Bidding problem

[Finch]

Those who are doubling are doubling for TAKE-OUT

[foo]

Those who are doubling are doubling for TAKE-OUT

Oh, you mean our 2 or 3 suited hand with 4 ♣'s and strength appropriate for the auction isn't sure what to do? Fair Enough.

 

...

 

Trust me, I completely understand that X is for T/O here. I just am having a hard time believing the OP hand is that flexible.

 

X should show Convertible Values. The OP hand looks more like an attacking hand than that.

 

X means pd is going to have to make an "8 vs 10 or 11" decision since it is highly unlike they have a ♠ stop. Faced with the prospect of trying to take 8 tricks on defense vs trying to take 10-11 tricks declaring, Opener may very well in desperation pass here.

 

I'm reminded of a Bob Hamman quote "When 3N is a reasonable option, bid it."

[skjaeran]

I was commentating on this hand at the time, and I thought double was obvious, with a second choice a natural 4NT (but I wanted a second spade stop for that).

So was I, and I agree with Frances that 4NT natural would be a good bid if I had a 2nd ♠ stopper.

 

As it is, I'd have doubled with this hand.

[Walddk]

As far as I recall (I was commentating too), the commentators did not disagree. All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

 

The 9th will not be invited again :blink:

 

Roland

[foo]

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

 

The 9th will not be invited again :blink:

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

[Walddk]

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

 

The 9th will not be invited again  :blink:

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

 

"Den som kun tager spøg for spøg

og alvor kun alvorligt,

han og hun har faktisk fattet

begge dele dårligt!"

 

"Taking fun as simply fun,

and earnestness in earnest

shows how thoroughly thou none,

of the two discernest."

 

(Piet Hein, Danish scientist and poet, 1905-1996)

[han]

Edited, I guess Roland was joking.

[skjaeran]

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

 

The 9th will not be invited again  :blink:

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

"Taking fun as simply fun, and earnestness in earnest

shows how thoroughly thou none, of the two discernest."

 

(Piet Hein, Danish scientist and poet, 1905-1996)

Great translation!

[han]

Btw, there is a well known Dutch song about a guy named Piet Hein that lived much earlier than the Dane. (won a major sea batte during the war against Spain, I would guess early 17th century)

 

"Piet Hein, Piet Hein, Piet Hein his name is small

But his deeds are large, his deeds are large he has won the Silverfleet

He has won, has won, the silverfleet."

 

(possibly not as good a translation as Roland's)

[skjaeran]

Btw, there is a well known Dutch song about a guy named Piet Hein that lived much earlier than the Dane. (won a major sea batte during the war against Spain, I would guess early 17th century)

 

"Piet Hein, Piet Hein, Piet Hein his name is small

But his deeds are large, his deeds are large he has won the Silverfleet

He has won, has won, the silverfleet."

 

(possibly not as good a translation as Roland's)

The war against Spain was in 1628-29.

[foo]

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

 

The 9th will not be invited again  :blink:

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

 

"Den som kun tager spøg for spøg

og alvor kun alvorligt,

han og hun har faktisk fattet

begge dele dårligt!"

 

"Taking fun as simply fun,

and earnestness in earnest

shows how thoroughly thou none,

of the two discernest."

 

(Piet Hein, Danish scientist and poet, 1905-1996)

Wonderful poem. I have no idea how or in what way it answers my question.

 

La Rochefoucauld on superiority, Maxim 127

"Le vrai moyen d'être trompé, c'est de se croire plus fin que les autres."

 

"The truest means of being misled is to believe oneself finer than others."

or

"The surest way to be cheated is to think one's self more cunning than others."

[bid_em_up]

How about I put it bluntly then:

 

The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest).

 

There, does that help?

 

"The 9th will not be invited back. :) " tends to indicate something said in jest. If he were serious, there would be no :) on the end of it.

 

At least thats my interpretation of it.

[Walddk]

How about I put it bluntly then:

 

The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest).

 

There, does that help?

 

"The 9th will not be invited back.  :) "  tends to indicate something said in jest.  If he were serious, there would be no  :)  on the end of it.

 

At least thats my interpretation of it.

Not only did you interpret it correctly, you also seem to have a sense of humour. Some don't; that's life, albeit a sad life as I see it.

 

Roland

[foo]

Ah. I did not realize :) and :) were supposed to be interpreted equivalently.

 

"Smiley" has indeeed traditionally been used for the purpose of "alerting" humorous intent. Rolling your eyes usually denotes a somewhat different emotion.

[foo]

Based on some further thought, I'm changing my vote from 3N to 4♣.

 

I think up until now this was suggested only by KenRexford.

I now think he's got the best idea.

 

(No, I still do not like X)

[han]

Btw, there is a well known Dutch song about a guy named Piet Hein that lived much earlier than the Dane. (won a major sea batte during the war against Spain, I would guess early 17th century)

 

"Piet Hein, Piet Hein, Piet Hein his name is small

But his deeds are large, his deeds are large he has won the Silverfleet

He has won, has won, the silverfleet."

 

(possibly not as good a translation as Roland's)

The war against Spain was in 1628-29.

If only that was true...

 

The war with Spain was from 1568 to 1648 (it is called the 80-year war over here), with a twelve year pause from 1609-1621.

 

Piet Hein captured the spanish treasure fleet in 1628 (had to look this up) so you are right about that.

[Finch]

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

 

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

[Codo]

4 ♣ was surely a joke. No sane player will bid this.

