[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Dec 5 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

But 'One card away from 4=4=1=5' is NOT limited to 4414, 3415 4315 and 4405.

It includes 5 card majors hands... 5404, 4504, 3514 and 5314...

No...to use the first example, you have changed the number of cards in 3 suits (spades, diamonds, and clubs). You cannot change three suits by changing one card.

He gave a 14 card hand, and then said 'remove one card', or words to that effect. Only four possibilitites for what suit the removed card was, and therefore only four possible distributions.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Dec 5 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 5 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

But 'One card away from 4=4=1=5' is NOT limited to 4414, 3415 4315 and 4405.

It includes 5 card majors hands... 5404, 4504, 3514 and 5314...

No...to use the first example, you have changed the number of cards in 3 suits (spades, diamonds, and clubs). You cannot change three suits by changing one card.

He gave a 14 card hand, and then said 'remove one card', or words to that effect. Only four possibilitites for what suit the removed card was, and therefore only four possible distributions.

ok, I think you are right, but I think my post illustrates the difficulties conjured up in the minds of the not-so-smart (such as me, obviously) when this type of explanation is given

[pclayton]

I used to explain a 2♦ as:

"s/v ♦, no 5 card major, not 6♣"

That covers it.

[jdonn]

Mike, you are much too smart for such a simple explanation to have confused you!

[han]

Surely mikeh was just prentending not to get it to make a good point.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Dec 5 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

Surely mikeh was just prentending not to get it to make a good point.

I'm not that smart

Actually, when I read the explanation, it did make perfect sense, but when I tried to imagine reacting to it as spoken at the table, rather than as written out (and I am very much someone who learns new information in written form faster than when spoken, if only because I read faster than I speak), it occurred to me that it might be confusing, in the manner I suggested. Perhaps a clearer verbal explanation might be: imagine he is 4=4=1=5 and now take away one card from wherever you like.

Maybe only a pedant would think that there is any meaningful (in perception, not real meaning) between the two forms of explanation

[Mbodell]

At the table I usually explain the bid as "3-4 spades, 3-4 hearts, 0-1 diamonds, 4-5 clubs" but away from the table amongst smart folks or in writing I explain it as a card away from 4415. I'm sorry if anyone here was confused.

I guess my assumptions about what was going on in the hand are different (and likely therefore wrong) than most. My thought process at the table was partner has ~9 points and 5 hearts (maybe slightly fewer points with longer hearts or better shape). With much more partner would xx, with much less partner would pass and leave it to me to xx with flexibility or choose myself or let the opponents bid.

I figure given the above and BAM scoring 4D is a very narrow place as I think 4Dx or 4H are the far better choices. Without a hesitation I'd probably bid 4H over x at the table (and would never pass), but upon reflection 4Dx might be the more flexible better choice. I thought my partner's hesitation showed diamonds and uncertainty about punishing them versus bidding our game. Therefore I thought the two LA were X and 4H and that X was the LA suggested by the hesitation so I bid 4H. 4H made 5 opposite my partner's T92 KQJ85 T432 3 which was rolled back to 4D, not doubled, down 2. It was all made irrelevant though as we won the board with either score.

[mycroft]

In answer to the question (as opposed to the digression):

Partner's 2H says "2H is the spot partner" (potentially "unless you are 4315") ", I don't have the diamonds to play 2Dx(x), and I don't have a 'don't care' or 'game-try+" takeout hand" - at least it is with me. Depends on which of P and XX shows "partner, I don't mind playing in diamonds".

2524 3-count? 2H, no question. The same with a 1534 7-count (yeah, there are hands that can make 4H even with a trump lead or two to cut down on the cross-ruffs, but with 22 max, do you really want to gamble?)

Opener has a really good hand in context, especially once partner picks hearts and diamonds are bid-and-raised (partner won't have 1444 or 2443 for instance). But I've made two calls with the same limited hand; I can't imagine anything in my hand that partner doesn't know about.

I think you could argue at BAM that double with all your points in controls is "the only possible way to win the board", hoping everything is wrong and you get 300 into 110 or 140. But I think the right parlay is playing for +50 against -50 as opposed to -100 against -130 - and the knowledge that partner doesn't have the 2524 3-count mitigates against double, but (in my estimation) doesn't say anything about pass (extra values implies that 3H will make rather than 2) vs double (extra values implies that 4D won't make, but probably not that 4H - as opposed to 3H - will. 4H will not be allowed to play undoubled in this auction).

But I am willing to be overruled.
[edit - written before MBodell's denuement, but posted afterward].

[jdonn]

I don't think committees do or should buy arguments that hesitiations in spots like this suggest either bidding over doubling, or doubling ever bidding, and that therefore the other is ok. The bottom line is they suggest action over inaction, so if inaction (passing) is a LA then it must be enforced. Whether they suggest offense or defense on auctions like this is to a large degree speculation.

