[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Jun 7 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

But maybe partner is world class and realizes that it is better to sometimes play 3NT with a stopper despite having a heart fit, than not being able to check for a stopper when having a long minor suit? And since he knows I am world class too, he will also realize that I realize that and so I will take 3S primarily as a stopper ask, and only bid 4H when I have four hearts and no stopper?

If that were a possibility, why would David Burn, who is not, so far as we can tell, a gibbering idiot, say that "3♠ ...is defined within the game as 'Stayman in principle, but if that's not what he has, he will have some other kind of game force.'" and that "North has no way specifically to ask you to bid 3NT with a spade guard"?

[Fluffy]

so... who guessed correctly?

[dburn]

Fluffy, on Jun 9 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

so... who guessed correctly?

Those who bid six diamonds were about £300 better off than those who did not, at any rate (non-vulnerable, so plus 920 instead of minus 100).

I was actually 0-1-6-6 without many points (♠None ♥x ♦Q109xxxx ♣K1098xx) so six clubs was down one (clubs 3-2 onside) but six diamonds would have made.

I suppose I should just have bid three diamonds (non-forcing), expecting further bidding after which I could show my hand rather more easily (or at any rate, less ambiguously). But it was possible that there might not be any further bidding - after all, we allegedly held half the deck in high cards, and if partner had four or five spades, 3♦ might have been passed out. Mind you, if he had a bunch of spades maybe we couldn't make game anyway.

It never occurred to me that if I bid 3♠ and then removed hearts (or notrump) to clubs, partner would play me for a one-suiter. I mean, if I had a one-suiter, couldn't I just bid four clubs? I did consider that if it went 3♠-Pass-4♥-Pass-5♣ partner might think this was a control bid of some kind, but concluded that even he should not so believe. Following this master plan, I removed hearts to clubs at a rather higher level than I had hoped, but...

...what I stupidly failed to consider was that after 5♥ was doubled, I could have bid 5NT for the minors. As percipient posters here have pointed out, that is what I certainly should have done. But it took even Zia a full five minutes into his tirade to work this out, so maybe at the table it was not as obvious as all that.

[Bbradley62]

So, if it took Zia five minutes into his tirade to think of 5NT, he read 6♣ as both minors and corrected to 6♦?

[the hog]

dburn, on Jun 10 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 9 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

so... who guessed correctly?

Those who bid six diamonds were about £300 better off than those who did not, at any rate (non-vulnerable, so plus 920 instead of minus 100).

I was actually 0-1-6-6 without many points (♠None ♥x ♦Q109xxxx ♣K1098xx) so six clubs was down one (clubs 3-2 onside) but six diamonds would have made.

I suppose I should just have bid three diamonds (non-forcing), expecting further bidding after which I could show my hand rather more easily (or at any rate, less ambiguously). But it was possible that there might not be any further bidding - after all, we allegedly held half the deck in high cards, and if partner had four or five spades, 3♦ might have been passed out. Mind you, if he had a bunch of spades maybe we couldn't make game anyway.

It never occurred to me that if I bid 3♠ and then removed hearts (or notrump) to clubs, partner would play me for a one-suiter. I mean, if I had a one-suiter, couldn't I just bid four clubs? I did consider that if it went 3♠-Pass-4♥-Pass-5♣ partner might think this was a control bid of some kind, but concluded that even he should not so believe. Following this master plan, I removed hearts to clubs at a rather higher level than I had hoped, but...

...what I stupidly failed to consider was that after 5♥ was doubled, I could have bid 5NT for the minors. As percipient posters here have pointed out, that is what I certainly should have done. But it took even Zia a full five minutes into his tirade to work this out, so maybe at the table it was not as obvious as all that.

Thank you for posting the follow up David. Yes, 5NT would have made it crystal clear, but as I stated in my posts, if you thought it though logically, you had to be 2 suited for this bidding.

[dburn]

Bbradley62, on Jun 9 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

So, if it took Zia five minutes into his tirade to think of 5NT, he read 6♣ as both minors and corrected to 6♦?

