[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2014-March-25, 14:39, said:

Do they see no contradiction?

This is one of my pet peeves - players who say that a minor opening denies a five-card major when it's not true.

This may have been my mistake in transcribing their methods, they may have explained it as "no five-card major, except if there are longer diamonds".

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2014-March-26, 06:40, said:

I suppose the reason it irritates me is that if focuses our minds on something that is not only incorrect but also doesn't help us get a feel for what the bid really shows. I think they should say something like "diamonds, or balanced with at least 2 diamonds, or three-suited with short diamonds". I think it's better to be told what a bid shows than what it denies.

Yeh, I sure see that point. Disclosing that a bid denies something we would not likely expect it to show in the first place does seem a bit silly --even if it does provide us some inferences about those possible balanced patterns.

It other cases, however, what a bid denies is vital disclosure..such as a Negative double of 1H which denies a spade suit.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-March-25, 13:39, said:

Why not take South's word for it that it was for play? Wouldn't that be quite sensible?

WellSpyder, on 2014-March-26, 06:23, said:

Sure, I'm happy to do that.

But how is that relevant to North's decision to bid on over 3N? Surely you can't be suggesting that he should take South's word for what 3N shows (even supposing he happens to have heard South's word at the point at which he has to make a decision)?

Then why did South not pass the 4♥ bid?

With max 15 HCP in North he has little reason to explore slam, his suggestion to play 3NT was turned down by partner who (for whatever reason) preferred to play in 4♥ instead.

PASS!

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2014-March-26, 07:24, said:

This may have been my mistake in transcribing their methods, they may have explained it as "no five-card major, except if there are longer diamonds".

Gordon's point is that even this is not a complete explanation. Presumably the 1♦ opening also denies whatever hand types would open 1NT and 2♣ in their system.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2014-March-26, 12:13, said:

Then why did South not pass the 4♥ bid?

With max 15 HCP in North he has little reason to explore slam, his suggestion to play 3NT was turned down by partner who (for whatever reason) preferred to play in 4♥ instead.

PASS!

That is indeed a reasonable question to consider. But you said earlier that you wanted to adjust on the basis of North passing the 3NT bid, which is a completely different, and in my view irrelevant, issue.

[sfi]

pran, on 2014-March-26, 12:13, said:

Then why did South not pass the 4♥ bid?

With max 15 HCP in North he has little reason to explore slam, his suggestion to play 3NT was turned down by partner who (for whatever reason) preferred to play in 4♥ instead.

PASS!

Because slam is excellent opposite x KQxxx Axxxxx x. Throw in the CA as well and you will have just played 4H when the rest of the room is in 7NT.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-March-26, 02:30, said:

Why is 5♦ odd? If 5♣ shows 0 or 3 KC for hearts, doesn't this have to be 3KC to give North an opening bid with 5/6? Now South wants to be in a grand slam opposite the ♥Q does he not?

You are the only person who has hit the nail on the head. 5C is clearly 0/3 in any sensible RKCB system, and 5D must ask for the queen of hearts. North says he has it, plus something extra in diamonds. North should have ♠ x ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxx ♣A and even that hand should just bid 6H over 5D. 6D is surprising and probably should show a bit more than this. Anyway, I hope that we are all adjusting routinely to 7♦-1, and giving South a PP for passing 6D, depending on experience of course.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-March-28, 20:06, said:

You are the only person who has hit the nail on the head. 5C is clearly 0/3 in any sensible RKCB system, and 5D must ask for the queen of hearts. North says he has it, plus something extra in diamonds. North has ♠ x ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxx ♣A and even that hand should just bid 6H over 5D. 6D is surprising and probably should show a bit more than this. Anyway, I hope that we are all adjusting routinely to 7♦-1, and giving South a PP for passing 6D, depending on experience of course.

Any sensible rkcb system, 5D (that's trumps) ends the auction, as would 4nt.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-28, 21:37, said:

Any sensible rkcb system, 5D (that's trumps) ends the auction, as would 4nt.

You are not looking at the hand from South's point of view. Assume screens. South thought that 4NT was RKCB for hearts (the last bid suit) and the response of 5C was 0/3. The OP said zero, but I think that unlikely although the OP might confirm that it was 0/3. Now 5D has to be asking for the queen of hearts, and 6D says. "Yes I have that, and extras in diamonds." So 7D is the only LA using the AI.

