RichMor

Low Heart. Sometimes the Diamond ten will be the winner win but that's too clever for me.

3NT. This always works for Zia.

I think the general approach is similar to opener's rebids after they make a takeout double and pard redoubles: 1. Bidding in front of pard shows a hand not suited for defense and better than minimum in terms of offense. 2. Pulling pard's double with a minimum rebid shows a minimum hand not suited for defense. 3. A jump rebid or reverse in front of pard shows a good offensive hand. 4. Pulling pard's double with a jump rebid or reverse seems impossible.

I voted for double and intend to: raise 3♦ to 4, raise 3♥/♠ to 4, pass 3NT Good luck pard :rolleyes: For a Precision pair who opens 1♦ on 2, it would be a good agreement that 3♦ by responder shows 5+ and some values and denies a 4-card major. If we had that agreement then I would bid 3♦.

precpj wrote << Holding 3 card major trump and a 6-9 total support points, I have always bid 2M ( a single raise) when partner opens or overcall a Major( 1M) . Incidentally, no difference in either 2/1 or SAYC. >> IMO that is not true. There is a difference between SAYC and 2/1. In SAYC a 1NT response to 1M is not forcing. In 2/1 it is. (or is 'semi-forcing' as some play) So responder can bid 1NT forcing in 2/1 and take a preference to opener's major when holding a weak hand with 3-card support. This allows a direct raise with a better than minimum hand. In SAYC responder should raise with 3-card support instead of responding 1NT.

What do you - as a citizen and as a taxpayer - really expect from public education? I think public education is a basic necessity for a basic purpose; a functioning democracy requires a population that can intelligently participate in the process of governing. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. ". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." The public schools are not designed to prepare our children for rewarding careers, or admission to good universities, or other personal goals. The schools are designed to deliver a basic minimum level of education to the largest number of people. Various current 'accountability' programs (No Child Left Behind etc) are based on reducing the number of failing students. There are no rewards for schools that produce a large number of high-achieving students. Please don't expect the teachers or administrators to spend their time and efforts to produce the next Nobel prize winner. If you don't think the public schools are serving your children's best interests then your reasonable options are private education and/or home schooling. I have a lot of respect for parents who put in the effort to home school their children. We bit the bullet(financially) and sent our son to a private school instead. I have no respect for the persistent complainers. It's just another case of the 'entitlement' mentality where some parents expect the public schools to take a responsibility that belongs to the parents.

lexlogan wrote << Systemically, 4C might show a big balanced raise while 4S shows this sort of distributional raise. >> That's a good general idea. Maybe it could be reversed so 4♣ shows a raise based on long Clubs plus Spade support and a direct 4♠ is the balanced max. This would leave room for responder cue bid a red suit at the 4 level when appropriate.

Low Club. Sounds like opener may have good Diamonds so we need to cash some fast tricks. Leading a Heart may set up some tricks for us but it will be too late.

I would be glad to make a takeout double as long as the opps let me describe it to pard as takeout. :rolleyes: But I fear pard would likely take a double as penalty - or extra values with defense. At the table I would probably pass. If pard can't reopen we aren't missing much.

Ken wrote; (I haven't figured out how to use the nice 'qoute' feature yet) << If someone says to me that they play this general approach, and I have this hand, I don't know what people who say that they use this approach mean when they bid 2♠ and then 3♥. I was curious, because I do not use this technique, but I was wondering is there was an "expert standard" understanding for this sequence. >> I can't speak to an expert understanding, but I have played this method in the past usually without extended discussion. Anyway, when responder bids above 3♦ that shows both minors and GF or better values. In absence of a specific agreement, I would expect responder to bid a major 'fragment' instead of shortness. The general principle is something like: when a bid shows 2 suits plus some other distributional feature, the other feature is length. As an analog, suppose you play Flannery 2♦ showing 5♥ and 4♠. When responder bids 2NT, opener's rebid in a minor shows a fragment in that suit. But some pairs prefer a general principle of showing shortness as the 'other feature'. So my either/or answer means 3♥ shows either length or shortness, based on your pair's general style.

Ken, << Anyway, playing this style, would you bid 2♠, and then 3♥, with my actual hand? ♠Axx ♥-- ♦Kxxxxx ♣Q10xx >> Yes, as long as you and pard have a general style of shortness-showing bids.

To the first question, I would rebid 2 ♥ over 2♦. When pard rebids 2♠, I think that denies a good 2♦ rebid with 3 Spades and denies 4 Hearts as well. To the second question - what next ? - I would rebid 3♦ which is forcing(I hope). Over 3♦, pard can rebid 3♥ or 3♠ with 3-card support or rebid 3NT with some kind of Club stopper. Hope pard sees it all the same way.

I would Pass; flat pattern + minimum + poor Spade support. I don't think Double should be penalty but should be a 'support' double. A support double should show good 2-card support, with good 3-card support just raise. Agree with gerben: I would Dbl with 2137 and the same honor structure.