It fits but....

[han]

Using 3D to show THAT hand seems odd.

 

1. Why not open 2D or 3D when white on red with that hand?

2. If not opening 2D or 3D, why not pass 1S?

3. If not passing 1S, why not pass 2H?

4. Even if you cross all three hurdles, why tailor an agreement for the odd hand where you cannot open 2D or 3D, white-on-red, and yet are willing to play at 3D after partner opens one major and then bids the other major, when the much more useful "I have support for the second suit and shortness" call is MUCH more likely and more important?

 

I'd also add the following:

 

5. When do you have THAT hand and the auction proceeds without interference like this?

I understand from your earlier posts that you are a world class player. But most of us like to play roughly the same system no matter what the vulnerability is. So if pass-1S-1NT-2H-3D is diamonds at all Vul, then it is also diamonds at favorable.

 

So while using 3D to show THAT hand seems odd to you, to 99% of us it seems perfectly natural.

[kenrexford]

I am not sure why there is a need to be sarcastic with respect to an IDEA made by a person who claims that they would NEVER do it at the table without discussion.

 

That being said, I find it hard to believe that the field here does not adjust bidding based upon distribution. Since early days as a rookie player, most of us learned some agreement as to preempts. Maybe "Within two vulnerable, within three not vulnerable" or "4-3-2" or "3-2-1." So, it is entirely unlikely that your 3D opening red on white is identical in parameters with your 3D bid white on red. If that makes one a "world class player," then the standard for "world class" is very low.

 

If talking theory (not necessarily practice), it seems sound to take this reality into consideration in devising bids by a passed hand. This specific auction is strange, in that both majors have been bid, and you can now bid 3D, a suit probably biddable at 2D earlier. The auction and conditions suggest, it seems, that 3D as a natural call here would be of severely limited utility.

 

I am not sure how the 3D weak jump shift affects any of this. I never even considered that option myself. The issue is the failure to OPEN a 2D or 3D preempt, not respond.

 

For that matter, this WJS issue actually bolsters my thinking. Why do people NOT use weak jump shifts as passed hands? I mean, you are already known to have less than opening strength, so WJS is more likely, right? Of course not -- you would likely have opened a preempt. The same principle exists here. With long diamonds, you had three opportunities to show this BEFORE the heart rebid. Open 2D, Open 3D, or respond 2D to 1S. When white on red, how many ways to show a weak hand with long diamonds do you need?

 

I could accept that a delayed 3D would make sense as natural if 2D promised 6+ (and you have fewer points) and 3D promised two of the top three honors (even at favorable vulnerability). Few still stick to the latter requirement at these colors, though.

 

I keep laughing to myself at the apparently hostile rejection of a suggestion against having four ways of showing a sub-minimum hand with long diamonds, especially at these colors. It sounds a lot like a style an old friend of mine wanted to play in Sandwich position. Double showed the oter two suits, 4-4, with values. 1NT showed the other two suits without values. Cuebidding the lower of their suits showed more shape, no values. Cuebidding the higher showed even more shape, few values. 2NT showed yet more shape, no values. And so on. There was NO way to bid either suit naturally.

[luis]

About the 3♦ idea this is what I think I think.

Without previous discussion I just bid 3♥ because bidding 3♦ here with the singleton will probably be too dangerous and once I bid 1NT we are probably better than the field so why now risk with a "guess what" bid ?

BUT It turns out I really like the idea and I think that having 3♦ as a weak hand with diamonds that didn't open 2♦ or 3♦ is indeed ridiculous, so I will have a conversation with my pd about this auction and tell him that after:

1M - 1N

2OM

Then 3m is a singleton with support for opener's second suit.

Makes sense to me and I have to arrange the meaning of 2NT which natural can't be because 2NT is never natural of course.

Thanks for the nice idea Kenrexford.

 

Luis

[Fluffy]

Direct 2♠ would be 8-10 (I though this was standard in 2/1), all people who would had bid 2♠ before are aware of that?

 

 

Also... opponents have been very silent with some strenght, I took it as an extra because it suggested first that partner had 3 diamonds, and second, that the breaks on our suits are good. Nothing is sure, but it increases the chances, don't you think?

[HeartA]

Since 1NT is passable, I would have bid 2S as well.

 

If for some reason I responded 1N (or maybe a player bid 1N and left), 3H is my first choice, 4H is second, 3H is 3rd and 4H is 4th, ......, pass is out of the list.

[joshs]

Direct 2♠ would be 8-10 (I though this was standard in 2/1), all people who would had bid 2♠ before are aware of that?

 

 

Also... opponents have been very silent with some strenght, I took it as an extra because it suggested first that partner had 3 diamonds, and second, that the breaks on our suits are good. Nothing is sure, but it increases the chances, don't you think?