No, of course not. He passed in about half a second and prepared to blame me for being a gibbering idiot. He was probably right about that, although if he'd actually had the jack of clubs (so that his absurd 1NT opening was at least within range) I'd have made it anyway.

[mich-b]

dburn, on Jun 9 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

I was actually 0-1-6-6 without many points (♠None  ♥x  ♦Q109xxxx  ♣K1098xx) so six clubs was down one (clubs 3-2 onside) but six diamonds would have made.

Wasn't 4NT for the minors available on the 1st round ?
I guess it was ace asking...otherwise you surely would have used it....

[CSGibson]

mich-b, on Jun 9 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

dburn, on Jun 9 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

I was actually 0-1-6-6 without many points (♠None  ♥x  ♦Q109xxxx  ♣K1098xx) so six clubs was down one (clubs 3-2 onside) but six diamonds would have made.

Wasn't 4NT for the minors available on the 1st round ?

4N is probably natural & quantitative; 4♠ probably should be minors, but maybe something Baronish too.

[hanp]

I thought the hand already was in range for 1NT.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Jun 7 2010, 04:45 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 7 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

But maybe partner is world class and realizes that it is better to sometimes play 3NT with a stopper despite having a heart fit, than not being able to check for a stopper when having a long minor suit? And since he knows I am world class too, he will also realize that I realize that and so I will take 3S primarily as a stopper ask, and only bid 4H when I have four hearts and no stopper?

If that were a possibility, why would David Burn, who is not, so far as we can tell, a gibbering idiot, say that "3♠ ...is defined within the game as 'Stayman in principle, but if that's not what he has, he will have some other kind of game force.'" and that "North has no way specifically to ask you to bid 3NT with a spade guard"?

Are you sure that the 3♠ bid was defined that tightly in the pre-game discussions? Are you sure that if you asked Zia whether a one-suited minor hand without a stopper might be 3♠ here, trying to get to 3N, he would say "No way!"?
(And that would make neither David Burn nor Zia a gibbering idiot, nor would it tell us they are not world class.)

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Jun 10 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

Are you sure that the 3♠ bid was defined that tightly in the pre-game discussions? Are you sure that if you asked Zia whether a one-suited minor hand without a stopper might be 3♠ here, trying to get to 3N, he would say "No way!"?
(And that would make neither David Burn nor Zia a gibbering idiot, nor would it tell us they are not world class.)

I'm sure that it wasn't discussed at all. A system discussion in a London rubber bridge club consists of agreeing a notrump range, a major-suit length and a defence to preempts. *

Apart fom that, everyone plays the same "natural" system. That includes some well established collective understandings about what certain "natural" bids mean. I think David's assertion is that this sequence falls into that category. And my assertion is that if he says it does he's probably right.

FWIW, David's description is consistent with how it was played last time I played rubber bridge. That was, however, more than a decade ago, in a different club, and for rather smaller stakes.


* In the cheap seats they may discuss the vital questions of whether a 2NT overcall is Unusual, and whether "you like your twos kept open".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-June-10, 08:28

[wank]

gnasher, on Jun 10 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

I'm sure that it wasn't discussed at all. A system discussion in a London rubber bridge club consists of agreeing a notrump range, a major-suit length and a defence to preempts. *

Apart fom that, everyone plays the same "natural" system. That includes some well established collective understandings about what certain "natural" bids mean. I think David's assertion is that this sequence falls into that category. And my assertion is that if he says it does he's probably right.

FWIW, David's description is consistent with how it was played last time I played rubber bridge. That was, however, more than a decade ago, in a different club, and for rather smaller stakes.


* In the cheap seats they may discuss the vital questions of whether a 2NT overcall is Unusual, and whether "you like your twos kept open".

NT range, major length, and if it's 5cM whether 1D is 3 or 4. i've never been asked to play anything over pre-empts

[gnasher]

wank, on Jun 10 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

NT range, major length, and if it's 5cM whether 1D is 3 or 4. i've never been asked to play anything over pre-empts

They let you play 2-card club openings? I think allowing foreign nonsense like that into the game will completely ruin it.

[bid_em_up]

You open 1NT*-(2♠)-3♠.....

*15-17

Just curious, what should 4♠ (not 3) mean here?