cooperate or not?

[rogerclee]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void Axxxxx xx AKQxx

 

I'd like to be in slam opposite diamond shortness.

[kenrexford]

Your ideas are far more likely to be met with the respect you seek if anyone playing them (it needn't be you) was a high profile winner. Bridge theory is not simply an academic exercise... tournament play is a harsh, darwinian environment. Expert standard has evolved because it and its close cousins WIN. You want to supplant expert standard with your ideas...some of which even I see as having merit... you need to have someone WIN with them... and not a side game or a sectional.

Some of my ideas are unique.

 

Some, however, are ones that I have learned from a partner and friend of mine who plays professionally, who was a roommate of Jeff Meckstroth for years, and who regularly communicates with Jeff and Eric and many other similar players about bidding issues.

 

A very similar sequence was recently a topic of discussion with that player.

 

Your assumption seems to be that I sit around in my home office thinking up wild hypotheticals and then propounding them as standard. Rather, I regularly discuss bridge theory and practice it in play with people who know way more about "expert standard" than I could possibly know.

 

As an example. I recently faced a unique sequence.

 

P-P-1♣-1♠

2♥-P-P-2♠

P-3♣???

 

This is obviously a strange call. At the table, I asusmed a strange beast, a 2-card fit bid. Something like Kx in spades with values and clubs secondary (an early 3♣ would have clearly been a true-fit-bid with three-card support and clubs, per well-established partnership understanding). Partner held 6-6 in the minors.

 

We had a bit of a debate about this. My partner's first inquiry was to a fairly well known pro player who felt that anything after 2♠ was a game try supporting spades. My partner thought that was idiotic and went to Jeff to ask him. Jeff said the other guy was an idiot and that 3♣ was either natural or both minors. The debate was whether 2NT should show some weird pass or both minors.

 

I was convinced, as often I am, by Jeff's assessment, but it took a while. I was stubborn for about two months. But, I know that my partner would get Eric to agree, and then this guy, that guy, the other guy. I'd be dead. Plus, I thought it through on my own and realized why they were right.

 

That's a little obscure a situation, but it was not me sitting in my room thinking through hypos. In a real game, a real situation occurred, my partner was way advanced beyond me and knew what was right, and he backed it up by asking his old roomie.

[kenrexford]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void AKxxxx xx AKQxx

 

Was it really that hard?

So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid.

 

The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids.

 

Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works.

[rogerclee]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void AKxxxx xx AKQxx

 

Was it really that hard?

So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid.

 

The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids.

 

Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works.

I actually changed the hand to one much weaker to prove the point.

 

I don't want ♦Kx, I want shortness.

 

I think I'm misunderstanding something. What is the structure that you propose is totally normal?

[kenrexford]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void AKxxxx xx AKQxx

 

Was it really that hard?

So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid.

 

The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids.

 

Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works.

I actually changed the hand to one much weaker to prove the point.

 

I don't want ♦Kx, I want shortness.

 

Maybe I am reading this argument out of context. Feel free to let me know if I am.

I'm really confused.

 

If you don't want Kx, but you do want shortness, then you make the shortness ask. So, are you agreeing with the merits of the shortness ask? Whether it is what should be expected or not is a different question.

[pclayton]

WTF is with some of these examples of overcalls?

[rogerclee]

quote pyramid

I think you were arguing that responder should not show shortness unless he has good outside values too. I think this is ridiculous, he has no idea what outside values are useful to opener. I agree that if he bid 4♥ on xxxx xxxxx x xxx, then yes, he shouldn't bid 5♦, because odds are opener will play him for more than this. But not showing shortness on xxxx Kxxxx x xxx is ridiculous.

 

We are not debating the merits of a 4♠ shortness ask. To me, this is a fine agreement. I am just saying the ideas in your original posts were ridiculous because

 

1) You think ascribing far-fetched meanings to partner's bids is okay.

2) You argued that responder should only show shortness if his hand is "good." This is silly.

[rbforster]

Sure 4♠ was bad. I'm going to go one step earlier and fault 4♥ by South.

 

South's hand looks like a fairly typical 1♥-4♥ bid. What is less clear to me is that when both the opponents passed already, how important is it to jump to 4♥ opposite partner's 4th seat opener? After all, when everyone else passes, partner rates to have a stronger than average hand which means you'll just be preempting him with 4♥. Couldn't partner open a 4 card suit in 4th too, maybe Kxx AQJx xxxx Ax, opposite which you don't really want to jump to game.

