Siegmund

It depends a lot on your style -- how often do you raise on 3-card support? You can get by nicely without this kind of convention, if your raise is almost always on 4. If your style is to raise on 3 only when you have shortness, you might consider a treatment like 1D-1S-2S-2NT- -3C singleton club, may be 3 spades -3D natural 5-4, minimum -3H singleton hearts, may be 3 spades etc. rather than the simple min/max, 3/4 approach. If you raise on 3 cards all the time... well... you need something like "3344" (thats the singularly bland name they call this by, where I am from)... but IMO there are a lot of issues with the followups, enough to keep me from adopting that style without a lot of careful work on the followups first.

People generally only sue as a last resort. It's very possible that you may receive a cease-and-desist letter from an author or publisher or their attorneys, requiring you to remove material you used without permission and not do it again. (You have the choice between complying, and fighting a court case over whether your use was fair use.) I've never had anybody say no when I've asked about reusing small amounts of material for a local class. I am not sure you'd get the same reaction if you're making a series of problems freely available on the internet. At some point they'll have a case that people can read your blog instead of buying a book. Really, it's not that hard to properly cite things, or to properly create new material. (And if it really IS hard for you to create a hand that illustrates a point you want to make... well... that's a good clue that someone else put a lot of work into creating the hand in his book and you shouldn't steal his intellectual property.) Twitter a particularly dangerous format, in this regard, because there's a temptation to skip over giving credit to save space.

There was a time the answer was pretty strongly negative. But at present, the RKC disease is so heavily upon the advanced players of the world, in some ways the habit of using it on the way to almost every slam is stronger now than it ever was in the past. I voted "no significant" - used about twice as much as it should be at all levels of the game. Admittedly I have something of a bee in my bonnet about people who refuse to continue to cuebid at the 5-level after being so happy to use it at the 4-level.

He means that because the ten was seen on the first trick, the nine and jack are equals when RHO makes his play to the second. It is something other than a pure restricted choice situation, since players with J2, 92, and J92 had a choice to make on the first round too.

I like 1S followed by 3 forcing hearts on the next round, but not everybody has that available in their system. If I have no delayed forcing raise available other than FSF, I will settle for the splinter now.

Personally, I can play only the week after Christmas. It may be a peculiarity of my business - working at a university - but we're forced to take time off the week between Christmas and New Years, while we are working until the 23rd and again the monday after new years.

As already said, yes - and bear in mind, in auction bridge days, there was an honours bonus on almost every deal (the only time there wasn't was if each side held 2 aces in a notrump contract.)

My two bits: It's possible for your poker game to help your bridge game and vice versa. I think NLHE is a particularly poor example, however... I can't think of anything specific to that flavor of poker that helps or is helped by bridge. The general idea of willingness to gamble when the appropriate ratio of risk and reward is present certainly helps one play a more aggressive game of bridge, and the training to remember previously played cards is helpful most at stud.

Only 4 for me. I see way too many ways to lose (for instance) a spade and two diamonds, if partner has a normal to healthy double. I'm fine with him going on if he has an 18 pointer, of course.

This is the kind of problem you wish you had more often -- a hand with the right shape and stoppers to be perfect for 2NT, AND support for partner's hearts (1S-p-2H does promise 5.) Pure style question which one you prefer - or, perhaps, a question of whether you trust your own declarer play more than partner's. I daresay hog's will be the only vote for the 2S rebid.

As already said, #2 is not close. Bail out. On #1, it depends some on your style of game tries... if you expect the kings to be worth a trick, and the shortness another trick, you can accept. That'll be the case opposite xxx(x), and opposite Axx(x), but it may not work as well if partner has Q97xx and thought he was going to set up the suit. In particular, for many people, partner's bid of 3C rather than 2S (or 2NT if youve swapped spades and notrump) sends a clear message "your king, queen, or jack of spades is NOT what I am looking for, I want values in hearts and clubs (and havent said whether diamond values are useful)", and for anybody with that agreement this a clear signoff.

One popular (but minority) variation is sort of the opposite of 'better minor': "if you intend to rebid 1NT, open the suit you don't want led against your notrump contract." It's not quite an agreement to always open your worse minor - you still open the longer if they are unequal - but it's a different way of breaking ties with equal length.

My two bits is that the full round robin is the best approach, and anything else is, well, spice for the sake of spice, at the expense of quality of the movement. Whatever floats the players' boats, though, I guess...

