skjaeran

This is (far) better than my minimums. I'd open AJxxx x KJxx Qxx and AQxxx Kx xxx Qxx for example. But only if that was an agreed upon style, of course.

It doesn't. 4♥ promises 3+ hearts and a rubbish hand, while 3♥ promises some values. To me 4♥ shows 4c support and rubbish. With 3c support and rubbish we bid 3♣=2nd negative, and if stronger we rebid 2NT, then 3/4♥ as appropriate.

Pass, wtp? We're still undoubled. :D

I'd raise to 3♥, a balanced slam try in our methods. Jumps in a new suit are all splinters for us here. And yes, we don't invite game with support here (unless responder is a passed hand), we either pass or bid game.

I'd bid 4♦. This is a strong constructive (in context) bid in my methods. Partner will make our final decision now. 3NT would be a weak, somewhat distribuional call, inviting partner to save. Partner's jump overcall after my pass is wide ranging. I'd not like to make a phantom save vs an upper range overcall.

Completely agree with overcalling 1♥ - making a t/o double would never touch my mind. I'd double to show strenght now.

Agree.

This is indeed what we play. 3D is the weakest action and does not imply more than four diamonds. you bid 3d with only4...but pass with 5 or 6???????? This seems insane :D Sure she does. So do I (I've used that same principle as far as I can remember), and the Arend-Han partnership does too. To me it's a 'natural' principle that pass is stronger than bidding to the forced level.

I'd rebid 1♥, when having the choice between 3-card suits I always bid the lower one, unless there's a clear disparity between the suits. As to Mike's comment - I'd never ever pass this hand as opener, whoever partner was. You have 13 hcp, 5 controls and an AQ combination.

I'd have opened this 1♥. Failing that, I totally agree with Justin, Han and Arend - 2NT is obvious now.

1. The correct action if a TD was present would be to call the TD at the time the explanation was corrected. The TD would then allow an opponent change a call based on misinformation provided that his partner hasn't subsequently called. Thus the TD would allow you to change your 3♥ bid, but not you partner to change his 3♣ bid. That's what happened at the table as you were allowed to undo your 3♥ bid and replace it with 3NT. 2. If there's no doubt that 2♣ by agreement shows both majors (by CC or system notes, preferably), the last explanation was correct. So you had the systemically correct information (which is what you're entitled to) when you bid 3NT. So I'd not adjust based on your situation. However, your partner didn't have the systemically correct explanation, rather the explanation that correlated with west's actual hand (no alert) when he bid 3♣. But I fail to see how you should survive this "psyche" now anyway. I'd rule "rub of the green", result stands. Note that west did act correctly when he explained 2♣ as both majors. That IS the systemic agreement, and that's the explanation you're entitled to.

Me too. Any suit except trumps is possible, but a ♥ looks best to me.

One question haven't been asked, as far as i can see: Over 2♠, which is the weaker call from partner - pass or 3♦? Personally I prefer 3♦ to be weaker, but that's probably not standard, if there is such a thing as standard here. Edit: Sorry, the OP say that 3♦ shows a minimum. That should imply that pass is stronger.

Wow!! I know I open far more hands at the 1-level than most. But this is beyond me - a 24 hcp 3 loser hand... You don't need more than xxx xxx xxxx xxx for 4♥ to be a reasonable game, how do you think you'll get there? (Sure, I know: 1♥ p p x/1♠, 4♣ p 4♥ :) )

1. Agree with 3♣ with the given methods. 2. Doesn't show or deny extra strenght. 3. 4♣ should be natural slam try now, showing a solid suit and forcing partner to cuebid. 4♦ is ambigous, I'd like to have it agreed as a cue supporting ♠'s. 4♥ "should" be unambigous, showing a good raise to 4♠, but many would take it as a cuebid, supporting ♠'s. Depending upon who I'm playing with I'd either risk 4♥ or simply raise to 4♠.

Me too.

3NT from partner wasn't what we really wanted to hear. At IMP's I'd go on anyway, since 5♦ looks like a safe spot, and 3NT might not be making. I'd try 4♣ now.

Partner's 4♥ showed 4c support and denied any controls (A/K/shortness). I agree with 4♠. 5♣ now showed 3rd round control, which is great. I still need the trump queen or a 5th trump for this to be a good slam. I'd continue with 5♦ now, and expect partner to jump to 6♥ with the ♥Q or extra lenght.

How I would bid a 7M5m really depends on which suits I hold, how strong the suits are and how the bidding develops. Sometimes I'm allowed to show the minor cheaply, and might show it before rebidding the major. Normally I'd bid the major twice before thinking of showing the minor. You'll want to play in the major most of the time. If partner shows my minor suit before I've bid it myself, the picture obviously changes. Now it's quite possible to establish the major suit with ruffs, and it can be profittable to play in the minor.

With my regular partner we play 1♥ - 2♠ as any minisplinter (game invite with 4c support). We also play: 1♣ - 1red (TRF) 1M - 3♣/♦ as a splinter, inv+ (1M=accept, showing all 3cM hands and some 4cM).

I hope you don't imply that the TD at any time during the bidding can do anything but watch the proceedings. It would be absolutely wrong if the TD at any point interrupts the bidding. This is not correct. You can't assign an artificial adjusted score after a board has been finished. You have to assing a real score to both sides (which doesn't have to be the same for both sides) according to Law 12C2. In most parts of the world outside the ACBL the appeals committee (in EBL the TD can do this) can vary an assigned adjusted score to do equity (that means you can give a weighted score based upon several possible outcomes without the irregularity, upon the TD/ACs judgement).

If you play 2NT as natural in that sequence, you'll have to bid 3♦ IMO.

Normally I'd pass with this hand. Mainly because we have the agreement that with 3-3 in the majors the 1NT-opener pulls to 2♠ over 2♣-2♦-2♥. But it's close, and I can definitely stomach garbage Stayman on this hand.

But the actual hand did have 13 cards, if I counted correctly. So when you say that you wouldn't bid 1♠ with that hand (or with an 18-count 5-5 in the rounded suits, or whatever) you actually say that 1♠ carries much more information than just "13 cards". Depending on what that information is it may or may not be a sensible convention. But that information needs to be disclosed. That's spot on. If you explain it as 13 cards, it means you overcall 1♠ on any hand. Which, of course, nobody does, so that explanation is just rubbish. You need to give an as exact explanation to what hand types you could have for this overcall.

Is this the lowest splinter ever? :P