Distrib hand over p's neg double, part II

[kfgauss]

Imps, white vs red, 1st seat:

 

-- AKJ874 A4 106432

 

1H 3D X P; 4C P 5C P; ?

 

Do you give it the bump?

 

(For better or for worse, I bid 4C, and you'll have to live with that for this thread. If you wish to complain about [or support!] 4C, do so in the original thread.)

 

Andy

[whereagles]

If in need of points, I'll shoot at 6. Under normal circumstances this is a pass.

 

6 can be on, but I think 5 is the percentage game.

[jdonn]

There is no such thing as a 6♣ bid on this auction. Otherwise you have created an auction that can stop in 4♣ or 6♣ but never in 5♣.

 

I am not offering an opinion about the bid the prior round, but if you want to bid 6♣ here then you should have bid 5♣ the last round.

[mikeh]

As per jdonn: but I would go further, by saying that 6♣ is a bid that insults partner. He had available to him 4♦, agreeing ♣ and inviting slam (and NOT promising any ♦ control).

 

Imagine how you would feel as partner had you decided to stretch to an aggressive 5♣ and now partner bids 6.... would you wonder why you bother playing with that person across the table? I would.

 

As (also) per josh, this comment is independent of my thoughts as to whether 4♣ was the value bid... I am on record in the original thread on that issue. But if you thought it was the correct bid, then stick with that evaluation until sufficient additional info gives you strong reason to rethink... and his raise to 5♣ is not enough: consider him holding AKQx x Jxx QJxxx ..... 5♣ is a conservative bid... how do you like your chances in 6♣? I offer this example just to show that his raise is NOT enough to cause you to re-evaluate to the point of bidding slam.

[hotShot]

Something is very strange here. Where are the 13 cards in ♠?

Any ♠ values from partner are wasted and we will miss them in the ♣ suit. If partner did not hide a 6 card ♠ suit, somehow opps did not find their ♠ fit. Assuming that LHO's 3♦ was weak and RHO's pass is even weaker, partner has some strength. His distribution is something like 5125 or 5224. If partners HCP are not in ♠ we will miss a slam. Why did partner dbl instead of bidding ♠? Just to show his ♣ suit too? I don't think so, i guess the ♠ suit is weak. So there is a good chance he has the right values for the slam. What chance did partner have to invite to slam?

Hi can't cuebid ♥ because it's our suit, and we hold AK. He can't cue ♦ because that opps suit and we hold the ace. He can't cue ♠ we would missunderstand this als long ♠. 4NT might not be helpfull, if he has a void or expects us to have one.

So there is a good chance partner bid 5♣ because he did not find a better bid.

 

But this does not mean we are allowed to bid on. Partner signed off slam in no topic any more.

 

The correct bid is pass.

[whereagles]

Imagine how you would feel as partner had you decided to stretch to an aggressive 5♣ and now partner bids 6.... would you wonder why you bother playing with that person across the table? I would.

If pard bids 6, one thing is certain: he's not playing miserie.. he might have a legitimate problem which he is trying to solve the best he can. You should give him credit for his attempt at reaching the best contract, not punish him for breaching some authority. (An authority which isn't even clear to exist - 5♣ might be just "I have a min hand with club support".)

 

I would certainly be tolerant to pard if 6 goes down with 5 cold. I do so because it is my experience that bugging pard will only result in him playing defensive next hands (or next session if you only tell him off at the end) and we losing even more imps because of his underbidding.

[mikeh]

If pard bids 6, one thing is certain: he's not playing miserie.. he might have a legitimate problem which he is trying to solve the best he can. You should give him credit for his attempt at reaching the best contract, not punish him for breaching some authority. (An authority which isn't even clear to exist - 5♣ might be just "I have a min hand with club support".)

 

None of us who object to 6♣ do so on the basis of some 'authority', other than bridge logic. None of us state that we would chastise a partner who bid 6♣ on this auction: I suspect that we would all want to later discuss with partner (if we wished to continue as partners) why we see 6♣ as an 'impossible' bid.

