peachy

If a clone of me were sitting to my left, it would have a maximum balanced raise. I don't know what GIB would have for the Dbl. In real life I would have a partner, but I don't know what GIB partner would do. It could pass 2S with a doubleton spade and three card diamond support, I have seen enough stuff like that. If I pass we get clobbered in 2SX. If I run to 3D and GIB had three spades, it will bid 4S and I get clobbered at 4SX. Tough to know what works because the GIBs are very unreliable in competitive auctions.

In one word: No.

I bid 3C on both hands. I am not rushing in to bid NT with a singleton in partner's suit and no source of tricks; if NT is right, 3C is not hindering it at all. "Raise of 4th suit shows 4 cards"

Excellent point IMO.

I like Sandwich NT, both by PH and UPH - keep the takeout Dbl clean. 2NT is available for extreme hands while 1NT is occasionally 5-4/4-5. Cuebid of either of their suits is natural and much needed when we happen to have that hand. This has worked well and I have not once missed the 15-18 NT overcall. If I have that much, and the opponents are not operating on air, my partner is near broke. Also, when the 15-18 hand passes, the opening side tends to stretch against "silent opponents" and/or misguesses in play. Fine by me:)

If it is from a book, post the hand to make it clear what you are looking for. I don't quite understand, but that may be a fault on my part.

N 100%. Pass was a bad.

I missed that part of your questions. I agree 2S is not a weakness showing bid although it could be, just showing 5+ spades. It is neutral. The "forcing" aspect comes from the principle that when opener reverses, _he_ is promising a third bid. Much of the time, we are playing in one of opener's suits but not always.

I believe what kenberg described is right, when playing the BWS style system. Tyler, if you don't play and don't agree with the system which kenberg wants to discuss, fine. Your post adds nothing except that you want help with reverses. If so, listen in or start another thread:) edit: I didn't see Stephen Tu's post before posting.

Every country in which the government takes responsibility for the health of its citizens gets better results for half the per capita cost. I seldom wander into the Water Cooler and really never post here...bu can't resist this. Can you back this up with anything resembling reliable data?

Partner hasn't promised 5♦ nor has he denied 6♥ you realize? Perhaps in a beginner setting, real 4+ card diamonds could be assumed, but not otherwise. Opener could easily have only three diamonds and in some rare cases only two, something like Ax-AQJxxxx-AK-xx. No offense intended for anybody, I remember how scared I was some 30+ years ago when I first used a fake suit to make a GF because nothing else fit the hand.

If your diamonds were KQx and spades xxx, 3D would be clear. The fitting spade honors push this hand's value up but at the same time there are those baby diamonds to think about. I think this is a hand is one where no bid is perfect. Result merchants' dream :)

I would Pass first time but I don't think Dbl is as bad as some say. DBL on 2S seems pretty clear.

Penalty Dbl. Being IMPs, they are going down 2 or more.

I think you got backwards. Absent agreements, 3C is GF. It can be AGREED to be only a 1-rd force or even just strongly invitational, but such agreements would have a lot of flaws. One being that any pick-up partner would take it as GF.

Plus, 3H covers all hands that are NOT included in 4H (good trumps). That means that 3H is either weak with possible false heart preference, or stronger than limit raise values.

3C is GF. Bid 3H. Some play 4H is fast arrival but that cannot be the case in THIS auction because with heart support and weak hand, responder will support hearts, not bid an unlimited 1S. In this auction 4H should be showing great trumps while 3H is pretty much any hand that either has heart support or maybe only doubleton. Responder should not support clubs unless they are a mile long because opener might have had to manufacture a GF bid with bulky 3-card clubs. PS. Not that anyone would with a singleton, it was a general principle...

Not sure what you argue for or against. This 3S is common in any 2/1 style. It is standard in 2/1 Hardy style.

Is it automatic that a BIT creates UI? Even if every BIT automatically creates UI, in my opinion it is important to know what the UI is, not merely that some UI exists. I said "there was BIT, this is UI". I don't think there is any doubt that BIT *is* UI. You are expanding the statement to a different thing, of "what the UI could suggest".

In your/my 2/1, 1S-2C-2S is the default bid with minimum even with no extra length or strength in spades when can't raise clubs, don't have a red 4-card suit, and don't have one side suit stopped. Under these conditions, it is okay to bid a descriptive 3S with the OP hand and show a pretty six-card spade suit [no more than one loser in it], moderate extras, strongly imply spades should be trump . Admittedly, it is minimum for this description. All in all, North should continue. My gut says, N was worried that S did not know that N knew "spades is trump" and that 5C could me misunderstood. No insult intended on North, but no other reason seems real for not going on for at least once more with a hand that has Kx spades and all side suits controlled first or second round.

ATB = 100% E. This is so clear that I don't even understand why the question was posed.

I agree that this seems wrong. Once you have UI, it seems like you're doomed, because whatever you do can be seen as taking advantage of the UI. First, if the UI obviously suggests something, and you do that thing, it clearly violates that rule. So what if you deliberately do the opposite thing. Well, you're still making a decision based on the receipt of UI. Now someone can say "what if partner deliberately sent misleading UI, to get you to do that?" Of course, they'll only come up with that argument if your will guess happens to turn out well, like that crazy 6♠ call. So I assume, in the OP case, you will adjust the score to 5-level (at least) something, going down. Using your logic (and I have no problem calling it logic, they make sense) and looking at the OP given facts: Pass of 4NT was antisystemic; UI never suggests antisystemic action; if antisystemic ation was taken when in receipt of UI and it cannot be determined what action the UI could suggest, then the antisystemic action, if successful, will be ruled against; here, Pass over 4NT is judged illegal and a 5-level bid is imposed upon the Passer. Right?

ok, I missed that detail Same goes for long suit tries, I answer the question that partner is asking. If by agreement I need BOTH the diamond filler AND more than minimum, then 3S. Otherwise 4S. But I still don't know their agreements.

Since nowadays "everybody" plays jump overcalls in direct position as Weak, it makes no sense to play them in the balancing position the same as in direct position. Compose a set of agreements that are more or less standard TODAY. Something like 2NT=11-14 [lower the range to 10 if you like], Dbl=takeout, jump in a suit=intermediate with good six-card suit, simple overcall=same as in direct position, Dbl then NT=15-17, etc.

Yes. That solves my many-years-long dilemma, at least I have company in my opinion. I, too, would have left the 6S as "no adjustment". At the time, everybody else said adjustment was necessary. If those same "everybody else" now rule the OP case as "no adjustment", they have changed their minds since IMO the OP case and the 6S case involve identical principles and facts.