mich-b

I would try 1NT , since singleton kings are often ok in notrumps, and though a ♦ stopper would be nice it is not 100% guaranteed. I consider Double to be a reasonable risk, partner will have a major often enough. I don't like 1♥ at all - my hand has many features, the ♥ suit is far from being the most significant.

... And 4♥ is a (substitute for) "last train" , which means responder has some slam interest , but isn't willing to go to the 5 level. All hands without any slam interest should retransfer with 4♦. This also applies to the OP sequence : there 4H is a re-transfer , and 4S is a "last train".

I will be there for the 2nd week (Open Teams and Pairs)

Regardless of the question if West's (inappropriate) comment may have influenced East's decision to bid 5♥, I would like to note that South could : 1. Make the obvious double of 5♥ and collect an easy 800. 2. Make the contract of 5♠ by establishing a ♦ trick.

I tend to bid 4♠, except some specific cases like: 1. I have slow tricks in ♥s. 2. I am very weak and we are VUL against NV.

I would bid 4♥. I suggest the following structure of game raises in this situation : 4♥ = lots of shape, min in hcp , normally 6-4 or perhaps 5440. 4♦ = 18-19 bal with 4 card support, or similar. 3♠ (or 4♣) = splinter, with extra strength, and defense as well.

I would try 2NT (and a XX later if necessary) in either IMPs or MP. I think our prospects in 2♠X are poor and we are heading for a big loss unless I get lucky, and partner has some fit for a minor. Even if partner's overcall is very normal , other pairs may not have a penalty double available, so I think playing in 2♠X is accepting the disaster. One further consideration : pd is not likely to have ♥ length , since he did not use a "majors" bid , and although he could bid 2♠ with 6-4 , there is still hope he has a few minor suit cards.

1NT. Looks like a reasonable alternative to raisng ♣s , under the given conditions. As for system I would suggest you have 2 "weak" raises : one that shows no game interest (about 0-5) and another that is constructive (about 6-9)

Agree with both statements.

The same sort of hand that would raise a weak 2♠ opening to 3♠ (no game interest, fit)

... And probably would have watched them cash 5 ♦ tricks against 3NT.

I would bid 3♠ which denies : 1. a doubleton (or a singleton honour?) in ♥s. 2. a ♦ stopper. 3. a 6th ♣. And pd can decide how to proceed.

3♦. If he bids 3♥, 3♠, 4♣ I will probably raise. If he bids 3NT I will have to decide between passing , or correcting to 4♠.

[hv=pc=n&e=sk52hak74d862ck84&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1cp1sp1np2dp2sp3cp]133|200[/hv] 2♦ was a generic GF (part of 2-way nmf) Your agreement is that opener shows 3♠ rather than 4♥, responder can check for 4♥s by bidding 2NT which is a further "shape ask". Opener will rebid 3H with either 3433 or 3424. I would like to ask if you have firm agreements about: 1. Does partner's 3♣ show 4 or 5 ♣s ? 2. Is this always Slam seeking , or perhaps something like 4315, trying to select the best game? 3. How should opener proceed? What you bid with the example hand? 4. Should opener rebid 3NT any time he has only 3 clubs? 5. If the answer to "4" is "NO" - what should responder do (with 4 clubs) to find out if he has a fit there or not? Any thoughts are welcome.

[hv=pc=n&w=sak752ht4d7532ct3&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1dp1sp1np2sp2np]133|200[/hv] Obviously this would never happen playing IMPs , but this is BAM (or just assume MP). Maybe you would prefer to sign off in 2♦ rather than rebid 2♠ , but... this is BAM. Partner very seldom rebids 1NT with a singleton , but you guess this is what he did this time, and he has guessed 2♠ would not play well. So you probably haven't seen this sequence before , but what do you do now? Pass? 3♦? anything else?

Double. Penalty. All doubles after a penalty pass are penalty doubles.