 

You persist in asserting a player's 'right', in limited auctions, to act in a manner inconsistent with previous action and/or partner's auction... on the basis that it is okay to do so in an effort to reach the right contract.

 

What you miss is that bridge is a partnership game, in which partnerships design their bidding methods so as to optimize reaching the appropriate contract as frequently as possible... which means that we will sometimes miss good contracts. We have to allow our partners an equal say in the conversation, and we have to remain consistent within auctions. Thus 4♣, which is non-forcing, cannot logically be based on a hand that has slam ambitions opposite a simple raise.

 

Yes, after the raise, we can all construct hands on which slam makes but that DOES NOT mean that we have the right to bid slam, and remain a consistent bidder within our methods.

 

You will no doubt assert that you can override consistency when it feels right to do so, and, indeed, I have already stated that one should be alive to the possibility that further information can and should sometimes cause one to drastically re-evaluate: but one should do so only in clear cases.

 

Yes, my approach will miss some good contracts. So will yours.

 

The difference is that my approach will result in enhanced partnership confidence, with my partner willing and able to make decisions without worrying that I will suddenly decide that I know his hand better than he does.

 

A good partnership has strong resemblances to a trapeze duo: the trapeze artists perform their most impressive stunts in reliance that their partner will do the consistently correct thing: and catch them in mid-air, because their agreements provide for that harmony.

 

I said it once before, and I strongly suggest that you think about this statement: good partners subordinate their egos to the partnership.

[whereagles]

1.

None of us who object to 6♣ do so on the basis of some 'authority', other than bridge logic. None of us state that we would chastise a partner who bid 6♣ on this auction: I suspect that we would all want to later discuss with partner (if we wished to continue as partners) why we see 6♣ as an 'impossible' bid.

 

2.

You persist in asserting a player's 'right', in limited auctions, to act in a manner inconsistent with previous action and/or partner's auction... on the basis that it is okay to do so in an effort to reach the right contract.

 

3.

What you miss is that bridge is a partnership game, in which partnerships design their bidding methods so as to optimize reaching the appropriate contract as frequently as possible... which means that we will sometimes miss good contracts. We have to allow our partners an equal say in the conversation, and we have to remain consistent within auctions. Thus 4♣, which is non-forcing, cannot logically be based on a hand that has slam ambitions opposite a simple raise.

 

4.

I have already stated that one should be alive to the possibility that further information can and should sometimes cause one to drastically re-evaluate: but one should do so only in clear cases. The difference is that my approach will result in enhanced partnership confidence, with my partner willing and able to make decisions without worrying that I will suddenly decide that I know his hand better than he does.

 

5.

A good partnership has strong resemblances to a trapeze duo: the trapeze artists perform their most impressive stunts in reliance that their partner will do the consistently correct thing: and catch them in mid-air, because their agreements provide for that harmony.

 

6.

I said it once before, and I strongly suggest that you think about this statement: good partners subordinate their egos to the partnership.

1.

I don't see why 6♣ is an impossible bid. It would be so if 4♣ were to be bid ONLY on 11-14 hands. If you have that specific agreement, then you probably can't bid 6 without verging on insolence.

 

But if 4♣ is, as I think it should, a more liberal bid, showing a good min to intermediate hand (say 14-17), then I don't think 6♣ is totally offside. Especially with the incredible shape this particular hand has, and after hearing of a club fit opposite.

 

 

2.

And you persist in not looking at your hand as the bidding procedes. After knowing pard did have a club fit up his sleeve, the original hand's playing strength goes up tremendly. You certainly know that, but you insist on putting all the responsibilities upon pard, instead of sharing them, rising up to those your own. Now, how much of a "partnership game" is that, when you keep putting pard with the burden of taking decisions?

 

Mind you, I wouldn't bid slam under normal circumstances because the club suit is kinda sucky. I also would find it harder to bid, even with a good club suit, it if I had very detailed agreements as how responder could try for a club slam. Note that he might be weary to make a slam try if he's not sure how make one!

 

 

3.

Well, maybe the disagreement comes from the fact we seem to have different definitions for what 4♣ is.

 

 

4.

