Limey_p

Gerben's sequence is perfect. For me, opener's second round 2♠ would be just a "mark time" bid, could have substantial extra strength but nothing more descriptive to say. I don't raise pard's 2♦ unless I have four of them. AP

Maybe it is a game hand with diamonds and only 4 hearts?

I agree - ops may very well have a slam, let's make them guess. Andy

The advice from my seat is "bridge is a bidder's game". And of course Erick is right - distributional hands like these should be fun. AP

I generally agree with this line. Perhaps a spade ruff to the board is better than a heart, so duck a spade at trick two? Andy

4NT (natural)

Another way to address this is within Chat - have table options "prohibit chat from enemies" and/or "allow chat only from friends". (this may well be encompassed by hrothgar's suggestion...)

I'll leave the learned discussion to others. This is an area where I want to have an agreement, and I don't much care what it is, so long as pard and I are on the same page. AP

are we looking at the same hand? This is a game force opposite a standard opening bid. So start with 4th suit forcing [you should have an agreement with your partner for this sequence - is 1♠ or 2♠ 4sf?] then pard can declare 3NT. and likely go down. So perhaps you didn't lose anything playing in 2♥ after all. AP

Assuming responder's 2♦ and 2♥ show 5-card suits, 2♣ promises only two. This makes it ACBL-alertable. Note: if it promises 3 it is not ACBL-alertable. AP references: Natural calls are not alertable unless specifically noted - http://www.acbl.org/play/alertchart.html A minor suit bid is natural if it promises 3 cards - http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

Maybe it is time for an Australian-style tournament - 3 days swiss qualifying, then 2 days KO's for the women's and mini events, 4 days KO for the main event. And thanks to BBO - lets us see how tournaments are run round the world. AP

I agree. North's final pass seems clear. And I like north's double, too. AP

Pard had no idea that you have 5 clubs and declarer has the stiff Q. The 8 should be a normal attitude signal, "please continue clubs". So he has no interest in a switch to hearts. I agree with the switch to diamonds. AP

I would consider 5♣ if red. So I do not totally meet the sanity test.

The first is takeout. The second depends on system. After your strong NT, I thought it was "standard" that the double is penalty in this seat, while if the bidder is sitting over you it is takeout. If it is a weak NT, I would expect takout regardless of the position of the overcaller. AP

The north hand is too strong for 3♠ surely, so we manufacture a jump shift in a minor, here 3♣. That's the way I read Barmar's complaint. Then the auction can continue something like 3♠ - 4♦ - 4♥ - blackwood etc. Andy

The title of the thread is Drury. I wonder, does that mean 2♦ is Drury? In any case, I would start with the "game before slam" principle. If 2♦ is drury, you would have an agreement of some sort as to which is the weakest bid, and 3♥ is not it. So I take 3♥ as a long-suit game try. If 2♦ is natural, then 3♥ is a game force, natural by default, or a splinter in support of ♦ if you have that agreement. A

Any card game is good in this context, but not poker imo. Cribbage is a good game for two, no tricks though. AP

I like to play garbage stayman - responder can take out with a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors. So a hand like this without a 3-card major shouldn't open 1NT. I am a 1♣ opener. 1NT is more attractive if opening in fourth seat, since pard is less likley to need to run to a major. AP

ELC = equal level conversion converting 2♠ to 3♣ isn't equal level ... once again mentioning the name of a convention is not sufficient. We need an agreement. AP

I don't know the money bridge aspect of it. The hand looks like a 1♣ opener to me, 3♣ second choice. AP

pass & 4♥

Non bridge discussion is fine, but the old advice for avoiding fights in bar rooms should apply: Don't discuss religion, politics or sex. AP

I wondered if the contract would always be down on a heart lead ducked ... but no, west is subjected to a (strip) squeeze on the run of the spades ...

An additional factor - Wests's explanations are inconsistent. If 2♦ followed by 3♦ shows diamonds, he should say so at once. This provides additional potential for damage, because the NS agreements may differ. Did the AC establish what the E-W agreements really are? I would like to see a blended score to restore equity to N-S, some combination of spade partial & spade game. For E-W, -620. And no procedural penalty unless E-W have a history of UI offenses. AP