Well if you were an unpassed hand 2S would be a sound raise (8-10ish, the exact range varies a little bit from partnership to partnership). As a passed hand, most people play drury, and bid drury on the good raises. My drury bids start at a good 8, people who play very sound opening bids might start at a good 9 for drury. So its pretty normal that by a passed hand 1M-2M is about 5-8ish and a 1N bid denies 3 card support!

 

I hope that helps.

 

Josh

[han]

That being said, I find it hard to believe that the field here does not adjust bidding based upon distribution. Since early days as a rookie player, most of us learned some agreement as to preempts. Maybe "Within two vulnerable, within three not vulnerable" or "4-3-2" or "3-2-1." So, it is entirely unlikely that your 3D opening red on white is identical in parameters with your 3D bid white on red. If that makes one a "world class player," then the standard for "world class" is very low.

I think that there is a difference between a difference in parameters and a entirely different meaning of a bid.

 

Any rookie can understand that a 2D opening differs in strength between favorable and unfavorable vulnerability.

 

But I think that it takes a very good partnership indeed to profit from the agreement that the auction

 

p - 1S

1NT - 1H

3D

 

shows diamonds when vulnerable but an invitational raise to 3H with diamond shortness when non-vulnerable.

[Fluffy]

But I think that it takes a very good partnership indeed to profit from the agreement that the auction

 

p - 1S

1NT - 1H

3D

 

shows diamonds when vulnerable but an invitational raise to 3H with diamond shortness when non-vulnerable.

If I had to take 3♦ as a limit raise I would take it as highly distributional, but highly distributional raises are normally based on shortness in the other suit (♠), probably partner would missjudge his cards.

[cherdano]

About the 3♦ idea this is what I think I think.

Without previous discussion I just bid 3♥ because bidding 3♦ here with the singleton will probably be too dangerous and once I bid 1NT we are probably better than the field so why now risk with a "guess what" bid ?

BUT It turns out I really like the idea and I think that having 3♦ as a weak hand with diamonds that didn't open 2♦ or 3♦ is indeed ridiculous, so I will have a conversation with my pd about this auction and tell him that after:

1M - 1N

2OM

Then 3m is a singleton with support for opener's second suit.

Makes sense to me and I have to arrange the meaning of 2NT which natural can't be because 2NT is never natural of course.

Thanks for the nice idea Kenrexford.

 

Luis

Send us a postcard when it has come up. B)

[cherdano]

I keep laughing to myself at the apparently hostile rejection of a suggestion against having four ways of showing a sub-minimum hand with long diamonds, especially at these colors.

I think the hostile reaction wasn't to the idea itself, but to the way you presented it. When you say "it is very odd to show X by bidding Y" to everybody, and everybody plays X as showing Y (just because it's the natural meaning), than that isn't the best introduction to gain friends for your idea.

 

(Btw, do you want to play 3♣ as short clubs with heart fit, too?)

 

Arend

[benlessard]

Did anyone thought about giving a spades preference by bidding 2♠

 

 

Not sure i would do it instead of passing but i think ill bid 2s before bidding 3h.

 

With weakish hand its very unlikely playing in 2♥ will yield an extra trick compared to 2♠

 

 

If partner do not pass i guess he will understand when i rebid 4h.

 

 

Ben

 

 

 

PS bidding 1nt was non-sense IMHO

[kenrexford]

I polled two players who have unimpeachable credentials about the meaning of P-P-1S-P-1NT-P-2H-P-3D. Both asked whether a 2D opening is weak and whether P-P-1S-P-2D is natural. Hearing "yes," the comments were nearly identical. First, 3D cannot be natural. Second, 3D must show a diamond feature and great heart support. The only issue, unresolved except to note that partnership style is the "answer" to the question, was whether 3D showed secondary diamond honors, diamond shortness, or either one. Vulnerability was not an issue. Further, their tone was much more belittling to the idea of 3D being natural. However, both are known to be potential jerks.

 

Sure, using the term "odd" to describe a meaning that everyone attributed as obvious might have been unnecessarily insulting. I did not intend to insult, however, as illustrated by my comment initially that MY idea seemed "weird" and "very unusual." I meant that mainstream bridge defaults are "odd" in the sense that some auctions have a feel to them that suggests an alternative. If you were at the table, and heard the auction P-P-1S-P-1NT-P-2H-P-3D, this 3D call should seem "odd." You'd probably ask yourself why diamonds have been unbid up to this point. This is odd for diamonds to pop up at this point, out of the blue. That "odd" feeling should open one's eyes. Maybe this is NOT natural?

 

When the discussion then developed, this concept was rejected by many. THAT part seems funny. If the logic of the situation has never been considered, and then is right in front of you, and you still reject this, with outrage even, this is funny.