and also we assume sane partners, which includes aggressive. That you "love to balance" is not even accurate (and if it is, it shouldn't be, and I'll never assume it). That you "love to win, so will balance when appropriate" is assumed. It's not like you can start a reasonable discussion with "my partner is a balance-monkey. Should I pre-balance?"

Assuming you're still talking about the redoubled 1NT hand, re 4:

Was it seriously suggested by anyone that responder's pass of the redouble was a request for doubler to bid? That's wrong — it has to be right to make a business pass at least some of the time (not just to play the contract redoubled, as often the partner of a business redoubler winds up pulling, and the side that initially doubled will usually want to double the runout), and there's no way to get there unless pass of a redouble is business.

And frankly, I think that applies to any business redouble on any auction. A direct-seat pass must be willingness to play it. In fact, it also applies to any conventional redouble if there's a reasonable risk of it getting passed by the partner of the redoubler.

Hey now I admitted my pass of xx was wrong/ill-conceived. I do think the problem is different if you judge IMPs and skill level of partner and opps. X is a lot better if you don't think partner balances a 6HCP hand with 4 spades.

Also are you saying 1x-X-XX-pass shows willingness to play 1xXX?

My principle suggests that it is willingness to play, but on that auction it seems wrong. I need to think more about that.

I hate system questions that allegedly turn on form of scoring, because people judge them wrong or forget. It's one thing to say your judgment will differ depending on the situation, another to say the rule differs. But in any case, form of scoring changes his willingness to double on that first auction, but not your call — by the time it gets to you you know your side is going for a number and the question at any form of scoring is how to minimize that number. And he should always take your pass as willingness to play, because at either form of scoring it is possible for you to have such a hand and there's nothing you can do when you get it but pass.

You know you are fiercely competitive when you are still trying to figure out how is responsible for the one bad hand in a +44IMPs in 32 hands session

ldo

5 idiocies of the opponents do not justify one of your own

you mistake "who is responsible " for "what's good bridge"

everyone makes mistakes, but this is how we learn.

So responder knows opener has 15-17 HCP, no thrilling suit and presumably exactly 2 hearts.

I blame him. If you tell your partner your hand and they pass, you have to assume they mean it right?

Unless the pass means bid your best suit to play so you can be declarer. But without agreements, I am sticking with ^^.

AQ95
T76
76
AKJ8

JT6
AKQJ
QJT92
3

1D 1S
2S ?

Agree/Disagree? How do we land in 3NT from here?

Or am I resulting?

This isn't about blame on this hand.

It's about whether a takeout double is good bridge. Sometimes you play good bridge and go for 1100. Chuck's pass of the XX -- which I disagree with, and which we talked about -- was just a matter of partnership understanding. I was certainly not trying to imply that Chuck's decision to go -1240 instead of -1100 in 3Cx was blameworthy. The only issue with the XX was letting Chuck know that I expected pass to (actively) suggest playing in 2Hxx. Aside from all the other things discussed about this, if pass isn't to play, then the 2D bidder can XX (to play) with heart shortness knowing that we actually have no way to defend 2Hxx -- that is, there is no possible way the auction can finish XX - all pass.

The takeout double is way more subtle in my view. I posted it on BBOF, and I've gotten a handful of responses. It's about 50/50 [I'm surprised, actually, I thought I was going to get murdered for doubling], but the people whose responses I give the most weight too have all passed. If there's any auction blame here, it's all on my end.

Agree. 5-4-3-1 is the perfect shape for the three-card raise, and the only other bids are gross distortions.

1D – 1S
2S – 3C
3H – 3NT
pass

... looks normal. Responder knows he has a game force but makes what looks like a game try to find the best strain. This gives opener a chance to show where his stuff is (while never really defining the shape, though the actual hand remains a possibility), because his hand is non-terrible. Responder offers 3NT to cover all bases; opener happily accepts with 10/13ths of his HCP in a shortish side suit.

Of course, if you don't get there it doesn't matter hugely (at IMPs), as spades and notrump take the same tricks most (though definitely not all) of the time.

If you like to raise on 3 card support, which is fine, then I like to use 2nt here as an asking bid where you can determine if it is a 3 card raise or 4 card raise.

what's your structure after 2N chuck

I wouldn't expect that use of 2NT to be more useful than a kokish game try, which will give you helpful information more often. Which, if it's available, responder might use here, with opener's answer being an interesting question. But ultimately responder will still get around to bidding 3NT as a suggested contract.

Hmm a little rusty. I think

3c min 3 card
3d min 4 card
3h max 3 card
3s max 4 card

You can change 3d and 3h, but it looks to be better to have 3d as the min with 4 card support to have 3h be some sort of last ditch game try. After that you can use 3nt-4h as some sort of shortness bids.

does this auction exist and what is it?

2N-3D
3H-4D
4N-5D
5S

3D transfer, 4N to play

How can 4NT be to play? That forces to the five level when responder is unsuitable for notrump, and that being a bad thing certainly isn't precluded.

many years ago with a hand that always wanted to get to game at least we would respond 2 clubs and follw up with 2 spades over 2 hearts and then 3nt over 2nt . easy game

so our options are pass 4d forcing or 4h shows only 2 so slam evaluation is next to impossible or 4d must show 6d or 4d must show 6h

what do you suggest on akqj / xx / xxx / akqj

5-4-3-1 is indeed the perfect shape for the 3-card raise -- but I think 2S grossly misstates the strength of the hand, and I don't believe in ever jumping to 3S on three. I imagine I am in a minority for thinking that 2H now followed by spade support on the third round is the smaller lie, given the trend toward ever-heavier reverses, but I am quite willing to reverse on a lot of 6-loser hands with 3-card support (whereas with the same cards but 1=4=5=3 I wouldn't consider 2H over 1S.)

Example:

1 - 1
2 - 2NT(r)

I would play something like this:
3 = 3s, min
3= 3s, max, leak in lowest suit (singleton/low doubleton)
3 = 3s, max, leak in highest suit (singleton/low doubleton)
3 = 4s, minimum
3NT = 4s, max, bal
4/= splinter
4 = 5d4s, max

1 - 1
2 - 2NT
3 - 3(r)

3 = leak in lowest suit (singleton/low doubleton)
3 = leak in highest suit (singleton/low doubleton)

You can make all kinds of answering schemes. Some people play that 3 = 4s and with 3s you directly describe your hand, etc.

I was legit asking atak, not just being argumentative (and phone posting, so an attempt to increase the bitrate may have come off as curt).

I'm actually curious how you treat this.

i think 4nt is to play in that auction fwiw

It's a nontrivial question, which I intend to get back to. It definitely shows the issues well.