 

A direct 4♥ seems like aiming for the very narrow target that the opponents have a profitable 4♠ sac or game and will find it after both passing initially and East then failing to overcall partner's 1♥ opening as well.

 

The only question in my mind is what should you do instead of bidding 4♥? I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have South bid Drury on this hand (as well as 10-12 counts with support) without misleading partner about his strength in the subsequent auction. Maybe P-1♥-3♥ would be more appropriate? I've just got to think you want a better alternative than just blasting 4♥ opposite a 4th seat opener. Perhaps Ken will enlighten me as to the obvious bid which shows this type of hand :).

[rogerclee]

The only question in my mind is what should you do instead of bidding 4♥? I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have South bid Drury on this hand (as well as 10-12 counts with support) without misleading partner about his strength in the subsequent auction.

I agree. This is why you bid 4♥ with this hand.

[gnasher]

After:

 

  1♥-4♥

  4♠ (shortage ask)

 

As the discussion between Ken and Roger has shown, when responder has short diamonds there isn't room for him to both show the shortage and limit his hand. The obvious solution is this:

  4NT = short spades or no shortage

  5♣ = short clubs

  5♦ = short diamonds, minimum

  5♥ = short diamonds, maximum

 

Over 4NT, 5C says "Bid slam with any spade shortage", and 5D says "Bid slam with spade shortage and a maximum".

 

This is plainly more efficient than natural responses to the shortage enquiry. It's also an extrapolation from what some people play after a weak 2♥ and a 2♠ shortage ask.

 

Only a non-expert would fail to appreciate the advantages of this method. Therefore it's standard amongst experts.

[kenrexford]

quote pyramid

I think you were arguing that responder should not show shortness unless he has good outside values too. I think this is ridiculous, he has no idea what outside values are useful to opener. I agree that if he bid 4♥ on xxxx xxxxx x xxx, then yes, he shouldn't bid 5♦, because odds are opener will play him for more than this. But not showing shortness on xxxx Kxxxx x xxx is ridiculous.

 

We are not debating the merits of a 4♠ shortness ask. To me, this is a fine agreement. I am just saying the ideas in your original posts were ridiculous because

 

1) You think ascribing far-fetched meanings to partner's bids is okay.

2) You argued that responder should only show shortness if his hand is "good." This is silly.

If you read through this carefully, you will see that this is not what happens.

 

With extras and a spade stiff, 4NT and then accept further noise.

With minimum and a spade stiff, bid 4NT and decline noise.

 

With extras and a club stiff, 5♣ and then accept 5♦ LTTC.

With minimum and a club stiff, 5♣ and then decline 5♦ LTTC.

 

With extras and a diamond stiff, 5♦.

With minimum and a diamond stiff, 5♥.

 

I like gnasher's idea of bidding 4NT with the rare no shortage, but I don't think there is a no shortage situation. Maybe as an unpassed hand with 6322.

 

Personally, in response to Rob F's question (what to do third/fourth seat with this hand type), I agree with most partners on 3NT as the call for this situation. 4♣ then shortness ask. E.g., P-P-P-1♥-P-3NT-P-4♣-P-4♥ (stiff spade; minors naturally)-P-...

[rogerclee]

With extras and a diamond stiff, 5♦.

With minimum and a diamond stiff, 5♥.

Okay, so I read it exactly correctly?

[kenrexford]

With extras and a diamond stiff, 5♦.

With minimum and a diamond stiff, 5♥.

Okay, so I read it exactly correctly?

I suppose. Process of elimination.

[han]

Only a non-expert would fail to appreciate the advantages of this method. Therefore it's standard amongst experts.

Nice one!

[Codo]

After:

 

  1♥-4♥

  4♠ (shortage ask)

 

As the discussion between Ken and Roger has shown, when responder has short diamonds there isn't room for him to both show the shortage and limit his hand. The obvious solution is this:

  4NT = short spades or no shortage

  5♣ = short clubs

  5♦ = short diamonds, minimum

  5♥ = short diamonds, maximum

 

Over 4NT, 5C says "Bid slam with any spade shortage", and 5D says "Bid slam with spade shortage and a maximum".

 

This is plainly more efficient than natural responses to the shortage enquiry. It's also an extrapolation from what some people play after a weak 2♥ and a 2♠ shortage ask.

 

Only a non-expert would fail to appreciate the advantages of this method. Therefore it's standard amongst experts.

