[kenrexford]

The question as to my credentials misses my point. I will claim no credentials, and would claim none in support of any argument, as credentials are a pitiful substitute for a logical analysis. Not all of the bridge world elects to pursue a career in bridge, and not all of the bridge world has the opportunity to play with the right partners to enable "top" results.

I may very well have the requisite "credentials," unmentioned. How about discussion of theory instead? Do you really want to discuss each issue from the perspective of who has the most masterpoints or who played on which winning team at what contest? Or, do you like theory discussion using logic?

[pbleighton]

The point is, Ken, that you were condescending (or did an excellent impersonation of it) to someone who has won a world championship, albeit a junior, and who's a lot better than you (or I) is likely ever to be.

Your "old folks" comment was idiotic. You don't have to bow and scrape to Justin, Roland, Fred, etc., and may disagree strongly with them, but don't be a jerk.

Peter

[FrancesHinden]

Kalvan14, on Mar 13 2006, 03:03 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?

---

2/1, and 2♦ is game forcing. 2♠ does not promise 6 cards, and denies 4 hearts. An immediate 3♦ would have shown extras. Same for 3♣.

You have available: 3♥, cue bid; 4♦, RKC; 4NT, quantitative. 3♠ would deny a 1st-round control in hearts, and might be a proposal of playing in spades.
Any ideas?

"An immediate 3D would have shown extras"

What was partner to do over 2D holding
KQxxx
xx
Q10xx
Ax

which not only doesn't have extras, is close to not being an opening bid?

I'm just wondering, because all the discussion about partner's possible hands for the 3D bid have only 3 diamonds.

[luke warm]

kenrexford, on Mar 13 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

Do you really want to discuss each issue from the perspective of who has the most masterpoints or who played on which winning team at what contest?

not really, no... but you started that line, not me

[mikeh]

After reading the fascinating posts re various personalities, I got back to the original problem.

This hand is too good to let it go after 3N. But it is certainly not good enough to drive to slam or to take control. I opt for the middle ground of 4N.

I think that this bid should give partner some chance to get us to the right spot (assuming that 3N was not the last 'right spot', of course).

We can all construct hands that justify our chosen call on auctions like this, but surely we can agree both that this is probably not an 8 trick hand in notrump and that partner might have a chunky hand but be unwilling to move beyond 3N due to a lack of keycards. After all, he should be able to count on us to keep the auction alive if our hand warrants it.

Much depends on style: playing 2/1 gf, your 2N was unlimited and your 3♥ a slam try, but his hand was also relatively unlimited at the stage that he bid 3♦. Thus he may want to slow the hand down with 3N, catering to you having, say, a king less.

So I bid 4N, and miss the slam. Not for the first time nor the last, I am sure.

However, give him the same hand with the addition of the ♠J and we'd get to slam and rightly so. Should he bid 3N with that hand? I think so.

[mikeh]

Much as I love the byplay between Ken and Justin, I hope that it will stop or slow down: this is not the first thread in which we see this clash of personalities

Ken, you write in a very irritating style: maybe you don't realize how it comes across. Of course, I recognize that almost everybody rubs somebody the wrong way ... heck, even I manage to offend some people some of the time That doesn't count those I offend all the time!

Let's confine the discussion to bridge theory. And, may I suggest, when you post a problem and find that the next few posts are unanimously opposed to your view, don't keep posting the reasons, already advanced by you, as to why you are right.

That is, of course, if you view these forums as an opportunity to both share and learn, as opposed to an opportunity to prove how intelligent you are (and how foolish your partners, opponents, or the rest of us are).

If you are going to engage in long-distance warfare, at least make it about something important: witness, if I may raise this point, Roland's constant and misguided claims that Denmark has sovereignty over Hans O. Now that's a topic that is worth fighting over

[Kalvan14]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 13 2006, 01:44 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on Mar 13 2006, 03:03 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?

---

2/1, and 2♦ is game forcing. 2♠ does not promise 6 cards, and denies 4 hearts. An immediate 3♦ would have shown extras. Same for 3♣.

