mich-b

I quite like 2. Immediate 3-card limit raise unless my system includes those hands in a 2♣ response , so to be able to play those hands in 2M , when opener rejects the invite. I think some Italians had this feature in their system (2♣ = GF relay or 3 card invite). Removing the 3 card invite from the 1NT response , makes it much easier to play it as semi forcing (ok, non-forcing..) and opener can pass 1NT with a 5332 minimum , without worrying about responder having some 3154 9-10p.

4♠ Maybe we make , maybe they make, maybe both make , or maybe they bid 5♥.

I think that 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥ is a normal start, and disagree with those who think the West hand is a GF after a 1♠ response (especially considering how light many of us may be for a 1♠ response).

Would not open 2♥. We need a better suit VUL. (Yes, I see that opening 2♥ might have worked better when partner had a great fit for ♥s. )

A question to those who bid 2NT here : What is the range of this 2NT for you? (is it still 18-19?) What would you bid with 1435 16hcp?

I was not discussing the meaning of partner's double in the context of the hand I am holding. OP did mention the distribution only as question #3 , so i thought he wanted a general answer for items #1 and #2 , without peeking ahead.. I meant to discuss the possible meaning of this double in abstract - and what I suggest the OP should agree with his partner after this hand is over.

Maybe , if you (very sensibly imho) think that a reopening double doesnt make sense here , this double should be played as pure penalty? Just a reasonable hand with 5 good ♥s? (And it makes even more sense in MP). Or, perhaps even better , a "either-or" double, showing some values with 1 (or less) ♥s, or 5 (or more) ♥s?

2♥ is forcing (1 round) , with 4+ ♥s 2♦ is forcing without 4♥s. I know some experts play a nf 2♥ here, but I don't think it is standard. 2♦ is natural and NF. Strong hands can choose between a GF 2♠, a double (if they can stand a penalty pass) or 3♦. Edit : Sorry, misread the auction as 1♣-P-1♥-(1♠) P-P-2♦??? With the original auction 2 , 2♦ for me is F1.

2♥ What's a "modern 1♠"?

1) 2 2) 2 3) 1 4) 1 5) 1 6) 0 7) 1 8) 1 9) 0 10) 1 11) 0 12) 2 13) 2 14) 1 15) 2 16) 1

In Ulven's example , i think the defender did nothing wrong and was perfectly within ethical and legal limits. It looks as if declarer misjudged the inferences from the tank , maybe because he underestimated the defender's abilities, and thought he would need to analyze the situation only if holding crucial honours. What happened to "at his own risk"? And more generally , I feel that the "could have known.." phrasing is too harsh. Defenders who think can always be shown to "could have known" what would happen , because indeed that is what happened (declarer taking wrong inferences from the tank). I feel that unless the TD concludes the tank was an intentional , coffeehousing style, attemp to decieve, declarer's inferences should be done "at his own risk".

3♣ "5th suit forcing" ..

I know a player (expert) in my country , who is known for explaining "no agreement" about anything except the very basic sequences. An opponent can't really get anything else out of him even by asking further questions. He does this when playing with a regular partner. This of course puts his opps at a great disadvantage. After all , they (or the TD) have no way to prove that there is an agreement. So they are kept in complete darkness , have no idea which suits are natural , and which are cuebids, if the opps auction is forcing or not etc... And they have no hope of any legal redress , because current laws consider "no agreement" a legitimate answer, even if used with suspicious frequency.

no 2h means I have crap stop You cannot have 2h means i got great or i got crap ------------ see 2h means i got 5+h and crap...not good. It is very common in "modern" bidding for 1♣ - 1♥ 2♦ - 2♥ to be played as forcing (for 1 round) , using 2♠ or 2NT for weak hands. Yes, you cant stop exactly in 2♥ (some people would respond 2♥ on the 1st round with that hand) , but you get much more flexibility with developing your auction, when 2♥ is forcing.

1♣ - 1♥ 2♦ - 2♥ 3♥ - 3♠ 4♣ - 4NT 5♦ - 5♠ 7♣/♥ - 7♥ 2♥ = Forcing , 5+♥ 3♥ = 2 card support (often Hx) , no ♠ stopper (We bid 4♥ or 3♠ with 3 card ♥ support). 3♠ & 4♣ = cuebids for ♥ (perhaps unnecessary..) 4NT = RKCB 1430 5♦ = 0/3 5♠ = asking for Kings,showing all 5KC present , inviting grand(you can use 5NT if you prefer) 7♣/♥ = I have a source for tricks and extras - should be enough. Does it look reasonable, or too optimistic?