So I still have to meet an expert.

Up to now they had been all too weak to know this mandatory approach.

 

They are so stupid to play this as control showing, ace asking or some other weird and non-expert stuff.

 

Good luck that at least you know them. :)

[ArtK78]

Sure 4♠ was bad.  I'm going to go one step earlier and fault 4♥ by South.

 

South's hand looks like a fairly typical 1♥-4♥ bid.  What is less clear to me is that when both the opponents passed already, how important is it to jump to 4♥ opposite partner's 4th seat opener?  After all, when everyone else passes, partner rates to have a stronger than average hand which means you'll just be preempting him with 4♥.  Couldn't partner open a 4 card suit in 4th too, maybe Kxx AQJx xxxx Ax, opposite which you don't really want to jump to game.

 

A direct 4♥ seems like aiming for the very narrow target that the opponents have a profitable 4♠ sac or game and will find it after both passing initially and East then failing to overcall partner's 1♥ opening as well. 

 

The only question in my mind is what should you do instead of bidding 4♥?  I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have South bid Drury on this hand (as well as 10-12 counts with support) without misleading partner about his strength in the subsequent auction.  Maybe P-1♥-3♥ would be more appropriate?  I've just got to think you want a better alternative than just blasting 4♥ opposite a 4th seat opener.  Perhaps Ken will enlighten me as to the obvious bid which shows this type of hand :).

I am late to this thread.

 

My initial reaction to this problem was, yes, North was wrong to act over 4♥. The North hand is not slam-suitable opposite all but the strongest passed hands. But I don't like the 4♥ bid by South. I am surprised that no one even mentioned that the 4♥ bid was questionable until the third page of this thread.

 

What is the rush? Both opponents have passed. Why do you have to jump to 4♥ to show a reasonable hand with 5 hearts? Surely there are alternatives. A passed hand mini-splinter in spades would not be unreasonable. Maybe that would slow North down. Drury is not unreasonable, although it does overstate South's high-card strength and that might excite North.

 

I just do not see the need to use up so much bidding room just to show a fair hand with 5 card support. Game is not necessarily there, and 4♥ could turn a plus into a minus. 4♥ did, in fact, turn a plus into a minus, when North got too excited by the 4♥ bid.

[jillybean]

3 pages to read now..

 

*(&(*JKDHKJ D(*&*^&*^*&*(*()*()*()_)O_)

 

edited

[mikeh]

Some of my ideas are unique.

 

Some, however, are ones that I have learned from a partner and friend of mine who plays professionally, who was a roommate of Jeff Meckstroth for years, and who regularly communicates with Jeff and Eric and many other similar players about bidding issues.

 

As an example.  I recently faced a unique sequence.

 

P-P-1♣-1♠

2♥-P-P-2♠

P-3♣???

 

This is obviously a strange call.  At the table, I asusmed a strange beast, a 2-card fit bid.  Something like Kx in spades with values and clubs secondary (an early 3♣ would have clearly been a true-fit-bid with three-card support and clubs, per well-established partnership understanding).  Partner held 6-6 in the minors.

 

We had a bit of a debate about this.  My partner's first inquiry was to a fairly well known pro player who felt that anything after 2♠ was a game try supporting spades.  My partner thought that was idiotic and went to Jeff to ask him.  Jeff said the other guy was an idiot and that 3♣ was either natural or both minors.  The debate was whether 2NT should show some weird pass or both minors.

 

Ken, you just don't seem to 'get it'.

 

Your reference to some unidentified guy who was at some point Rodwell's roommate is typical... you write as if being Rodwell's ex-roommate, and someone who still speaks to Rodwell, makes this guy a genius bridge theorist whose ideas ARE expert standard, and that therefore any idea of yours of which he approves is expert standard. That is nonsense. It is made even sillier by your habit of never actually naming names for these gurus of yours... if they really are well known, successful players.. then some of the posters who travel a lot will know them and can verify your assertions.

 

And then you describe a bizarre sequence for which there is NO expert standard treatment, and write at length about how this was 'resolved'. That example has nothing...NOTHING.. to do with the point of the OP and the points that your critics are trying to make.

 

And I note that you have made zero effort to defend your assertion that 4♠ is clearly best played as a shortness ask... when there is a powerful argument for high card cue bidding instead. You criticize Justin for failing to discuss pros and cons of the bidding.. I post a fairly detailed explanation of why shortness asking may be an inferior method, and you ignore it...why? On second thoughts, ignore my question, because I don't think you are capable of recognizing error.

