TimG

I would like the answer to be C in each case, but suspect that ACBL rules, if strictly enforced, would mean that D is the answer for some (especially the ones where responder makes allowance as in the weak openings affecting the strength of a 2/1). I would prefer to move in the direction of D than in the direction of B. B strikes me as half disclosure and very misleading.

I use Dealer. It is free and can be found here.

The second condition was for 11-13 HCP, not 11-14. As I read the conditions, balanced 5♦332 with 17-19 should not be included in the 1♣ openings.

Shouldn't 1N-(P)-P-(2♠), DBL and 1N-(P)-P-(2♠), P-(P)-DBL have the same meaning? I think both takeout would be most common. With regular partners, I play that these doubles show exactly two spades. We might not catch them when our spades are 3-3 (or worse), but then we ought to be just as well off defending 2♠ as declaring 1N, probably better off.

This sounds wrong to me. If you got the wrong explanation and it damaged you, there should probably be an adjustment. And, I think the right time to call the director is at the end of the hand since calling him before that tells everyone at the table that the cards in your hand suggest the opponents have done something wrong.

Can't we wait for partner's reopening action with this hand? If your hand was slightly weaker, say xx Qx, QJxx, Axxxx and you passed, partner may not reopen as he may easily have length in hearts. He might easily have a 5=3=4=1 or 5=3=1=4 shape. As you have two spades, partner can always bid 2♠ if doesn't care for either minor and has no ♥ stopper. None of what you say really applies to the hand Phil gave as an example. There are not two spades so that opener has a safe exit in 3S and there are three hearts instead of two so that opener is less likely to hold length in hearts. If you held Phil's example hand and knew that opener was 53(41), wouldn't you be content to defend 2H (undoubled)?

It's not a matter of having to read the entire card, but rather becoming accustomed to looking at the appropriate section and reading rather than asking a question. I agree that in ACBL-land there is a deep set tendency to ask rather than look and it would take a huge effort to change this habit. As for the original suggestion, I don't think there should be any effort to add convention names to the convention card (or is that system card), inside or out. The card should be a mechanism to make disclosure simple and efficient rather than a tool for partnership discussion.

Can't happen, but maybe you're just trying to get credit if either end up in the finals?

Can't we wait for partner's reopening action with this hand?

Just like people who don't watch any regular season NCAA Basketball occasionally submit bracket sheets in the office pool.

USA2 also has a new partnership which must be considered.

Are you suggesting that 3♠ would be non-forcing? I'd expect the negative double of 2♥ (which may force the 3-level) plus opener's jump rebid to establish a force at least until suit agreement. I would not expect all those minor suit fillers to accompany a 4♠ bid. Bidding 3♠ or 4♠ may be right, but it carries a certain amount of risk.

(2♠)-3♦-3♠ 3N-4♦ RKC, etc.

After 1C-1D, what's your splinter raise: 3H? That will fetch 4C and opener should be able to do the rest.

Does the same apply to one partner making some 4-card overcalls and the other never making 4-card overcalls? Can't partnerships have explicit partnership agreements about style and judgment? It seems to me that you are arguing that they may not.

I don't think this is quite correct. Playing a 5-card Major system, I will sometimes open (in 1st or 2nd seat) 1M with only a 4-card suit. Some partners would not even dream of doing this. Similar considerations apply to 4-card overcalls. If the auction starts (1C)-1S, are partner and I playing different systems if he will always have 5 spades while I might have 4? I think the choice of opening 1C or 1D with a 4=4=3=2 hand can well be a "style" thing. Tim

BBO and OKbridge have both made it much easier for me to start and maintain offline partnerships. But, I don't recall ever developing a partnership with someone I met through online bridge. Last year I started a partnership with someone I knew from offline bridge, but had never partnered. We exchanged e-mails about system and practiced on BBO before sitting down at an actual table. I've done this twice in the last year, the second time was with someone who I had played with at a couple of club games a few years ago. I think BBO is different from the local bridge club or bridge tournament just because there are so many people on BBO. You might play a few hours every week without ever encountering the same pick-up opponent for months. I could imagine developing a strictly online partnership for the purpose of experimenting with an unusual system. But, in general, I am interested in developing a partnership for offline tournament play. I do wish that there were more opportunities for organized league type play on BBO. (Perhaps some of you will remember Riko's Bridge Ladder from OKbridge days.) I could also imagine developing a partnership for this sort of thing, though it is more likely that I would enter with an already established partnership.

I thought this was the normal approach to 4th suit auctions. This was Q1 in last week's Tannah Hirsch (Goren Bridge) Weekly Bridge Quiz that I happened to read while in a waiting room. The answer given: Two diamonds would be fourth-suit forcing, not necessarily promising a suit, and might cost a round of bidding. A jump to three diamonds describes your hand much better. With a pickup partner who agreed to play a generic 2/1 or SAYC, I would have assumed a jump in the fourth suit would be invitational. Whether that is best in theory is a different matter, I'm just talking about what I would guess to be standard.

My kids would like to know how many rats you have, whether you talk to them (and whether they talk back), and what their names are. My daughter knows the 'h' is silent, but likes to pronounce it anyway. Happy Birthday.

You hold ♠A5 ♥AJT74 ♦AK854 ♣6. Partner opens 1♣, you respond 1♥ and partner rebids 1♠. What is your next bid?

I realize you say this is just a start, but I wonder if conventional/artificial responses and rebids would be permitted over all of these "allowed" methods.

All FWIW. I make it about 15% that partner has exactly 3 hearts and a longest minor of 4 cards. I make it about 25% that partner has fewer than 3 hearts and a longest minor of 5+ cards. I make it about 17% that partner has exactly 3 hearts and at least 10 HCP (and when he does, there are at least 10 tricks in hearts about 62% of the time on a double dummy basis). I make it about 14% that partner has 4 or more spades.

I've recently noticed some very good players (NABC champion, star players) playing in ACBL Robot Duplicates. I'm curious what the motivation might be. Is there some learning from these that I have overlooked? I do not expect the players I have seen are doing it for the masterpoints. Maybe there are some prop bets in play?

I think this is probably a case of general bridge knowledge. Part of the purpose of a psych is to make your opponents think twice or put some doubt in their minds. If you psych on the last board of a match, you do not get the full effect of this (though opponents will tend to remember these things the next time you face them). If I misunderstood and you routinely, almost always, psych in the first X boards of a match and never in the last Y boards of a match, then that's a different story. But, if you psyche 1 time in 50 early in a match and 1 time in 500 late in a match, I don't think there is anything to worry about.

Yes, opposite a passed partner the weak jump overcall could be weaker than 5 or stronger than 9, but even opposite a less wide ranging jump overcall, there is potential for this to be a partscore deal when West makes a competitive raise to 3♣. Things change when 3♣ is forcing. I agree with you about 4♥ being less dangerous when the opponents have more strength.