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!

I'm not finding slam. My auction would be: 1♦ - 1NT - 3NT

Late to the party, but I too would lead the ♥7.

A similar hand was posted to Bridgewinners recently. [hv=pc=n&s=sa8haq96dkqj972c4]133|100[/hv] Not quite as strong as the OP hand, but close. Currently (with 32 votes in) 94% for Pass.

Order a Pizza!

Possum, You seem to be conflating "the rules and spirit of the game" with "bidding what is in our hand, what our partners and opps understand." Let me provide you with an example of someone doing exactly (or at the very least similar) what you describe. In last month's Bridge World Master Solvers Club, the first problem was this: IMPs. Both sides vulnerable. You, South, hold: ♠KQJT83 ♥985432 ♦- ♣7 The auction: N ---- E ---- S 1♠ -- (P) -- ? Any discussion of what is or is not the best response is unimportant. Of the 28 panel votes (remember these are all world class players), two chose 2♦. One of them, Zia, explained with, "To get a lead vs. 7♣." My reaction was to chuckle inwardly, then step back and admire his thinking. What Zia espouses here is certainly designed to mislead. I made a mental note to, "Expand my thinking!" This responding-with-a-suit-I-am-void-in would still not be my choice, but I can admire and applaud the tactic. Is Zia's recommended response disgusting? Disgraceful? Expand your thinking.

This makes no sense.

Possum, I’m puzzled by your pushback. You first commented that, “I had no idea about how to bid this in a recent IMPs tourney,” was presumably looking for others’ opinions. Yet, when opinions were offered that are in direct conflict with your own “good reasoning” and your “quality bid,” you throw a hissy fit. Your post seems to be some sort of grope for the admiration others; a pat on the back for your brilliance. If it were deserved, believe me, it would be immediately forthcoming. Don’t hold your breath. Rather than looking deeper into the reasons and logic behind those viewpoints that differed from your own, you resorted to accusations of: 1. “sour grapes,” 2. “self-appointed experts,” and 3. “average players.” Your “everyone would be groveling at the quality of the bid” claim exhibits astounding hubris. Take a step back, dude. You might consider doing your own research in an attempt to understand why your thinking differs so dramatically with that of others. It may open your eyes to personal blind spots. Finally, this hand was posted on Bridgewinners as a bidding problem a day ago. There are currently 30 responses, some from very good players. The results are currently unanimous. A few of the comments (e.g. “are you serious?”) are telling. Google is a wonderful research tool. Use it.

I would not even contemplate 2♣. Not close. Open 1♥.

No "redefining" is done here to infer that 4♦ is not natural. We were offered the opportunity to bid the suit, and twice declined (various reasons are possible). As Mike mentions, there is a "process of elimination" in play here. As to a "specialized agreement," since the OP mentioned "standard methods," I offered my opinion on what 4♦ would mean using such methods. I have all manner of specialized methods which I did not mention. Why would I?

If I want to offer ♦ as a possible strain, I mention my ♦. So: 2♣ - 3♦ But I did not do this. What about a hand that wishes to get out of opener's way to save space? Or a hand with a ♦ suit not up to a jump to 3♦? With that hand, I might try this: 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ But I did not do this. To now offer ♦ as a possible strain (after twice not bidding them naturally), using the auction given hurts my brain. 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT 3♥ - 4♦ Lacking any specialized agreements, I would interpret 4♦ as a control with ♥ tolerance.