DavidKok

I would imagine some offbeat shapes with a singleton honour, in particular 5431, 4441 and even 6m331, can also be claimed to be semibalanced without much of a stretch.

I feel like half the partnerships here put some weak option in their strong 2♣, so we make it a habit to always ask (or check the CC) regardless. @pescetom presumably you meant "22-23 balanced or any GF", unless you have a different bid for GF (semi)balanced.

No, that hand should pass. The auction is almost certainly a misfit with length in both of the suits the opponents have bid. Furthermore, they likely hold the balance of strength since we didn't overcall or make a double. Just sit back and see where the auction dies out. To enter the auction after the opponents have opened relies more on shape than on values, since often we're outgunned. In particular this requires length in some or all unbid suits.

I can't think of a hand your partner may have that is compatible with the auction. I don't think the bids mean anything, other than maybe a desire to get to the next board. Normally partner's double shows length in the two unbid suits (spades and clubs). We should definitely have bid a number of clubs over the redouble, regardless of whether that is support or values. The freely bid 2♥ does not make any sense. Partner is a passed hand, if it was right to play 2♥ they should wait for us to enter the auction. The closest example I can think of is a 4=3=1=5 with ~10 HCP, but this means the opponents concealed their 28 HCP holding, heart fit and diamond fit. And even with that hand it's a terrible idea to put our head on the chopping block by bidding the suit held by the opponents with a sub-opening hand and no guarantee of a fit. I think it is most likely partner does not play (1♦)-P-(1♥)-2♥ as natural and to play, and is trying to show that hand through an imaginative reroute. This is still a terrible idea, if the hand was not worth an opening or a preempt on the first round it surely hasn't improved from hearing RHO bid our suit. At least now the shapes around the table make some sense, though I hope you weren't more than four or five off.

It would be nice if there was some way to diagnose those when they come up. But alas. 2♣ for me, I feel confident we won't get passed there (and even if we are, it might not be wrong). It is important to get both suits in with so much shape, and I do not want to overstate our strength when all we have is shape.

I agree with everything Stephen wrote, and would have opened 3♥.

No. We've got a 9-card fit, partner is marked with club shortage and the vulnerability is favourable. In fact, if you're not going to bid with this hand, just stop doubling on the auction in full. The double asks us to bid with a suitable hand, and we've got a great one in context.

I'm sorry but I think to a large extent double is a blame transfer here. Making partner choose feels safer than ripping the band-aid off, especially since the heart suit is weak and the hand is under strength. But are we really giving partner good options? With a clear discrepancy between hearts and clubs partner will choose correctly, and if the opponents are silent partner will choose 2♥ most of the time. Conversely, if the opponents bid again (which I think is really likely, after they have already claimed the balance of values) partner won't know to raise hearts with four or to play us for this much shape and this little values. Double really seems like a poor description to me, the kind of 'you decide, and if it turns out to be wrong it will have been your fault' style bid. In fact, why bid at all? Spades outrank hearts, diamonds outrank clubs, and the opponents hold the balance of strength. And if they don't have a fit we probably don't have one either, in which case making partner bid is really risky. 4 hearts, 5 diamonds and just barely insufficient values to open. We should bid 3♦. I am not a fan of doubles like this, as expressed earlier. Partner got quite lucky that we have good diamond support and not that many wasted values - most of the time a double like this just gives the opponents cheap opportunities to score big. If you want to enter at the 2-level with a hand below opening strength it is generally better to do it on the first round with a preemptive bid.

Why does "IMO the suit is too poor to bid at the two level, especially when opps have advertised the majority of the HCP and not found a fit." exclude 2♥ but not double pushing us to 2♥ or 3♣ at the least? The way I see it the first double already stuck out our neck but misrepresented the shape and strength along the way. Or does double promise 5-5 in your agreements?

I'd pass, though I don't like it much. I know plenty of people who would bid 1NT, which I think is reasonable as well.

Why not bid 2♥ rather than double first time? Double shows the unbid suits, but there's a world of difference between a so-so hand with 5-5 and a high HCP hand with 4-5 or even 4-6. If the opponents bid over our double will partner know to compete to the 3-level when it is right? And if you're not going to pass out 2♠, why not 2NT the first time?

If we get another round everything works, even 1♠ into 4♥. The concern is that it goes (1♣)-1♥-(p)-2♠; (5♣)-p-(p)-? and now what. Having a way to show a 4-level worthy raise with a good spade suit at once avoids this problem. Having multiple fitjumps isn't very high frequency, but it wins a lot when it comes up. Also in my experience splinters in new suits in competition aren't big winners at all. Usually partner has the spades (if the opponents have them they tend to bid them), and even if not slam usually isn't on after they have opened. Plus, splintering in a new suit implies length and values in opener's suit, increasing the chance of a side suit misfit. For those reasons I prefer to play "no splinters in new suits in competition", i.e. we only have a club splinter on the auction, and other splinters go through 2NT (inv+ 4(+) raise).

