jmcw

If you Splinter as you suggest. Partner will be bidding 4♥ at his next turn and you have learned nothing about his hand (wasting tons of space). If you commit to the 5 level on these cards a ♠ lead could easily have you down off the top Are you serious? Partner has learned A LOT about YOUR hand. If she bids 4H it shows there are wasted C hons and slam is probably a bad bet. Very! Given your holding it seems unlikely partner will bid anything other than 4♥! in response to your splinter. Now what?. Bidding 3♣ now gets YOU information at a lower level. For instance if he calls 3NT you will know he has wasted value in ♣. He may even call 3♦, or3♠ don't you think this is helpful? Splinters by definition largely pass control over to partner. I don't think this is the right think to do on these cards.

If you Splinter as you suggest. Partner will be bidding 4♥ at his next turn and you have learned nothing about his hand (wasting tons of space). If you commit to the 5 level on these cards a ♠ lead could easily have you down off the top

A raise shows a fit. Period! What your suggesting here makes no sense to me

Yes that's it thanks

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk953haj64dakj72c]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♦2♣ P 2♥ ? [/hv] Partner's 2 ♥ call is 10+ and forcing for 1 round. Is it better to splinter here or cue bid and why. I prefer the Cue bid for a number of reasons. 1. Keeps the bidding lower. 2. My next bid will show clear slam intent. 3. Most importantly, can I reasonably expect partner to bid anything other than 4♥ if I splinter. Some will say splinter always, so now you may take the opportunity to defend your action. :angry:

NOT. I'm with the minority, happy to open 1♣. Do not consider 1♥ as obvious, or standard. In no way does a minor suit opening deny a 5 card card major it just doesn't come up very often.

4♥ would be a splinter bid here not 3♥. Since partner holds the ♣A it is unlikely to be a stab for NT. Most likely, is a strong ♠ raise with vey good trumps AND a ♥ control. Here with very soft values, it looks no better that a 2♠ to me.

DBL runs the risk that partner will insist on a♥ contract. 3♠ seems cleary wrong...just not enough tricks. So by defaut I choose 2♣ and hopefully will get a chance to show my ♦ next.

North opens 1NT-->Pass-->1♦--> After a pause, West called the Director, South apparently woke up and blurted out "Oh its a transfer" (before the director arrived). The director ruled that it was a "mechanical" error and allowed South to corrected the bid to 2♦. West felt he should have had the option of accepting the bid and that North had gained unauthorized information. The Director disagreed and ruled the auction to continue without penalty. Was this ruling correct?

Jump in the 4th suit shows an invitation distributional hand. 4th suit following with a rebid of that suit shows a GF. Just bid 2♦ here.

DBL shows a good hand with good ♥. Partner can leave it in, correct back to ♠, invite with NT, or get out in a minor with a garbage.

2♠ is clearly wrong. Over 2♦ I pefer 3♦ forcing (2♥ is a reasonable 2nd choice). From there, we will eventually settle in 4♠.

Feels right to bid over 3♥. It's a toss up for me, but 4♠ seems the least of evils and who knows it might make.

Thanks Don, Part 1 the key ask I'm ok with. Part 2 the Q ask reply has a treatment whereby you show King(s) in addition to confirming the Q Part 3 When not asking for the Q (Asker has it) the King ask is done by making a "sweeping" bid showing consecutive Kings as the ASK. So I'm stuck on part 2 and 3 since I'm uncertain about the ordering of the Kings...hope this clarifies.

I've been searching in vain for comprehensive documentation on Jeff Rubens Kickback Convention. The area of particular interest ( and considerable confusion) is the King showing response structure. If anyone has The sweeping mechanism down pat, I sure would be thankful.

Way too messy. A particulary painful poison should go in his next coffee.

Thanks for your reply. I share your interpretation of the 1♠ bid and the legality of the call. The neglect you suggest, shown by the director is all too common IMO. ACBL Directors (online) seldom if ever, at least in my experience, take any auction in such situations. What concerns me isn't the fact that I got a bad score!, it is as you put it FULL DISCLOSURE and the opponents experiences. When the directors fail to promote the integrity of the game then who or where can we turn to for help?

Seems a bit harsh on poor old North. What were E/W and S doing when this was going on? Did the director not check for accuracy...now that seems lazy to me!. I hold N blameless so result stands.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjtxxxhxxdxxcxxxx]133|100|[/hv] My RHO bids 1♣ I Pass LHO bids 1♠. The auction continues normally and our side declares 3♦. 3NT was cold(our way) and the ACBL ONLINE director was summoned. I queried the 1♠ bid. Basically, I was informed that the call is "legal", my further questions were ignored. No alerts were made the opponents were playing SAYC. Had my LHO originally passed we would most certainly have bid our lay down game. My concern is, are the opponents responding similarly (very light) on a frequent basis?. If so, should the 1♠ bid be alerted?. I'm assuming the director is correct in stating the call is "legal", BUT, if the partnership has a history of frequently (The Director did not ask) reponding with 1 point I am entitled to know?. If on the other hand, this is a very infrequent occurance then is 1♠ a psychic call?, and if so, why does the director not log or assign a flag to this pair?. The opponents were from the same country and each have many 100's of masterpoints (this should not be relevant but I thought to include nonetheless) I would like to have a better understanding of the regulations regarding the "stretched bid"' I welcome and thank those who respond.

♠

Over 1NT, 2♥shows 6+ so thats out. With equal length in the minors rebid 2♣ so thats out. With longer ♦ than ♣ bid rebid 2♦ 3♣ is totally non forcing showing 9/11 points and at least 6♣....you should pass. Some also play the 3♣ a bit weaker the range is up to you.

So Pass becomes the "weak call", all others would promise a full opener. Presumably, RDBL or Suit bid would be an attempt to get to game in ♠.

What ever 2 suited method you had available would have been a better choice. Now your stymied. Pass

P P 1♠ P 2♣ DBL 2♦ .... 2♣ is Drury and 2♦ shows a weak opening bid! or does it? When a conventional call id DBL'd should the meaning of responses be changed?. Similar opportunities exist when Stayman, Jacoby, Bergen etc. calls are DBL'd. There are conventions like ROPI DOPI specifically designed to combat similar situations. My question, then, is this. Is there a prevailing method of improving my bidding methods when the opps DBL a convention bid.

Partner made a penalty DBL? then PASS. Attempting to transfer to a 4 card suit is crazy