peachy

The Yellow Card. Or EssayWhySee. Just list the letters. However, for no reson at all, it remains a mystery to many SAYC-players what SAYC actually is. Getting the thread further away from topic. Sorry.

When spoken, I just say "upside down count and attitude". When written, no need to pronunciate.

South was certainly not thinking of doubling them, he was considering bidding 4D. The earlier auction indicates he has no extras, because he passed over 1S. North has been silent throughout the auction. My estimation is that North would never bid 4D without the confidence boost of partner's hesitation.

There were some remarks made about NT openings and ACBL regulations in another thread. One can have the agreement to open 1NT if it is *strong (15+) and forcing* with no shape restrictions. That of course is alertable. However, I cannot find what the ACBL regulation says about having an *agreement* to allow singleton in *natural* 1NT opening. Would it be correct to assume it is legal if it is alerted? What about natural 1NT overcalls? Same thing?

My partner and I have played together for maybe 4-5 years, but we do not play often. Live bridge maybe twice a year, otherwise on BBO.

Who does that, curious minds want to know :) I see your smiley, but still not quite following.

4C is the first wrong bid. Anything that follows or leads to a bad spot, has to be blamed on the 4C bid.

Auctions starting with a 2NT opener are notoriously difficult with many types of responding hands. No matter what methods are adopted, there always seems to be a hole somewhere... I will be reading suggestions here with interest.

Shows a good hand. Everything else is shrouded in mist. In my methods, 1S by UPH is forcing. But it really doesn't matter, the meaning of 2C remains the same (for me).

1S confirms 5 diamonds you said. Not knowing your system, how would opener bid 4-2-4-3 hand out of range for 1NT opening? Doesn't really matter, just curious. Anyway, instead of 3H, opener should bid 3S. Lacking that, responder must not use RKC when he has one suit unstopped.

It is not practical to give or have strict "rules". The same judgment that normally is used, is valid for a two-over-one sequence as well. Raise partner's major, rebid good suits, bid the default that shows balanced minimum if you have balanced minimum (when no raise of partner's major), don't raise responder's minor with three card support until you know he has five or more, and so on. And if you have two bids that both are "right", make the bid that limits your hand, if possible.

RHO may be able to indicate a lead also. Thanks for the credit, I'll take it! Lol. I was too lazy to get the quote from Gnasher's post, didn't realise it would get attributed to anyone. Sorry Andy. As for 1-2-3 being a game-invite being old-fashioned - In the UK it is the opposite, traditionally this sequence was preemptive but now some play it as an invite of some description. Then the trend is the opposite in England then B)

If it is not forcing, it is alertable. This is what the ACBL Alert regulation says about it: Below game, non-forcing natural suit responses to preemptive openings require an Alert. http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

I play systems on. 4C=Stayman etc. 5C=aceasking. Most of the time 3NT is passed, for obvious reasons. Never heard or seen range ask or flint.

2/1 [always GF], 12-14NT, 4-suit transfers, and all the normal gadgets (Texas, Puppet, Lebensohl 2 places, BWS for reverse, NMF, Landy, 2H bust on 2C opening, modified Ogust etc etc nothing unusual) I was amazed to see my partner and me leading the pack, for now. We had three boards where we made a mistake in judgment, nothing to do with system.

In the olden days [i have played for decades, the last two decades in ACBL], 1M-2M-3M was some sort of invite. To my knowledge, nobody that I have met plays it that way nowadays. The popularity of using this as a blocking bid to avoid opp's balance and opp's opportubnity to find out if they should double, became mainstream with the emergence of the Law of Total Tricks. It all should be taken with a grain of salt, but there is some validity to using it that way.

Does the ACBL define this in the alert charts? Or, convention charts? The Laws no longer define convention, correct? Yes. There is a definitions section among the documents that are part of the ACBL Alert Regulations. http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

If you are after limits and cutoffs, other than what the regulation provides (or even as your interpretation of the regulation), then explain it so a simple soul like me can take you seriously.

What does 2NT show over 1M-2M? To be honest, I can't really remember, though I have a suspicion it asks for shortness. One of the points rdk makes is that if you play some form of Bergen or Lott raise, you will be at the 3 level anyway in 5-4 fits. It is only the 6-3 hand that would raise to the 3 level. He comments, among other things, that 6-3 shapes do not play as well as 5-4 shapes and that often the opps would not have balanced anyway. Maybe just quote from the book or article, if you don't remember. What book or what article?

When we are vul and they are not, this is a 3NT bid. For Pass and then convert opener's re-opening double, need assurance that we get 1S down 4 or that the vulnerability is reversed; this hand cannot be sure that 1S goes four down. Edit: Just read a good point by aquahombre. What if partner does not reopen...

Common way to play - in the western US anyway - is that raise to 3D is always weak (long support, less than limit raise) with or without competition and that 2D in competition is a normal single raise but not enough shape or enough trumps for a raise to the three level, and possibly also too much defense to promise a weak hand. Limit raise or GF raise goes via cuebid.

I play new suit is forcing by UPH on our overcall so we would not have had much trouble with this one. Tough hand. In this auction, over North's 3H bid, what do you all play as the weakest/strongest actions? Is bidding weaker than Pass or the other way round? At least if the level were lower and we would not be bypassing 3NT, then I would think rebidding one's suit is the weakest action and Pass more encouraging?

In the end, poker is a game of luck more than skill. Not sure what you mean by complexity. Rubber bridge is also a game of luck more than duplicate bridge, in case someone argues that "skill matters in poker". Of course it does but lucky beginner who learned the basic rules of poker 1 hour ago can easily win in poker while that is not possible in duplicate bridge.

A bid can be both natural and conventional at the same time. It is not an either/or situation. I think awm post is not intended to be taken seriously. But perhaps I am mistaken.

When you are interested in no-trump after opponents have shown two suits, in some auctions, you can try cueing the suit in which you have the better stopper, asking, in the first instance, for a stopper in the other. Couldn't you play it the other way round - cueing the suit you don't have a stopper in? Or is there some disadvantage to this? One disadvantage is that you need to agree that with partner because "everybody and their dog" plays it so that you bid the suit you have stopped unless there is only one enemy suit known.