TylerE

Agree with Phil. Club bids should be natural, showing a good hand and clubs. Which isn't really a misdescription other than burying the ♥/

4♥ seems obvious at this juncture.

That's not sections, that's printing masterpoints.

I think it's RKC for ♦, but I would fully expect the final contract to be in ♠. A hand like AKJxxxxxx Kx Qx x perhaps?

balancing position at MP, at favorable? The 5th spade is a bonus, not a requirement. 2♣

To add a bit more....if needing a board/feeling fiesty the east hand is not far off just opening 4♠, although it isn't really classical shape it's not a bad shot. 3NT is right out for W, since even if ♠ run for one loser (in which case 4♠ is likely to be fine), you have no guarantee of an entry. I can't prove it, but my gut feeling is that if 3N is making, 4♠ is practically always making, but not vice-versa, and if both contracts are down 4♠ is probably down less.

It can still apply over conventions. Just use a little common sense, and just pretend they overcalled naturally, so the stopper asks/shows revolve around whatever their primary shown suit is.

3♠ - p - 4♠ for me

1♣ - (p) - 1♠ - (2♥) X (support) - (p) - 2♠ - ?

Lebensohl or don't bother[1] NOT "stolen bids" which are worse than natural. [1] - Well, there are some other options like Ruebensohl, but they are a bit adfvanced for B/I

Nope

IMO if your weak 2s are so disclipined that Ogust is not useful, yer doin' it rong.

Since when can you have "no suit longer"? In many places opening 1M with e.g. 5♠-6♦ or especially 5♥-6♦ would be considered routine, especially for more minimum hands. Likewise in some systems it's nessesary to open 1♦ holding, for instance, 4 good diamonds and 6 bad clubs.

Well, I'm voting not a psyche, since you didn't specify system. In one I played this actually would be a systemic 1♠ opener. A canape' system, obviously, but a GCC legal one...

Frankly, I think this is barking up the wrong tree. There are soooooo many ways to cheat, some of which BBO would have absolutely no way of catching.

Sounds a bit like the old "uh" openings. So, like, opening "a spade" would show a minimum and opening "one spade" showed extras, or vice versa.

So overcall 2♦, WTP? X just guarantees you'll never be able to describe your hand.

I don't like the initial double. Way too many losers to treat this a strong hand.

What's your NT range? I'd open this 1N playing any range that includes 17. Using my methods: 1N-(2♥)-3♥ (4♠ exactly, no ♥ stop)-(p) 4♦ (Suit, also no heart stop, not 4♠) etc

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

Let's just say I'd put this one in my "Would play against this at money bridge at any stakes" file.

Here I strongly disagree. A rule explicitly not enforced is worse than no rule at all, as it brings every ruling and action of the ruling body into question.

What I thin would be cool is a form of normalized imps. Something like this: Score at ximps as usual, drop the top and bottom 10% of scores. Now, scale so those at the 90th percentile (e.g. those that are right on the cutoff for the boards that got dropped) as +/- 10.0 "imp-equivalents". Now scale all the scores (including those originally dropped. In effet, this will be MPish (an overtrick could suddenly be worth 5 imps or something), except 10pt differences won't matter much, and if you have a really extrodinary result (Like only one in the field to bid and make grand), it's worth a bit more than an average board.

Yes, because when it's an alert, it gives us the opportunity to NOT ask (and thus minimize the waking up) when we don't care.

Point steps to 2♣ is another good one.