They just forgot their :D or the ;) or maybe the B) or :)

[cherdano]

4 ♣ was surely a joke. No sane player will bid this.

They just forgot their :D or the ;) or maybe the B) or :)

Read again who supported it. I suspect both of them were absolutely serious.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

 

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

4♣ unambiguously shows a fifth heart. This could be good. This facilitates the most intelligent auctions when a heart fit exists.

 

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically. I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer. If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

 

And, no -- not kidding.

[bhall]

How about I put it bluntly then:

 

The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest).

 

There, does that help?

 

"The 9th will not be invited back.  :) "  tends to indicate something said in jest.  If he were serious, there would be no  :rolleyes:  on the end of it.

 

At least thats my interpretation of it.

Not only did you interpret it correctly, you also seem to have a sense of humour. Some don't; that's life, albeit a sad life as I see it.

 

Roland

Actually, one can read the poem as saying that remarks made "in fun" often contain a serious message, while those made "in earnest" often contain an element of dry wit, and that for someone to think otherwise is foolish. ;)

[cherdano]

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.

For anyone else, 4♣ shows clubs. It might be worth discussion whether it shows 4+ or 5+, I would expect 5+. I have never heard of new minor forcing at the 4-level, not even "technically" (whatever that means).

I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

7♦ might be understood as a contract suggestion, but any "correction" below that is unambiguously a cue for clubs.

[mikeh]

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.  I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

 

And, no -- not kidding.

Okay, I think I understand (NOT!!!!!)

 

I hold Qxx xx AQxx KJxx.

 

I open 1♦ and LHO preempts my partner's 1♥ bid via 3♠....Pass Pass 4♣.

 

Not a problem.

 

Is 4♣ forcing?

 

If it isn't, well we've found a (bad) home.

 

If it is, then I have to raise... surely I don't bid 4 red suit here?

 

No problem... if partner has Ax AKQ10x 832 Axx, he can always safely correct to our ♦ fit.... oh... we don't really have a great ♦ fit.

 

Oh well, maybe opening leader, with x Jxxx KJ109x Qxx won't double :)

 

Either you have a great, dry sense of humour, or you are serious about this 4♣ call being New Minor Forcing. In the former, may I suggest the use of an emoticon, at least until we get used to reading your more outrageous posts knowing of your sense of the absurd.... or, in the latter instance, you are off flying in some form of bridge twilight zone :rolleyes:. I doubt that any expert would ever even imagine that 4♣ was a possibility on the hand in question.

[bhall]

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.  I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

 

And, no -- not kidding.

Okay, I think I understand (NOT!!!!!)

 

I hold Qxx xx AQxx KJxx.

 

I open 1♦ and LHO preempts my partner's 1♥ bid via 3♠....Pass Pass 4♣.

 

Not a problem.

 

Is 4♣ forcing?

 

If it isn't, well we've found a (bad) home.

 

If it is, then I have to raise... surely I don't bid 4 red suit here?

 

No problem... if partner has Ax AKQ10x 832 Axx, he can always safely correct to our ♦ fit.... oh... we don't really have a great ♦ fit.

 

Oh well, maybe opening leader, with x Jxxx KJ109x Qxx won't double :)

 

Either you have a great, dry sense of humour, or you are serious about this 4♣ call being New Minor Forcing. In the former, may I suggest the use of an emoticon, at least until we get used to reading your more outrageous posts knowing of your sense of the absurd.... or, in the latter instance, you are off flying in some form of bridge twilight zone :P. I doubt that any expert would ever even imagine that 4♣ was a possibility on the hand in question.

I may not be an expert, but I seriously considered 4♣. A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing in most circles, and a new minor is always suspect. Opener is likely to give a heart preference, even holding 5♣, when he holds 3♥. I wonder if this is how the expert who held this hand got into trouble: 4♣, ending in a failing 6♦.

 

The double risks a pass when we have a slam, although that outcome is unlikely. My main gripe is that double has a very wide range (starting around 10 HCP), and partner will play us for the bottom end. Even so, double is most likely to get us useful shape information from partner when he bids.

[kenrexford]

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.

For anyone else, 4♣ shows clubs. It might be worth discussion whether it shows 4+ or 5+, I would expect 5+. I have never heard of new minor forcing at the 4-level, not even "technically" (whatever that means).

I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

7♦ might be understood as a contract suggestion, but any "correction" below that is unambiguously a cue for clubs.

I'm not so sure I agree with this analysis.

 

First of all, where in your agreements is a level cut-off given for NMF? The two-level? If the two-level, what is 1♦-P-1♠-P-2NT-P-3♣? That one may be discussed, and something special, but what about 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♦-P-3♣? Surely that is NMF, no?

 

If the three-level can be a NMF call, then why not a 4♣ call when the auction is something like this? How about a simple 1♥-P-1♠-P-3♦-P-4♣?

 

Although a NMF call may feature that suit, it does not have to feature that suit.

 

The question for this auction seems to be, as suggested by your response, whether a 5♦ cuebid after a 5♣ bid is more useful as a cuebid in support of clubs, quite a bid, or whether using 4♣ as a convenience bid with 5♥/3+♦ makes more sense and has more utility.

 

I'm very willing to forfeit the cuebid-for-slam 5♦ after 5♣, thank you.

 

The fruitiest thing is that, by only allowing 7♦ as a cue, you also want to save 6♦ as a cue in support of clubs after a 6♣ call by Opener. All I have to say as to that is, "ROTFLOL."