwhelmingly of the latter variety - people playing things like CRASH with full sets of p/c advances are rare. You will see things like (1S)-2S Michaels -(Pass)-3C p/c -- over which your right to a conventional defense is based on the 2S being Michaels, not the 3C bid being p/c -- and you will see lots of things like uncontested 1D-1S-1NT-2D, where nothing is conventional at all, where p/c is a correct explanation of 2D and a two-way double is not allowed. The Europeans will laugh, as will the exotic systems fan (and I will too, now, since I'm in that latter category) but for at least the first five years I played bridge the only time I ever heard the phrase "pass or correct" was in regard to sequences like 1D-1S-1NT-2D, and from the blank stares I get when I try to explain how CRASH works to people, I get the impression there are a lot of ACBL folk who stay in that same boat their whole lives.

The only nit I have to pick with all of the above is everyone treating a pass-or-correct call as conventional. The pass-or-correct call itself often isn't, though it often has been preceded by a conventional call at partner's previous turn. As already noted, the 3NT has to be solid, not just good, and the rest are good to go.

I suppose I am the only one who is considering 2S now, and perhaps 5D later if they bid 4H and partner fails to raise the spades. Not sure I should be considering it. But I would rather partner lead a spade than a diamond, if we find ourselves defending a high-level contract.

Perhaps you can share a few of the hands that gave you trouble? Only a handful of my partners have ever asked to play control-steps over 2C but it was a sound enough method I enjoyed playing it. Bear in mind I have always been a cuebidder not a Blackwooder, which may have helped, and you do have to have a willingness to use the 5-level for game vs slam decisions sometimes after a 2C opening, even after 2D waiting.

For me, never. However, I very rarely superaccept at all (and if I do, always with 2M+1, not with crazy spacewasting jumps to 3M). Solidly in the camp that it's only justifyable if you feel you have an 18+ hand now and are ashamed of opening only 1NT.

Seconding this suggestion. I find I quite often get the "will be replaced in xx seconds" warning before I play to trick one, but hardly ever at any other time.

I hesitate to "blame" anybody. I understand the 2443 double. I certainly understand the 5C bid, expecting partner's face cards not to be in spades. I point to the SAK in doubler's hand as the reason it was such a bad result, instead of being either a make or a paying sacrifice against a making 4S.

I would lead a club. I think it's close between doubling and passing. MP would tilt me toward doubling. I am not sure both contracts are down -- I've got enough hearts that my partner may not be winning a heart trick -- but anybody who thinks 5H has a prayer of making hasn't seen the hands my partners usually have for 2H in this spot. (Something like a chunky weak two seems to be a whole lot more common than the odd 15-pointer with 5 hearts.)

I voted X, but probably with more of an expectation of partner leaving it in than most forum posters have. I certainly wouldn't consider anything other than Pass or X here.

If I have WJS available I am using it. But I very often play my WJSes a bit heavier than most -- even 4-7 with some partners -- and hate light 1-level responses if there is any reasonable alternative. I do not usually have WJS available, however, as the cheapest jump shift is an artificial raise with many partners. Never used Wolff Signoff myself. But I can see where it comes in very handy for people who often respond light.

I voted 3S on the first poll, and didn't know what to put on the second: IF you play X as takeout I think it's close between X and 3S -- but without discussion the (old) standard rule is "after anybody bids notrump doubles are penalty", and even with discussion 90+% of the players in my area play it that way, even if "everything is takeout" is popular among modern experts. When 4D comes back I would pass at IMPs but feel I have to double at MPs. I've got 3 tricks myself, partner did bid but didn't raise, he has spade shortness and a couple face cards SOMEwhere. I was expecting 140 or 170, and 4DX-2 is the most obvious way for me to get more than 100.

Partner cuebid spades, Phil: he doesn't have xx or Jx, he has A(x)(x). So we are confident we have possibly 1 diamond loser, and then, we care about trump quality only. Admittedly a 4S cuebid now is not solving all our problems unless we have some nice agreements about either 3NT or 4NT, which apparently we don't.

I would have expected long-pressing your finger in the text box to work too (that DOES work in Android 2.x for me -- however I am using Dolphin browser on my phone.)

Once upon a time, people learned a nursery rhyme about not keycarding with two small in an unbid suit. South has TWO xx suits, and NINE other calls between 2NT and 4NT he could have made. I would like to think most cuebidding partnerships would uncover they had all four aces before reaching 4M, and discover they were missing two kings before reaching 5M. Neither partner having a side suit to run for a discard, neither partner has any reason to continue past five. Good ole mom-n-pop bidding is up to the task, with an auction like 1H-3H (or however you choose to get to that level in your system) 4C-4D 4H-4S 5H With my regular partners playing sweep cues we'd have taken one more round to get there: 4C(CA, but denies SA and DA)-4D 4H-4S 4NT(denies CK)-5C(shows CK) 5H This would have enabled us to reach six if South had AQJx clubs and a singleton in either pointed suit.

There is a pretty firm rule against not having two defensive tricks when you preempt. Having little or no defense is your guarantee that your -800s are better than losing a slam, your -500s are better than losing a game, etc. The void is a hazard, in that if you preempt on a 7330, and the opponents play in your 3-card suit, your hand may unexpectedly produce a defensive ruff -- which isn't a bad thing if your opponents overbid... but is a very bad thing if you are in a contract where both sides are not making, and you are left holding the short end of the stick. Often partner will sacrifice when one trick from your hand isn't enough to beat the opponents, and these sacrifices will be phantoms when you had a bonus ruff coming. I have never shied away from 3-level and higher preempts with a void - even with one ace and a void, taking my chances I don't have 2 defensive tricks - but I and many others learned never to make a weak two with a void, which had more to do with having the constructive value of your hand confined to a modest range discoverable by your partner.

The only way any pair ever beats par -- which was -980, for EW on this board -- is by taking advantage of a mistake by an opponent. More generally, only 25% of your score is determined by your own actions. Another 25% each from your table opponents, all of the other pairs sitting your way, and all of the other pairs sitting the opposite way. That is true of all duplicate bridge formats. The theory is that, by comparing with a large enough number of tables, the last two categories will average out to something close to par. As the others have said, none of that changes the fact that you need to bid and play in whatever way maximizes your chance of avoiding a mistake and your opponent's chance of making a mistake. Overcalls can allow your side to outbid the opponents, either making or as a sacrifice, help your partner defend better, or deprive the opponents of bidding spade they need to find their best spot. (And, yes, on a bad day, overcalls will tell declarer how to play the hand. Every time you do something that conveys information about your hand, you are betting the information is more useful to your partner than to your opponents.)