[whereagles]

I would tend to take that as responder having the stayman with stopper hand.

[jdonn]

Yup not risky at all, because obviously north can't have Jx xx ATxxxx xxx

or less

How is it resulting to see a pair reach a no play game on less than game values? The fact they got doubled and caught a bad break is gravy.

And to answer your point that north wouldn't pass it out anyway, that is true if he bid 2NT as showing a 3NT bid with a stopper, but if he bid it showing a weak hand with diamonds he would pass it out, even with the majority of the strength, because he has already made his judgement. Oddly enough, it's hard to tell which he was intending.

There is one more point, that even if partner has a game force with 3 spades you have no idea which game is better. You gave this example

Kxx
Kx
Axxxxx
xx

on which 3NT will make more often than not anyway, in fact it's hard to say it's that much worse than 4♠ since you need spades to break in that contract, where in 3NT maybe they can't beat you (clubs 4-4, LHO AKx, even RHO AKx). It's worse but not so much worse.

Meanwhile change the example to

Qxx
Kx
AJxxxx
Jx

and you will get to the bad 4♠ instead of the far better 3NT.

My one last point: Great hand for transfer lebensohl where north could bid 3♣ showing invitational or better with diamonds. Then 3♥ p p X p 3♠ and there you are.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 1 2007, 04:54 PM, said:

1. Yup not risky at all, because obviously north can't have Jx xx ATxxxx xxx

2. or less

3. How is it resulting to see a pair reach a no play game on less than game values? The fact they got doubled and caught a bad break is gravy.

4.
Qxx
Kx
AJxxxx
Jx

and you will get to the bad 4♠ instead of the far better 3NT.

1. That'll put us into 4♦, which goes 2 down. For that to be bad opps have to double you and that's far from clear. (I can make a good case for opps having no way to double this, in case you disagree.)

2. With less he passes 2♥.

3. If think I'd believe you never bid games on 22 hcp and ruffing values, you're dreaming.

4. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by a taylor-made example. Besides, if you open 1NT on 5 card majors on a regular basis, you'd also be playing puppet stayman, in which case those hands end up in 4♠ like 95% of the time.

I don't really see where you're trying to get at. Isn't it pretty obvious by now that I trust my judgement more than someone else's cries for "discipline"? Of course there's an element of risk in volunteering 3♠. But that risk, if weighted against the possibility of unearthing a spade fit, should, in my opinion, pay-off.

And if you add up this one final thing, which is opponent at the other table might be opening the South hand 1♠ and finding a fit, it becomes more obvious that it's imperative to bid 3♠ now. Ok, maybe not "imperative", but at least "logical".

[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 1 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 1 2007, 11:54 AM, said:

My one last point: Great hand for transfer lebensohl where north could bid 3♣ showing invitational or better with diamonds. Then 3♥ p p X p 3♠ and there you are.

How does this help? North could have just bid 3D GF with diamonds on the actual hand.

Because you can stop in 3♠.

[jdonn]

I don't think I can argue with you any more. You change from

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 03:55 AM, said:

jdonn, I must disagree. 3♠ is not risky AT ALL.

to

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

Of course there's an element of risk in volunteering 3♠. But that risk, if weighted against the possibility of unearthing a spade fit, should, in my opinion, pay-off.

You make arguments like the following, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with bridge but is just another way to say "My mind is completely made up and there is no way anyone can change it, so there."

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

Isn't it pretty obvious by now that I trust my judgement more than someone else's cries for "discipline"?

You dispute points I never made, even going so far as to use quotation marks around words I never said (see above).

I don't know what else I can say, enjoy your 22 point numbers at the game level on balanced hands, and telling your team how you can make a good case that your opponents who just doubled you had no way to double you. I'm sure they will understand because you have these great ruffing values, which seems to be a rewording of 'we are not both 4333'.

[awm]

Well I am the only vote for "3♠ could've been right if the suit was better." Let me try and explain my view on this.

There is definitely some risk entailed in bidding 3♠. If you catch partner with a bad hand and no fit, you could go for a number. Even if partner has a good hand and an okay fit, you could go for a number if the suit doesn't break.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say you should "never bid 3♠." The advantage to bidding is that you could easily be winning a double partscore swing if you can make something and they can make 3♥, and occasionally you will find a light game when partner has some 3-1-6-3 hand type and was planning to sign off.

I think the deciding factor should be "how awful is it likely to be if I am forced to play a 5-2 spade fit at the three-level?" A quality suit in my hand tends to make it less likely I will be doubled, and less likely I will lose a zillion trump tricks if I do get doubled. Keep in mind that if partner really hates spades, you at least will play 4-minor, so the "trouble" situation is probably where partner has doubleton or three small on a bad break. With some beefy spade suit that "almost looks like a six-carder" I think bidding spades here is okay. Normally you have about half the values, and there's no reason to think you'll go for a number. If the spades were say AJT9x instead of Axxxx then I think bidding 3♠ would be okay. On the actual hand it seems like a very risky action that got about what it deserved.

