[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Dec 7 2004, 12:19 AM, said:

i don't quite agree, mainly because of his "Very few hcp are "working"." ... they're *all* working... i think this hand is worth 3 tricks, maybe 4... anyway, either 3h or 4h could be correct on any given lie of the cards

What I meant with "very few hcp are working " is:

- Ace of diamonds has high likely hood to nbe wasted in case of p holding a void (very likely since he did not balance with double)
- JT of diamonds are totally wasted, and besides we risk ruffs there
- K of spades is good but in general, offensive hands have honors in long suits, which can develop tricks: here AJTxx are in THEIR suit, so no big plus, and the other long suit (hearts) has terrible holding.

So perhaps not totally wasted but certainly my 8 hcp should be
- deevaluated in terms of of the JT of diamonds (they won't count)
- maybe deevaluated in terms of the A of diamonds
- reevaluated in terms of the K of spades.
- no extras for the fit because of xxxx support; give me the T or J there and I might be more optimistic

So, all inn all, I would evaulate this hand as exactly 8 hcp, no more, no less.
To me, a hand worth 8 hcp with fit is worth a single raise, so I bid 3H; if pard likes his hand he will bid on.

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Dec 9 2004, 11:20 AM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 7 2004, 12:19 AM, said:

i don't quite agree, mainly because of his "Very few hcp are "working"." ... they're *all* working... i think this hand is worth 3 tricks, maybe 4... anyway, either 3h or 4h could be correct on any given lie of the cards

What I meant with "very few hcp are working " is:

- Ace of diamonds has high likely hood to nbe wasted in case of p holding a void (very likely since he did not balance with double)
- JT of diamonds are totally wasted, and besides we risk ruffs there
- K of spades is good but in general, offensive hands have honors in long suits, which can develop tricks: here AJTxx are in THEIR suit, so no big plus, and the other long suit (hearts) has terrible holding.

So perhaps not totally wasted but certainly my 8 hcp should be
- deevaluated in terms of of the JT of diamonds (they won't count)
- maybe deevaluated in terms of the A of diamonds
- reevaluated in terms of the K of spades.
- no extras for the fit because of xxxx support; give me the T or J there and I might be more optimistic

So, all inn all, I would evaulate this hand as exactly 8 hcp, no more, no less.
To me, a hand worth 8 hcp with fit is worth a single raise, so I bid 3H; if pard likes his hand he will bid on.

The ACE of diamonds is not necessarily wasted even if partner has a void. Partner will have some number of clubs. If he has, Ax of clubs and 6-5 in the majors, assuming we have a quick entry to dummy in spades, the club ACE (if they fail to lead a club) provides a home for a club loser. The AJT of diamonds also can keep partenr from being "forced" on repeated diamond leads.

So don't discount the ♦AJT as much as you do. True, I would rather have these hcp elsewhere, but for sure they are wasted? No, they could turn out to be very useful.

[joker_gib]

3♥

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Dec 9 2004, 03:32 PM, said:

So don't discount the ♦AJT as much as you do. True, I would rather have these hcp elsewhere, but for sure they are wasted? No, they could turn out to be very useful.

All In all I am saying that even in the best case scenario (no D void), the hand is worth 8 hcp and not more (as it would if AJTxx were in OUR suit).

I believe this warrants a single raise but no more :-)

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Dec 9 2004, 12:28 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 9 2004, 03:32 PM, said:

So don't discount the ♦AJT as much as you do. True, I would rather have these hcp elsewhere, but for sure they are wasted? No, they could turn out to be very useful.

All In all I am saying that even in the best case scenario (no D void), the hand is worth 8 hcp and not more (as it would if AJTxx were in OUR suit).

I believe this warrants a single raise but no more :-)

No problem.. I only bid 3♥ too... :-)

[whereagles]

I expect pard to have something like

QJxxx
KQxxx
x
Kx

or

AQxxxx
KQxxx
--
xx

opposite which I'm not going to give pard the opportunity to pass a 3H invitation

[flytoox]

whereagles, on Dec 9 2004, 04:54 PM, said:

I expect pard to have something like

QJxxx
KQxxx
x
Kx

or

AQxxxx
KQxxx
--
xx

opposite which I'm not going to give pard the opportunity to pass a 3H invitation

do u really think pd will pass ur invitation with the 2nd hand?

[whereagles]

I don't know. Depends who partner is.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Dec 9 2004, 12:54 PM, said:

I expect pard to have something like

QJxxx
KQxxx
x
Kx

or

AQxxxx
KQxxx
--
xx

opposite which I'm not going to give pard the opportunity to pass a 3H invitation

Opposite the second of these hands, you need 2-2 ♥ or EAST wtih three to Axx to make, With the first hand, you have a better chance to make, even if you lose two hearts. But if you are going to invent hands, why not...

♠AQJTx ♥Qxxxx ♦xx ♣K.. .you can lose 3♥ and a club and a diamond, or
♠AJxxxx♥AQxx♦Kx♣x, or
♠QJxxx♥AQxxx♦x♣QJ, or
♠AQJxxx♥Axxx♦xx♣A or
♠QJTxxx♥AQxx♦Kx♣x where they double you, and get 2♦ruff, ♣A, ♠A, and 2♥ with KJx behind him.

Somehow, blind guessing, EVEN VULNERABLE AT IMPs, is just that. Most of the hands where 4♥ will make, parnter will bid 4♥, and all the hands where 4♥ will be crushed, often doubled, partner will pass 3♥. A leap to 4♥ may work out, there are some hands partner will not go to game on, that will make (these usually require good splits in ♥ however, which maynot be happening on this hand.

Ben

[whereagles]

Hum.. I would actually double on most of those hands (some have 12 cards only, btw ), except perhaps the ♠QJxxx ♥AQxxx ♦x ♣QJ one.

But then again, if pard's style is such that he balances 2♥ on hands like the ones you showed, then there is obviously a case for a simple 3♥. If pard balances 2♥ more on hands like the ones I showed, 4♥ is probably a fair bet.

[inquiry]

I don't think doubling with a singleton or doubletion club (an unbid suit) would be to my liking on any of the hands.

[junyi_zhu]

pclayton, on Dec 7 2004, 03:36 AM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 6 2004, 04:35 PM, said:

Why am I the only one voting for 3♦? For me it is the stronger invitation to 4♥ than 3♥, and so exactly the middle-ground between the popular options of 3♥ and 4♥. What does everyone think would 3♦ mean?

Arend

As I mentioned in the other post, 3♦ is natural.

Marshall Miles mentioned this in one of the Southern Cal Bridge News columns a number of years ago. He was adamant that 3♦ should be natural and most of the others agreed.

I don't really think this 3D being natural is a good treatment. If you play this 3D being natural, is it forcing? If it's forcing, why don't you just bid 3NT instead? You think you may belong to 5D? Give me a break. If you don't play this 3D as forcing, you still can bid 2NT over 2H, which also suggests penalty oriented long diamonds. So 3D really should be a cuebid unless you really like to play 3D here as nonforcing, which makes some sense, but it's very rare, and you still can play 3D if you bid 2NT and your smart partner bids 3D to play:)

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Dec 9 2004, 06:28 PM, said:

All In all I am saying that even in the best case scenario (no D void), the hand is worth 8 hcp and not more (as it would if AJTxx were in OUR suit).

I believe this warrants a single raise but no more :-)

well it wouldn't surprise me if 3h is the best bid this time, but my reason for disagreeing has nothing to do with 8 points vs. 9 points... i still think the hand itself is worth 3 or 4 tricks