peachy

I'd have to decide first what the goal is in this hand - limit overtricks or try to set them.

I like 1H with this. It is right on the border between Pass and 1H, but never 2H. Opening 2H will mislead partner who does not expect a four-card spade suit and a singleton on the side. If the spades were xxxx, I might overlook that if the hand otherwise qualifies for a weak two.

Though this is probably correct, I think this kind of thinking in system design is dangerous and too difficult. Perhaps only a pair that plays together on a daily basis could afford to assign different meanings to a bid depending on whether the opps play Walsh or not. For the rest of us, just asigning a meaning, that would be OK against a "generic" natural system will work fine, and make our life easier. For me, it is diamonds. What you say here is true. Perhaps a good guideline would be agree on SAYC where this bid is explicitly described as "Natural". Then again, vast majority of those who agree on SAYC, have never bothered to even look at the brief system notes that are available in many places:)

Attempt to set trumps with 6 card nice hearts.

I assume the system is 2/1. I would venture to rebid 2S even if it promised 6 and hope we survive this hand, after which want to have system discussion to agree that 2S does not promise six, just denies ability to make any other bid. First because it makes sense (hehe, to me...) and second because it is a common accepted treatment in 2/1 and in my experience, a large majority of good players here play it that way.

Can somebody tell me what a new (?) feature here in the forums means when below the poster's name and icon, there is text "Restaurant Tax", Municipal Tax" or some other "Tax" and some number of blue squares. I have never noticed that before.

In my partnerships, Michaels is either strong or weak (playing tricks and HCP), not a mid range. And the strong variety is shown when the Michaels bidder voluntarily rebids, like here, but I have no clue what the 3D rebid means. Good question. Having to guess, I think it shows a diamond fragment and void in clubs, in addition to being a strong hand.

Pass. I would think no other call should be even considered.

Echoing everyone else: Responder (who is not constrained to stay on the one-level because not strong enough to bid on two level) bids suits in their natural order: longest first, higher first from 5-5, lower first from 4-4. Regardless of whether system is SAYC, 2/1, or any other.

This is something that nobody has disagreed with, ie. when there is no agreement, there is nothing to explain. In the case this thread began with, there was an agreement. Heh, two sentences which end with a preposition... not going to rearrange them...

I must have somehow missed the change you are talking about (ACBL Alert regs). I thought it has never been alertable in ACBL.

I think that's utter BS Even if this obnoxious cell phone/electronics ban sticks around there has to be a provision for emergency workers, doctors, etc. If you happen to be the best brain surgeon in whatever city the nationals are at why should you be denied the pleasure of playing in the tournament? I agree with barmar. Nobody is on call 24/7. The doctor can arrange to be not on-call for the time he/she expects to be at a bridge tournament if bridge is a priority for that person. Nobody is that indispensable that they cannot have a few three-hour segments of time free, without being on call. Exceptions can surely be granted at TD's discretion, if an UNEXPECTED on-call situation occurs.

They asked (lord knows why they asked...) about the 1NT. They didn't ask about spades - which would be an improper form of a question anyway. They phrased the question properly, I assume, asking about the 1NT bid. We are obligated to explain our agreements in full and "if" our agreement is either A or B (not repeating here what I wrote before), that needs to be included in the explanation. If there is no agreement and bypassing spades was a judgment call with this hand, then it is a different matter, but from what OP wrote, I gather that they DID have an agreement not to bid spades with the weaker variety of heart raises (which go through a forcing 1NT). What reason is there not to include this in the explanation, particularly if (as I suspect) the opponents are intermediates or lower in level. I am in no way in favor of explaining every negative inference, let alone volunteering unprompted. But they asked! We are obligated by law to explain the bid IN FULL.

If you had KQJx-xxx-xxx-xxx would 1NTF still be the correct systemic answer? A - If yes, then your system is that weak heart raise will not bid spades. B - If not, then your system is that weak heart raise does not bid 4-card spades if the spades are bad. Since the opponents actually asked about the 1N(F) bid [i don't know why they asked, but they did...maybe they were novices?], the detail of your agreement should be included in the explanation, if you had an agreement A or B. It seems to me you did have an agreement, at least that is how I read the original post, last line of it. So I think you should have included it in the explanation.

I may not be as "expert" as you wanted, but in 32 years I have never heard of a method where there is an ace ask once 4NT has been bypassed. So my answer would be, it is standard not to have ace ask in your described situation.

I think partner has 5 spades (in my weak NT partnerships, five of major is not uncommon if the hand falls in the NT range, not sure if that is true for OP) and some sort of max to afford 2S there. I'm bidding 3S. If he had both majors and short diamonds, he would have doubled instead of bid spades.

Leading partner's suit seems the natural thing to do with that hand. Thinking about declarer's hand, spades is the only suit he has guaranteed stopped so the J may blow a trick or at least grant tempo to declarer. Trying to guess which other suit to lead - if I have decided against spade lead - diamond. Lead from strength. But in the end, I prob still lead the spade.

I've read the comments here. My question: Why would we ["we" = non-pros and non-clients] be interested in getting the pros organized? If the pros wanted to get organized and saw some benefits in that for them or the clients/sponsors, they would have established an organization long ago.

I play 1NT is unbids about 5-5, Dbl is takeout for the two unbids (less distribution/more def), 2x and 2y natural. Both by passed and unpassed hands.

Vul vs. not-vul, direct seat is not overcalling on borderline hands opposite two unlimited hands, which means that with the right shape [translate that = short in their suit] the balancing seat must take action. I suppose Jx is shortness though I'd like it shorter...

J2NT is a simple tool. I know there are other methods available that have more structure and definition in them. Also possible to make AGREEMENTS that are not part of standard J2NT. The thread began "Playing a simple SAYC-like card ...and Jacoby 2NT" and has now swayed to "What changes should be made to the J2NT convention"

In the auction 1M-2NT-3D-4S, the 4S bidder has wasted values in diamonds. So it could be a picture bid in the sense that it says "I have good diamonds but they are worthless to you" . I don't really understand what you mean by using the term *picture bid* - what "pictures" is responder showing or denying by 4M in your suggested modified Jacoby?

North's best chance when the second Dbl comes back to him is hope for a one trick set - a reasonable expectation considering that South doubled twice. I think 100% South for the second double, he is too light for it.

Opponents have 9-10 card fit in hearts and half the deck so in the end, I will just bid 4S. But I wonder if 3C could be used for this hand to find out which minor and general strength - as long as partner is NOT going to make any other responses than what you listed! Ostensibly, 3C in the system shows limit in minors, but opener will probably have to act over a 3H or 4H bid and then we need agreements what bids mean in competition...

If you are opposed to "fast arrival", I believe you will face difficult bidding situations. The fast arrival is, AFAIK, also part of Jacoby 2NT. I think it is best to simply agree that whichever partner JUMPS to 4S after bidding has started 1M-2NT[GF raise] _that person_ is limiting their hand as minimum and no slam interest; the other person can still go on if it is warranted, given that there is a minimum non-slammish hand opposite.