rogerclee

3♥ if this is GF, otherwise 4♥.

Declarer probably has ♠AK on this auction, so I'm just gonna play a low one back and wait for whatever tricks we can get.

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it? I have a hard time attributing total insanity to an action that seems like it could be based on ration. Sometimes people make bad bids! That is why there is a forum, called "Beginner/Intermediate" to allow these people to talk about their bad bids, get feedback on their bad bids, and stop making bad bids! Some people are just bad players! They take crazy actions because they don't know what they are doing! Sometimes, they even make a REALLY bad call! A call that has no merit whatsoever! A call that no half-experienced player would even consider! BUT THEY NEVER BID 4♠ SHORTNESS ASK WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!! Is this clear?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

It is not uncommon to find a player who is actually quite good at bridge, whether by talent or by experience, who just has no idea how to bid. These people either never bothered to actually learn anything about bidding judgment or are so steeped in the old school that they will never become expert-class players. Anyway 5♦ is wrong.

I would double.

Yes, bidding judgment is overrated.

Okay, so I read it exactly correctly?

I think partner is trying to tell us that he has....CLUBS! And I think I will tell partner that I have....DIAMONDS!

I agree. This is why you bid 4♥ with this hand.

I think you were arguing that responder should not show shortness unless he has good outside values too. I think this is ridiculous, he has no idea what outside values are useful to opener. I agree that if he bid 4♥ on xxxx xxxxx x xxx, then yes, he shouldn't bid 5♦, because odds are opener will play him for more than this. But not showing shortness on xxxx Kxxxx x xxx is ridiculous. We are not debating the merits of a 4♠ shortness ask. To me, this is a fine agreement. I am just saying the ideas in your original posts were ridiculous because 1) You think ascribing far-fetched meanings to partner's bids is okay. 2) You argued that responder should only show shortness if his hand is "good." This is silly.

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution. void AKxxxx xx AKQxx Was it really that hard? So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid. The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids. Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works. I actually changed the hand to one much weaker to prove the point. I don't want ♦Kx, I want shortness. I think I'm misunderstanding something. What is the structure that you propose is totally normal?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution. void Axxxxx xx AKQxx I'd like to be in slam opposite diamond shortness.

Do you think you are supposed to?

Easy pass. I would lead a spade.

1♦ and pass. Looks obvious.

4♠ shortness ask with the North hand, unanimous.

1) I would have bid 6♦ the first time around, then passed anything else. 2) I would open 3♦.

I agree with gnome mostly, but I'm not as picky about the hand quality as he is.

I would double, the least of evils. If partner doesn't pass I feel okay. Even if he does, it might be right.

Making a weak 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opener is one of the more annoying bids in bridge. I think it's pretty important to keep this call the way it is. The defense to 1♦ precision, making 2♦ natural and bidding 2♥ Michaels and sacrificing 2♥ preemptive, has been around for awhile. I do not play this. I think having a preemptive 2♥ call is more valuable than a natural ♦ call (which I can bid next round, albeit without the preemptive effect), and 2♥ Michaels is worse than 2♦ Michaels, so I think I am giving up a lot for very little in exchange.

The suit qualities of both suits bother me too much on this particular hand, but I admit I am in a strangely conservative mood. I normally bid 3♠ on this shape (or 4♠ if the suits are good enough).

2♠ looks about right.

So instead of describing his hand as a good distributional 17-count, west decides to call his hand minimum with 6+♦. Uhhh, okay. East bid great. 2♥ by him is a serious overbid, and he has diamond tolerance.

lol