Kalvan14

3♠: I'm not proud of thsi bid, but the alternatives (including pass) are all worse, IMO.

1♥-1♠-2♣-3♦: 6/+ diamonds, 4 spades, weakish hand (denies 2 hearts)

Transferring to S, and re-bidding 2 or 3N is not for me: IMO, this should show a balanced or semibalanced hand (5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2); I'd never anticipate a 5-5-2-1. I can understand passing a 2♠ rebid: if opener cannot super-accept, game is likely to be marginal. OTOH, I'd prefer to play 3any forcing up to 3♠ only (i.e., can show just an invitational, distributional hand). Opener would rebid 3♠ with a minimum and 2-3 spades; 3N, max and 2 spades, with stopper in the round suits; 4♠ max and 3 spades; 3♥ or 4♣ without stopper in the bid suit, 2 spades and max (obviously good fit in diamonds).

IMO, we should start one step earlier: 2♦ rebid shows 100% 6 diamonds (opener can pattern out 5-4 hands with either 4 clubs or spades). Therefore, after 2♠: 2N= natural, good club stopper 3C 4th SF, with insufficient club stopper (but at least Jxx or Qx in the suit) 3D shows a good suit (AKJxxx or AQJxxx are minimum holdings), willing to play 3N with a single club stopper by advancer 3H is natural, 3 cards (and should take priority, unless clubs stoppers are very good, or diamonds include the 3 top honors) 3S shows values concentrated in spades and diamonds, nothing in clubs and not good diamonds. 3-2-6-2 or 3-1-6-3.

1♣, without any doubt. clubs/spades is the most difficult 2-suiter to show after opening 1♠ [and normally you are unable to]. Quite likely that opps will show a red suit too. Another reason for keeping spades in reserve

One of the fascinating and occasionally frustrating aspects of reading BBF is the realization that almost no generality can go unchallenged (I couldn't write that without the 'almost' without being internally inconsistent). A number of players in this part of the world do indeed play that 2/1 is on in competition. I have played that method myself for years, in certain partnerships. Do I think it best? No. But some fundamentalist 2/1 players swear by it :P I stand corrected. It's true that even the most obvious truths (or what we consider the most obvious truths) may not be such for someone else. Believe it or not, couple of days ago I was berated by partner for not doubling 1♥ by RHO with 15 HCP in a 6-3-3-1. The nitwit passed with 2 aces and a couple Js and i scored 1♠+5 :P [defense was not best, and all finesses worked ;) ]. It was utterly impossible to convince him (not that i tried too hard)

1m-1M-3m is not GF. 16-18 HCP and good 6-card suit 1m-1M-3m-3M should be forcing. Opener has already shown a good 6-card suit. Why bid 3M with a weak hand? 1m-1M-3m-3OM shows a stopper in OM, and denies a stopper in om (in principle it might be a cue-bid, with fit in m; but opener behaves as if it is a 3N try) 1C-1M-3C gives a chance to show exactly the stopper that advancer has in his hand (3D= stops diamonds, 3OM= stops OM) 1D-1M-3D-3N guarantees a stopper in clubs; stopper in OM is uncertain. 1m-1M-3m-4m is forcing

IMHO, advancer should always double 1♠ with 4 cards in hearts, and strive to bid 2♥ with 5 cards and any reasonable hand, say 9-10 HCP [the more so if he's a passed hand]. Priority is given to identifying a possible fit in the other major, and even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF. The risk of bidding 2♦ with 5D + 4H is that LHO might jump to 3♠. Now you are in a bit of a quandary. How do you explore for the 4-4 hearts fit? This approach has also the advantage of making clear that 1m-(1♠)-2om denies 4 cards in hearts. Going back to the posted auction: 2♠ is forcing to game (or at least to 4m: but I quite dislike sequences which give away a clear GF to keep the possibility of stopping on a dime in 4m). Therefore 3♦ is part of a forcing auction, and the bidding cannot stop there

Opening 1♥ with 4 hearts and 5 diamonds is an idea which comes from original Acol. I've no problems in having uncertain lengths (I played Neapolitan club after all: it was a classic); however you must play a system where majors are four cards in principle. Bit awkward doing the same in a 5-card majors system. IMHO, this hand is best opened 1N

1N is automatic for me too. 11-14 HCP, balanced with stopper in hearts. IMHO, this is the standard treatment, and I'd use it even in a casual partnership: I'm quite surprised by the lack of unanimity.

After 1♦-2♦ (IM), 2N guarantees stoppers in the majors and it is not forcing. It is now a bit of tossing a coin: opener most likely has a balanced hand, 12-14 HCP. Advancer has 12 HCP, in a very flat hand. At IMP and vul, advancer should raise to 3N.

In Australia. But I learnt 2/1 (many) years ago from Hardy's book. And IMHO inverting the meaning of 3m and 2N is quite a good idea.

I'd prefer 3♣, and double over the anticipated 3♦ by LHO. I'm not going to pass 2♦, and then having to decide what to do over 3♦

Playing the standard 2/1, I'm quite surprised no one mentioned 2♦ would be Inverted Minor. While it would normally require 4 cards fit, it is quite a good picture of the hand: it does not give a wrong impression in terms of strength (as both 2♣ and 1N would), and right-sides NT (it also stressed the need for major stoppers). The standard 2/1 does not include 2N as a balanced hand 11-12 (or stronger): 2N is a weak pre-emptive raise in diamonds (the limit raise in diamonds is 3♦, again to right side NT; and the limit raise in clubs is 3♣).

4C is an horrible bid: 0.