[jallerton]

7♦ is not the only LA. I prefer 7NT which (as well as scoring more) is likely to be a better contract when hearts are 4-1 and diamonds not 2-2, especially with South declaring the NT and being protected from an opening spade lead through the AQ.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2014-March-26, 02:54, said:

Well, 5♦ is inconsistent with South's claimed interpretation of 5♣ as showing none. I didn't stop to think about whether that interpretation actually made sense

Yes, and that's a good lesson for TDs to bear in mind. Don't always take what the players say literally. Here "no-one" plays 5♣ as showing 0 key cards but denying 3 (unless there is an inference from the auction that the replier cannot have 3).

[ggwhiz]

Coming in late here but the South actions of 4nt then a sign off in 5♦ are consistent with ignoring the incorrect alert. North carried through with their trip through lala land but are allowed to get lucky and they did.

I think South did their duty (especially with the 5♦ to play bid) and any further cock ups lead to 6nt making so result stands.

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-29, 10:13, said:

Coming in late here but the South actions of 4nt then a sign off in 5♦ are consistent with ignoring the incorrect alert.

I strongly disagree, and suggest you read jallerton's posts. South appears to have used UI.

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-March-26, 12:13, said:

Then why did South not pass the 4♥ bid?

With max 15 HCP in North he has little reason to explore slam, his suggestion to play 3NT was turned down by partner who (for whatever reason) preferred to play in 4♥ instead.

PASS!

I don't think you will find that anyone who is facing a ?-5-6-? hand would pass 4H when they could be cold for 7D, 7H or 7NT. I suggest you try to construct hands for partner rather than just add up points. And I see now sfi made a similar point.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-March-30, 16:38, said:

I strongly disagree, and suggest you read jallerton's posts. South appears to have used UI.

You know, when we rule that so-and-so "used UI" we ought to say what the UI was and how it was used.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-March-30, 17:18, said:

I don't think you will find that anyone who is facing a ?-5-6-? hand would pass 4H when they could be cold for 7D, 7H or 7NT. I suggest you try to construct hands for partner rather than just add up points.

Is there any hand containing 5M that is consistent with a 1♦ opening bid in Precision?
It sure was not when I played Precision (l-o-n-g time ago).

And when South bid 3NT for play (after partner's 1♦ opening bid) and then heard partner take out in 4♥ I fail to se how that can be anything but for play (probably with a solid 4-card heart suit) unless South uses the UI that partner alerted the 3NT bid?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-30, 20:54, said:

You know, when we rule that so-and-so "used UI" we ought to say what the UI was and how it was used.

The UI was that 4H was not natural and therefore was a response to RKCB. Further UI was used later. The UI was used to avoid getting to a grand that did not make.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-March-28, 20:06, said:

You are the only person who has hit the nail on the head. 5C is clearly 0/3 in any sensible RKCB system, and 5D must ask for the queen of hearts. North says he has it, plus something extra in diamonds. North should have ♠ x ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxx ♣A and even that hand should just bid 6H over 5D. 6D is surprising and probably should show a bit more than this. Anyway, I hope that we are all adjusting routinely to 7♦-1, and giving South a PP for passing 6D, depending on experience of course.

What if South says that 6♦ always shows the king of diamonds (rather than "something extra"), and thus he knows from his hand that something has gone wrong? I think this is a very common agreement.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-March-31, 05:57, said:

What if South says that 6♦ always shows the king of diamonds (rather than "something extra"), and thus he knows from his hand that something has gone wrong? I think this is a very common agreement.

I can believe that. However, we are told that 5♦ was to play, rather than asking for the queen of trumps, so I suspect that they have no agreement. And just because Six Diamonds tells him that something has gone wrong, does not entitle to him to Pass. It might therefore be offering a choice of slams or showing extra length. The AI tells South that North is something like x KQxxx Axxxxx A, and even that would not bid on if 5♦ was "to play". All we require to impose 7♦ is that it is an LA which will be selected by some of those only given the authorised auction. Pass does seem to be demonstrably suggested. 5♦ is using the UI in that North will think it is an unexpected sign-off when he has shown 3 keycards and will therefore slow down the auction.

And what do we make of North's raise to 6♦? In theory he has no UI (at least we are not told that there was any), but he has a poor 11-count and showed no kings and then South signed off. Why did he raise? I know he can bid what he likes, but I bet there was something about South's manner that suggested that this would be more successful than Pass. Res Ipsa Loquitur as they say in Richmond (London and Yorkshire).

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-March-30, 21:51, said:

Is there any hand containing 5M that is consistent with a 1♦ opening bid in Precision?
It sure was not when I played Precision (l-o-n-g time ago).

I could not find any positive proof of it on the net, so I asked a couple of Precision player what they would open with x KQxxx AJ10xxx x and they stated 1♦. Precision has an advantage here, in that you can freely reverse and rebid the hearts without showing reversing values, in that hands with reversing values would be upgraded to a strong club.