[gnasher]

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

Why stop at 2-7? Would he pass with Jxxxxx xx xx xxx? Or can we please return to reality?

In your reality, what's is partner's minimum when he is 3415?

[hanp]

gnasher, on Aug 21 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

hanp, on Aug 21 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

I don't think two queens and a jack is too much to make a preemptive raise.

True, but J10x Q10xx x Q9xxx would, I assume, be a 2♠ bid, followed by a pass, followed by another pass.

Two queens and a jack is not too much to bid 1NT for me so you assumed incorrectly. Maybe I missed the part where it was said that the system is standard European, a system I have not heard about before. I am European though, and I live in Europe, and I bid 1NT with that hand.

Just to clarify, if I gave you the impression that I think it is impossible to construct a hand where 3DX makes, I did not mean to do so. I think it is indeed possible that 3DX makes, and I still think it is a clear double. Shocking!

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Aug 21 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

Why stop at 2-7? Would he pass with Jxxxxx xx xx xxx? Or can we please return to reality?

In your reality, what's is partner's minimum when he is 3415?

In my reality I don't care if he doesn't go set 100% of the time with his worst hand possible. Also in my reality his minimum can include a club spot or two. What I want to find out about your reality is why you think down 2 (or 3 or 4) is so unlikely holding this hand knowing partner is likely to have 5 clubs.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Aug 21 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Two queens and a jack is not too much to bid 1NT for me so you assumed incorrectly. Maybe I missed the part where it was said that the system is standard European, a system I have not heard about before. I am European though, and I live in Europe, and I bid 1NT with that hand.

If weak raises bid 1NT, of course it's a double. I don't think anyone in this thread has argued otherwise.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

In my reality I don't care if he doesn't go set 100% of the time with his worst hand possible.

The first example I gave was Qxx Kxxx x xxxxx. Are you saying that this is his worst possible hand, or that opposite this hand you do expect to beat it most of the time? (I'll let you off the "100%", which I assume was hyperbole.)

Quote

Also in my reality his minimum can include a club spot or two.

Yes, that would be nice. On the other hand, LHO is vulnerable and hs diamonds are pretty poor, so it wouldn't be a shock to find him with good clubs.

Quote

What I want to find out about your reality is why you think down 2 (or 3 or 4) is so unlikely holding this hand knowing partner is likely to have 5 clubs.

I don't know about "so unlikely". I said that I thought down two was as likely as making, and I gave reasons for that belief, as well as an example.

So far your comments, although both entertainingly graphic and characteristically forthright, have been quite low on descriptions or examples of the sort of layout you're hoping for. Maybe you should tell me why you expect down 2 or 3?

[gwnn]

x

yay, we're getting rich!

[cherdanno]

I don't think partner is barred from pulling with a sub-minimum, a singleton diamond, and a bad club holding - say if he has your Qxx xxxx x xxxxx example hand.
However, more importantly I just think 2-4 hcps for partner are so rare in general that we shouldn't cater to them too much. Just because I might raise with the hand above doesn't mean I consider my range to be 2-10 and that I have to double 2N with every good 7 count - I would still expect a good 8-count or better for a double.
Also, RHO is a passed hand and LHO didn't bid over 1♠ - another reason to expect partner to have some values. Finally, the ♣65432-example hands are starting to irritate me - if partner has 5 clubs, the chances are pretty good that his best club will beat the 5th-best club of LHO. Maybe even the 4th-best club of LHO's 5-card suit! I don't think most LHOs need ♣KQJ here to bid over 2♠.

[MFA]

Double. If partner has sub-minimum and short diamonds, he runs. That is not lack of trust, it's a logical consequence of my failure to make a game try. Playing me for ♦KQJT + A + A is not practical.

The actual responding hand has a clear 3♠ bid.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Aug 21 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

hanp, on Aug 21 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

I don't think two queens and a jack is too much to make a preemptive raise.

True, but J10x Q10xx x Q9xxx would, I assume, be a 2♠ bid, followed by a pass, followed by another pass.

oleberg said:

Anyway, if 2♠ is a classic european (5)6-9 raise

Do you actually know anyone, in Europe or elsewhere, for whom the lower limit of such a raise is "(5)6" when it contains a singleton?

A few.