[JLOGIC]

quiddity, on 2012-November-16, 12:59, said:

Sure, most of the very good players think 3♦ should be a raise of some kind, but I bet most of the same very good players would avoid bidding 3♦ undiscussed in a first time partnership unless there is no other way to describe the hand. I think it's extremely unlikely he would bid this way with a spade raise when he has an easy, unambiguous 3♥ bid.

By this logic, partner would also not bid 3D with a natural 3D bid since it is very likely to be misinterpreted. I would probably never bid 3D with any hand undiscussed, but I doubt many people would think that we would take it as natural.

Your thinking is a good reason for the metarule "if it can be natural it is" but it is too hard on a new partnership to assume this thought process is univeral.

It is more likely that partner never considered that we would take 3D as natural since it is a very atypical way to play, this is even more true if he knows we have some diamond length (if he has heart length which he probably does). Maybe he just wanted to leave us room to bid 3H who knows.

I would suggest that just based on common sense your conclusion to take 3D as natural comes from a thought process that is too convoluted. Here you are playing partner to have a natural 3D bid which is almost impossible given our hand, and for him to have made a natural 3D bid even though that is a non standard way of playing that is very accident prone in a new partnership. I understand your reasoning for why this should be the case undiscussed but most people at the end of the day will not bid a natural 3D and expect you to be on the same page, they will be scared of an accident. There are many ways to think about a problem or a situation, and situations where you have no rules and agreements are interesting, but that is the problem, there are many ways to think about it and your partner might not think about it the same way, even if they are VERY GOOD. There is no reason to punish partner when we know almost for sure that it was a spade raise, even if he could have/should have bid 3H instead.

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on 2012-November-16, 13:38, said:

I guess we are all looking forward to seeing what our VERY good partner actually had.

At the risk of repeating myself, and fully aware of the usual rule that 'if a bid can be natural, it should be natural when undiscussed' I think a VERY good partner would/could reason as follows:

1. Partner will never play me to be introducing a 6 card diamond suit without spades, since we are on a misfit (tho the opps have a heart fit) and we are red. In addition, I can't play partner, who made a butt-in 1♠, which may well be a good spade suit and out, to have the values to make this a safe contract red at imps.

2. Partner would know that I know that 3♥ is unambiguously a spade raise saying nothing about hearts.

3. Partner will therefore infer that I must hold both diamonds and spades.


I agree that I may not have given enough weight to the possibility that partner may be showing only diamond values, rather than length. The notion that his diamonds may be AQx worries me. I might survive at my 5♠ contract (to which partner will have run over my 5♥) but I will normally be too high.

Having said that, I still like my 5♥ choice, even tho the only other person who supports my reading of the hand, while disagreeing with my call, was Ken! That really has me worrying that I've drunk the hallucinogenic kool-aid

So to you 3D is obviously a fit bid, to fluffy it is simply some values in diamonds could just be AQx, and to quiddity it is obviously natural.

Rather than going slamming when there are many different interpretations of what the 3D bidder must obviously hold, we admit that it is not clear what he holds but that he has some kind of spade raise based on our hand and just bid 4S? The last thing I'm trying to do when I am unsure of what is going on is bid a slam when the vulnerable opponents have opened the bidding, responded, raised, and jumped to game. The likelihood that we have a slam in those circumstances is so low to begin with, adding to that that we really don't have much of an idea what partner is trying to show exactly with 3D, I honestly feel like this thread has gone mad! I mean, mikeh trying to hit a homerun with an aggro bid, it's like a bizarro world thread

edit: Also, on top of all of that, if partner really does have 5 diamonds they are going to split 4-0 and we will either have to handle the 4-0 trump split or face diamond ruffs if we get lightner doubled while playing spades. Maybe partner has all the diamond spots and it will be fine but this makes it even less likely that we can make slam with no HCP than usual, even if partner has the hand we are hoping for. For instance, even if he has AQT8x of diamonds, if we ruff 2 hearts we will not be able to pick up diamonds. I just cannot imagine bidding 5H or anything other than 4S if you think partner has a spade fit

[Hanoi5]

It's clearly a splinter bid. I bid 4♠, partner'll double 5♥.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on 2012-November-15, 15:18, said:

In for a penny, in for a pound:5♥

3♦ has to describe diamond length and strength and, imo, spades as well. I am hoping for something like Axxx xx AQ10xx xx, tho I may not need the diamond 10...the 8 might suffice.

Silly question

West showed Diamonds and is on opening lead
We have Diamonds

If partner has Diamond length then RHO would seem to have a stiff or a void.

Spade slam looks kinda dicey

[Phil]

reconsidered

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-November-16, 13:38, said:

1. Partner will never play me to be introducing a 6 card diamond suit without spades,

I would bid 3D on xx x AQJxxxx KQx, even when we are vulnerable, assuming that I am confident that partner would take 3D as diamonds. Yes, that's 7 diamonds, not 6, and I realize that on the OP's hand partner won't have 7 diamonds.