 

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the more you post, the clearer it is that Justin was bang-on... you have no interest in advancing any player's understanding of expert standard.. maybe because you actually have no idea what it is or maybe because you are so full of your own brilliance that you feel that the rest of us should just bow in awe before you. You should have your own section of the forum: Ken's brilliant theories.... restricted to you and you alone. You'd get the appreciation you deserve while not cluttering up the real bridge sections with your idiosyncratic posts...

[jtfanclub]

I just do not see the need to use up so much bidding room just to show a fair hand with 5 card support. Game is not necessarily there, and 4♥ could turn a plus into a minus. 4♥ did, in fact, turn a plus into a minus, when North got too excited by the 4♥ bid.

Well, you could always play another system...

 

Seriously, this hand is shown by 4♥. Any other auction you use will not show this hand. Bids like 2NT and 2♦ will cause partner to seriously overestimate his hand, and bids like 2♥ or 3♥ won't get you to game.

 

Could partner have, what was it, some perfect 13 where we might go down in theory? Sure. If partner has 4 good hearts and 13 hcp, are we likely to go down? Nah.

 

4♥ should show a hand with the shape but not the strength to Splinter. If North had remembered that, he wouldn't bid 4♠. If South doesn't have the strength to Splinter, then North shouldn't have the strength to bid beyond game.

[mikeh]

I just do not see the need to use up so much bidding room just to show a fair hand with 5 card support.  Game is not necessarily there, and 4♥ could turn a plus into a minus.  4♥ did, in fact, turn a plus into a minus, when North got too excited by the 4♥ bid.

Well, you could always play another system...

 

Seriously, this hand is shown by 4♥. Any other auction you use will not show this hand. Bids like 2NT and 2♦ will cause partner to seriously overestimate his hand, and bids like 2♥ or 3♥ won't get you to game.

 

Could partner have, what was it, some perfect 13 where we might go down in theory? Sure. If partner has 4 good hearts and 13 hcp, are we likely to go down? Nah.

 

4♥ should show a hand with the shape but not the strength to Splinter. If North had remembered that, he wouldn't bid 4♠. If South doesn't have the strength to Splinter, then North shouldn't have the strength to bid beyond game.

I also don't understand the problem with 4♥.. it looks like the normal call to me in standard bidding.

 

A large number of players have another way to raise to game on weak shapely hands. In some partnerships we use 3N as a hand too good for 4♥ but too weak for a splinter.. the splinter delivering about 11+ hcp.

 

So with x Kxxxx KQxx xxx, we'd bid 3N. Add a few hcp and we'd splinter, subtract the ♦Q and we'd bid 4♥. In other partnerships we use 4♦ to show this hand (using 3♠ over 1♥ as a splinter in any suit, opener bids 3N if interested).

 

These are non-standard treatments, altho I think the 3N treatment is pretty close to expert standard in my neck of the woods.

[kenrexford]

Ken, you just don't seem to 'get it'.

 

...

Your reference to some unidentified guy who was at some point Rodwell's roommate is typical... you write as if being Rodwell's ex-roommate, and someone who still speaks to Rodwell, makes this guy a genius bridge theorist whose ideas ARE expert standard, and that therefore any idea of yours of which he approves is expert standard. That is nonsense. It is made even sillier by your habit of never actually naming names for these gurus of yours... if they really are well known, successful players.. then some of the posters who travel a lot will know them and can verify your assertions.

 

Ken Eichenbaum. Ask around if you want. I'm not sure why this is necessary. My point was in reaction to the claims that I make this ***** up on my own. I do not. I learn most of these things from Ken, who learned or learns them directly from Eric and Jeff, if not his own specific ideas. Jeff and Eric use some of his ideas, like Suit/Lead Support Doubles and other things.

 

And then you describe a bizarre sequence for which there is NO expert standard treatment, and write at length about how this was 'resolved'. That example has nothing...NOTHING.. to do with the point of the OP and the points that your critics are trying to make.

 

The point was in response to the theory that I sit aroun\d thinking up what I think should be. Rather, in real play, in real events, issues come up where I don't know expert standard and I learn this. Very obscure issues also get discussed, mainly because the basic ***** is already known now. Keep in mind that I was called out as a rogue lunatic with insane ideas that were my own. Much of what I assume to be "expert standard" is what I hear to be "expert standard" from people who would be rather standardly called experts.

