peachy

1C-1H-2D-2H-2S-3C is how my partnership would begin. Alternately 1C-1H-1S. With a misfit in hearts, South just should not GF. As to keycards, South is in no position to ask for keycards, it was a mistake to ask.

Still on SAYC: To show clubs ONLY 1NT-3C = invite 1NT-2S(relay)3C = weak 1NT-2C-2whatever-3C = slam invite How else (still by SAYC) are you going to bid a slam zone hand with a minor but no 4-card major? I am not trying to say this is best, but it "is" what SAYC prescibes.

Moreover, 1NT-2C-2whatever-3m in SAYC does not promise a four-card major; this is the only way to start slam auction in a minor, if playing SAYC.

I keep bringing up this link, but I think it is a good one, discussion of FP. The "rules" of FP can be simple, or they can be complicated. Make them simple for your own comfort. Even world class experts do not agree amongst themselves what the *right* rules are. http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202009-06.aspx

I would open 4C. The actual auction is a little mysterious. Where are the spades? Opponents, obviously, since partner did not bid them and partner did not make a negative double on 1H. What does partner have in this auction? He does NOT have a trap pass of hearts since he did not double 2H to tell that. He does NOT have spades. Probably balanced hand with four hearts and not enough values to bid 1NT or raise clubs the second round or to bid 2D first(if he has five or more diamonds). Logically, he must have about two or three spades, long diamonds, short clubs. So the decision to pull or leave in should be based on this picture, plus the fact that partner has not peeped once all this time and now Dbl, very much penalty. Pass. He may not expect the hand that I have but that is my fault for misdescribing in the first place.

To me, it looks very much like N was panicking that partner forgot Drury because he did not alert 2D, and then decided to make it clear to partner that he had a spade raise, by jumping in spades. "If" this is what happened, and I am not saying it did, then N used UI to choose that call - illegal. Regardless of whether there was damage to NOS or not, North [in that case] needs an education of not using UI. At least TD should ask why N jumped in spades when he had already shown a 4-card limit raise in spades the round before.

Nothing prohibiting from choosing an illogical alternative, but the score is likely to be adjusted if that choice gains for the OS. This prompts me once again to bring the 1S-...3S-6S case. Opener has a regular opener that might/might not accept the game invite. However, perhaps out of frustration, bids 6S. He has UI, and if he bids 4S/making with his borderline hand, score will be adjusted to 3S+1, if Pass is a LA. 6S is an illogical alternative, and if it miraculously makes, the score will be adjusted. That is how this case was discussed years ago. I had similar opinion to yours at the time ["an illogical alternative must be legal since law only discusses LA's"] but changed my mind, listened to more experienced and knowledgeable law experts.

Blackshoe explained it all and I agree - they are not allowed to play that convention at all if the event is GCC.

4th suit forcing, this can be agreed as 5-5 invit. Practical.

North's 3NT destroyed the auction. Start with 1D-1S-2C-2H, and see what happens.

Subjective criteria never good, well "never" say never, and sometimes that is all there is. Representing one's country in international competition is a variable concept. Representing US or France, for example, is totally different than representing Malta or Zimbabwe or other smaller countries who have never even approached of winning something. Then there are Nordic Friendship League, Small Federations Cups and other limited international events where the level is not even close to World Class I like the idea of scrapping stars and starting over with more accurate and measurable objective criteria. Or just scrap the stars altogether.

So do juniors from other countries.

There is not just ONE set of rules for when FP applies. Good discussion here, shows you that there is a wide range of various "rules" from various experts. http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202009-06.aspx I like it "on" when we have constructively bid game or have established a GF.

If this is in North America, the common style there is to always open 1D with 4-4 minors.

2S, crystal clear.

If you have a bid to show 4-card limit raise, use it. If not, or if on uncertain ground (pickup for example), then 3C.

Both. What does opener have extra to warrant another bid??? But more blame to East for hiding his hearts and then bidding 4D.

My response is: None of the given choices. Open 2C and rebid 2NT, if your initial 2NT opening is 20-21. Opening 2C and then rebidding 3D shoes/tends to show 6 cards; rebidding 2S would show 5. This hand just looks balanced, despite the singleton K.

SAYC does not use 'better minor'. Here is what SAYC prescribes (if you want to know what SAYC actually is): Normally open five-card majors in all seats. Open the higher of long suits of equal length: 5–5 or 6–6. Normally open 1D with 4–4 in the minors. Normally open 1C with 3–3 in the minors. Notrump openings show a balanced hand and may be made with a five-card major suit or a five-card minor suit. Thus, all your examples open 1C in SAYC. Should you use judgment to open 1D with AKQ-xxx, is up to you and for example in third seat even those who are true to shape and system, might open it 1D.

It is stated in the Alert Chart in the section "Responses to NT openings and overcalls" which I presume - maybe wrongly ? - is just a condensed form of the regulation itself. But in this case gives more information, hehe. Quote from the No Alert column: Stayman (next higher level of clubs) asking for a four-card major. (Also, Stayman after the NT opening has been doubled.)

Sorry if this puts in more wrinkles but Stayman is not alerted in ACBL. The chart says under No Alert: Stayman (next higher level of clubs) asking for a four-card major. (Also, Stayman after the NT opening has been doubled.)

Not so fast. The law says "... could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Bolding is from me.

I would think takeout double of the last bid of their suits, in all cases. There are several reasons why there was no immediate takeout double in the first round of bidding, like imperfect shape and/or too many of opp's first suit.

We are vulnerable against not-vul and bid game, so it is our hand; by the metarules Pass by this hand should then be forcing, but I would not be sure and would not be sure partner would be sure. "If" it is clear, Pass is forcing, then I must bid 5S now rather than later.

Opponent has put us to a guess. I am guessing Pass with this hand.