[MrAce]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-16, 15:15, said:

It's perfectly valid to question the earlier bidding when given a bidding problem, especially if it means you wouldn't be in the problem position because of it. Are you just having a bad day?

No i am not having a bad day, sorry if it sounded like this. You know how much i love your posts and yourself as a person (although i am just predicting your personality from your replies and from your reactions when things get hot in forums)

lalldonn, on 2012-August-16, 12:47, said:

3♦ is an underbid but only a small one (I wouldn't object at all if the jack of diamonds was a small one, or if one of the diamonds was a heart) and the shape is off for anything else. Obviously there are artificial methods that would help, but without them I think it's ok.

lalldonn, on 2012-August-16, 15:15, said:

It's perfectly valid to question the earlier bidding when given a bidding problem, especially if it means you wouldn't be in the problem position because of it. ...

I think your first reply speaks for itself and explains why i was expecting an answer I don't mind questioning the previous bid. But if you think a bid is OK or close to be OK, we can live with the continuation, even if it is the main reason why your are in a problem situation, no ? Don't we all have some holes in our choosen system where some hands dont fit in anywhere and we have to choose the least annoying one ?

-3♦ is a perfect bid if their system includes hands like this
-3♦ is a judgement call (good or bad ) if this hand does not fit in perfectly in any bid in their choosen system
-3♦ is a bad bid if they have something else available for this hand and/or if it definetely denies such a hand. (which is totally out of our control since the problem was given to us w/o much information)

[han]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-16, 14:54, said:

I don't know, our bad suit could be clubs as easily as hearts.

No, not nearly as easily. Not only do we hold a club stopper and a stiff heart, partner also bypassed hearts.

Regarding the original question, I don't like it because not only are we forced to bid 3D which I wouldn't do, we are also not told about partner's options over 3D. Perhaps without agreements 3H shows at least 5-4 in the majors, which is silly since we more or less denied 4 hearts already. But playing without agreements partner could have a heart stopper or a club stopper or both, and we are just guessing. If you are forcing me to flip a coin, I'll flip pass of course, but I really don't like being in this situation.

To Josh, I would also bid 3D with a 2-2-6-3 distribution and the same honors (which would make it a normal maximum), but I think that that's a big difference.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Playing standard methods, what else ?

This is expert forum so let's assume we play some decent system. Of course this too strong for 3D so I bid w/e there is to show strong hand be it 2H, 2N or 3C.
I object calling a system without a way to show very common hand type "standard", let's call it "american traditional system" ATS from now on.

Anyway, now I pass. What else ?

Quote

Don't we all have some holes in our choosen system where some hands dont fit in anywhere and we have to choose the least annoying one ?

But in ATS the openings are in range of 11-22 and we are ignoring 16-22 part altogether in most sequences if we don't have 5-5 or 5-4 strong enough to force to game opposite mere 1/1 response.
It's not "some hole" it's just ancient, terrible and difficult to play system which has no business being discussed in expert forum unless for historical reasons.

[lalldonn]

I love you too, next to you I am only MrKing

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on 2012-August-17, 06:42, said:

But in ATS the openings are in range of 11-22 and we are ignoring 16-22 part altogether in most sequences if we don't have 5-5 or 5-4 strong enough to force to game opposite mere 1/1 response.
It's not "some hole" it's just ancient, terrible and difficult to play system which has no business being discussed in expert forum unless for historical reasons.

If experts wish to use this forum to discuss how an expert should bid when playing this system, why shouldn't they? You don't have to participate in the discussion.

[bluecalm]

Quote

If experts wish to use this forum to discuss how an expert should bid when playing this system, why shouldn't they?

I believe they are hurting humanity by promoting it !

[jogs]

yin970902, on 2012-August-16, 19:27, said:

Thank you!
actually,
♠J9763
♥KQ10
♦7
♣A863
in the partner's hands.

Isn't 3NT the best contract? 5♦ can lose a heart, diamond and a club.

[Lurpoa]

han, on 2012-August-16, 04:26, said:

I object to 3D.

♥

[Lurpoa]

MrAce, on 2012-August-15, 23:34, said:

Pass

♥



This is becoming fashion lately, to object someone else's reply and not answering the question that was asked by OP, or to object a previous bid and not answering the OP question ?????

[awm]

I'm not sure there really should be/can be a hand that makes a non-forcing 3♦ rebid, then tries for slam when partner signs off in game. If your hand is that good, why did you not game force in the first place? Surely if you can make slam opposite some sign-off bid from partner, you also might make game opposite a hand partner would pass 3♦?

I guess those who bid on think that 3♦ was a huge under-bid and therefore they need to "catch up" by taking another call. I agree that 3♦ was an under-bid... but I prefer to remain consistent with the previous evaluation and pass. We were a bit heavy for 3♦, but the club queen (for example) is not a huge asset for slam, and if we remove it I think 3♦ would be a normal call.

Anyway, pass for me on the auction given.

[Flem72]

See the TBW debate in the -- 70s? -- between Norman Kay and Peter Pender rre: this standard-style 3m rebid conundrum. Lucky me, I can bid 2C forcing.

EDIT: Yes (HT to Mr. Ace), return to OP: Must bid 4D now, esp. as P has not passed 3D. How many possible 9+ counts make slam? Couldn't s/he hold 12-13 gooduns? I hope we have ways to stop in 4N, and I hope 4H is RKCB.

This post has been edited by Flem72: 2012-August-18, 17:07

[Fluffy]

MrAce, on 2012-August-16, 13:37, said:

OP did not ask if we agree or like the bidding so far

In fact OP doesn't agree with himself, that's whyhe is thinking on taking another action.