Joe_Old

Bidding 2♠ in balancing seat is automatic in clubs and tournaments here in the eastern U.S. The hand has too much potential to make a vulnerable game. The real question is what to do if: 1) advancer bids 3♣; or 2) advancer bids 3♦.

Given that you're playing IMPs, I really don't like your agreement to bypass the ♦ suit. The goal is to reach your safest plus, and, as this auction demonstrates, you created uncertainty about your ♦ length and made it harder for partner to bid a 4 card major (partner can't safely pass your 2♠ bid with a 4 card ♠ suit because you don't have to have 3; wouldn't you make the same 2♠ bid with 2353 shape?). I have a lot more sympathy for the 1 NT bid in a matchpoint game where the minor suits are devalued. Here, you're forcing the auction to the 3 level to identify a minor suit fit, which might be too high, and lost the chance to play a 4-3 ♠ fit at the 2 level, which might be your last plus.

You might add to your agreements that double means that you have a 2♣ opener (stolen bid), as opposed to an overcall of 3♣, which would be natural. I see more 2♣ bids on shapely 17 or 18 HCP hands than I would personally endorse, so the treatment has paid off. You need to decide how many HCP you're promising, and especially agree on meanings for follow up bids, since the double is unlikely to be pure penalty.

I agree with your reasoning. I would expect that overcaller's most likely intent is to force advancer to choose between 2♠ and 3♣, depending upon whether advancer has 4 or 5 ♠. Picture advancer with xxx xxxxx x xxxx. However, could this be the 1 in a million AKx x AQJxx Qxxx hand where overcaller is shooting for a matchpoint top (+200)?

I was writing about the standard in the late 1960's (I believe that would be the date, maybe slightly later) when I first learned it. Responder was expected to have a hand that would be a bare opener, at best, as you describe. The 14 and 18 HCP (ranges) that I quoted refer to opener's hand, not responder's. Sorry if I was unclear. As a side note, I know of some strong players (NABC+ champions) who experimented with "unlimited" splinters. The thought was that even if opener's hand was square, a suitably powerful and shapely responder could compensate. It didn't work well for a number of reasons and they soon returned to the standard treatment. To the best of my knowledge none of them ever wrote about their experiment.

If the purpose of a mini splinter is to give opener the option of bailing out at the 3 level, a response at the 4 level defeats that purpose. Bidding at the 4 level turns a limit bid into a forcing bid, thus overstating responder's values.

Absolutely right. No bid other than 4♠ would ever occur to me. Splinters were created to find slams opposite a shapely 14 count or a grand opposite a shapely 18. Originally they were intended to set trump, force game and invite slam, meaning that game was all but guaranteed opposite a 4432 12 count. I realize that the rules have been relaxed, but not this far. Looking at it a different way, a jump to 4♠ is supposed to give opener, on average, some play to make game. It also says that on defense responder has one qt or less, and that there is no guarantee ♠ are cashing. That's all North's hand can offer.

Quite right, although I have seen pairs play that 1m - X - 1M - X is still responsive. Not a common treatment. The only other example that comes to mind of a low level X being unambiguously penalty is 1NT - X (Capp, natural, etc), although a very weak advancer has license to run.

Maybe that was true 50 years ago, but I doubt it. It certainly wasn't true in the U.S. I'm also willing to say that your comment isn't true anywhere at this time. Kelsey is a bridge God. Sadly, man is fallible, and oft times misinterprets God's word. True, there once was a time, in the Dark Ages before negative doubles, when essentially all doubles were for penalties. Now, I can think of only two situations where low level doubles are for business. This isn't one of them. Hint: if everyone else, including some excellent players, are treating this double as takeout, it's probably you who is in a "muddle".

I don't know about ACOL, but that is definitely not true for SAYC. That 8 card Club suit requirement? Not in the U.S. Also, a 2 Club opener is forcing to 2 NT or 3 or a major (when opener bids then rebids his major) only. How you play when opener rebids a minor is open to discussion, depending upon how responder shows a bust hand (2 hearts, 2 NT, second negative)

It's not as simple as that (and I'm not criticizing, I know you're responding to the actual layout). First, read the post of JanisW, who seems to have been the partner deceived by the 1♣ opener. If you know that partner anticipated the possibility of the trash you decided to open, pass. If opener suspects that the doubler has been mislead, further action is certainly under consideration. For example, in third seat (or any seat) I'd open x x KJ10xx AQxxxx 1♣ without a second thought. Maybe I'd bid over the 4♠ call, let's say I didn't. But when North doubles for the second time, do you really expect to beat 4♠? Isn't 5♦ looking very attractive? I know that the above example isn't the actual case. Like just about everyone else, I think the 1♣ bid was an abomination and was 99% responsible for the bad result. On this hand North made a "partnership" penalty double, based on the assumption that South had reasonable values and balanced (or semi-balanced) shape for his bid. In the actual case South "made his bed now he has to lie in it". But, your hand is always subject to re-evaluation.

So switch the ♥K and ♦Ace and 5♦ makes and 4♠ goes down. Shift the ♣K and 5♠ makes. It still looks like N took a hell of a chance, and it didn't work out. It looks like the lesson here is that a practiced partnership knows 1) how bad a third seat opener can be when opener is just trying to suggest a lead and 2) that they are in agreement that third seat will run like a rodent when partner doubles.