For those who asked why Pass is forcing : For us , it becomes a FP situation , if an opponent who previously bid (supported) in a non-forcing way (3♣ here) later bids game , over our game bid (without getting any encouragement from his partner). If South (the 2♣ overcaller) would have bid 5♣ then PASS would not have been forcing for us.

[hv=pc=n&w=s74ha654dkj963c64&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1s2cd3c4spp5cpp]133|200|partner's PASS was forcing[/hv] IMP Pairs, good partner , average opps. What now?

I would like to ask the OP what is his purpose? 1. If it is scientific parsing of the official SAYC booklet - read carefully awm's posts and trust him. 2. If it is trying to guess better what a pickup partner's (who claims to be playing SAYC) bids mean - read the posts here that explained what (the ignorant...) 99% of SAYC players think. 3. If your purpose is to agree ona simple, natural (and that "feels natural"), non 2/1 GF, reasonably effective (though far from perfect) system to play with a regular partner - I suggest you forget about the "official" SAYC and play a Standard American variation where : a. Responder does not guarantee a rebid over a minimum rebid in NT, a minimum raise and a minimum rebid of openers suit. b. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ is non-forcing and promisses 5 cards. Maybe you should call it "5 card majors with Acol flavour". I think you will find this system easier to play , and less confusing than the SAYC (the booklet's style). -

Since 3♦ would show an invite with exactly 3♦s , opener will be well placed to pass (very often our best contract, unreachable with your approach) or bid 3NT. I would suggest that 3NT from partner's hand may turn out to be a better contract than 2NT from yours...

Something like [hv=pc=n&n=s642h83daq6ckq754]133|100[/hv] I don't play SAYC (except in very casual BBO pickup games) so don't claim to know it well. However with the above hand , playing SAYC I assume I am supposed to respond 2♣ and after opener's 2♦ I am sure my best option is to raise to 3♦ even if his 2♦ did not show extra length.

Ace ask. I think it would be extremely rare for you to hold a hand where you might want to play in a suit other than ♠ (while not being able to just bid it!) or in 4NT.

If your pd opens 1NT , and you have no idea what the range of 1NT is (because you are a substitute?),I suggest that it is in the interest of the game and all other players that the bidder is allowed/asked to announce his range. I would further suggest that this is the right thing to do, even if the laws do not provide for this , and do not even recommend it. The spirit of the game is "you make a bid, all 3 other players understand its meaning , and proceed using this information to the best of their ability" rather than "you make a bid , nobody knows what it means , everybody take their best guess, and proceed playing the hand in the dark". Btw , this practice is very much the norm in online play in BBO. When 2 non-regular players play together , and one of them makes a bid which can have one of several meaning, the opps will usually allow/ask him to announce the meaning out loud for the benefit of his partner and the defenders , and to protect the logic of the hand, and everybodys enjoyment. I am very much aware that current laws do not support this - I just think that players can do it themselves - it is in their own interest.

For those who are curious what would have worked , here are partner's hands : 1. [hv=pc=n&n=sk2ht92dqt3ca9643]133|100[/hv] If you pass , 4♠ would be down 2 (or maybe even 3), possibly doubled by partner. If you bid 5♣ you go down 1. 2.[hv=pc=n&s=sj73hj5dqj864caj7]133|100[/hv] If you double , or bid 3♣, you may get to the excellent 4♥ , if partner rebids 3♥ (would he?) and you decide to raise.

An opinion from a player's (rather than a director's) point of view : 1. When you bid 3♦ you intended (and expected!) your pd to understand it (as weak). This by itself means to me that (even if you didnt specifically discuss it), you assumed you had an understanding , coming from some past experience, or your common bridge background or whatever. 2. After being asked , I suggest you can volunteer the correct explanation , even if not obliged by law. I think providing the opps with the explanation preserves the logic and integrity of the hand , and allows everybody to play the hand (make the lead..) while applying their bridge judgement. Is that a bad thing? Would you really prefer that your opponent assumed (for example) that 3♦ was a splinter agreeing clubs, and made a poor lead because of that?