Even without seeing the hands, this is a terrifying auction. East has an opening, West has a positive response (10+ or so), North apparently has values but no good bid. That leaves nothing for South. Making them guess again is verging on the cruel, especially when North has two good suits to bid. Spades also outrank hearts and diamonds outrank clubs, so it is unclear what gains North is looking for if they aren't willing to brave the 3-level (by bidding 2NT the first round). When the opponents have claimed the balance of strength and communicated somewhat about their degree of fit the time for aggressive interference has passed. They are in a much better position to find the winning actions compared to a first hand preempt. It is much more often right to pass on a 2/1 auction (even when not GF) than many expect - even if you get a killer bid in and partner has some support, it is likely you are outgunned and will have painted a picture for declarer on how to play the hand. Savvy bidders (like me) might even have special agreements about redouble, pass and direct bids. I'm not sure either double exists, other than as a psyche expose. If it does, the first one shows approximately a x=4=y=5 or x=4=y=6 with all values in the long suits. I can't think of a meaning of the second one, again excepting the psyche story.

Fit jump, 5(+) good spades, 4(+) hearts and the offensive strength to play at the 4-level. 2♠ would also have been a fit jump, but one-over fit jumps are just stronger hands.

I could not find an explanation of how these commands work online, also the documentation is a bit lacking. The best reference I could find is https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/77321-printes-altcount-n-ptn/, which asked the question but did not provide the answer. So here is a working example of my own. produce 1 //for testing altcount 7 2 1 /* The first number defines which altcount we'll be using, in this case 7. The Dealer script can run up to 10 different alternate point counts, labeled 0-9. After selecting a number we can add up to 13 numbers, specifying the value of each card in descending order. This example sets A = 2, K = 1, lower = 0, counting controls. */ altcount 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 /* This example uses altcount 8 to count the number of two's in the hand. */ action printes("South holds ",pt7(south)," controls, where A = 2, K = 1.",\n,"In addition South holds ",pt8(south)," two's.",\n)

Would http://bcalc.w8.pl/ by Piotr Beling work?

If you play XYZ and are not going to pass 1NT I don't see much of an issue with bypassing the spades. You lose on the hands where it goes 1♦-1♥; 1NT-P on your table while 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♠; P is superior. The problem is a much smaller issue over 1♣, where modern systems can solve this problem with the extra step of bidding space before it comes up (e.g. transfers). Another small win for unbalanced diamond, balanced club. As an aside in a Precision context I've been told (and agree) that it makes a lot more sense to rebid 1♠ with four(+) spades on 1♦*-1♥ always, since even if you bypass spades with an unbalanced hand the 1♠ rebid doesn't promise diamond length. So you may as well give up entirely and agree that it just shows spades.

You mean a bidding contest?

For what it's worth I play 2♦-(2M)-X as 'pass or correct', as if responder had bid 2M instead (though responder is expected to have a different type of hand for the double, but the continuations are the same).

I'm a vocal proponent of aggressive bidding. The percentage lead depends fully on the auction and my hand. That being said I do think people lead a trump too often. I recently went over most of Robson & Segal with my current partner. Knowing that we are on the same page (sometimes literally) in competitive situations helps a great deal with bidding. Knowing your partner's style is important and relevant, and thorough discussion is very time consuming. In general I'm in favour of detailed discussions, but knowing your partner's style is a reasonable substitute at far lower effort.

I expect partner to make the right decision most of the time, especially if I open diamonds which already promises 5 (almost always). But this exact problem is why some people play a Good/Bad 2NT. Passing is less risky than it may seem. I think aggressive bidding is a net winner, pretty much regardless of the quality of the field. The risks are higher in a good field but so are the gains (you don't let them play their perfected constructive system). The variance bit is true, but I'm not happy with the idea that aggressive bidding intimidates the opponents. In my view competitive bidding is far more important than constructive bidding, and if someone is not comfortable with contested auctions that's mostly on them.The 'zone' thing is more of a pitfall than a boon, in my experience. Results are a martingale. If I find they're not, and my results on previous boards sway me to take different actions on the current one, I always try to take a moment to calm down. Last board doesn't change the odds on the current deal.

3NT might be best, but this is a contested auction and the odds are slim. I meant to include that last message - while 3NT might be good, I don't think we have a great way to find out. Sure, transfer to diamonds into a stopper ask might get us to 3NT, or 3♠ 'transfer to 3NT without a stop' might also get us there, but it will often also get us to 3NT when that is significantly worse than 5m. Better to bid with the odds and show our hand on the first round. I haven't checked the spoiler. If opener has got, say, a 3=5=(32), 4=5=2=2 or even a good 4=4=3=2 I'll pay up. One reason for choosing 5m over 3NT is that we have some shortness and weakness in both major suits. For 3NT to be clean we often need to find partner with a good heart stop, some values or length in spades, and also values in the minors to set up our drafty long suits. That's a lot of requirements.

I think 5m will play at least as well as 3NT, and significantly better some amount of the time. I can bid 4♥ to show both minors, and possibly 4NT as well. I'll choose one of those two bids. Our Lebensohl agreements are not relevant on this deal.

1NT into 3♦, fingers crossed. I wouldn't fault pass at all.

That hand is balanced to boot, I'd pass 1♥ and consider raising 1♠ (though it's probably still a pass).