You have available: 3♥, cue bid; 4♦, RKC; 4NT, quantitative. 3♠ would deny a 1st-round control in hearts, and might be a proposal of playing in spades.
Any ideas?

"An immediate 3D would have shown extras"

What was partner to do over 2D holding
KQxxx
xx
Q10xx
Ax

which not only doesn't have extras, is close to not being an opening bid?

I'm just wondering, because all the discussion about partner's possible hands for the 3D bid have only 3 diamonds.

With 5-2-4-2 and a minimum hand, opener would first rebid 2♠, and later show his support in diamond. If his distribution were 5-1-4-3 or 5-3-4-1 he would splinter over 2♦ (and the splinter in principle does not show extras).

[Kalvan14]

mike777, on Mar 13 2006, 01:58 AM, said:

"Pard had KQT9x xx Qxx ATx"

funny enough if playing more Bergen/Crane and less Hardy?Lawrence you can just bid 3D with this hand over partner's 2D. It does not show extras but shows more than xxx in D. .

On the other hand my example hand of:
KQxxx..xx...xxx...AKx or even
KJxxx...xx...xxx...AKx is a real problem hand .

2s=6 spades or much better 5 card spade suit
3d should be more than xxx
2nt with no hearts is ugly but..I guess I bid that.....
At least we know partner has 14hcp for 2/1 if we open on this junk. .

I just think this is another example of minor suit slams be very hard to bid without the hcp or extra shape?

Funnily enough I find myself much more comfortable with the Hardy/Lawrence approach, rather than the one you are advocating.
I find particularly ugly the idea that 2♠ should promise 6 spades, while a 2N rebid becomes a catch-all without guaranteeing stoppers in the unbid suits.
Finally, in my book, KQT9x xx Qxx ATx is an opening bid. Always.

[Kalvan14]

The discussion was interesting.

I am quite satisfied with the bidding up to 3N: I might have made another slam try (probably with a quantitative 4N - catering to a minimum hand with better spades). Still the slam (opposed to a confirmed minimum) is in any case marginal.

[jdonn]

Kalvan14, on Mar 12 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?

---

2/1, and 2♦ is game forcing. 2♠ does not promise 6 cards, and denies 4 hearts. An immediate 3♦ would have shown extras. Same for 3♣.

You have available: 3♥, cue bid; 4♦, RKC; 4NT, quantitative. 3♠ would deny a 1st-round control in hearts, and might be a proposal of playing in spades.
Any ideas?

3H over 3D seems obvious enough. When partner bids 3NT I think 4NT is just about right, and if anything I'm a bit heavy for this action. Partner's 3NT implies to me that he has a club honor (3H could have been based on a club concern, say you were 1453 with Qxx of clubs), so I'm not worried about being off the first two club tricks. I don't consider keycard in diamonds to be such a bad choice if one wants to take an optimistic view, but slam could certainly be quite bad so that seems like too much to me.

Questions like this are largely a matter of style. The 2S, 2NT, 3D, and 3H bids carry quite different inferences in different partnerships.

[kenrexford]

I'll acknowledge that I was condescending. And, that it was intentional. It is no excuse, but it was more reactionary than aggressive. I frankly was hostile because of being tired of Justin's overabundant annoyance with my personality, apparently.

I also can understand why people might find my style annoying. But, perhaps a little perspective might tone down the annoyance. As a lawyer, criminal defense at that, I have a tendency outside of the courtroom to learn by argument. I have a tendency to challenge. My core approach to a discussion apparently is that I find theory discussion (bridge, politics, religion) most profitable when people willing to take sides, even as devil's advocates, put forward every argument pro and attack every argument con. In the end, that which survives is probably best.

I learned this from my uncles, who usually ended up punching each other over some obscure issue that they switched sides on three times.

Thus, if I suggest that a side of an issue seems absurd, and if I do not mention glaring problems with my own side (at the moment), I expect to be attacked WITH LOGIC, MIND YOU as to why my position is wrong.