I don't know any other way to show diamonds, and we have many other ways to show a spade raise.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2012-November-16, 14:25, said:

edit: Also, on top of all of that, if partner really does have 5 diamonds they are going to split 4-0 and we will either have to handle the 4-0 trump split or face diamond ruffs if we get lightner doubled while playing spades. Maybe partner has all the diamond spots and it will be fine but this makes it even less likely that we can make slam with no HCP than usual, even if partner has the hand we are hoping for. For instance, even if he has AQT8x of diamonds, if we ruff 2 hearts we will not be able to pick up diamonds. I just cannot imagine bidding 5H or anything other than 4S if you think partner has a spade fit

I cannot imagine playing 6♠ if partner has 5 diamonds. Why on earth would we even think about that? No, my 5♥ call was intended to get us to 6♦ when he has diamonds and 5♠ when I have misread the auction. Indeed, my VERY good partner would surely cooperate via 5N if he isn't bidding 5♠...he'll work out that something very good has happened on the auction, and my heart void must be sitting alongside an unusual number of diamonds.

[kfay]

mikeh, on 2012-November-16, 13:38, said:

I guess we are all looking forward to seeing what our VERY good partner actually had.

Partner actually held: ♠Axxx ♥xxx ♦AK10x ♣xx. After the hand when I said, "I couldn't think of what the difference between 3♦ and 3♥ would be" he said something like, "I just figured you'd shrug your shoulders and lead a diamond against 5♥X." Which I guess may mean he meant it as a fit bid?

6♠ will make easily.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-November-16, 17:09, said:

I would bid 3D on xx x AQJxxxx KQx, even when we are vulnerable, assuming that I am confident that partner would take 3D as diamonds. Yes, that's 7 diamonds, not 6, and I realize that on the OP's hand partner won't have 7 diamonds.

I don't know any other way to show diamonds, and we have many other ways to show a spade raise.

It may not have come fully to your attention, but we have several clues that, no matter what you might require for or intend by a 3♦ call, your partner has decidedly other ideas.

To argue that 3♦ shows an opening hand with 6 or 7 good diamonds might make sense in some parallel universe in which you were dealt a weaker hand with shorter diamonds and the opps hadn't just bid game, but in the actual world with which we are confronted, we know with absolute certainty that partner doesn't hold the hand you give as the example of what you would show.

About the only thing we do know is that he doesn't bid the way you do on this hand.

So: on grounds of theory alone, you have a point. On grounds of practical thinking, you seem a little short.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2012-November-16, 17:27, said:

han, on 2012-November-16, 17:09, said:

I would bid 3D on xx x AQJxxxx KQx, even when we are vulnerable, assuming that I am confident that partner would take 3D as diamonds. Yes, that's 7 diamonds, not 6, and I realize that on the OP's hand partner won't have 7 diamonds.

I don't know any other way to show diamonds, and we have many other ways to show a spade raise.

It may not have come fully to your attention, but we have several clues that, no matter what you might require for or intend by a 3♦ call, your partner has decidedly other ideas.

To argue that 3♦ shows an opening hand with 6 or 7 good diamonds might make sense in some parallel universe in which you were dealt a weaker hand with shorter diamonds and the opps hadn't just bid game, but in the actual world with which we are confronted, we know with absolute certainty that partner doesn't hold the hand you give as the example of what you would show.

About the only thing we do know is that he doesn't bid the way you do on this hand.

So: on grounds of theory alone, you have a point. On grounds of practical thinking, you seem a little short.

You know Mike, I really want to stop picking fights with you. But then you go back to writing stuff like this. Maybe you could reread what Han wrote, and then edit your post, thanks.

[Fluffy]

damned ♦10.... mmm the ♦8 was enough anyway. Damned doubleton club then

[Fluffy]

kfay, on 2012-November-16, 17:25, said:

Partner actually held: ♠Axxx ♥xxx ♦AK10x ♣xx. After the hand when I said, "I couldn't think of what the difference between 3♦ and 3♥ would be" he said something like, "I just figured you'd shrug your shoulders and lead a diamond against 5♥X." Which I guess may mean he meant it as a fit bid?

6♠ will make easily.

This goes along one of my metha-rules, if a bid can be taken as various meanings you better have back up for all/most of them. I had some funny auctions at low level where I suspected partner would have a very precise hand for risking a bid that could be taken 2 ways.

[han]

Countless heated arguments have made it impossible for us to give eachother the benefit of the doubt. I think that only bridge could possibly help us to get over this.

Mikeh, let us play in one of the Cayne matches together. I cannot guarantee that I'll play at your level, but I will give you my best.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-November-17, 05:15, said:

Countless heated arguments have made it impossible for us to give eachother the benefit of the doubt. I think that only bridge could possibly help us to get over this.

Mikeh, let us play in one of the Cayne matches together. I cannot guarantee that I'll play at your level, but I will give you my best.

I quit playing after playing incredibly badly last fall. I had expected that my desire to play again would be back by now, but more than a year into my 'retirement', I have virtually no interest in playing. In addition, I am going to be working 7 days a week for the next 5-6 weeks, so don't have time.


However, maybe I'll catch the bug again in the New Year. If you're serious about the offer, send me an outline of the methods you play and maybe we can do something in January.

[dake50]

I'm guessing get to 6S and D-ruff (4-5-0-4) sets.
Or 6D as LHO 1D opener has only one D-card to catch.
Too small a target for me. Bid 4S.

[han]

Sounds good Mike, I hope that we will find a time to play in January.