[mycroft]

I would feel uncomfortable with 2D-X-p to show weakness with a known place to play, especially if it were hearts - what happens when it goes 2D-X-p-p; 2S-p and I have the hand in the example with HTxxxx?

I would assume partner had the same hands he has for 2D-p-2H.

But each to her own, I guess.

[cherdano]

Mbodell, on Dec 6 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

At the table I usually explain the bid as "3-4 spades, 3-4 hearts, 0-1 diamonds, 4-5 clubs" but away from the table amongst smart folks or in writing I explain it as a card away from 4415. I'm sorry if anyone here was confused.

I guess my assumptions about what was going on in the hand are different (and likely therefore wrong) than most. My thought process at the table was partner has ~9 points and 5 hearts (maybe slightly fewer points with longer hearts or better shape). With much more partner would xx, with much less partner would pass and leave it to me to xx with flexibility or choose myself or let the opponents bid.

I figure given the above and BAM scoring 4D is a very narrow place as I think 4Dx or 4H are the far better choices. Without a hesitation I'd probably bid 4H over x at the table (and would never pass), but upon reflection 4Dx might be the more flexible better choice. I thought my partner's hesitation showed diamonds and uncertainty about punishing them versus bidding our game. Therefore I thought the two LA were X and 4H and that X was the LA suggested by the hesitation so I bid 4H. 4H made 5 opposite my partner's T92 KQJ85 T432 3 which was rolled back to 4D, not doubled, down 2. It was all made irrelevant though as we won the board with either score.

It would be quite an unusual agreement for 2H to promise 9 points. Pass would usually show "I want to play diamonds", or "please bid your better major" (depending on agreements). 2M is just a sign-off.

Your agreement is illogical too, if responder has xx xxxxx xxxx xx and opener is 4315, you have to play at the 3-level.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Dec 6 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

I don't think committees do or should buy arguments that hesitiations in spots like this suggest either bidding over doubling, or doubling ever bidding, and that therefore the other is ok.

I think they probably should- 73F says if one bid could demonstrably have been suggested over another. It does not say that if one LA call was was demonstrably made worse by the UI that you have to make it. Nonetheless, I agree that committees tend to rule as you say.

In this case, if partner had made a fast pass (making the pass the favored action), I'd be likely to rule that 4♥ and X weren't even LAs. So you'd have a heck of a time arguing to me in appeal that the slow pass didn't influence you to bypass the only logical call.

[nick_s]

Quote

4H made 5 opposite my partner's T92 KQJ85 T432 3

I think I would have preferred a response of 3H over the X - assuming your methods permit that.

With the sequence given, I think a pass is clear cut.

[jdonn]

nick_s, on Dec 7 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

Quote

4H made 5 opposite my partner's T92 KQJ85 T432 3

I think I would have preferred a response of 3H over the X - assuming your methods permit that.

With the sequence given, I think a pass is clear cut.

On top of that, partner had a 1,000,000% clear 4♥ bid after you raised. Hence his tank, and hence the rules that prevent us from taking advantage of it.

[mgoetze]

mycroft, on Dec 7 2007, 12:39 AM, said:

Partner's 2H says "2H is the spot partner" (potentially "unless you are 4315") ", I don't have the diamonds to play 2Dx(x), and I don't have a 'don't care' or 'game-try+" takeout hand" - at least it is with me. Depends on which of P and XX shows "partner, I don't mind playing in diamonds".

Could you please explain the advantages of this meaning for XX? Personally, I can't think of a single layout where you will get to play and make 2♦XX, assuming that opps are on the same wavelength regarding the double of 2♦ (and I don't think conventions that only work when the opponents have a misunderstanding are particularily good).

[mycroft]

I don't understand it either, but I do see people play it. I'd rather not pay the high gamble (especially because 2Dx-1 might just be the best result we're going to get, but I bet 2Dxx-1 won't be!)

Personally, I play XX as "our hand, partner", as opposed to 2NT shape ask. I'd assume something like 4 diamonds where if they raise, I want to give opener the red card option. Strangely enough, it never has come up.

Michael.

[nige1]

mycroft, on Dec 10 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

I don't understand it either, but I do see people play it.  I'd rather not pay the high gamble (especially because 2Dx-1 might just be the best result we're going to get, but I bet 2Dxx-1 won't be!)

Personally, I play XX as "our hand, partner", as opposed to 2NT shape ask.  I'd assume something like 4 diamonds where if they raise, I want to give opener the red card option.  Strangely enough, it never has come up.

Michael.

IMO After 2♦ (_X) ??
- _P = ♦
- XX = Equal length (3-3 or 4-4) in the majors.
- Others = normal.