masse24

Is 3♥ patterning out? Yes. But I don't agree with 3♥ with only three. If I were responder, I would expect to see something like 0=4=5=4. That said, 3♠ is less than ideal.

This. I think 3♥ is more commonly played as a splinter, rather than the 5-6 hand others have mentioned. Many play it as a GF splinter with a stiff, reserving 4♥ for a GF void. I'm pretty sure that is BWS2017. But as Helene proposes, it can be used as a three-level splinter, meaning that the partnership can stop at the three-level if responder is a dead minimum. A Splimit bid! Billy Miller wrote a short article about this treatment in the ACBL Bulletin a decade ago. Note that Billy says it is a three-level or five-level splinter, meaning that it can be used for hands "so monstrous that a normal four-level splinter would not do it justice." A hand such as: ♠AQ32 ♥4 ♦AKQ94 ♣AQ3. As far as the hand shown, I agree with Helene. It's not worth a game-force. If playing the gadget above, 3♥ would be my choice of bids. If not, I would jump-raise to 3♠.

Clearly.

I am not a mathematician. However, I can read. My reading of "the rule" differs. The above rule is not the "Rule of 17." The error you've made is that the formula should read: ∑HCP+TRUMPS and the result is >= 17 then bid 4 of that suit. I hesitate to cite my sources, since that might be construed as an Appeal to Authority. You are free to do your own research.

Low from hand toward dummy, intending to duck if west plays low. Otherwise, if west covers your 5 or 7, you cover as cheaply as possible.

Thumbs up for the post title. :P

1.) Yes, I agree with the auction. I slightly prefer 3♥ to a 2♦ rebid, though it's close. (2♦ intending 3♥ next would also work for me.) It's just not worth 3♦. 2.) 4♦ is probably natural, at least that's how I should interpret it until partner says otherwise. I now bid 5♦. If partner had something else in mind with 4♦, he will let me know. 3.) --(a) 3♥ ------(b) 4♥

Passing two diamonds with the hand you provide would never occur to me.

The decision is dependent on the hand you hold, Phil. For example, with this hand: xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I absolutely pass. While with this hand: xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I compete to the 5-level. Additionally, with the following hand: xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I probably bid slam. So as you can plainly see, it very much depends on the cards you hold. I hope this clarifies things.

You may need to explain it to him. :blink:

Subtle. :blink:

He did not suggest to "bid Stayman after a forcing NT." Read again what was written. It's called an analogy. Look it up if you do not know the definition. It's a valid and useful tool when making an argument. There has been no "constantly misrepresenting" and "picking an unnecessary fight." Except by you, when you misrepresented the intent of an analogy being used literally as something you had written.

Don't forget that PASS is an option.

Well . . . 2 votes in and it's unanimous. :D I agree with Tramticket.

Knock it off with the persecution complex and grow up!