Apollo81

3♠.....dare I use any 3-letter acronyms?

My gut reaction is to bid 5♦ in the auction as given but really i have no idea. 2♥ looks like a significant underbid to me. I'd have done something different -- 2♣ if I had no other gadgets.

Two explanations for the field: 1. Most bbo pairs have no agreements after a reverse so the strong hand plays it safe by settling for game. 2. For pairs that do have agreements, the North player chose to show the weaker of the two options. I expect (1) to account for 80-90% of the field, and (2) to account for the other 10-20%.

I'd sign off. It looks an awful lot like pard is concerned about a diamond stopper, and while I have one, i doubt that it is a trick unless LHO is feeling friendly. I actually wouldn't be surprised to go down in slam on the defense of ♦A, ♦ruff by RHO.

was there a lead out of turn?

I'd pass. It's not clear we can make anything. On a good day partner will reopen with a double.

Interesting that after a few days there is no real consensus on the meaning of this auction.

The auction (1♣)-1♥-(1♠)-2♠ shows a strong heart raise, one that would GF opposite an opener but not necessarily opposite an overcall. Does the same apply if the overcall is in diamonds?

I like the look and feel as is.

If "fitted" means 4+♦ then I would bid 4♦.

Like the suggestion -- with the added condition that the posts when they become visible would have to clearly indicate whether they were made before or after the waiting period.

Too few forums is also a problem. Several posters have noted that the threads in which they are interested sometimes get drowned out by the other posts. Personally I think 10 is a good number of forums, and if we implemented my idea I think the posts would be spread out more evenly (except maybe bidding problems) thus reducing the drowning factor.

Adam's post is the closest anyone has come to my opinion. I'm not sure that "Bridge By Level" is necessary at all. Since the recent posts I've seen seem to agree that people cannot accurately classify their posts or ability, it seems like we'd have the same problem in this scheme. I would just get rid of the whole idea unless BBO Forums is going to establish an "expert panel" forum where only certain people can respond to posts (which I have mixed feelings about). Anyway, if I were in charge of reclassification, I'd suggest something similar to gnome's suggestion: GENERAL BRIDGE DISCUSSION Upcoming Tournaments and Events Junior and Youth Bridge Rulings, Appeals, and General Laws Discussion Bridge Stories and Interesting Hands BRIDGE PROBLEMS Bidding Problems Lead and Defense Problems Play Problems Combination Problems (e.g. Bidding and Play) SYSTEMS AND CONVENTIONS Natural Systems Discussion (SAYC, 2/1, ACOL, etc) Non-Natural Systems Discussion (Precision, Polish Club, etc) Note that the total number of forums in this suggestion is 10, just like it is now. I would like such a layout because I could focus on the "Bridge Problems" area without even looking at the other forums except maybe once in a while. I wouldn't have to scan a bunch of forums for problems like I do now.

Pass ...but I would certainly bid white at MPs, where the right lead for one fewer overtrick can swing the board. I'd also balance 2♠ here over 2♥pp.

Yes, I doubt partner will sit for it though.

1NT. There's no other good action, and besides -- putting overcaller on lead will be great if partner has anything in the suit.

asking for any of the diamond K/Q/shortness

I think I've unintentionally stripe-tailed ape once. I can think of at least a dozen times where an SOS redoubled worked well.

Some questions: 1. Would you ever bid 1NT here with a 2-3-6-2 hand? 2. Would you ever bid 1NT here with a 2-6-3-2 hand? 3. Do you think that a minimum with 5-card club support can pass 2♣? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Yes Then, ignoring for a minute what things mean in real life, perhaps 2♦ should be natural and 2♥ should mean the really good club raise?

Redouble. We know they have us here. I don't like sitting in what I know will be a bad spot when I have two possible escape routes.

I agree with the first pass. Not only does the hand fail to meet the Rule of 20, one of the kings has the severe handicap of also being a singleton. I think pass is the only reasonable alternative at the second decision. Partner's failure to act means he either doesn't have short hearts or his hand is not very good. Partner also doesn't have a very strong hand like an 18-count. Given these, it's likely that they are down a little (or making) and that we would be down as well if we were to compete. While pass runs some risk of missing a good game, this is far outweighed by the very significant risk of getting doubled and going for a big number if we were to do something else.

I'd double. Partner surely has a club void, so I effectively have an 8-count, albeit with a little extra shape.

I have some sympathy for the double if partner wasn't a passed hand, but none in the actual case.

Surely he has at least 5. I challenge you to construct a hand where he does not.

Some questions: 1. Would you ever bid 1NT here with a 2-3-6-2 hand? 2. Would you ever bid 1NT here with a 2-6-3-2 hand? 3. Do you think that a minimum with 5-card club support can pass 2♣?