And then again, maybe it comes from psychological differences. I tend to be optimistic, you the opposite. I don't mind risking a bit of partnership confidence if the situation seems like odd-on. Note the other side of the issue: if you know pard will revaluate often, you don't need to stretch so much. You can always bid what you have.

 

 

5.

eheh... you keep using these rocambolesque metaphores... but to be quite honest, they seem to me like preaching to the choir.

 

 

6.

Collaboration doesn't mean submission. One has to rise rise to its responsibilities when the time is right.

[jdonn]

1.

I don't see why 6♣ is an impossible bid.

Because, as I have already stated, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to play in 5♣ on this hand! You have (randomly as far as I'm concerned) decided that it might be right to play in 4♣ or 6♣ but never in 5♣, when quite frankly 5 is the most likely amount you will want to be in opposite partner's range of hands.

 

This is no different than if you made a limit raise of 3♠ of partner's 1♠ opening on a marginal hand where you might have forced to game instead, then bid blackwood if he bids 4♠. It is completely inconsistent and illogical, and though I have no doubt you will think that is completely different, I assure you it is the exact same thing you are doing here, to a tee.

 

I reiterate, if you believe you are worth 6♣ now, then a mere 4♣ the prior round was wrong, no matter what range you believe it has.

[Finch]

Mind you, I wouldn't bid slam under normal circumstances because the club suit is kinda sucky. I also would find it harder to bid, even with a good club suit, it if I had very detailed agreements as how responder could try for a club slam. Note that he might be weary to make a slam try if he's not sure how make one!

I'd need to be playing with a very weak partner indeed - even one with whom I'd had no system discussion - before I wouldn't be confident that 4D was a club slam try.

[whereagles]

1.

You have (..) decided that it might be right to play in 4♣ or 6♣ but never in 5♣

 

2.

This is no different than if you made a limit raise of 3♠ of partner's 1♠ opening on a marginal hand where you might have forced to game instead, then bid blackwood if he bids 4♠. It is completely inconsistent and illogical, and though I have no doubt you will think that is completely different, I assure you it is the exact same thing you are doing here, to a tee.

 

3.

I reiterate, if you believe you are worth 6♣ now, then a mere 4♣ the prior round was wrong, no matter what range you believe it has.

1. That's not true. I even said I'd pass 5♣ with the original hand. Why are you crediting me with things I never said?

 

2. And I assure you there's a big difference between a well-defined, hand of 11-12 with fit and a muddy 14-17 hand with a large range of shape, ranging from misfitted to super fitted.

 

3. Are you reading the stuff at all or what? I SAID I'D PASS 5♣ AND I SAID IT BEFORE THIS POST.

[jdonn]

1.

You have (..) decided that it might be right to play in 4♣ or 6♣ but never in 5♣

 

2.

This is no different than if you made a limit raise of 3♠ of partner's 1♠ opening on a marginal hand where you might have forced to game instead, then bid blackwood if he bids 4♠. It is completely inconsistent and illogical, and though I have no doubt you will think that is completely different, I assure you it is the exact same thing you are doing here, to a tee.

 

3.

I reiterate, if you believe you are worth 6♣ now, then a mere 4♣ the prior round was wrong, no matter what range you believe it has.

1. That's not true. I even said I'd pass 5♣ with the original hand. Why are you crediting me with things I never said?

 

2. And I assure you there's a big difference between a well-defined, hand of 11-12 with fit and a muddy 14-17 hand with a large range of shape, ranging from misfitted to super fitted.

 

3. Are you reading the stuff at all or what? I SAID I'D PASS 5♣ AND I SAID IT BEFORE THIS POST.

Geez don't blow your top buddy. When I say "You" in my post just read it "You, the hypothetical person who would bid 6♣", not "you" as in YOU.

 

www.dictionary.com

You:

2. Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one: You can't win them all.

 

Before YOU scream at people, why don't YOU make sure YOU understand what they are saying.

[whereagles]

Before YOU scream at people, why don't YOU make sure YOU understand what they are saying.

And why don't YOU, jdonn, make sure the things YOU, jdonn, write are written in a CLEAR WAY, so that other people can understand them?