 

And I note that you have made zero effort to defend your assertion that 4♠ is clearly best played as a shortness ask... when there is a powerful argument for high card cue bidding instead. You criticize Justin for failing to discuss pros and cons of the bidding.. I post a fairly detailed explanation of why shortness asking may be an inferior method, and you ignore it...why?

 

I provided and will again provide the reason. It is rather simple, actually. If you want to know the shortness, you relay. If you want to know the control, you skip the relay. Thus, for instance, consider after 4♥. 4♠ is a shortness ask, with space for follow-up logic-based values inquiries. If you need a specific control, you then use 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ for that purpose.

 

Your way, 4♠ shows a control and, in essence, asks for a minor control. 5♣ would isolate a need for a spade control, presumably. 5♦ would be weird. No shortness asks possible.

 

My way, 4♠ asks for shortness and enables min/MAX inquiry also. 4NT shows a spade control and asks for a minor card. 5♣ isolates a spade problem, and 5♦ makes little sense, again.

 

If you want RKCB, then 5♣ isolates a diamond problem, 5♦ isolates a club problem, and 5♥ isolates a spade problem.

 

So, I can do what you do, and I can also do what I do. That seems better.

 

----

 

As to your last general point. I just don't get what your objection is. A definition of "expert standard" is rather obscure, as experts operate with completely different schools to start with. In fact, many experts have a toned down game that they play to avoid any possibility of taking a charge, as a result of which they might lose money. However, all that said, when I take positions, the positions might be articulated as my idea or suggestion, in which case anyone, if viewing the idea or suggestion as insane, is free to disregard. If anyone likes the idea or suggestion, then great! Other times, I express what has been described to me by an expert as "expert standard" for the circle of experts he hangs with. If that's not your group's expert standard, fine. I bet Lawrence and Hardy call each other idiots too.

[cherdano]

Ken, if you have no idea what the word "expert standard" means, why do you keep making posts using the word?

[kenrexford]

I got a response from Eric Kokish. In short, he described the majority expert position as "random cuebidding." He noted that the minority position includes this Mathe-type shortness asking relay. He described this approach as "far better" than the random cuebidding approach. He also described a variant where Opener can either relay to ask for shortness or can instead show his own shortness with the other calls, depending on what serves the goals for the hand best.

 

So, it turns out that I learned a "far better" minority expert approach from my mentor and was mistaken in believing that this was the majority opinion. My bad. I humbly offer my great apologies to the Kokish-scorned majority.

[Guest Jlall]

I humbly offer my great apologies to the Kokish-scorned majority.

You really owe a non sarcastic apology to me, but I am sure one will not be forthcoming.

 

I also think you are completely disingenuous in acting like you believed this whole time that 4S asking for shortness is a standard bid. Here is why I do not think that you could believe 4S shortness asking with your responses are standard:

 

No one else on the entire forum thought it was shortness asking. Given that nobody else thought this was shortness asking, how could you think it was standard?

 

Why do you think you know more about expert standard than other people on this forum who are A) actually experts themselves, :o know more experts than you, C) play more than you. And more importantly, why is expert standard relevant, this is the SAYC and 2/1 discussion board, in a thread posted by jillybean.

 

You are disingenuous in your motives for posting. You are disingenous about your beliefs. If you want to troll, do not try to pass it off as "oh I thought my bidding was standard and everyone else was crazy except me!!!"

 

If you really believed this bid was standard, that means if you sat down with a random partner, say, jillybean, you would assume this bid with your responses. If you would not assume this, that means you do not think it's standard bridge. If you would assume this, you are lying.

 

Your motives for posting are obviously to offer a contrarian view just for the sake of it, and to get a rise out of people for your amusement. That is the definition of a troll. You do not add value, nor do you attempt to.

 

If you are not an idiot you know a few things.

 

1) Jillybean is an intermediate level player.

2) Jillybean tries very hard to learn bridge. Part of what she does to do this is post on the forums.

3) Jillybean is a rational person, and posted this hand on SAYC/2/1 discussion for a reason.

 

This issue is a common one. North has a balanced 18, and bids over the 4H preempt. This is one of the most common mistakes of judgment, especially for players around jillybeans level. If you wanted to help jillybean you could say:

 

North needs a perfecta for slam (trump king, stiff diamond, outside queen), but since north has no safety at the 5 level (may easily be off 3 top losers), and south should not have a great hand given their preempt, north has a clear pass. Balanced hands should never bid over 1H p 4H in general.

