peachy

I don't see my hidden hand... If it is an intermediate, to me it is clear he forgot Sandwich and has 15-17, and is now trying to recover from the goof (illegally if opp asked what 1NT is and he heard the answer). If it is an expert, I don't know what 2NT could be but I am not passing, of course. He has something worth bidding on, but what?

I would like to find out the reasons why the opener did not accept the invite. He has a maximum, his values are A/K, and he has three card support for partner. If he does not consider this an acceptance of the invite, then I need to know what more he would need to accept, and if more was needed, then why is the range described as 5-10. It could well be as Cyberyeti's example 2), but lacking similar other examples by this pair, no substantiated evidence. It could also be MI about the opening range (they actually play it up to say 12HCP), it could be MI about the nature of the 3H call (they actually play it as non-invitational). Something is stinking, for sure, and I don't think a TD can do anything other than record the case for future reference.

Lets be reasonable. Posting here is not a problem if wanting expert advice. Offering responses that are not adv or exp level is, however, not proper. OP did nothing to irritate even a scumbag although I'm not sure who you mean by that.

I would think it is takeout and partner can expect a singleton or void in diamonds. However, partner probably leaves it in more often than bids if he has values and a few diamonds.

You'd be surprised how many players play this as 15-17. I would be surprised to find even one that is playing 1C-P-P-1NT as 15-17.

If the diamond ace were a spot card, I would open 1H. This hand, clearly and obviously 1C.

3H is not a splinter. It can be many types of hands that want to force, one common one to ask for heart stopper with a strong hand. 3S would not be forcing nor showing any significant extras beyond 4-card spade support and a suitable hand for showing it. If you DID play it as splinter, how will you bid several other types of hands that want to make a general strength-showing force or to look for 3NT?

Transferring to diamonds does not seem sensible to me. I transfer when I want to either a) play in 3D, b ) look for slam, or c ) look for game if partner is fitting. Here, with an aceless balanced hand and enough for game, I would bid a direct 3NT.

Never 2H. Other choices all have merit, to different degrees. 3H for me.

This is a hand for negative Dbl and next round bid hearts at the lowest level.

I think defensive claims send a message something like "declarer is too dense to claim so I'll do it for him/her". Unless it is VERY clear what tricks defenders get/don't get, it also _could_ be seen as protecting partner (the other defender) from making bad discards, at least at the club and other lower levels. This probably should be in the "Change the laws" forum, but I think claiming could easily be restricted to "only by the declarer".

I would think 3D shows equal length in majors. As would 4D. Don't know why I think this... Anyway, I'm driving to slam

As passed hand, I dbl. If I weren't a passed hand, Dbl would be not good.

My old bridge library has five books on Precision and three summary booklets(Jannersten, Reese, C C Wei, Goren, CC Wei & Ron Andersen). I haven't started on reading them yet. Are these outdated or still valid? Which one should we pick as basis if they are still good? Or should I get the Berkovitz-Manley book instead? Thanks again for your comments.

This is bad TD practice. It is the TD's job to investigate until he is satisfied and has enough data to make a lawful and reasoned ruling.

In one of my partnerships, we have decided to try a strong club system. Can someone point me to a good resource or system notes for a suitable system for someone who hasn't played big club systems before, please. Appreciate any help, comments, suggestions.

Partner denied a singleton so I am bidding 3NT and expecting spades 4-4. They can cash four spades and we get the rest. If we don't get the rest when spades are 4-4, then we were not going to make 5D either. Also, they might not lead spades.

One does not need two bids for the same hand. In SAYC as well as any system ever played, 3C is natural and forcing, therefore whatever 4C is, it cannot be natural and as such, is obviously forcing. SAYC card does not have splinters so it was showing club ace and heart support. Still, most people who claim to play SAYC, use (or even have agreement with partner to use) splinters. That's what I would guess it is without prior discussion unless I am 100% sure that my partner knows what is on SAYC cards [no splinter].

If this was my auction, in 2/1: 1S-2D (GF nat) 2S-3D (2S does not promise six, 3D extra length) 3S-4D (six spades, 4D sets diamonds and slam interest) 5D-P (5D=nothing to cue, can't RKC either)

3C, no matter who sits opposite. Even a complete novice understands that new suits by responder, at the three level, are forcing - even if a novice might not know that 3C there is often artificial 4sf.

Clearly you are no longer talking about ACBL although your original post started that way. I don't agree with the ACBL regs, I just happen to know what they are.

2S is completely wrong. Dbl and 3D both okay. I slightly prefer Dbl (sort of responsive, values, other suits, with at least tolerance for spades if not three cards)

I would not have picked Bulgaria to be in the top 8, but towards the end of the round robin, I believe they will be in the QF. This is a late entry, but had I made prediction at the beginning, for BB it would have been 1-2. Netherlands, Norway 3-4. Italy, USA2. 5-8. China, USA 1, Russia, Poland.

I am a little surprised at the confusion. Unless a two-way try or other artificial try is on card, a new suit is either long suit try (natural), short suit try, or a help suit try. HSGT asks partner if he can stop three quick losers in the "help suit". If yes, bid game. If not, with a maximum make counteroffer (suit with values or chunky 3-card fragment) in another suit if below 3 of the trump suit. If neither is possible, sign off in three, no matter how maximum responder is otherwise. Opener is in charge.

Option a) is best in general, MPS to boot. Opener being first seat not-vul versus vul, this hand might invite since some openers in that position and vulnerability could be really gross if the partnership plays that style; this is top of range minimum opener.