peachy

In ACBL, a passed-hand 1NT is not alertable. If the sandwicher was not a passed hand, then Sandwich NT requires an alert.

Partner's reasoning would indeed be quite disgusting if partner bid 3♣ instead of 2♥ with that shape. This is the B/I forum. I think the Rdbl with 5-5 in two suits is the perfect bid in isolation, but might not occur to less experienced player. Similarly, bidding a two card major might not occur to a B/I if there is no agreement what Rdbl is and in that context bidding a 4-card suit is understandable (I would not do it but...) though it may be disgusting to an expert If I am playing with a B/I, I will Pass because the *weak two* agreement probably is more along traditional "great suit" type and the damage not wholly unbearable. Risking a misunderstanding from an UNDISCUSSED RDbl could be more costly.

Good bridge authors recommend rebid of the 6-card major UNLESS the 4-card suit is hearts ("never" bypass hearts) and with better than minimum, rebid the 4-card suit. Judgment exceptions exist in this or any other bidding priciple, for example 10xxxxx-AKJ10 or AKQ109x-7xxx.

2H. If the 4-card suit had been a minor, then 2S.

I saw that you mentioned "3nt undiscussed". Does this mean that other responses to opener's reverse were "discussed" and if yes, what are they? This information might/might not help identify what 3NT bidder has, but not sure it affects my choice, 4H.

If splinters are on the cc, then 1S-4H is a splinter. UNLESS otherwise agreed, which means we must then make an agreement how to show a heart splinter when partner opens 1S. If it is *1S-3H is splinter* then need to agree how to bid the hand that would have bid 3H (SJS or WJS or fit-jump, whatever) now that 3H is reserved for splinter. Too much messy trouble for no real reason, IMO. Just keep the doublejump as splinter and trust that partner is able to recognize a doublejump.

I would do it with a hand that is hard to describe otherwise, AND which is a poor candidate for a grand slam. I once had 1C-1H-6H. Made six but it was partner who bid it.

Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. By consistency I would mean a rule similar to say "A bid of the opponent's suit is ALWAYS natural (conventional?), at the one or 2 level regardless. Or say, a double jump is ALWAYS a splinter/fit showing/natural. I also don't mean to harp just on these two examples but on the principal of consistency as a whole. Your suggested "rule" is not consistent anyway, in fact I would consider it unplayable because it changes the bidding structure so much. If [by your suggested rule] bidding the opponent's suit on the one or two-level were always natural, then you cannot play Michaels and you cannot make a forcing bid by cuebidding the opponent's suit lower than the 3-level, for couple of quick examples.

If ACBL pertinent guidance is needed, the ACBL Alert regulations is the place to look. The OP question is clearly answered there: No alert.

I like Josh's idea of moderators who move a post to an appropriate forum if needed. There are enough forums as it is. I would not be too worried about hurt feelings. There are afterall only a few persistent intermediates or lower who just want to hear their own voice in the Advanced/Expert forum [this is the impression I get] and once they get return to reality, they might enjoy discussions even more at the appropriate level.

There is no right or wrong. What you agree with your partners is fine, but if you play with any advanced or better player, I think you should expect either of the opponents's suits to be natural. Not to give anybody a skin rash for mentioning SAYC [if you play in ACBL tournies on BBO, you might be interested to know}, but it is explicitly also written in SAYC that after opponents have bid two suits, bidding either of their suits is natural.

Well blow me down with a feather duster. I am amazed. Why on earth would you do this? You do this to find a fit with good long suit. After opponents have bid two suits, both the bid in opener's suit or responder's suit is natural. there are at least two (for some players, three) ways to show the unbid suits: Takeout Double, 1NT Sandwich, or 2NT. Seems excessive to need a third (or fourth) way of showing the same thing while having no way to show a good suit. If we find a fit, we are just blessed with the advance knowledge that trumps don't split AND we know where the long trumps are.

Illegal by which law? Or by which regulation?

Oops. I must have missed something!

Pass. If partner were even in the slightest manner be interested in slam, he would not bid 5C which is a signoff. With aceless hand and minimum [some might think subminimum because QJ hearts might not pull their full weight], Pass is truly automatic.

I would overcall 2H, the suit and hand are fine. Would like to have one fewer spades but can't always have everything I want:) This hand and and the accompanying hands are being posted in all kinds of threads. The post-mortems must have been fiery :)

South needed to bid. (1C) 1D (1H) 1S, or (1C) 1S (P) 2H[forcing], and both auctions lead to 4S. It is a bidder's game and I think South has good reason to enter the auction. Other opportunities: After (1C) P (1H), North could have bid a natural 2H. And, after opener rebids 2C, South could enter the auction, maybe by a Dbl which should show a hand that had a flaw for takeout double first round.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question. Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish". I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles. "Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

I would be surprised if anything but 4C can be seen as even remotely sane.

Absolutely agree.

Very well put and appropriate for this forum!

2H or Dbl. Not Michaels with this hand which is suitable for both offense and defense. But depending on what your agreements are for Michaels (only weak, or only weak OR strong, or any strength and liberal) this could be close.

Fair to whom? Granted it's more fair to the opponents. It's also less fair to the erring side. Why should a pair be "entitled" to an accurate description of an opponent's hand just because that opponent has misremembered or misunderstood his agreement with his partner? Personally I agree with barmar. Why would anyone be more concerned in fairness for the erring side than for the innocent side? The online way is definitely preferable to me when compared to the live way. Keep in mind the claim is not that it's fairer to get an accurate description of the bidder's hand. The claim is that it's fairer to get an accurate description of the bidder's intended meaning than it is to get one of his partner's intended interpretation, if they differ. I think it is fairest to play by the laws and regulations. Or put the other way: Playing by the laws can never be unfair. When opponent asks, he must be given the complete explanation of a bid and that explanation must be what the partnership agreement is. Also, oftentimes a well-intended attempt at perceived "fairness" could backfire and lead to more problems than already may exist, in particular when one partner has forgotten system, was confused, or has psyched.

Some have suggested 2S instead of 1S. I thought the "standard" without agreements is that it is an intermediate hand of about 13-16 with good spades in the balancing seat. Despite the good playing strength, this is not good enough in raw HCP so 2S could mislead partner. But if 2S by sys is normal then 2S it is. Not for me but I would certainly go to game if partner advances 2NT - which should be good opening but wrong shape for TO Double.

My agreement with partners with whom I have it discussed is that the RKC is in the suit of: a ) bid and raised (in any manner, like via cuebid of opp's suit) b ) if two suits bid and raised, the last supported suit c ) if no suit supported, the last _bid_ suit Based on this, for me the RKC is as if diamonds were trump.