nigel_k

2NT should be the 4 card raise but need not be full limit raise values, e.g. if it goes 1♥-2♣, you could bid 2NT on xxx KJxx Axxx xx. This hand is hard to bid otherwise and there is room for opener to make a further try. If they compete, it's more important for opener to know responder's ODR than their exact high card strength. With a more defensive hand such as Jxx Axxx xxxx Kx, I would just bid 2♥.

If you mean high/low in trumps or declarer's long suit to show hand parity, that is not encrypted. But it may be illegal for other reasons depending on where you are. I hesitate to suggest any general rules, but probably any method that depends only on cards in the defender's hand (not other cards or the bidding) is not encrypted.

When 'encrypted signals' are banned, there is no precise definition that I am aware of. You are supposed to know one when you see it. Generally this seems to work. Maybe there could be a method that is in a genuine 'gray area' but I don't know of any such method and I can't think of one right now. If the meaning of your lead depends on declarer's length in a known suit (e.g. after Stayman) it is definitely illegal. If the method is based entirely on the opening leader's holding in the suit (without reference to the auction) then it is definitely legal.

I would show a two suiter on both and pass if partner chooses the weaker suit and they double. Maybe it needs a sim though and I will not be surprised if I wrong.

My nature is lemming and I would double though it is close. I will bid 5♣ over 4NT. This is the sort of hand where there could easily be a double game swing or we may just increase the penalty when they are sacrificing. I'm not that worried about partner pulling when both sides are not making. The way I play he definitely will not pull with 3424. Of course we could concede a big penalty or partner could bid too much, especially if he the spade ace. But I just think the cost of these is less than what we stand to lose by passing.

I agree with daveharty - it depends on agreements. But I would never use double here as a balanced 11 though I can understand that it could be a reasonable possibility opposite an unknown partner with no agreements. North should get most of the blame though.

I tend to agree with Adam. With a FJS, a lot of things have to fall into place for the FJS to lead to a better result than you would have got without it. Obviously when you're writing a book it's not hard to come up with a couple of examples but you may wait a while for one in real life. A WJS seems to me to be more likely to gain when it comes up. I also think they are more common. However, it may be a good compromise to play FSJ at the four level (or only when a double jump) and WJS at the three level. If you have something like xx Kxxx KQxxx xx and it starts 1♥-2♣ then maybe it could be right to sell out to 3♠ or 4♣ but probably it's tactically better to just bid 4♦. Also, I really don't like the idea of FJS on a four card suit. If you have AQJx and partner has Kxx he is going to like that holding but really it is pretty neutral in respect to offensive vs defense. Even Kxxx opposite AQJx is not necessarily anything to get excited about.

Regardless of your general agreement about 'negative doubles', after they raise the double should almost never be pure penalty and the doubler's partner should pull with an unbalanced hand. In your example with 11 HCP and four cards in their suit I would just pass. Maybe partner doubles again or maybe you can't make game and in any case this hand type will not be that common compared to the ones with nothing much in their suit but some values and no obvious bid.

Some points: 1. Looking at Bergen raises in isolation doesn't work. It depends what you would have done with those bids otherwise, e.g. using them to show invitational strength with a minor. 2. I think it's ok to include the invitational minor hands in the 1NT response. After 1♥-1NT-2 any, responder has 2♠ available as an artificial call. After 1♠-1NT-2♣ you can use Bart. Only after 1♠-1NT-2♦/♥ there is a problem. They could interfere or maybe opener will sometimes pass the semi-forcing 1NT when they would have bid and made 3NT over 3 of a minor, but I still tend to think there is more gain from using those bids to show support. 3. You need to use judgment instead of relying on LOTT. Some hands with four card support should make a single raise. It depends on shape, honour location, vulnerability, form of scoring, opponents etc. I.e. these bids are not a reason to stop playing bridge.

If you can explain why the alternative is not logical, and that explanation is sound, I don't see why a director or appeals committee would not accept it. Obviously the people who go wrong could not produce that explanation if asked for it.

Ok, but the opponents already know about that, and technically the director should have been called about it already. What I meant is that is there no irregularity related to use of UI.

Of course those who play unusual methods gain quite a large advantage from unfamiliarity. It's just impossible to disclose to an extent that the opponents are in the same position as someone who has been playing the unusual method for years. I'm against almost all systems regulations, but the issue has to be whether cost of the unfair advantage players gain from the unfamilairity of the method is outweighed by the gain from giving people the freedom to innovate.

If you can work the hand out to such an extent that there is no logical alternative not suggested by the UI, then why would you call the director? There is no irregularity.

I agree with 2M+1 as the only superaccept. There's no point revealing extra information about opener's hand when responder will seldom need it. You also don't need to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support though obviously 4 will be more common. 3M directly should be a minimum that is offensively oriented so you want to consume space immediately. An extreme example would be AKQx xx KQJx xxx if partner transfers to spades.

I would just signoff in game. Slam could be worth bidding with the right cards and shape opposite, but most times even when partner thinks his hand is quite suitable the slam will need a finesse at least.

If double is takeout you have to pass. If double is not for takeout, then I have zero experience playing that way but probably would still pass.

It looks big because they drew the arrows really fat and included places where no money is actually being spent. Somebody could probably work out how many hours or minutes per year of social security spending could be funded by stopping that spending but it wouldn't be much.

I would definitely double. We have the high card values for game and no fit. Even opposite Phil's example double looks ok and partner's hand could easily be more suitable.

3♥. If you were bare minimum, pass with four card support would be ok. But this hand is better than that. The spade holding should not be discounted too much. If you held Axx and partner xx there would be one spade loser for your side and one for their side if they declare, for a total of two. Likewise if you held xxx opposite xx there would be two total losers. And KJx is also likely to mean two total losers. Even if partner has Qx there could easily be a useful club pitch.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhadakt9643caj32&n=saq85ht84dqj52ct9&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1hd3h4np5dppp]266|200[/hv] IMP scoring.

Is 2♥ strong in this sequence? I don't know what is standard but partner would like to be able to bid 2♥ with something like Kxxx Axxxx x Axx.

Since space is so tight, I have always thought it is wasteful to have sequences where opener can't use all their possible calls because they don't know enough about responder's hand to bid anything higher than 3NT. For example, if you start with a 3♣ response showing 4+ hearts and 3♦ showing 4+ spades and denying four hearts, then you unlock these extra sequences because opener can bid at the four level immediately with suit agreement and anything at the three level will deny suit agreement. But I haven't worked out all the continuations. Probably you can do better than Puppet/Muppet this way but it would be complicated.

3♠. After I respond 2♦ to Stayman and don't insist on playing diamonds later, partner can assume clubs are taken care of. So he will bid 3NT over 3♠ when his major is hearts unless he has extra shape. If partner's major is spades, 3NT could have a serious problem on a heart lead. For example, 5♦ is best opposite Kxxx xx AKxxx Kx and 3NT is best opposite xx Kxxx AKxxx Kx.

I prefer something like 9-11: 1) A range wider than three points makes it hard for partner if game is possible 2) The negative inferences are unreliable since not all hands with a six card major in range will be suitable for a two level opening 3) There is plenty of space to show better hands after opening at the one level and little gain from preempting with those hands when both opponents have passed

Gerber is bad if it prevents people moving on to more sophisticated and accurate methods. But the vast majority of regular Gerber users are never going to do that and their results would be worse, not better, if they just gave up using Gerber. Anyway nobody who plays Minorwood has any business criticising those who play Gerber.