A dull 9-count

[jdonn]

Josh,

 

Back to my point.  Without a "tight" understanding, how does responder know that opener holds AKxxx and not AKJxx?

He doesn't. He shows his hand and let's opener decide what his own hand contains.

 

If opener had 6241 shape, would he bid 2S followed by 3D?  If so, wouldn't he want partner to offer support with xx?  If such is the case, then 3S cannot show more than xx, no?

All correct. But you seem to be ignorring the 5!!!!!♠ bid. That shows better than xx!

 

What was the agreement?

What agreement? Everything you just said is evident.

 

With the above question in mind, does 3N show AKxxx or simply a hand that does not want to play 4S opposite xx (which would include AKJxx, I would think.)?

The second one, and hearts stopped of course. Does that really need to be said? How can 3NT mean anything but "I prefer this contract to alternatives opposite the hand you have thus far shown."?

 

All I am saying is that most of us play 2C without much formal structure to it. (In the hand given all I said was I sense that this was the case here - meaning that my sense could also be wrong.)

 

Why is that so controversial?

Your entire point seems to be "lot's of people don't have a good idea what they are doing on these auctions, therefore I sense these people didn't have a good idea what they were doing in this case, even though their bids turned out to be very accurate as to the hands they actually held." It's like you don't believe that anyone could have an auction like this and know what they are doing.

[Winstonm]

Can you provide examples of:

(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and

(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

 

I think so.

1) AK10xx, KJ, AKxx, KQ opposite QJ, xxx, Qxx, Axxxx

2) AKxxx, AK, KQJx, KQ opposite Qx, Qxx, xx, AJxxx

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it, you believe that with the hand that opener held at the table, if he thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser.

 

If so, you should be able to provide examples of responding hands, consistent with responder's bidding so far, where:

 

(1) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠QJ, it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and

(2) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠Qx where it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

 

Can you?

I don't know - probably not - if you don't think it possible it probably isnt' and I really don't care. That was never my point or intention so I say why bother.

 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it, you believe that with the hand that opener held at the table, if he thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser.

 

Did I or did I not say "I sensed" that from the 3S bid on the auction was not precisely defined (or words close to that)? I did not say "I believe" or "I know". I did say that the strongest clue to me was the 6N bid. All of these statements are open to repudiation and I made no claim that they were anything other than my impression of the auction.

 

My point is the same now as then: Standard 2C structures are imprecise and very few players have taken the time and trouble to increase the definitions of bids or the structure. Now, if anyone wants to argue that standard methods are as accurate as relay methods he is either a fool or simply looking for a fight.

 

I am quite certain you are a fine bridge player - you must be to have been selected to represent your country.

 

Your skill actually bears out my contention. It is your skill - and not the system - that allowed you and your partner to use a non-accurate method to reach a superior contract.

 

Well done. That doesn't change the fact that standard 2C bidding still has a somewhat loose structure that appears to have room to be improved.

[Winstonm]

All correct. But you seem to be ignorring the 5!!!!!♠ bid. That shows better than xx!

 

I am not ignoring the 5S bid - I am saying the 5S bid is dependent upon the understanding of what spades could be held for the 3N bid - that the 5S bid is about agreements - and that reaching the conclusion that 5S shows QJ without an agreement is about bridge judgement and not system.

 

If - as you agree - the 3S bid could be made on xx, then why can't the 5S bid be made on Qx or Kx? Could a case not also be made for bidding 5 spades over 3N if holding Qx, Qxxx, xx, AJxxx? Opposite AKJ10x, AJ, AKJx, Kx the diamond ruff is trick 12 without finesee.

 

Your entire point seems to be "lot's of people don't have a good idea what they are doing on these auctions, therefore I sense these people didn't have a good idea what they were doing in this case, even though their bids turned out to be very accurate as to the hands they actually held."

 

You are close, actually. My entire point is that No One can have a precise 2C auction unless strong agreements are in place - the more frequently the better contract is reached using unadjusted methods shows superior bidding judgement but does not alter the fact that the system is imprecise.