akhare

Pass -- even if the partnership style to to pass 1♦ holding 8 HCPs with say 5 ♦ or something along those lines, do you seriously want to risk defending 2♥-X?

Not truly unique, but: Running marathons Racquetball Reading (mostly non fiction) Movies Cooking I would have added programming, but that's my profession ;)...

Well said -- you are no longer in a minority of one :). Basically, it's essentially SP at T1 and the denomination of the card indicates what suit (including an odd asking for continuation)...

J♣ for me -- have trump control and some chance of a ruff if pard holds A♣ and knows to duck. I suppose we could pickle pard's K♣ if dummy has Q♣ and they hold AT of ♣...

Third it -- regardless of whether you agree with the proscribed methods (a lot of which make sense BTW), it's mandatory reading for any serious partnership.

♥8 to indicate no strong minor suit preference in case pard can ruff. Pard will (hopefully) ruff this and lead back the a minor depending the minor suit A in hand...

Pretty clear 3♠. I suppose this must have pushed the opps into 4♥-X, making and they might have rested in 3♥ in the postmortem? ;)..

Agree with Helene -- my best guess would be a weakish 7-4 hand with the majors or some hand with long ♠ that can't withstand a X of 4♣...

1♠ in a limited openings system. Would be leery of opening it 1♠ in a standard system unless pard is used to such openings...

1N -- the raison d'etat for playing 10-12 NT at this vul ;)...

Is a 10-12 NT, even white, "going in the wrong direction"? Sadly, the ACBL won't allow meaninful methods over a NT range starting with < 10, but I guess that isn't what you meant :)...

Study of people (bridge players) in their 90s without dementia alters understanding of brain: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30886477/

Isn't the last case easy to identify? Assuming that you stop on the first round scan with either AKQ or no AK, the sequence might go something like this (starting with say 3♠ = 4=4=1=4 with 7 QPs): 4♣ (1) - 4♦ (2).....................1: DCB.....2: AKQ of ♠ or no AK 4♥ (1) - 4N (3).....................1: DCB.....3: AKQ of ♣ or no AK Given that this example assumes missing AK of ♠, relayer must hold AK of ♣, A♦ and K♥ for the auction to make any sense at all. Ergo, after 4N it should be clear that responder is missing AK of ♠ (marked with A♥, AKQ of ♠ would give too many. Note that AQ♥, K♦, Q♣ with XXXX in ♠ is possible too). On a side note, I have seen some people count only stiff A/K and exclude stiff Qs in the reported count. Is there an advantage one way or the other?

We used only 17 out of the possible 35 bids, so it's slightly less than 50% value for money B). As an aside, it's possible to reach this using an alternative scheme as well: 1♣ (1) - 1♦ (2).......................;1: 16+ any; 2: 6+ QPs, GF 1N (3) - 2♣ (4)...........................; 3: Reverse relay, 9-11 QPS, 4: relay 2♥ - 2♠ (4).............................; 4: relay 3D (5)............................................; 5: 4♦s and the bells go off, DCB etc. Of course, this requires the unbalanced hand to ask the balanced hand, a practice that's frowned upon as I understand.

This is easy with symmetric relays -- all opener's bids are relays unless otherwise noted. QPs are counted using the A=3, K=2, Q=1 scale. 1♣ (1) - 1♦ (2).......................;1: 16+ any; 2: 6+ QPs, GF 1♥ - 2♦..................................;♠+♦ 2♥ - 2N.......................................;Long legged (at least 5-5) 3♣ - 3♦...................................;High short (singleton or void 3♥ - 4♥...................................;6=0=5=2, 7 QPs (4♦+1 for zoom) 4♠ (7) - 5♦ (8).........................;7: DCB. 8: A, K in ♠/♦, no ♣ AK 5♥ (7) - 5N (9).............................;7: DCB. 9: Second ♦ control, no Q♠ 6♣ (7) - 6♦ (10).....................;7: DCB. 10: No Q♣ 7♦...............................................;Must have AK ♦, K♠ for 7 QPs, because K!S, ♦AQ and Q♣ has been ruled out

The clubs aren't that good it is a broken sequence. I might pass ... but the last time I tried that with a 10-bagger well you can say I am still waiting for the bidding to get back to me :) This hand is proof positive that FP systems rule :P...

♦2 -- hoping not to solve a two way guess for declarer in the suit...

2♠ -- 3♠ is probably OK, but might get pard too interested...

4♠

1) 1♠ -- the more interesting question of course is what if it goes the ominous (P) - P - (X) 2) 1♥ -- blame it on Lawrence 3) 3♥ -- X could work I suppose, but it gives them 3 more free bids

5♠ -- payoff to the preempt if both that and 5♣ go down or the bid eggs pard into bidding 6♠, -1.

I don't know about modern trends, but I would be wary of making a simple overcall holding more than 18+ HCPs (unless the hand is exceptionally poor or if it seems prudent to get in at least one suit before the bidding is at the 4+ level on the next round). Another alternative might be the NTO (NT for takeout) in conjunction with the power X. It seems to work pretty well, but hasn't really caught on for some reason.

I am late to the party here, but I must concur who consider bidding 3♥ as a joke. Poor suit, balanced shape and the danger of egging pard into bidding too much...three strikes (and counting) all point to a pass in tempo...

This is excellent -- the ability to bypass the firewall at work makes it especially nice. Now if only we could add a few buttons that allow us to bid and play :)...

I saw an interesting sequence the VuGraph the other day: 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♦ (alerted as transfer to ♥). The transfer was ostensibly to play or forward going (note that 1♣ opening was "natural", presumably showing 3+). This seems to be derivative of Capp/1MX. Does anyone have more details about this convention?