I see that this irritates. I meant no harm. I did, admittedly, mean harm, I suppose, with respect to that which irritates me -- personality attacks in lieu of logic attacks. My humblest.

[Winstonm]

IMO this type of question is a matter of understandings and style rather than logic and judgement.

For example, what range of hand can be held by the 2S bidder? My style would be that 2S can be 11-22, a catchall bid. The following correction to 3D would deny an unbalanced hand with 4 card support or extras with good 3 card support.

I think 3H is right, but when partner follows with 3N I would take this as showing a minimum-ish hand with 3 card support: KQxxx(x), Kx, Jxx, Kx(x)

I think the best bid over 3N then is 4D, as this emphasizes the need for a club control in case partner holds: KQxxx, KQ, Qxx, xxx.

Winston

And as far as personalities go, I've had the pleasure of meeting and playing against Justin a number of times now, and I've found him to consistently be a genuinely nice guy and a really great player and always complimentary of any good plays his opponents make - but I'll keep you in mind, Ken, if that "postcard" from my "cousin" in Columbia ends up in the hands of the Feds.

[kenrexford]

My fees are reasonable, especially if you pay expenses for a winter trip to Colombia.

[HeartA]

18 HCP, 7 controls and a fit for ♦, facing an opening hand, I would try slam without second thought.

[pclayton]

Wow - just checked in on this one. Funny byplay here; hope I never get crossways with Justin and hope that Ken never sues me

4N over 3N feels right, but this might be one of those hands where we have a big combined point count, but slam is not odds-on. Couldn't: KJxxx, Qxx, QJx, Ax be possible?

[Kalvan14]

pclayton, on Mar 14 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

Wow - just checked in on this one. Funny byplay here; hope I never get crossways with Justin and hope that Ken never sues me

4N over 3N feels right, but this might be one of those hands where we have a big combined point count, but slam is not odds-on. Couldn't: KJxxx, Qxx, QJx, Ax be possible?

Quite possible, and that is one of the reason I preferred to pass 3N (the other main reasons were the singleton ♠A, which sucks, and the lack of intermediates in diamonds).

The real hand was weaker in terms of HCPs, but was much more pure; while I can understand giving it a plus for the T and 9 in spades, it is not possible to appreciate the value of the ♣T.

With the hand you post, N - who has already limited his hand twice - would go to slam. 6♦ has some play, but it is certainly not a good slam.

[jdeegan]

I don't mind playing 5♦ at IMPs, so I'd give it one more try. Maybe 4♦. We should have enough high card power to brute out 4NT or 5♦.
All I need for slam is the right king, the right queen and jack plus a few extras to cover my heart losers. Partner has some round suit honors as shown by his 3NT call.

[civill]

Kalvan14, on Mar 12 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?

---

IMO,if there were a slam,the bidding sequence would be as belows:
(1),
[1♠-2♦]
[3♦-3♥]
[4♣    cue-bid for ♣controls without 6card ♠


(2),
[1♠-2♦]
[2♠-3♥]
[4♣-4♦]    cue-bid for ♣&♦,with trump options
[?
      4♠good ♠
      5♦good ♠ and ♦supports
      4♥cue-bid
...

Perhaps,there are other good sequences;

[Kalvan14]

civill, on Mar 16 2006, 08:47 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on Mar 12 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?

---

IMO,if there were a slam,the bidding sequence would be as belows:
(1),
[1♠-2♦]
[3♦-3♥]
[4♣    cue-bid for ♣controls without 6card ♠


(2),
[1♠-2♦]
[2♠-3♥]
[4♣-4♦]    cue-bid for ♣&♦,with trump options
[?
      4♠good ♠
      5♦good ♠ and ♦supports
      4♥cue-bid
...

Perhaps,there are other good sequences;

Why do you think so?

N has denied a heart suit, and has no extras justifying an immediate raise to 3♦.

Frankly the point was not to make a poll of different systems. The auction was given up to 3N

[civill]

Now,I'll pass 3NT;but I don't think that 2NT response is better than 3♥;