[H_KARLUK]

At least 9 trumps. 25 HCP. 4H might bring more chances. In 5D 2-2 or 3-1 trumps. I dont know hearts 4-1 with a honour on righty or both missing honours placed with my lefty. Maybe 3-2 divided. QJ drops under AK. Still reading a bimonthly foreign bridge magazine, its only took me 15 days! God this is too clever for me

1d-1h
1s-2c*
2h all ok. Was a good moment to decide 4h. 3NT out of question in my books. Over FSF 2H simply bleak. Already a limit seen with opener rebid.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, I was South and didn't like several of my calls. However, I will partly blame not being as familiar with the style of responding 1♠, but know my partner prefers it.

Here were some of the crucial decisions.

1. Opening 1♦ vs passing - I agree that QJ tight sucks and felt it was a marginal hand. I can live with a partner who either passes it or opens it. I feel it's that close. I know with this partner, he is fine with that, whereas with Phil, he would prefer I pass this hand.

2. Rebidding 1♠/1NT/2♥ - As I mentioned above, with this partner, he prefers I rebid 1♠ (although I'm sure he'd be fine with 2♥ if I had QJx in hearts and xx in clubs). With Phil, I would have bid 1♥ (over his 1♦ transfer), so it's a different auction altogether. I am fine with either 1♠ or 1NT, but don't like 2♥ on this particular hand.

3. 3♥ or 3NT after 3♦. Here I just didn't know what the right bid was. As Mike mentions, I have not yet limited my hand. I didn't particularly like 3NT, but then wasn't sure if a 3♥ call would imply better hearts than I had. Although I agree with Josh and Justin that 2♥ shouldn't promise 3 (nor would expect my partner to think it did), I would also think it would deny xx. So should I be rebidding xxx? Well, I'm definitely convinced now that I should be, to avoid the problems that arose.

4. Partner's 4♦ vs a 4♥ call. I am perfectly fine with 4♦, my problem is now that I believe 4♦ sets trumps and I would not expect partner to take 4♥ as an offer to play. That ship sailed. Perhaps that is the wrong way to play, but I would think that 4♦ says that the only possible strains are diamonds or NT (as I would expect 4NT to show no interest in slam). That being said, it would make perfect sense in this auction for 4♦ to still be open to 4♥ as a strain. I just have a tough time figuring out a good set of rules in that regard. If we never limit strain, we're going to have a really tough time cuebidding.

By the way, all was ok in the play, because I took what I thought was the only reasonable line to make -- the double heart finesse. It worked, so no harm done. However, I still felt I had something to learn from this hand. It seems others might too, given the differences in style.

[Winstonm]

I know it's out of fashion these days to criticize an opening bid, but what real purpose is there to opening a miserable 12-count like the one held by south? Does the sky fall or are you shot at sunup if you pass pieces of crap?

P-1H
2C*-4H

*Drury

[Fluffy]

JLOL, on Jan 28 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

You assume 2♣ is GF but you think that rebidding 2♠ with 4243 without club stopper is not normal, sounds like you thinnk your methods are more standard than they are (this happens to me all the time)

LOL

You seriously think because he assumes FOURTH SUIT FORCING and does not assume rebidding your second suit as an artificial bid showing a specific hand he is assuming something that is not normal?

Obviously echognome assumed (knows?) that fourth suit forcing is so standard that he didn't even have to mention it, but I guess he was wrong! But if you were unsure whether fourth suit forcing was in use you might tell from the north hand that it was FOURTH SUIT FORCING!

you missunderstood me (or you didn't want to), I said 2♣ being game forcing is not standard. Not being forcing.

Of course both things are not the same and I am exagerating, but so was josh when he said 2♠ would be completelly artificial (its the kind of game we use to play here )

[the hog]

Dislike the 1S bid greatly. What is wrong with a hand limiting and shape showing 1NT. Now you can bid 3D if that is forcing, or checkback to find the H fit.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

Of course both things are not the same and I am exagerating, but so was josh when he said 2♠ would be completelly artificial (its the kind of game we use to play here )

No I wasn't. It does not show extra spade length at all. That means it is artificial.

[Fluffy]

If I said that 2♥ not showing 3 card support for partner's suit is artificial would you take me as crazy?

My point is: Anything that differs from your standard aproach is artificial for you, but doesn't have to be for others.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

If I said that 2♥ not showing 3 card support for partner's suit is artificial would you take me as crazy?

My point is: Anything that differs from your standard aproach is artificial for you, but doesn't have to be for others.

2♥ showing 2+ is natural because it shows heart length that you haven't shown yet.
2♠ showing a balanced hand without three hearts is artificial because it says something completely unrelated to your spade length.

Why am I even having this discussion? You seem to think "natural" means "standard", and "artificial" means "not standard". That is of course ridiculous.

[Fluffy]

Yeah its ridicoulous, but now you say it, we should be advised of treatments that are not standard, not aritificial.

2♠ shows spades its natural (confirms 4 and not 3 lol), it is just common logic that lets us know that it must be 4324 since nothing else is possible.

Oh now I see it, it also implieaes 12-14 wich is the main problem for most people in this thread.

Anyway none of my arguments will convince you, so ok.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 29 2009, 03:35 AM, said:

2♠ shows spades its natural (confirms 4 and not 3 lol)

Agree with lol.

Quote

Oh now I see it, it also implieaes 12-14 wich is the main problem for most people in this thread.

THAT is the main problem for most people in this thread? Where do you get this stuff?

Quote

Anyway none of my arguments will convince you, so ok.

I don't even know what you are arguing!

[peachy]

I think South showed three card support with 2H. If that *is* the agreement that it shows 3-card support, then North has to share some of the blame when South never heard North has five hearts. If that is not the agreement, could someone construct a viable hand in the bidding where South only has two card hearts?

Still, 3NT instead of 3H by South was a mistake.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 28 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Hum.. was 2♣ GAME forcing?

Yes!

Then what's wrong with North bidding 3♥ after 2♥? 3♦ doesn't help clarifying his intentions.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Jan 29 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 28 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Hum.. was 2♣ GAME forcing?

Yes!

Then what's wrong with North bidding 3♥ after 2♥? 3♦ doesn't help clarifying his intentions.

I believe I addressed this already.

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

The way I play South could had bid 2♠ if he had only 2 hearts. 2♥ shows 100% 3 cards, that would transfer blame to north.

Even if that's true then 3♦ is completely normal. It's a possible slam hand, and I like playing slams in 5-4 and 5-5 fits better than in 5-3 fits.

[whereagles]

Well, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree (not surprisingly.. lol).

3♦ may be completely normal (I disagree), but I think it's utterly irresponsible to bid like that if you're not 100% sure you can clear up later what the fit is.