mich-b

Those sequences are not exactly similar. The important difference is that in drury (and the other) sequences your side has already found a fit, and can use other suits as game tries. This is not true for a support double situation - there the responder to the double often has only a 4 card suit , so has to use other bids to suggest other strains.

I think he means that we expect a VUL against NV weak2 to have a good enough hand , and a good enough suit (even if "bad" in context) to provide reasonable play for 4♠.

A "card showing" double is also a possibility (even though , of course , I would prefer a 4th ♥ for that)

I am never going to play slam , part score , or 3NT , so why Ogust? Bidding 4♠ directly gives away less info about opener's hand, and also may reap unexpected benefit if my LHO has a nice hand and decides to get into the bidding.

a: Invite (9-11) with only 4♠ and longer ♣. b: weakish (5-9) , NF , only 4M , often longer ♦. c: Inv + , 4-4 majors. d: Inv +, 5-4 majors. The principle is that if you bid a new suit , you don't have a 5 card suit in your Major, unless thats obviously impossible (d).

4♠. On the previous round.

Much depends on your style regarding negative doubles: If you consider the Negative double as a replacement for 1♥ response (the modern way?) then it follows that 2♦ shows reverse values. If however you consider the Negative Double to be similar to other takeout doubles , then it makes sense for 2♦ to show a minimum hand. Regarding the 2nd hand: If it bothers you rebidding 1NT with xx in their suit (it does bother me) , then I suggest you open those hands 1♦ and have a 2♣ rebid available if needed.

If pd responds 1♠ or 2♣ to the double , I think the best course of action is Pass. If however the hand was stronger (♥A instead of ♥Q) the standard way to proceed is 2♦ which shows a strong hand with only 3 card support (or any GF hand to be clarified later).

If I wanted to run with this hand , I would run to ♣s , not to ♦s. Maybe they can't double us there? And if they do double , you can decide between running to 2♦ , or offering other options by a XX.

f I don't think a 5-6 hand with 10-12 is strong enough to insist on playing game. You will just go down too often. On most hands where you can make game , pd will bid again after your 2♥ rebid - either 3♥ or 2NT or perhaps 2♠. Isn't this the normal meaning for this bid?

If you arrange opener's rebids after responder bids 2NT , in such a way that the eventual 4M (or 3M) contract is played by the responder, you get as as a side benefit , the possibility to play in 3♥ , when the opener actually had ♠s , and responder has ♥ and wants to signoff there. Something like : 2♦ - 2NT 3♥ = min weak 2 in ♠ etc....

We play : 2NT = Inivite to 4♠ 3♣, 3♦ = signoff (3m response to 3♦ would be forcing) 3♥ = natural, 6+ cards , forcing. 3♠ = non invitational. But I have been thinking that perhaps slightly better is : 2NT = both minors. 3♦ = Invite in ♠ (Since we could pass 2♦ if we really wanted to play there)

1. I don't think we are making game. Even if pd has a fitting black honor , and they do lead a ♦, when they return a trump will I have enough tricks? I wouldn't push for this NV game. 2. I would bid game here - sometimes we are making legitimately, pd will often have a singleton ♣ - and quite often they will take the save anyway.

I think the chances of the 1NT opener having a 4 card major are high enough , so that Stayman is generally correct even with 4432.

For me 3♣ is non invitational. If opener wants to invite he can bid 2M or 2NT.

We play that 2♠ showed 5+♠ , any strength , F1. Opener's 3rd calls 2NT, 3♣ , 3♥ (nice but not a GF 6-5), 3♠ (often 2425) are not forcing for us. The only forcing call is a 4sf 3♦ , or obviously 4♦ as a splinter agreeing ♠s. With my actual hand , I am not going to pass any of those, because of my ♣ fit , and 2 working queens.

The specific case where one hand is a "weak 2" and the other hand is , hmm... Anything.... is much different than "rightsiding generally". Mostly because the nature of the weak 2 hand is known , and the other hand can be anything (Balanced, side suit , side shortage, fit or no fit) which suggests a large advantage to concealing it, and making the defense harder - Should the defense play trumps to prevent ruffs? should they try to cash out? Of course all of this is not an issue for a dbl dummy solver.

2♠ here is natural , and you should bid it.

Though Multi 2♦ could gain from the 2 reasons above, both occur quite rarely. Another big advantage of the Multi, is the ability to play the eventual 4M contract from responder's side which both conceals the unknown hand , and possibly protects honors on trick1. This advantage , which IMO should not be underestimated , is obviously more important when Multi is used in constructive sense, with buying the hand and playing 4M (or 3M) in mind.

Too often recently I have bid on hands like this 3♦ (which I think is correct) , only to play a silly 3♦ contract on a 4-3 or 3-3 fit, while noticing that I could go plus a number by passing against yet another LHO lunatic (they think they are "modern players"). Those lunatics too often get away unscathed..

Club players that play Walsh? They are an extremely rare species in my area...

3♥ now , maybe a problem on the next round.

I would bid 2♥. I don't like overcalling on moderate suit , but sometimes the hand is too good to pass, and no other action makes sense (surely not Dbl or 1NT) , and besides my suit is not THAT bad...

Playing with an unknown player , I would assume 2♦ is forcing, artificial (since this is more or less the only forcing bid available) , not necessarily showing 5♠ (what should he bid with strong 4234?), and not GF , though at least nvitational. I would never pass 2♦ , and if my random pd did , I probably would not play with him much more.

Yes, just raising to 6♥ normally shows a 2nd round control (probably a singleton). With a 1st round control you can cuebid 6♦ , or maybe 5♠, to suggest that even a grand slam may be makeable.