[hrothgar]

fachiru, on Feb 23 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast.

The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...

[fachiru]

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

fachiru, on Feb 23 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast.

The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...

I must have touched a nerve...

So, let's review:
The vast majority if not all players posting on this thread oppose the bidding as it occurred, but the bidder (probably yourself actually) "plays better than 98% of this forum"

Nice logic and probably the best we'll ever get from you.

Bridge-wise, you clearly don't belong in this forum, but you also failed the main requirement to post here and that is: to refrain from personal attacks.

Oh, and your offensive post is being reported.

[hrothgar]

fachiru, on Feb 24 2009, 02:56 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

fachiru, on Feb 23 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast.

The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...

I must have touched a nerve...

So, let's review:
The vast majority if not all players posting on this thread oppose the bidding as it occurred, but the bidder (probably yourself actually) "plays better than 98% of this forum"

Nice logic and probably the best we'll ever get from you.

Bridge-wise, you clearly don't belong in this forum, but you also failed the main requirement to post here and that is: to refrain from personal attacks.

Oh, and your offensive post is being reported.

What can I say... When random jackasses start spouting off, I sometimes take offense.

As for your latest contribution:

1. Partner's won the flight A GNTs, so I stand by my comments about her playing abilities.

2. Partner chose a bid that didn't work. We didn't have detailed agreements about continuations over reverses. She made a bid she was absolutely sure that wouldn't be passed... The auction didn't turn out too well. So be it. In any case, believe it or not, you can't necessarily judge a player's ability based on a single bid. If this is evidence of the type of logical prowess we can expect from you, then you real might want to rethink your comments about who should/should not be posting where...

Some might claim that its risky for me to call you an idiot based on one posting, however, I'm a pretty good judge of character... I'm happy to see that your latest posting confirms my initial impression.

In any case, please feel free to go and whine to the moderators ...
Won't be the first time its happened...
Won't be the last....

[Wackojack]

In defence of North's bidding from a non-expert.

1. Lebensohl/Ingerberman was not agreed so 3♣ would be non forcing.

2. It is a normal manouvre to show a hand interested in slam by first bidding the 4th suit and then following up with 3NT. So in this case it does not mean that there is uncertainty about stops in the diamond suit. It is just a stronger bid than 3NT direct.

3. European style, South has sufficient to bid on.

4. The scoring method is given as unknown. Certainly at MP North should not bid 4♣

btw I find the "s***t list" post offensive

[P_Marlowe]

fachiru, on Feb 23 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

fachiru, on Feb 23 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast.

The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...

I must have touched a nerve...

So, let's review:
The vast majority if not all players posting on this thread oppose the bidding as it occurred, but the bidder (probably yourself actually) "plays better than 98% of this forum"

Nice logic and probably the best we'll ever get from you.

Bridge-wise, you clearly don't belong in this forum, but you also failed the main requirement to post here and that is: to refrain from personal attacks.

Oh, and your offensive post is being reported.

Just a simple comment:

The problem occurred in a pickup partnership, i.e. the 3D
bidder was not 100% sure, if the partnership did play
Lebensohl over Reverses.

He tried to come up with a safe way of forcing
to game.
I agree, that it would have been better, if the
starting post, would have mentioned this.

Being a nice person: I say, you did not read the
whole thread, before you did post your first reply,
fair enough, the wording could be improved, but ok,
not ok, but I patient, sometimes to much.

But even I would expect that you did read the complete
thread, which did not grew too fast, before you made
your 2nd post.
And than you would have found, that the setup was not
a regular partnership, which makes your response a
response which misses the problem.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

Scoring: IMPS

Auction starts:

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♦
3♠ - 3N

---

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2009, 03:31 AM, said:

Question 1:  Agree with the auction so far?

Over a reverse,North bidding 4sf has to be at least inviting to slam.
North would have several other bids to show a weaker hand (some of these have to be nonforcing: Pass, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ or 3NT)

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2009, 03:31 AM, said:

Question 2:  How do you continue?

I've shown an unbalanced hand with ♣3+ 4♥ and 3♠, so partner expects 3415, 3406 or 4414 shape.
Partner won't pass 4♣ and well see where it gets us, partner has already made up his mind.

[Apollo81]

gnasher, on Feb 23 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing. Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement?

Yes.

[TimG]

hotShot, on Feb 24 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

I've shown an unbalanced hand with ♣3+ 4♥ and 3♠, so partner expects 3415, 3406 or 4414 shape.

The auction was 1♣-1♠, 2♥-3♦, 3♠.

I'm surprised at the suggestion of "3+♣". I would have expected that a reverse showed 5+ in the first bid suit. Even with a difficult to handle 4441 shape, I would expect opener to do something other than reverse.

[Cascade]

Opener has a nice hand but not significant extras over what has been shown by the reverse.

Responder has too much for 3NT. Fourth suit and then 3NT should be a decent hand but I am not tempted to move with this south hand.

I think the standard is that 4NT by either partner after fourth suit shows a quantitative hand.

As others have said a club raise by responder at some point would not have been out of place.

In my partnership the combination fourth suit (try for NT) and correction to 4♣ may not be forcing (actually we would have competing rules here 'GF' with a minor fit and try for 3NT is only forcing to 4m BUT fourth suit and then return to partner's suit is absolute GF). Although as Jan pointed out this is an awkward fourth suit sequence. Luckily we would not bid 4th suit with this hand as we have a forcing 3♣ bid available. Our actual non-standard agreement is that 2♠ the next step is the negative after the reverse and everything else is Forcing - This applies to all reverses after a one over one response. Opener then has the options of bidding 2NT or 3m (♣ here) with a minimum reverse and partner's next bid if any will be treated as a sign-off. Any other bid by opener shows extra values.