Actually you are right , I very seldom play in a club. But assuming you are right , and "a fairly reasonable percentage of boards played in clubs" involves people forgetting their conventional agreements , I do think that it will help the game to discourage those people from playing (those) conventions. I think the club players are most likely to be upset, when their opponents use a convention, explain one thing , and later are found to hold nothing resembling the explanation. Then it gets worse (from the club player's view) when the TD comes, and explains that it was a misbid, the explanation was correct per agreement, no offense , result stands. Since my recent experience in club bridge is very limited , it is highly possible that I am missing the point here. However , I feel even more strongly , that in events intended for expert players , they should definetly be expected to know their system, and be prepared to "pay the price" if they forget a convention , regardless of the outcome of the "storm" their forget caused on the particular deal.

perhaps you need to agree on some basic continuations after 3NT: for example what would 4♦ by me show? ♦s? ♥s? If you decide to play 4♣ stayman (or Baron) + transfers , then you have 4♠ available for showing both minors. Or you can play a 4♣ "asking" (balanced min or max, or based on long minor), than you can use that.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s65hak84d5ckj9765]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣-3♦-P-P ?[/hv] 1. What is your call? 2. What would be your call if your ♠s were Ax? 3. Would you ever reopen with a double with only 2 ♠s? 4. Would you reopen with a double with 4414, 12 hcp ? 5. Do you think a double in this position shows any extras , or perhaps "extras or perfect shape"?

This discussion made me (again) think , that there is merit in Bobby Wolff's approach known as "convention disruption". Once a player makes a conventional bid, whose meaning , according to partnership agreement, is completely inconsistent with his hand (and this is essentially the case in Fluffy's examples) the board too often becomes unplayable and random. To discourage that , and to avoid rulings where the opps were given correct infrmation according to system , but incorrect in reality, perhaps just settle the board as A- for the forgetter's side , A+ (or whatever) to the other side, and dont get into this "what should I explain when I know he doesnt have what he showed"? If Fluffy's pd bid 2♥ , that shows ♥ with 5♠/4♣ you cant really expect his opps to continue biddining sensibly, can you?

Pass, because I believe this to be the right call . And because I think it is almost always too difficult to figure out correctly what might have happened on previous boards , what will happen in the next boards , and what is happening in the matches of other teams..

Easy double from South. I would bid 3NT from North , though don't think Pass from North is poor.

Pass , and hopefully do this in tempo - who knows , you might hear a balancing call from LHO..

That's a question of style, I suspect. The style with which I am most familar is quite different: I jump rebid on good 6 card suits with good 15 counts, and my reverses are much stronger. I don't think this is a trivial issue: a jump rebid is not the least bit forcing: it is constructive but can be and often is passed. A reverse, however, cannot be passed. Partner will force to game opposite a reverse on some hands that would/should pass a jump rebid...at least in the 'strong reverse' school to which I belong. But a good 15 count with a good 6 card suit is approximately as valuable as a 17 count without a 6 card suit. Also regarding a reverse being forcing, that is true but you can actually stop at a lower level than after a 3 level rebid since it might go 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT P or something. Also the fact a reverse is forcing is because it has a higher maximum than a 3 level rebid, not a higher minimum. I don't think this is a trivial issue either, but I contend your "school" is simply not standard. I think your 3 level rebids are just a hair light, your reverses are just a hair heavy, and thus you have created space in the middle where in standard bidding there is none. There's no 'middle' here. This is not a case where theory says there has to be a meshing of methods. For one thing, the two sequences (jump rebid/reverse) show entirely different hand types, merely on distributional grounds. One is essentially a one-suiter, non-forcing, while the other is nominally at least a 2-suiter (and often 5431), and forcing. Indeed every good player knows that with a powerful one-suiter, it may be too strong to jump rebid and we fake a reverse! That would be impossible or absurd if the two rebids covered the same range. Secondly, the strength shown by the two rebids falls into different ranges. Even if we grant that a minimum reverse may have the same strength as a jump rebid, we all know that the reverse is limited only by our failure to open 2♣. You are comparing apples and oranges, and critizing my suggestions because the fruit aren't the same colour. That's not to say that there is not a school that advocates that the low end of the reverse approximates the jump rebid....the 'light' reversers do that and it works well for them...and I assume that you belong to that school as do many fine players...to the point that I am considering lightening my minimum reverse standards. But that is not the same as arguing that in theory there need be any correspondence between the bids as you suggest. There is no 'gap' because they don't deal with similar hands. I think he was saying that the LOWER limit for reverse and jump rebid is the same, and this means that a jump rebid denies having another 4 card suit , which could be shown by reversing "on the way". (By "on the way" I mean that the reverse is a lower bid than the jump rebid).

On the first round I think 2NT would be ok with this hand (I am not sure what "good playing hand" means for you), but I have no problems with 1♥ either. On the 2nd round , I think 2♣ is a serious underbid. I think 3♣ is a much better description of both shape and strength. On the 3rd round , I (having, wrongly IMO, decided on the previous round that I am not good enough for 3♣) would bid 3♣, which is still an underbid, but consistent with my previous bidding.

I would double since partner rates to make game if he bids anything, and we are very likely to beat 4♥X if he passes.