I prefer 2NT - get it played from the right side, and get the strength specified fairly exactly - but it helps if partners are aware of this tendency so they will check back rather than just raise notrump when they have 4 spades. I wouldn't fault anybody for preferring 2S if that's their style.

Looks like someone needs to have an agreement to play Paradox type continuations in these auctions. I happen to like them - in the 1N-2N case I might even do it without discussing it, figuring there could be no other reasonable interpretation of 3D - but a lot of people are in the mindset of "ask which suit if you don't know which suit I have; if you bid a suit I expect it's a long suit" rather than liking pass or correct. It's a fruitful area for meta-agreement with a regular partner.

I want to show a game force with both majors. Playing garden variety Leb, I'd have to start with 3S and rebid 4H over 3NT to do that. Not ideal, but won't lead to any disasters unless notrumper is 2-2-4-5. Would be nice to have a better way to show this. I imagine the Rubensohl-esque methods allow 3D then 3S.

Responder X for a bust is a common agreement, which I would expect if a good partner did this without discussion. More generally, I expect my side to be in a forcing pass auction anytime I open 2C. (I don't know how common of an agreement this is - I think it SHOULD be common, but I wouldn't bet on it with a good unknown.) I see very little chance for slam, and on these cards understand the immediate 5H. But there's no harm in passing now and seeing what partner does. Perhaps I am willing to gamble six if he bids 5C; perhaps I leave it if he doubles 4S for penalty. Not so much because I am excited about defending -- but if I had say 0-7-2-4 instead of 0-8-2-3, I would definitely want to see if partner warns me away from attempting the 5-level.

If I had a wire on the board, 2D then 5C. If I were faced with it at the table, I would've probably thought it was strong enough for the 'strong' flavor of unusual 2NT, and followed up with whatever shows the strong hand at my next turn (I guess X, but some pairs might think 4NT was strength rather than 6-6+.)

X>1NT for me too. (Probably only raising a 1S advance to 3S though.) 1NT isn't bad - I've done it with a singleton honor many times - but only when there isn't any other obvious way to show the hand. We've not seen your partner's hand, but I can't think of a hand where I approve of the delayed-natural-2NT bid.

I think it's a double. If you pass I hope you were at least reallllllly tempted to double.

Chiming in with the chorus: The path from "the explanation given was according to the pair's system and CC, though did not fit the actual hand" to "score stands for both sides" should be a very short one indeed. If there has been habitual mis-matching, a PP is reasonable. I was going to say greater-than-100% adjustments occur only after director errors (plus a few other things like boards-fouled-at-another-table that apply only to pairs games.) On reflection, I suppose UI from another table is possible if it's a team game where everybody in the room is playing the same boards, but we have precious few of those in my corner of the world.

One more vote for 5S expressing concern about 2 fast diamond losers. (And if partner has Kxx in diamonds, he should refuse the invitation unless he wants to play 6NT, because he knows ace-and-a-ruff can nail him.) Second choice is a timid 4S. I think 4S is only a modest underbid, while 4NT asks the wrong question and insisting on slam quite a rabid overbid.

In the first one, we've already limited ourselves to weak hands without exciting distribution, and common sense takes over: I don't honestly know whether X should be takeout or just values/inviting partner to leave it in. 2S weak and natural, 2N pick a minor. In the second one, most partnerships will have actual agreements. Mine are X=support, 2S=reverse-like values with spades, 2NT=the bad half of good/bad, immediate 3C or 3D= the good half of good/bad. Yes, there are risks assuming support doubles apply over minors the same as they do over majors if you haven't discussed it. I am sure some people agree 2NT is natural NF in the 2nd auction -- I expect that to be common in flight B and C, but a minority treatment in A (quite possibly behind both good/bad and natural strong.)

Pass-and-not-close for me, but I know many people who'd be more tempted by an indiscretion here than I am.

In light of the second-negative agreement, I am subsiding in six. I tend to assume SKQ is extremely unlikely, and just SQ+HQ or similar is possible in a long spade suit. (With Qxxxxx(x) x(x) xx xxx, are we allowed to respond 3S the first time or not?) From the alert, I had initially assumed that 2D was value-promising waiting with 2H as an immediate second negative - and knowing partner was guaranteed to have a king would be enough for me to shoot 7. There is still a risk of SQ+HK+no entry, but seems like the percentage course. Good question, if it's too close to call without knowing details of partner's style. Usually at-the-table we would opt for only six when in doubt. But it's certainly a fair shot to try to pick up 10 imps against a stronger team. In context of the match I wouldnt be mad at a partner who tried 7.