MrAce, on 2012-May-23, 22:12, said:
This is your personal opinion. However, eventhough i disagree with you totally, i respect your opinion.
What i want to ask is, if i may, would you see bidding 3♦ as an L.A or not ?
PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 07:06, said:
I think we may be slightly at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that in order to determine whether 3♦ is a LA we need to know what methods E/W are playing - most of the posters seem happy to provide an answer to the LA question without ever considering this, and I think that's a mistaken approach. On the assumption that they're playing a fairly standard form of Truscott, my view is that 3♦ is not a LA, for the reasons I've given. You don't agree, and that's fine.
But we know from the original post not only that E said ♦ & ♠ but also that W actually made a 1NT overcall (probably the wrong one) on the hand she actually held, so it's not wholly speculative to make the reasonable assumption that, whatever their methods may be, they are methods that allow for overcalls to be made on that sort of hand.
AlexJonson, on 2012-May-24, 15:02, said:
Does it remain obvious that bidding on in diamonds is an LA? Otherwise I don't see how LAs work at all, and we are just talking about TDs notions about the game.
Some of us got distracted by the suggestion that 3♦
was obvious, or not.
As far as whether 3♦
is an LA it depends on whether a significant proportion, say one in five, of the player's peers would consider it, of whom a number would actually choose it, playing the same system and style.
To decide this, and to take a meaningful poll to help decide this, we need to know what this pair woud overcall with. Not what readers of IBLF would overcall with.
Similarly to another thread, where someone thinks it is weird and leads to complications in his mind if players open different minors from him, we do not need to discuss what is best. We really do not need to convince others. But the reason I have got sucked in on both threads is the presumption of some posters that if
they play something then
so does everyone else - and both times this presumption has been on something I personally do not play.
So, having made my point badly in both threads, I shall now state it directly:
To rule on what a player should do, might do, has done or may do in the bidding we need to know his agreements with his partner, not substitute our own presumptions.