[cherdano]

awm, on May 1 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Well I am the only vote for "3♠ could've been right if the suit was better."

No, you voted for "...would be ok if only the spade spots were better". I don't think changing A6543 to A9876 is enough to make this an ok bid. If you make it AJT9x instead you have a point, but the hand still looks like defense to me.

[whereagles]

jdonn, I have nothing to add, except this. Statements like "3S not risky at all" and "there's an element of risk in 3S" are not inconsistent, provided you put them in context. Statements cannot always be taken literarly, as if arguing were a mathematical proof of something.

It's the second time you do such a clumsy manipulation attempt and it's beginning to border on impertinence.

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on May 1 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

awm, on May 1 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Well I am the only vote for "3♠ could've been right if the suit was better."

No, you voted for "...would be ok if only the spade spots were better". I don't think changing A6543 to A9876 is enough to make this an ok bid. If you make it AJT9x instead you have a point, but the hand still looks like defense to me.

If the suit would be stronger, the hand may have
opened 1S.

My main problem with 3S is, that opener decided to
change horses in the middle of the race, without any
additional information, which may have indicated
that the change of mind has ways to gain.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bid_em_up]

whereagles, on Apr 30 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 30 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

1. Because, by bidding 3D directly, you create a forcing auction immediately, but if you bid 2N and the opponents bid 3H, partner does know which hand you have.

2. Are you broke with a minor? Or do you have g/f values with a stop?

3. In the first case (as it is here), bidding 3S got what it deserved. 

4. Unilaterally bidding 2N followed by 3N everytime you have a heart stop and ignoring your 6 card suit will lead to many subsequent problems further down the road.

1. With the hand I gave, there's no question that 3NT is the right contract, so why not bid it straight away via the usual mechanism of 2N+3N? Why should I have to bid 3♦, in robot-like fashion, if that only serves the purpose of pointing opps to a club lead (not to mention giving pard a headache if he has no rebid)?

2. In my book "broke with a minor" PASSES. If you're thinking of 5-7 hcp and a long suit, bidding 3♠ is also ok since pard is likely to pull onto his suit. Bit risky, but certainly not reckless.

3. Got what it deserved?? Are you suggesting one should never play 4♠ with 22 hcp and ruffing values? At imps!!?? Actually, are you suggesting that, when one opens 1NT and pard competes, one should be very careful because it might be THEIR hand?

4. Sorry, but this is just results-merchandising.

Face it, sometimes normal actions lead to disaster. Sometimes you're just fixed. Check this out: a friend once had something like (all red)

x
AK
KQJTxx
AQJx

RHO opened 4♠. Now, a pretty normal 5♦bid, right? Wrong. LHO has all the 7 remaining diamonds and you go -1700 down with no fault at all.

1) Do you honestly believe that opposite Kxx Kx A109xxx xx that there is no question 3N is the right contract? You do not even know that you have a certain heart stopper and even if it is a stop, it is quite probable that it is the only stop in the suit that you have. How can you NOT have a question that 3N might not be the right contract?

2) You might try reading another book then. A good place to start is the "Lebenshol Convention Complete" by Ron Anderson, if you haven't already done so. If you have, try reading and rereading it again, until you get the point about "With a suit and a game forcing hand, you bid the suit at the 3 level", otherwise you bid 2N. The original hand in question, certainly is willing to play 3D if allowed to do so, but should be pass if 3H comes back around to him. The NT opener doesn't know which hand type it is over 2N so should pass 3H. If partner was going to bid 2N followed by 3N, he can still do so over 3H. Bidding 3S here is presumptious and undisciplined.

3) Yes, it got what it deserved. The 1N opener (who has limited his hand) has NO business competing over 3H opposite a 2N leb call. His partners hand is an unknown. I am not suggesting that one should be careful because it might be their hand, however, I am suggesting that you attempt to trust your partners bidding and judgement and attempt to play bridge. If you had bid 3D initially, then 3S (over 3H) is appropriate since you are in an absolutely forcing auction, otherwise, 3S is simply a bad call.

4) No, it is not. You had a game forcing bid available on your suggested hand of Kxx Kx A10xxxx xx. That bid is 3D. If you do not understand why you should be making a game forcing bid immediately when you have one, as opposed to making a bid that shows nothing about your hand, then feel free to do as you wish, but that still does not make it correct.

5) What the heck does this have to do with the hand in question? Your example is a opening 4 level preempt where you have no available mechanism to assist you in your judgements. So you go for 1700 by making a normal call, big deal. Stuff happens.

In the current example though, you go for the number by NOT adhering to the methods that you are employing. When partner did not make a g/f call over 2H, you have no business bidding 3S. It's that simple.