skjaeran

I'd never ever try this vs a 3rd seat opener - this is just sick. I don't really know what hand I'd have to rebid 1NT here, and I can't imagine any hand to follow up with a double afterwards.

Nicely put. Wholeheartedly agree.

Obvious pass at MP, probably right to pass at IMP's too, but not sure I could stomach that.

The default meaning of 3♥ varies around the world. Past beginner level it would be a splinter undiscussed here in Norway. If you'd discuss the meaning of the bid with a pick-up partner here, the discussion would be whether it promised a void or if a singleton was allowed.

I play transfer advances here, but I'm not strong enough to show a side suit here, nor strong enough for a good raise. So I'm content with a simple raise to 3♦. Btw, transfering to ♣'s on the way to 3♦ would almost certainly bury any possible 44♠ fit.

2♣ is an underbid, prefer 2♥ (inv+ with support). 3♣ is an underbid too, prefer double. Over 3♣ north might again double. IMO south should take this out knowing they're 55 in ♣'s and having too much strenght in ♣'s and too soft side values. South has more than minimum, but it's not clear to bid over 3♥ in this auction if north passes.

This question just shows why experts don't play SAYC. Not having a forcing (or invitational) minor suit raise available is IMO not possible for serious players. Having said that, I'd bid 2♣ here - being forced to take over with these (non-)agreements.

I think it's clear to double this. I agree with Frances' analysis. Josh is making a valid point too.

I always bypass 1♦ to show my major suit if I'm below GF strenght. With GF strenght I might bypass 1♦ if I'd need a ♦ reverse from partner to look for a ♦ slam. On other hands I might bid 1♦ holding a 4cM if it's essential to know about a balanced 11-14 (where I won't explore for slam) or an ubalanced hand with opener. So below GF strenght always bypass, with GF+ strenght sometimes bypass. Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

Absolutely agree.

1. Raise to 2NT. Passing would be a killer (for us) in Norway. 2. Pass 3. 4♣ then pass.

That's an easy one. Those who play simple oldfashioned check back stayman rebids 2♣. Those who play NMF rebid 2♦. Those who play xy-NT or xyz rebid 2♦, art. GF. Playing check back or NMF you have to follow up with a GF. Agree with all of this except the XYZ followup. Playing XYZ you dont have to monkey around with 2D, but rather bid a direct 3H which expresses this hand type well. That depends on which version of xyz you play. A jump to 3♥ here would show a distributional invite with a 7-card suit the way I'm familiar with.

That's really hard to say. Mostly blueish grey, but there's a greenish taint too, and some brown close to the pupils. I voted "Other". :wacko:

I don't like such attempts at discouraging appeals. If you don't want appeals at all, just make the TD's ruling final and scrap the whole idea of an appeals committee. (I'm not serious.... of cource one should have the opportunity to appeal.)

Points schmoints. We could still have an easy game and I've got the master suit. "Obvious" 1♦ opening. Partner's got a balanced 10-count, so he'll have at least some support for me.

I BELIEVE that it is illegal to have explicit agreements about the meaning of bids over an insufficient call. I never understood the rule. I am not defending the rule. However, I'm pretty sure that I am right about this one. I can try to track down a reference if folks want. No need to track down the reference, you're quite right. I never understood the rule either, and won't defend it. I guess you understood I was joking...

4♣ would be a cuebid agreeing ♥'s now. I can't see any reason to make this bid now. I'll just trott out RKCB to check if partner's ♥'s are solid. If they are, we're cold for 7NT. We still might make 7NT, but I'll settle for 6NT then.

That's an easy one. Those who play simple oldfashioned check back stayman rebids 2♣. Those who play NMF rebid 2♦. Those who play xy-NT or xyz rebid 2♦, art. GF. Playing check back or NMF you have to follow up with a GF.

For the record, in my methods I'd bid 2♦ with this hand, transfer, showing either a WJS or a SJS (in ♥'s).

Playing SJS, this really is an obvious 2♥ call. You're worth a slam try, partner can support with Ax/Jx (or even singleton J), you're onesuited. All normal requirements for a SJS are covered. If you can't jump to 2♥ with this you'd better scrap the SJS altogether, since you'll have a hand for it at most once every leap year or thereabouts. Then it's not worth being in your system notes - the bid can be used to better effect with some other meaning (WJS, reverse Flannery, etc).

Don't we have the agreement that a jump to 2♠ shows 6-3 in the majors now? :D

It seems west won the 2nd trick with the king, not the duce.... I'd like to have the bidding before comitting to a plan.

1. I really like interfering over opps strong NT, but there's a limit to what I'd bid on. This clearly exceeds that limit. There's no point to it red vs white. I'll just offer opps the opportunity to hammer me, or ease their bidding and declaring. 2. It would be nice to know opps' methods after intervention - what version of lebensohl they use, and follow-ups. 3NT might show or deny a stopper. That said, our best chance to set the contract is setting up my ♠'s, so I'll lead my systemic correct card in the suit. 3. Sure. Give partner three small, Qx or Tx, and there's several layouts where we can cash out the ♠ suit as soon as partner gains the lead. 4. If partner holds a 5-card ♥ suit (and some 4-card holdings), a ♥ lead would set the contract.

This BSC definition is in fact the same we use in Norway, and it's a blueprint of the WBF System Policy BSC definition.

I don't know about B/I-level, but above that courtesy preferences are still in extencive use - at least where I play.