 

Although it should be implied given that this is the SAYC 2/1 board that the bidding was just STANDARD bridge (and no, I don't believe you when you say that you do not think cuebidding is STANDARD bridge in this case, and shortness asks are), and also implied by the fact that jillybean said nothing about any alerts to that effect, or agreements to that effect, it is still obvious to anyone that north was probably a weak/inexperienced player who just became too aggressive with a not-so-great hand. I'm sure you knew this happened, you certainly had enough evidence to come to this conclusion, and common sense would lead you there anyways.

 

Instead you pretend that north played KenrexfordSTD and made a shortness ask, and south showed a good hand with a stiff diamond. Please, do not insult people with all this pretense. You just thought you were being funny, and you weren't.

 

That is my gripe with you.

 

But I will say this. There are 2 options for you in this thread.

 

1) You thought 4S shortness ask, 5D short diamonds with extras, was standard bridge. In this case you are clearly delusional, inexperienced, and have your head in the sand. But now you know, you have no clue about standard bridge, even expert standard bridge, so in the future when you feel the need to pipe up about those things, you should STFU, and take some inferences from the fact that NOBODY ELSE thinks what you do is standard. If you think that you are right and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong, you can e-mail eric kokish, or your friend of meckwell (lol). Now you know.

 

2) You are a troll. You will continue to troll for your own amusement. You will bring down the community. At least be honest about it, and expect to be called out for the utter piece of trash that you are.

 

I will not even comment on your personal attacks on me. By the way, just for fun, ask Kokish what responses he uses to 4S shortness ask. I will bet money that he will not come up with 5D extras with short D, 5H minimum with short diamonds, and no step available for no shortness. Thus even if you were playing with Eric Kokish and had this auction come up, you would not be on the same wavelength.

 

I cannot believe so many words have been wasted replying to someone who claims he thought 4S was shortness ask, and 5D was extras with diamond shortness, and that is what went wrong in the hand that OP posted. LOL. I guess that is the whole point for you though.

[kenrexford]

...

Your analysis misses a few very important facts, facts that I doubt could really be disputed.

 

First, though, as an aside, I would note that I opined that North was too aggressive. That part was not left out, as you claim.

 

That being said, let's look at how the auction actually went. North bid 4♠ and then jumped to 6♥ after the 5♦ call was doubled. The reaction of most people was utter chock and amazement, calling North essentially an insane lunatic idiot. Why? Was the shock that North bid 6♥ knowing that a diamond lead would be fatal, and that the contract would likely fail miserably even without a diamond lead? Apparently so. This was pure absurdity to everyone other than me, if I recall correctly.

 

No one, however, faulted North for assumption of a treatment that I now learn to be the minority view. Guess what? If you assume that North had this minority view, then North's bidding makes perfect sense, albeit aggressive in the initiation.

 

So, rather odd, is it not? Your means of answering the question (keep in mind that who North and who South was is not mentioned, at least initially) is to simply ridicule North. That's because, my guess, that you never even thought of the shortness ask being in play here. Instead, you assumed North was an idiot, rather than a person who actually believed that this sequence meant what I personally would have assumed (until this series of posts). Your ignorance of this school of thought resulted in a ridiculous chastising of North. By "you" and "your," I mean a lot of people.

 

Let's then move to South. Why is South's 5♦ not showing an Ace? Why are you assuming Aces first? Wht is the "control" an honor control and not a shortness control? Why is South not declining because of the ill-placed stiff? What is South supposed to be thinking opposite the "I have a spade control" 4♠ bid? Your analysis seems limited to bidding a control if you have one. Why? Why not discuss what South should be thinking?

 

My point is that it is really easy to take someone's analysis, one that is not your style or one that you do not even understand apparently, and attack it as trolling or as some sort of intentional messing with people. As it turns out, I was honestly providing that which was taught to me. Imagine that! And, I was actually providing that which North seems to have been taught. Wow!

 

Now that I know that my understanding of how to bid properly is not the mainstream way to bid, I will think through how to respond to posts. Because I trust the person who taught and teaches me way more than the drivel I see from you, like not getting the fit non-jump issue and not understanding intermediate jump overcalls, and many similar things, I'll make sure that people know that my posts are how I was taught if they ask. If they want to disregard what I opine, fine. If you want to STFU, that would be wonderful as well.