jdonn, on May 6 2009, 03:16 PM, said:
Your comment is really untrue. Maybe I'm being repetitive, but when you claim "I read comments suggesting that showing a weak one-suiter in hearts is an accurate description of my hand" then you are missing the point. No one claims this hand fits YOUR definition of 3♥, people who bid 3♥ are simply disagreeing with your definition.
To put it another way, I completely disagree that 3♥ shows "a weak one-suiter in hearts" (much like opening 2♥ would.) I believe it shows "a preemptive hand in hearts" and can have pretty much any shape you want (much like raising a 1♥ opener to 4♥ would.)
see gnasher... after reading his post, I adopted his reference over my idea, as probably closer to mainstream expectations. At no point have I compared the call to a weak 2 bid... a weak 2 bid would, in my view, bid 2
♥ in the situation in question.
I will retract what I wrote, in terms of what 3
♥ should show, if you find a description, of the double jump to the 3-level in this auction, by a reputable author that shows a weak 5 card suit as an example of the
typical hand.
Note that this is not the same as showing an example where a 5 card suit is permitted... we are speaking in terms of partner's expectations. I don't think you will find an authoritative text on NA bidding methods in which the prototypical holding is Qxxxx.
Otherwise, your posts are merely examples of what you accuse me of doing: claiming that your idiosyncratic ideas are the definition of the bid you wish to make. Your analogy to the auction 1
♥ 4
♥ makes no sense unless you play that the double promises 4+ hearts, and you are definitely in a small minority if you play that
Edit: removed silly remark
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
p p 1♦ X
XX 4♥ p p
X All pass