Assuming that partner has seen South open rubbish in third seat many times before, the second double should be business. The first double has to show values to compete. The colors aren't right to expect a big profit from sacrificing at the five level, even if it is matchpoints. And, if South did have a hand that should compete to the five level, South already had an opportunity to do so and declined. I'm expecting North to have 2+ red suit quick tricks and an obvious spade lead. Pass.

That's why I'm not a Director. Thanks for (gently) clearing that up.

The X is one suited, and that's what makes DONT permissible in the ACBL Basic Chart. With TWO suited bids one suit must be known. Go to ACBL.org., then tournaments, then Charts, Rules and Regulations, then Convention Charts. Under the Basic Charts, "Allowed" and "Competitive" 3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution and at least one known suit or b) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of three suits) That is why DONT (and Landy and Cappeletti) are allowed and the proposed treatment is not. See my prior post regarding the club option to allow. Of course, it is permissible under the Mid Chart.

Not exactly true. The ACBL's Basic Chart (which must be allowed in all club games), states that a double or an overcall of 1 NT showing multiple suits, must include at least one known suit (or 3 suits). Therefore, this treatment would not be allowed at club games, unless the club specifically sanctions it (the club's discretion). However, the Mid Chart, sanctioned for higher level tournament play, does allow this treatment.

Mike pretty much nailed it. However... 1) Spade or club lead is a guess, but since you probably need a ruff and an Ace to beat the contract, a spade is a better guess since the auction denies length in clubs for East-West (and the opps aren't bidding RKC on a useless doubleton, so two club tricks aren't happening). 2) per Mike, if I'm playing with an expert defender. Average defenders will automatically lead a club because you didn't double 5 spades. 3) clear XX. It unambiguously promises the Ace, and implies no clear action (like one unstopped suit for NT). 4) per Mike.

You've asked a complex question. Lots of good advice already: two more points to consider in answer to question 1. At IMPs you want to go plus. If I recall correctly, computer simulations show that a 5-2 fit tends to play better in 2 of a major than in 1NT. At any form of scoring in third seat you strain to open light in a major (I prefer to have a minor suit promise a full opener), therefore it can be doubly difficult to find a descriptive rebid over 1M - P - 1NT - P because opener's point range can be so wide. That's one reason why expert partnerships that I know particularly favor opening 1NT with a 5 card major and spend a lot of time working out continuations over 3rd seat openers, the aim being to stay low while identifying any kind of major suit fit. Fourth seat doesn't have many of these problems since you pass out bad hands and partner can trust that opener is hoping for a constructive auction, where in third seat opener isn't just bidding a mild pre-empt (say 1 spade on AKxx xx Kxx Jxxx). Therefore, there is no reason to treat a 15-17, 5 card major hand any differently than in first seat or second.

Stephen Tu makes very good points, but did not discuss the form of scoring issue. IMPs are very different from matchpoints because going plus (at IMPs) is the only concern. I find that expert players play 3 NT contracts far more often than ordinary players because they concentrate on reaching the safest contract. Simply put, and distributional issues aside, 9 tricks in NT are almost always available whenever there are 10 or 11 tricks in trump and often when a trump game fails. Obviously, opponents bidding, unstopped suits, short suits and similar issues factor in. Therefore, take a look at a typical hand record (36 deals) and evaluate it in terms of a team match. Consider safety plays. Over a large number of deals playing 3 NT instead of game in a suit (given balanced or semi-balanced hands) should show a profit.

delete

Realistically, since responder passed initially, how likely is it that you are missing a spade game? Isn't going plus the major goal? And isn't a minor suit partial the overwhelming favorite to go plus? I too can picture hands for responder where a spade game makes, but isn't it better to make the percentage call here? There certainly isn't a LOTT argument.

1) Yes, but you are only at the one level, and if North bids, partner can pass. (Added- yes, you might be at the one level here, too, but a 2 club bid avoids that potential pitfall). 2) If you had a 4 card ♠ suit, you would certainly double (or bid some number of ♠), so 4-1-4-4, 4-4-3-2, 4-0-5-4 and 4-1-5-3 are ruled out by a 2♣ rebid.

Given responder's initial pass I'm not worried about missing game, I'm just competing for a part score. If opener doubles he risks finding partner with 3-3-3-4, 3-4-2-4, or some similar shape, and playing in a 3-3 spade fit is not optimal. Therefore, I feel that a 2♣ bid is a better choice than a takeout X because it guarantees that you have 8+ minor suit cards, and suggests 3-1-5-4. Note that this auction is very different than P - 1♦ - 1♥ - P P or P - 1♦ - 1♥ - P 2♥ because responder could have cards but no immediate bid and game is not out of the question.

No, that's not how it works. The 3♦ rebid promises 6♦. Therefore, you cannot add points for ♦ length unless you have more than 6♦. Ironclad rule. No exceptions.

Dead on, except the percentage, at times, approaches 90. I recommend the tournaments to new players who want to get used to playing on BBO, or just playing duplicate. Looking at the explanations that pop up in the bidding box is a big help for them, too. Since there's no chat, there's less pressure. For the rest, it's a good way to waste 30 minutes, just don't take it seriously.