peachy

By elimination, it must be six-card suit because there is no need to rebid a five-card suit as "default with minimums" when opener has room to describe his hand with no problem. The range can be minimum or just short of bidding 3M and it is non-forcing.

4D is most obvious, no reasonable alternative. 4S would be a gross underbid and anything else just does not make any sense.

Show heart support, gf, and slam invite. Splinter if we have it on card. 3H if we don't have splinter. If we don't have splinter, I assume the partnership isn't on sure footing as far as systems go so better set trump first and cuebid diamonds and or spades later.

North. Started the mess with the overcall.

Assuming 3S was forcing with 5+ spades, then 4m can only be a cuebid for spades.

The N hand is bolstered by Ax in partner's heart suit and a very strong two-suiter. I'm wondering why N did not rebid 2S (instead of 1S).

You are approaching this from the wrong point of view. The most important principle is full disclosure. You may not have more knowledge about the meaning of your partner's bid than the opponents. We can argue about psychs all night long. Full disclosure is 100 times as important, and the rules dealing with psychs (and your handling of them) may not violate full disclosure. If you think there is something wrong with the rules, then you should lobby for more permissive regulation of agreements. You shouldn't try to weaken full disclosure. I think I have posted "full disclosure" often enough for now, but I am happy to explain the importance of the concept further if you think it may be necessary. But I thought this was the point of view I was approaching it from! I have never suggested people shouldn't disclose their partner's psyching tendencies. On the contrary I am claiming that as long as they disclose it, and as long as they continue not to allow for their partner having psyched, then partner should be able to psyche as much as he wants. Anything else seems unworkable. However; "as much as he wants" has regulated limits. Even if a psych were a different psych each time the player makes it, frequent psyching that could be considered as "frivolous" is not allowed, at least in ACBL. I seem to remember something like 'twice a session' is too much, but maybe someone could actually link the regulation/advice from ACBL.

2C is the normal bid with this.

This is true. However, OP asked a question about SAYC and there is no "NMF or something" in SAYC.

Perception is all there is. If somebody at the table perceives your gloating or other remarks as rude, then the remarks "are" rude and the TD has the power to be the judge and jury of it, backed by bridge laws. I don't see why it is important for you to test the limits, at the table. Minor or major, doesn't matter. Gloat etc all you want in private messages but at the table, don't annoy or insult the opponents or partner with public comments that can be perceived as bad manners.

"Shapeless" would be a better description of the modern takeout double, IMO. If it is shapeless and not shapely, then I don't subscribe to it and apparently I also don't know what "modern shapely TO double" is.

If I had a takeout of diamonds, I would have shown that 1st round with the light shapely takeout doubles that everybody plays nowadays. The only hand I could NOT show first round is "cards + diamonds". The Double here is telling partner I have "that hand" and suggesting penalty. He should rarely pull the Dbl.

3D was the worst bid, by far. First, because it is the worst of all choices available after 2D and second because it sowed the bad seeds and confusion for later bad bidding by both sides. Sorry to be so negative, I can't find a nice way to put it.

I would assign blame if you DID bid 6S.

Whatever the meaning, at least I have a maximum passed hand. Both Penalty (of diamonds) and Takeout (of diamonds) work, also plain "cards" is ok. But which is it?. If I were forced to guess without agreement, I would guess penalty of diamonds as this is last chance to Dbl them if they end up in diamonds and ability to sit if partner doubles their 2M. In undiscussed situations, some folks have a metarule. If you have one, use it here:)

At least there are the trials. That is much more fair than having like in some other countries, an influential individual [or a couple of them, or even a committee of some sorts] assign who the team will be. The setup and rules of the USBF trials are known ahead of time to all who want to try and anyone can try. If there were lots of opposition to how the trials are organized, the USBF would likely hear of it and change the setup. Anyway, I have no problem with how the USBF trials are organized. Just to make sure you know, I would not be good enough to try.

What do they do with a 5125 shape after 1♠-2♦? Those who apply the simple system I described (and I assure you there are many...) will bid an unwise 3C. It is not my system, I was just describing what I see many people play.

Opposite GF jumpshift. Do you think it is best forcing also opposite invitational 3D? Really, I don't actually need to know since I will never play invit JS, but interested in the argument why it should be forcing.

I like penalty double. Alternatively a "cards" double (enough balanced values that it is our hand and about 2-3-cards in their suit). This takes away pressure from opener to reopen; afterall, if responder passes he could be broke instead of sitting on penalty Dbl. Also, lots of people are more frisky against weak NT than they would be against strong NT.

If jumpshift is invitational, what would be gameforcing? I don't know of anybody else who plays that 3D is only invitational. Anyway, in your methods, 4S now.

Without a 2/1 system and without sophisticated - well, they aren't that sophisticated but not necessarily part of SA - many players simply play that 2S - six cards 2NT = minimum balanced, no support, no extra spade length, no 4-card hearts Raise of responder's minor = 4-card support and reason not to bid 2NT 3H = GF jumpshift It is good to remember that the 2m bidder in any case promises a rebid if bidding is below 2NT and in SAYC (which is not necessarily the same as SA) another bid by a two-over-one responder is guaranteed. There are players that do not follow this, either by agreement or by ignorance.

But none of this has anything to do with bridge or the laws and rules of bridge. And PS. The dispespect for acting like a jackass comes not only from peers - afterall, the peers in that case would be jackasses...and they might not care one whit :ph34r:

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up. I would turn my head to not see it. Same about seeing somebody else's cards because they are holding them so that others can see. I would tell them I can see them if I looked. Those are my personal values, or ethics if we want to stay within the topic, nothing to do with the laws of bridge. I am sure the majority shares those values. Exactly, the majority of players are happy to play by the unwritten rules. Some bridge lawyers are not. I'm not sure what you mean. Bridge lawyers know the law and play by the rules and enjoy the benefit of seldom being on the short end of a ruling because they are as good or better than a TD in applying the laws/rules. It is not unethical to be knowledgeable about the rules and know how they apply. It is also not unethical to be world class and execute a squeeze while other players mess up their transportation and fail. It is a n acquired skill. Some have acquired law skill, why berate them for it. Personal values are not part of bridge laws. I keep repeating this but it does not sit well with some folks. So I won't say it any more. But personal values should not be instituted into the laws, IMO.

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up. I would turn my head to not see it. Same about seeing somebody else's cards because they are holding them so that others can see. I would tell them I can see them if I looked. Those are my personal values, or ethics if we want to stay within the topic, nothing to do with the laws of bridge. I am sure the majority shares those values.

I think that the difference in opinion here can be summed up by the difference between "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules" and "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules, both written and unwritten". You seem to be of the opinion that only the written rules are the basis for ethics. I think of ethics in the bridge sense along the lines of Merriam-Webster's (online) 3rd definition for ethics "conforming to accepted standards of conduct". So, if there is a written rule which it is accepted practice to ignore, then breaking this rule does not constitute unethical behavior. Likewise, violation of an unwritten rule can be considered unethical even if lawful. In short, I don't believe the codification of the Laws of Bridge means that these are the only rules that apply to the game. I don't believe in unwritten rules. Could you post one of them? When there are rules in a game (Laws and Regulations, in bridge) and they are written down, those _are_ the rules. If there are additional rules that the majority would like to include, then whoever is in charge of making the rules should be informed/petitioned/whatever and the "unwritten" ones incorporated into the written rules before they can be considered "rules of the game". Until then, they are personal preferences or matters of personal ethics, something like that. Life is full of them, within and outside of the game of bridge.