[Cascade]

inquiry, on 2011-January-19, 23:39, said:

So what are the odds of partner having a diamond void? Well, there are 5 diamonds out, he has a 1/3 chance of having each of the five, so for him to have none would be unexpected.

This is a slight underestimate as you give the opponents each diamond the odds of partner having the next diamond increases.

For the first diamonds the odds are 13/39 = 1/3

For the second diamond the odds are 13/38 (assuming partner didn't get the first one)

So the probability of partner having no diamonds is 26/39 * 25/38 * 24/37 * 23/36 * 22/35 = 0.114

Alternatively 34 (non-diamonds) choose 13 (cards for partner) divided by 39 (including the diamonds) choose 13 (cards for partner) which unsurprisingly comes to the same thing.

[MrAce]

inquiry, on 2011-January-19, 23:39, said:

Opposite a singleton small, you still have 65% chance of losing only one diamond (stiff king, stiff jack in either opponent hand, or 2/2). Opposite stiff K or J, obviously chances for two diamond losers decreases remarkably. Opposite a void, you need to catch Jx or stiff king, something like that, decreasing the odds considerably. Opposite a small doubleton, you are up to 89% chance of losing only one (at most) diamond (assuming you can get to dummy if need be). However, not need to be so pesstimistic.

I see your point. My concern is, when u plan to make a bid that shows SELF SUFFICIENT trump and pretty much takes out the partner from bidding, requires PRECISION in trick counts. Not % 85 or % 90.

You do not have a self-sufficient suit, and you don't know if pd will bid 2♥ or 2♠ before you open 2♦. Lets say it went like this;

2♦--2♥
3♦

From here pretty much a possible ♠ fit will be lost and upsetting if pd has a side Ace too. Something like QJTxxx xx x Axxx. Dont know your system but, i doubt he will seek another trump when u said "do not worry about trumps, show me other stuff"

My point is, u are right that you are likely to land on your feet the way u wanna handle this hand, but treating this suit like a self-sufficient trump, will probably cause a lot of different problems if not this time on another one.

[inquiry]

MrAce, on 2011-January-20, 01:08, said:

I see your point. My concern is, when u plan to make a bid that shows SELF SUFFICIENT trump and pretty much takes out the partner from bidding, requires PRECISION in trick counts. Not % 85 or % 90.

You do not have a self-sufficient suit, and you don't know if pd will bid 2♥ or 2♠ before you open 2♦. Lets say it went like this;

2♦--2♥
3♦

From here pretty much a possible ♠ fit will be lost and upsetting if pd has a side Ace too. Something like QJTxxx xx x Axxx. Dont know your system but, i doubt he will seek another trump when u said "do not worry about trumps, show me other stuff"

My point is, u are right that you are likely to land on your feet the way u wanna handle this hand, but treating this suit like a self-sufficient trump, will probably cause a lot of different problems if not this time on another one.

I don't desire to hijack this simple thread which asked to bid it in "your system." But I will respond to this post, despite fears it is getting off target. You are not totally wrong in your latest post, since you are right about one thing, It was you said "Dont know your system...". In fact it is CLEAR that you do not, because you added a requirement that does not exist and then used that as a strawman. I do not require a "self-sufficient suit", actually far from it. I do not require partner to "show me stuff". Partner can pass 3♦, we most often end up in 3NT, and finding spades is not out of the question if partner responds 2♥, nor is finding hearts out of the question if partner responds 2♠.

All I show is a minor one suiter and a good hand. One only has to read what I said about the 3♦ bid ("South opens 2♦ = multi, either weak two in a major, a really big balanced hand (22-25) or 9 1/2 trick minor one suiter"). I have opened it with a queen high suit. One can read my bidding blog and see that if fact, I do not require anything approaching a self-sufficient suit. Some require such a suit to side-step regulations that forbid passing 2♦ if your hand is sufficient to make game opposite the "strong" variant of the 2♦ opening. I think it was Frances who mentioned on rgb to make the diamond suit "solid" so one could pass with a lot of diamonds and a weak hand with a diamond honor because partner then could not have the "strong" version (if not Frances, someone did). I have no such concerns and have never stated such a requirement. I use this 2D-any-3D auction to limit my 1D-1 any-3D auctions, and putting a "self-sufficient" requirement would screw up my much more frequent auctions. But thanks for the mis-guided advice.

[MrAce]

inquiry, on 2011-January-20, 14:55, said:

All I show is a minor one suiter and a good hand. One only has to read what I said about the 3♦ bid ("South opens 2♦ = multi, either weak two in a major, a really big balanced hand (22-25) or 9 1/2 trick minor one suiter"). I have opened it with a queen high suit.

Sorry. It is my bad to read it as 9.5 tricks or more, which made me think you then need to have a self-sufficient suit. I didn't know it was passable.

[Cyberyeti]

Close choice between 5♦ opener and 1♦-1♥-2N(GF unbal)-3♣(relay)-3♦-4♦-4♥(keycard)-4N(1)-5♦

[gszeszycki]

agree with Inquiry up to a point

After P bids 4S I am very pleased and will launch into
a blackwood sequence (I use 0314 except when suit is hearts --1430)
since my suit is diamonds. A risk free shot at a grand slam. If p bids
5c (0/3) I will bid 5d (and p will show kings if they had
3 vs 0) and I will leap to 7d or 7N depending on p king showing.
If p bids 5d I will pass)
If P bids 5H I will bid 6d.

If my suit was clubs I would not have this luxury and I am afraid
I would have to take the more conservative route chosen by Inquiry
and sign off in 5c.