pooltuna

This my take on it as well

Apologies if I have misunderstood. It seemed to me that you were subscribing to the notion that a player who opened 1♥ could not have a slam try facing a raise to 2♥. If you were instead ridiculing it, then more power to you. Of course, as Fred correctly observes, such a player would bid something other than 4♥ after responder's discouraging 3♥. But that auction is not the real problem. The real problem is this auction: 1♥-2♥-3♦-4♥-6♥. Now, ever since (and very probably before) Zia published the concept of the "sting" cue bid or trial bid in Bridge My Way, an expert player might be trying to do one of (at least) two things: show a real "help suit try" to elicit cooperation, or make a fake cue / trial bid in order to inhibit a diamond lead. The issue is: if North-South have some partnership experience based on history rather than explicit discussion, are East-West entitled to knowledge of that experience? Is redress due to a non-expert West who, let us say, leads a spade from ♠QJ10x rather than a diamond from ♦QJ10x and says later "3♦ wasn't alerted, so I had no way of telling that it could be two or three low in a slam-going hand - I thought both my opponents had something in diamonds"? Yes that is a conundrum for an appeals committee. It is of course not restricted to this auction or similar ones but is subject to coming up anytime one player decides to run the bluff by psyching a control. Clearly the opponents, if they ask, are entitled to the information of previous occurrences. What is not clear to me is the need to alert in effect a psyche. If an alert is required here where does it stop? Do I alert partner's 2NT call over my weak 2 opening or his forcing 2♠ call over my weak 2♦ opening, not to suggest it's forcing nature but the psyche possibility? I suspect this should fall under general bridge knowledge.

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥. Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things. Amen to this! We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora :ph34r: And you keep failing, because you do not know what logic is (any more than you know what the plural of "forum" is). This: ♠None ♥AKxxxx ♦xx ♣AKxxx is by no stretch of the imagination a 2♣ opening, yet it would want to make a slam try over a constructive raise of 1♥. Indeed, it might reasonably just bid a slam over a constructive raise, hoping either that it will be cold or that it will make on a non-diamond lead. But what the clever school does is to make a "trial bid" of 3♦ and then bid a slam. Naturally, they also do not tell the opponents that this is what they may be doing. Hence the concern expressed by some posters here. Where in my post did I say that hands that are not 2♣ openers can't have slam aspirations. What I was asking, rhetorically, was what do they look like and you provided an unneeded example. If the 3♦ call was a demand to bid game with ♦ help then the opener knew he would be able to bid slam. With a 3♥ rejection then 4♥ is an order for the responder to pass, as JDonn opined. BTW your sense of humor(Americanized) level seems to be running a tad lower than normal, not that I have ever detected it to be particularly high.

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥. Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things. Amen to this! We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora :ph34r:

a shade too light for me so I would call 1♠ and worry about any rebids later

The Q♠ would be nice but is damn near irrelevant since partner is known to hold 2,3,4, or 5 spades. So finding a parking place for 3 losing ♥ is the paramount issue for this hand IMO

I don't know squat about this game but in the interests of ------- into the wind here are my selections. Laugh at your own risk as I am ~ 50% to score 8 points :lol: 1)2 2)2 3)1 4)1 5)1 6)0 7)1 8)1 9)1 10)0 11)1 12)0 13)2 14)1 15)2 16)1

Your partner is a result merchant! You are expected to believe they have ♠s stopped but don't have every other suit stopped. If she didn't think a ♠ lead was a good shot vs NT she shouldn't have overcalled the suit.

I am mystified! The opponents have found a major suit fit and the opener calls 3♦ what logical reasons could he have for doing that. IMV it can only be a game try of some sort which the responder rejects. In spite of the rejection opener bids game. So now could 3♦ have been a game try. Logically that makes no sense as his partner has rejected and he bid game anyway therefore it cannot be a game try and must have been a slam try i.e. a cue bid. OH! WAIT!! THIS IS THE DIRECTORS SECTION FORA, If I had realized that I wouldn't have wasted your time as I KNOW in this section logic does NOT apply :lol:

just following orders, K♠

I don't know where the break even point is but the T from T92 and the 2 from T82

Lucky result, 4♥ stands.

so if I understand the implications of what you are saying I can assume "uncomfortable calls"="unprofitable calls" (and I mean this on average not just one hand)

Doesn't matter they always make :) [hv=n=shkj9753d8765432c&s=s432haqt864dc5432]133|200|[/hv] but that's what you get for not bidding and letting your partner play 7♠ :)

and you can't result as well (i.e. castigate partner as the play goes on) unless you can see all the hands :)

I could perhaps see that working once a psyche had been reported but it is impossible for a TD to monitor tables for psyches. nah you just need to reposition your 48 cameras for your 12 table event :)

I think the invitation route is correct. You need to show partner some of his openers opposite this hand where 3NT sinks rapidly.

yep and just because you can make 6♥ doesn't mean you have the system to bid it

I assume all the passers when they hold partner's hand which might look like [hv=d=s&v=b&s=s65hak84d5ckj9765]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣-3♦-P-P ?[/hv] are automatically bidding 3NT? Since you can't expect protection with this hand and double is negative you have to do something. Besides why would we want to possibly score 1100 when we can get 630. I need a simul to convince me that pass is more profitable than X in this situation. Note I did NOT say more comfortable.

no and yes Perhaps what we should make clear is why 3♣ shows extras. IMO partner having already limited his hand and then made a preference bid of 2♥ has the right to expect the extras in this hand when you call 3♣ as you would normally, almost always pass 2♥ with a minimal opener.

suspect many auctions would be like 1NT-2♠;2NT-5NT; 6NT or even 1NT-5NT; 6NT

2♥ was a bit feeble wasn't it? Especially if you're playing a weak notrump. not sure what system they were playing but it meets my definition of a constructive raise

yep the first call is really tough :)

Admiral Farragut the hand - 4♥ (this assumes partner made a constructive raise) :)

I think you have to assume 2NT was invitational in their bidding system