Siegmund

An easy 6 playing Leb, a nailbiter if not. I guess that's "interesting," in a way... I likely gamble on 6C anyway.

I voted 3C, but would at least seriously consider 2H at the table. I would not remotely seriously consider 2S (WAY too strong for a simple raise) or 2C. I do wish I had a better way to show this type of hand.

I like 4NT better than 5H on the posted cards, and would find 4NT reasonably obvious on 0634. I do not think a C player would find 4NT obvious at all; I don't know which call he would choose but I don't think pass is a LA here.

Absent any agreement,I would assume natural and forcing. Given the time to make sensible agreements, 4-level CAB is my preference, so I voted for that.

I've been known to try 1NT some days and 2H on other days with this hand. With mixed results. At IMPs maybe I could make myself pass.

At MP I like pass. (In general I like my openings lighter and my responses sounder by a point or two than most. It's VERY rare I will respond with less than 6 and no fit.) I will agree it's a close decision.

I am fine with passing or 1NTing. Hate double, though you'll get away with it more often than you should.

I am reluctantly forced into 3S, but I hate it - that shows 4-card support, "no exceptions," for me. As for this... Well... if you anticipate the rebid problem over 1H-1S, that's a good reason why you SHOULD think about opening something other than 1H if it avoids that problem. (Yes, with my reg p we really would have opened 1NT - but I know that will be a small-minority treatment.)

...is sufficient to keep me from ever using it. I've never heard a suggestion that the ACBL disallowed or even discouraged the removal of unused checkboxes if the space was needed for more details, or even just for readability (cf. the fat free card and the yellow card.)

Wilkosz ftw. Such a good convention people are afraid of it and ban it :angry: (Seriously, don't know why people are so afraid of it.) In the real world, for OP - very few people have a reason to play anything other than natural and weak, unless and until they acquire a taste for odd gadgetry.

Yeah, I looked to see that N would be able to trump the 3rd diamond without looking to see if he had any trumps. Oops. Living in 12C1E land, I would be OK with assigning 200, judging NS competing to 5H isn't inevitable. I do not buy the argument that NS will have trouble finding a heart raise if EW are correctly informed, though.

Jumping in where angels fear to tread... There has been MI, and we have to see what would have happened had EW been in possession of a correct explanation .... but it looks to me like 5 of either minor is going for 500, so EW did not suffer any damage from not discovering their fit. So no adjustment. (PP is possible if NS habitually 'forget' things.)

I understand L57 to apply only when a defender, at his turn to play, can see a card that could not legally be exposed until after his turn to play has gone by -- either a defender is supposed to play 1st/2nd to a trick and his partner who is supposed to play 3rd/4th to it plays too fast, or a defender is supposed to play 3rd/4th to a trick his partner is winning, and his partner reveals his intended next lead before the previous trick is complete. In either case, it refers only to a restriction on how the defender completes that incomplete trick, NOT to the following trick. Even if we didn't have separate laws to handle cards exposed during the auction, L57 would not apply here, because the person with the exposed c7 is going to play first. WTP? (I'm sure dburn has something sneaky up his sleeve, but I sure don't see it.) As a side note, I can't remember ever applying L57 at the table, in 15 years of directing one or two games a week.

No. Even with another jack it wouldn't be 100% clear to invite for me, but that's playing a style where there are a LOT of good 11s in our 1-level openings. I would expect with that extra jack that most people in most styles would invite.

2S for me. If I'm going to have to play a 4-3 fit I'd rather do it at the 2 level in a major than at the 3 level in a minor.

If you wanted to bid the time to do it was on the first round. Now that they know they have a misfit, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

This is an interesting question. It certainly fits my conception of the term. Yet in the ACBL, at least, Drury is explicitly allowed on the GCC. I've wondered whether this means that, in effect, you are not allowed to psych a 3rd seat major suit opening, but I don't know the official position on it. The way I read the rules, Drury can legally be used in response to legal-strength 3rd-seat openers... lots of 11s and most 10s and shapely 9s, etc... but absolutely is illegal in combination with a 3rd seat psychic. I've never actually seen someone punished for it. If I were director, however, I wouldn't have any hesitation about giving a PP and demanding that Drury be stricken from a partnership's card when I saw a 3rd seat psych. (You don't need to wait until you catch them responding 2C to the psychic opening; just the combination of the psychic opening with the existence of a method to control it is good enough.) That said, lots of good players have literally laughed in my face at the suggestion that using Drury as a psychic control is illegal. The posted hand looks much more like an illegally-light 3rd seat opener than a psych, but thats a judgment call for someone else to make.

Too far from the announced description for it to be a deviation. (Whether that makes it a pysch or a misbid or an incorrect description of an agreement is another question.) I would accept a 6-5 hand with one king or queen as a normal deviation, but not the posted hand. If you made it 6-6-1 with no faces cards it'd be a tougher question.

The question isn't so much "is 2NT forcing?" - obviously it doesnt show extras from opener - but rather "how far is 2S forcing?"... and I think for a lot of us it is GF, or at least promises a rebid. If I am responder, a flat 10 or 11 is NOT on the list of possible hands I could have for a 2S response.

Wow, this is tough. Flannery, Drury, and Stolen Bid are all things I would hate to ever be forced to play... but my opps who play stolen bid do give me a lot of tops, and flannery is more or less harmless, so I had to vote for Drury. And of course if I catch up with whoever made such a useful and straightforward convention as Wilkosz Brown Sticker, he's going to vanish into the dungeons for a long time.

I would be fine with 1NT. Second choice a maximum 2C. At IMPs I could easily be persuaded that 2C is the better bid. 3C looks like almost as gross of an overbid as 2NT does. No guarantee we have more than 8-card fit or more than half the deck here.

I can deal with 2H or pass. Even at equal that's a seriously marginal 3H opener.

It's on my list of questions to ask my regular p, since I can see a case both ways.

It's not SO different from the version of checkback stayman published in (for instance) Matula's 1994 Polish Club book: strike the "promises a 5-card major" part, and replace "12-13" and "14" with "min" and "max" (it would make more sense to put the 13s with the maxes than the mins, and in my partnership 11s are very possible), and you pretty much have it... after 1m-1H-1NT-2C: 2D = denies 3 hearts, min 2H = 3 hearts, min 2S = 3 hearts, max 2NT = denies 3 hearts, max After 1m-1S-1NT-2C you need room to find out about 4 hearts also, so you have to make some priority decisions re what's in 2D and 2H. Here is one way: 2D = denies 3 spades, minimum, 4 hearts still possible 2H = 4 hearts, maximum, 3 spades still possible 2S = 3 spades, minimum 2NT = no major, maximum 3C = 3 spades, maximum, denies 4 hearts In that form I consider it spectacularly better than off-the-shelf one-way NMF. With extremely careful definition of 3rd-round continuations and responder's other rebids, it can approach the efficiency of two-way NMF. Not nearly as space-wasting as the occasional person who wants to jump to 3M with 3-card support and a maximum after NMF. I forget, off the top of my head, if "Kantar Checkback" is the same kind of thing or not.

Having played 1♥-2♠ and 1♠-2NT as undisclosed minisplinters for about 10 years now, I am very fond of the treatment. (We play 1♥-2NT natural and forcing to game, which I am also fond of. Using 1♠-3♣ to show that same balanced GF is noticably more awkward, but having room to sort ou the splinters takes precedence IMO.)