peachy

Takeout Double should be among the first 5, if not the first. After five, stop adding new conventions for a long while. Play of the hand first, defense second, basic 3-5 conventions third, and more conventions only after the student finds out that he needs something to "cover this hole in bidding". It may take about 3 months for a natural game player, 1-3 years for average, and without instruction *Never* for someone who just wants something to fill their time instead of play a game well.

Open 1S. Any seat, any vul.

Tends to be 5422 minimum hand instead of 5431 or 5413 because splinter is also available, and no minor suits controlled. I would not jump to 4H with only three card support, but some hands it might be the best description.

3S. In my methods, partner is going slow and thus showing more interest in either slam or in alternate strains like NT. 3S for me does not show extras.

1H-2C-2D- I play 2H shows three hearts; 3H shows three or more hearts and slam interest (I don't splinter in partner's suit); 4H shows 5+ good clubs and good heart support. Lack of direct forcing heart raise (Jacoby 2NT for example) is telling. Some folks have agreements on when not to Jacoby 2NT (or whatever the forcing raise).

Depends on what you have agreed with partner. In my 2/1 methods, responder shows good long diamonds and good heart support, blacks not stopped (Q at most). Opener shows an opening hand and five hearts.

Both 2X and 2Y are natural, showing that suit. Dbl and 1NT (if played as Sandwich NT) show the unbid suits, in addition to 2NT with extreme distribution

My comment nothing to do with the posted problem. Apologies for that. To compensate for a conservative bidder by bidding aggressively, or to compensate for an overbidder by bidding conservatively, will likely escalate the problem to unmanageable level because that strategy just makes the conservative bidder MORE conservative. Or in the overbidder case, makes his overbidding more severe. Just my thoughts, maybe not worth a penny :) PS. Agree with others on reverse by N hand.

I don't like the idea of giving a false preference to 2D and then discovering... 5-3-2-3 opposite 1-3-4-5 This structure is set up to give partner a choice and then encourage him to make the wrong choice. My experience [in my partnerships] is that opening 1D with 4-5 minors is rare and ending up in 4-2 diamonds is even rarer. Of course, when it happens and we had 5-3 club fit on theside, is not "nice" but I can live with it and enjoy the benefit this strategy gives in the majority of such hands.

I don't like the idea of giving a false preference to 2D and then discovering... 5-3-2-3 opposite 1-3-4-5 This structure is set up to give partner a choice and then encourage him to make the wrong choice. My experience [in my partnerships] is that opening 1D with 4-5 minors is rare and ending up in 4-2 diamonds is even rarer. Of course, when it happens and we had 5-3 club fit on theside, is not "nice" but I can live with it and enjoy the benefit this strategy gives in the majority of such hands.

I have only seen pleasant and polite disagreements about the 3D bid. Good restraint by all.

Having 8-9 HCP as responder, 2C should not be passed whether with 3-2 or 2-3 minors. Opener's 2C rebid is not showing a minimum opener (although that is not denied either), he can be just shy of a jumpshift. Only with a singleton diamond and a very bad responding hand would I ever pass 2C. In my partnerships, opening 1D with 4-5 minors is allowed if opener is minimum and can see that facing certain responder bid(s) on the 1-level, there could be a rebid problem.

I think the poll would be have more "indicative value" or whatever you might want to call that results from polls, if this poll were restricted to only those who judged that PASS is the right thing to do (instead of open this hand). Or have the combination in the poll itself such as Open-now 4S Pass-now 4S etc. Does this show I have too much time in my hands LOL.

Very good idea!

IMO, anything that increases the number of forums is a bad idea. I would go the opposite direction - decrease the number and implement guidelines where certain type of posts should appear, with the help of moderators to control the traffic at least in the beginning of the potential new set of forums.

There is CERTAINLY a large enough number of forums already. Perhaps for this reason, there is a lot of overlap when a particular post discussing some bridge aspect or a hand, could be in one of many forums (already existing ones) such as Interesting Hands, B/I Bridge, General Bridge Discussion, or Advanced/Expert Bridge. Moderator group could work well, and it would not have to be a lifetime volunteer job when there are several experts regularly posting here who might offer to serve as "traffic moderator"

Now that is an exceptional club indeed. You sure it is a BRIDGE club? Kidding....

I like Lebensohl and see no disadvantage to using it here. As to the "stopper show/deny" , this applies only to their second suit as the first suit already is stopped because partner overcalled 1NT.

Having bid 2C, I think system forbids me to pass, so the choices now are Dbl or 2S. I like Dbl.

Clubs in ACBL have lot of freedom to set their own rules, both as to what methods are allowed and about what methods need to be alerted. If the event is a more formal ACBL event, then the ACBL alert regs are clear on your question. Prealert before round and alert as the bid occurs.

Pass over the opponent's 1NT with the good hand is clear. My agreement for a Dbl is penalty (not "points"). Bidding in the balancing seat is also clear, whichever bid has been agreed to show "onesuited in spades". Bidding on over the balancing 2S would be unwise because partner already knows from the auction that I have some values.

I'd like to avoid than one person (who agreed with the TO Dbl) as partner B)

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sq10hk642dj98caj97&s=sak94h3da10763ckq8]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Playing 2/1, opponents do not enter the bidding. What contract do you want to be in? What is your auction? I'll let you know later what I perpetrated here.

There are several good authors. Not all agree with you, some do. It is the other way around B) The authors do not agree with what I have to say; I agree with what the authors write. If you can find a reference by a good bridge author who does not share the view I explained, share please.

Answer RHO's question. "We have no agreement". It would be illegal to answer by giving your guess what it "could be" if this auction has never happened before. If it has happened before but you have not specifically made agreements, then tell opponents something like "last time this happened, he had *this hand* but we have not discussed it. "