[whereagles]

Obvious 3♦ opener, but ok.

Now 6♦, of course. I got about 7 tricks more than I promised....

[cherdano]

I don't think 2♦ was completely silly. If partner has a double-and-bid hand with no great diamond fit, then 3♦ obviously overstates the value of our hand. With us having 5hcp and RHO passing, there is a good chance that this is what partner has.
(Who could know that partner had a double-and-bid-diamonds hand!)

[Cascade]

A diverse range of opinions. Especially about the earlier bidding.

It is easy to see how 3♦ can work out badly - partner bids 3♥ which is now forcing and we are uncomfortably high without any safety - the ♠ Jxxx are a big turn-off if we don't have a decent diamond fit.

Along with this it is almost certain on this auctiont that we will get another bid. We have only five hcp and our RHO passed so most often LHO and partner are sharing 30 or so hcp between them.

Of course the actual auction is not one we would expect.

[effervesce]

Out of interest, what would a double of 4♠ by partner instead of bidding 5♦ be? Extras certainly, but what kind of hand. A double-then bid type hand with a misfit for diamonds? Or just optional?
Is x KQJx AQxx AKQJ a double or a 5♦ call?

[kenrexford]

If I bid 3♦ the first time, and partner bids 3♥, I'm tickled that partner will have a friggin' huge dummy for me when I bid 4♦. WTP?

Also, to Josh: WTF?!?!? LOL

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Nov 12 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

If I bid 3♦ the first time, and partner bids 3♥, I'm tickled that partner will have a friggin' huge dummy for me when I bid 4♦. WTP?

Partner will not be tickled if it becomes your dummy for him...

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 12 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 12 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

If I bid 3♦ the first time, and partner bids 3♥, I'm tickled that partner will have a friggin' huge dummy for me when I bid 4♦.  WTP?

Partner will not be tickled if it becomes your dummy for him...

Why in the world would partner insist upon declaring hearts in this sequence unless he is prepared to declare hearts opposite this hand?

I have passed initially. Therefore, if I have 6+ diamonds, something is miserably wrong, because I would either have four spades or four hearts for my jump response. With four hearts, I doubt I would bid 3♦ -- I'd cuebid. Hence, I have four spades. If I persist, I have seven diamonds. If I have seven diamonds and four spades, then I have a relatively weak hand, because I would have opened 1♦, or perhaps 2♦ or 3♦, anyway with values. So, 3♦...4♦ says "leave me alone -- I have a s#!+load of diamonds and four spades."

[jdonn]

I forgot, we are a passed hand. We are not allowed to bid a suit without it showing some other suit, leading to the implication that we have a much crappier hand than we have shown. One day I will learn bridge.

[Cascade]

effervesce, on Nov 13 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

Out of interest, what would a double of 4♠ by partner instead of bidding 5♦ be? Extras certainly, but what kind of hand. A double-then bid type hand with a misfit for diamonds? Or just optional?
Is x KQJx AQxx AKQJ a double or a 5♦ call?

Extra values only three diamonds at most inviting action or pass for penalties.

Perhaps rarely you might have four diamonds.

[Cascade]

If I pass that hand in first seat it is because it is not good enough for a pre-empt not because I have another suit.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 12 2008, 09:18 PM, said:

I forgot, we are a passed hand. We are not allowed to bid a suit without it showing some other suit, leading to the implication that we have a much crappier hand than we have shown. One day I will learn bridge.

Well, yeah, in a manner of speaking. Some auctions force this conclusion. Not all auctions end up with that conclusion. For example Responder might cuebid instead of jumping or might not insist on diamonds after jumping in diamonds.

It is not a matter of showing a "crappier hand than we have shown," it is a matter of not having that which we cannot have.