[gszes]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-19, 12:41, said:

Would you not assume Lebensohl here so the weaker hand is a 2N bid ? With the bad hand, you are one forced ruff away from a useless club suit in a heart contract even if you do have a 4-4 fit so it's more important to play it in clubs.

There seems to be little/no reason we cannot have a 2n invite===leb is a wonderful
convention but does the 2d bid really change our thinking about the hand so much
we are willing to forgo the natural 2n? if rho had passed would we be using leb
or invitational??? I think that is the problem with assuming leb is on here. The
other problem is that since p has already bid 1n (vs dbl) it increases the
probability that 2n as invitational carries additional weight unless we are going
to assume we cannot have a 3n game with both opps bidding (I hate that idea sigh
though I can see how many would like it since it does seem odds against).

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-20, 09:14, said:

Surprised it was a cold bottom, would have thought 4♥-2 was a possibility also. The chances of partner having ♦AKQx are pretty small, a lot of the time he'll have 2-3 slower diamond tricks and more cards outside where 5♣ might not look so silly, but I wouldn't jump there just yet, I'd bid 3♥.

I do not understand this.
We know partner has a strong notrump with at least one but quite possible two diamond stoppers.
For 3NT to make we only need just the king of clubs in partner's hand and we are not yet down even if not.
Who needs ♦AKQ? Give partner instead of the ace of diamonds a major suit ace and 3NT is still the best contract.
I guess it is possible to construct hands where 3NT is down while 5♣ or 4♥ makes.
But seriously how likely do you consider that?
It requires a parlay.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2014-March-20, 14:52, said:

I do not understand this.
We know partner has a strong notrump with at least one but quite possible two diamond stoppers.
For 3NT to make we only need just the king of clubs in partner's hand and we are not yet down even if not.
Who needs ♦AKQ? Give partner instead of the ace of diamonds a major suit ace and 3NT is still the best contract.
I guess it is possible to construct hands where 3NT is down while 5♣ or 4♥ makes.
But seriously how likely do you consider that?
It requires a parlay.

Rainer Herrmann

I just know what we (and a few other people) overcall 1N on and it is far from as shape specific as an opening 1N, a small stiff club is far from impossible, how do you bid a 4441 16 count for example.

[PhilKing]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-20, 15:19, said:

How do you bid a 4441 16 count for example.

I would pass.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2014-March-20, 15:56, said:

I would pass.

OK, there we differ, I'd rather not have the auction come back to me somewhere awkward and feel obliged to act, I'd rather show my 15-17 and a diamond stop.

[the hog]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-20, 09:14, said:

Surprised it was a cold bottom, would have thought 4♥-2 was a possibility also. The chances of partner having ♦AKQx are pretty small, a lot of the time he'll have 2-3 slower diamond tricks and more cards outside where 5♣ might not look so silly, but I wouldn't jump there just yet, I'd bid 3♥.

This does not make sense if you are playing opposite a strong partner. The guy overcaqlled 1NT; he heard you bid 3C; he then doubled 3D. Do you seriously think he might have 2 or 3 slow D tricks? Ecen if he has KQJx, that might only be 2 tricks, and that is still 6 of his 15-17 HCP. Is it so surprising that his hearts are weak? The three H bidders painted their partner into a corner and forced him to bid 4H on any 4 card holding.
The more I think about it, Rainer was totally correct with his immediate 3NT bid.

[the hog]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-20, 16:18, said:

OK, there we differ, I'd rather not have the auction come back to me somewhere awkward and feel obliged to act, I'd rather show my 15-17 and a diamond stop.

And let them run 5 Cs?

[Cyberyeti]

the hog, on 2014-March-20, 22:37, said:

And let them run 5 Cs?

That hasn't beaten 1N yet, and if partner has a weak hand with 5M, we'll at least play in that suit.

Quote

This does not make sense if you are playing opposite a strong partner. The guy overcaqlled 1NT; he heard you bid 3C; he then doubled 3D. Do you seriously think he might have 2 or 3 slow D tricks? Ecen if he has KQJx, that might only be 2 tricks, and that is still 6 of his 15-17 HCP. Is it so surprising that his hearts are weak? The three H bidders painted their partner into a corner and forced him to bid 4H on any 4 card holding.
The more I think about it, Rainer was totally correct with his immediate 3NT bid.

QJ109 is a much better hand for playing hearts and equally good double, it's also quite a likely type of holding as it actually gives opps some decent diamonds, and no partner is not forced to bid 4♥ with 4 bad hearts, you bid 3♣ then 3♥, you didn't start with 3♦, so your hearts may well not be great.

[the hog]

Needless to say I disagree totally. One hand proves nothing, of course, but why is it the wide boys all argue something and then when it proves to be wrong attempt to justify it?
By the way, I was talking about thrunt not onet.

Finally, "no partner is not forced to bid 4♥ with 4 bad hearts, you bid 3♣ then 3♥, you didn't start with 3♦, so your hearts may well not be great." This comment is blatantly resulting and you well know it.

[Cyberyeti]

the hog, on 2014-March-21, 05:02, said:

Needless to say I disagree totally. One hand proves nothing, of course, but why is it the wide boys all argue something and then when it proves to be wrong attempt to justify it?
By the way, I was talking about thrunt not onet.

Finally, "no partner is not forced to bid 4♥ with 4 bad hearts, you bid 3♣ then 3♥, you didn't start with 3♦, so your hearts may well not be great." This comment is blatantly resulting and you well know it.

If I had ♥AKxx and ♣Qxxxxxx I'd certainly bid 3♦ rather than starting with 3♣, that was the point I was making.

[the hog]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-21, 08:21, said:

If I had ♥AKxx and ♣Qxxxxxx I'd certainly bid 3♦ rather than starting with 3♣, that was the point I was making.

And if you had ♥ AKxx and ♣ AQxxxxxx

[Cyberyeti]

the hog, on 2014-March-21, 18:24, said:

And if you had ♥ AKxx and ♣ AQxxxxxx

I start with 3♦ then bid clubs until partner gets the message if he doesn't bid hearts probably going as far as 6.

[the hog]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-21, 18:52, said:

I start with 3♦ then bid clubs until partner gets the message if he doesn't bid hearts probably going as far as 6.

So AKxx AQxxxxx and AKxx Qxxxxxx are bid the same way for you? Ok......................................

[BillPatch]

Perhaps we should attribute some blame to partner for his double of 3♦ after we bid 3♣ forcing to game. Did not this suggest that we might not do as well in game as defending 3♦, suggesting that partner lacks a high honor in ♣, so game is odds off with current hand, and worse than that if our club suit were only AQ sixth rather than seventh?