How many hearts

[mikeh]

Your comment is really untrue. Maybe I'm being repetitive, but when you claim "I read comments suggesting that showing a weak one-suiter in hearts is an accurate description of my hand" then you are missing the point. No one claims this hand fits YOUR definition of 3♥, people who bid 3♥ are simply disagreeing with your definition.

 

To put it another way, I completely disagree that 3♥ shows "a weak one-suiter in hearts" (much like opening 2♥ would.) I believe it shows "a preemptive hand in hearts" and can have pretty much any shape you want (much like raising a 1♥ opener to 4♥ would.)

see gnasher... after reading his post, I adopted his reference over my idea, as probably closer to mainstream expectations. At no point have I compared the call to a weak 2 bid... a weak 2 bid would, in my view, bid 2♥ in the situation in question.

 

I will retract what I wrote, in terms of what 3♥ should show, if you find a description, of the double jump to the 3-level in this auction, by a reputable author that shows a weak 5 card suit as an example of the typical hand.

 

Note that this is not the same as showing an example where a 5 card suit is permitted... we are speaking in terms of partner's expectations. I don't think you will find an authoritative text on NA bidding methods in which the prototypical holding is Qxxxx.

 

Otherwise, your posts are merely examples of what you accuse me of doing: claiming that your idiosyncratic ideas are the definition of the bid you wish to make. Your analogy to the auction 1♥ 4♥ makes no sense unless you play that the double promises 4+ hearts, and you are definitely in a small minority if you play that :rolleyes:

 

Edit: removed silly remark

[cherdanno]

If partner has a strong hand, is it so misdescriptive to sell our hand as weak and shapely? Ok, we are lacking one trump, but otherwise...

Anyway, against most opponents preempting has so much to gain on this auction, they may not know whether pass is forcing, the may not know how many trumps a double shows, they may not know whether 4♦ is forcing, etc.

Hmmmm.... I hold 4 card support for BOTH black suits, and a void in their suit... yet I read comments suggesting that showing a weak one-suiter in hearts is an accurate description of my hand. I never would have guessed... nor will partner.

Well, at least I will have denied high-cards. Given it's about a 2% chance on this auction that partner is strong (I have never seen a psychic redouble on this auction), it is a misdescription I can live with (especially as any other auction won't describe a 4504 hand without useful high cards either). If there was a 50% chance that partner is strong, I would agree that it is too much.

2%? LOL

 

We have 4

RHO has 10-11

 

25-26 outstanding

 

LHO is 3rd seat and has 8-16

 

Pard is 10-18

 

And this assumes everyone fully has their calls. With a void diamond, I think there is a significant chance RHO has some diamonds and diminished HCP. Maybe not an out and out psyche, but we've all seen 8 counts with 5 diamonds make xx's here.

You seem to be proving my point... If partner is balanced, he needs 19 to double. If he is shapely, then RHO will be shapely too, and he will have at least 10-11 (shapely 9 counts open 2♦ in 3rd seat, not 1♦).

And anyway, the 8-count-with-diamonds-redoubles are exactly the hands where preempting works well.

[jdonn]

I will retract what I wrote, in terms of what 3♥ should show, if you find a description, of the double jump to the 3-level in this auction, by a reputable author that shows a weak 5 card suit as an example of the typical hand.

Um, that's very lawyerly of you :P Why do I have to find a description by a reputable author, and you only have to find an example hand? And without even noting the example hand fits BOTH definitions! Have you found a description by a reputable author?

 

Otherwise, your posts are merely examples of what you accuse me of doing: claiming that your idiosyncratic ideas are the definition of the bid you wish to make.

That's not what I accused you of doing, we have both done that! I accused you of distorting the argument of the other side (by saying they were claiming that this hand fits YOUR definition), which you did. Kind of like you just distorted my accusation :P

 

Your analogy to the auction 1♥  4♥ makes no sense unless you play that the double promises 4+ hearts, and you are definitely in a small minority if you play that :rolleyes:

Two comments on that:

- I can't believe that was said by the same person who said "Note that this is not the same as showing an example where a 5 card suit is permitted... we are speaking in terms of partner's expectations. I don't think you will find an authoritative text on NA bidding methods in which the prototypical holding is Qxxxx." I could simply repeat that quote back to you about takeout doubles, but change 5 to 3 and Qxxxx to xxx.

- You actually stumbled right upon the point of my analogy with weak two bids and raising partner's opening. 3♥ is a RAISE, in that partner has suggested the suits outside diamonds. So there is no reason to be stringent about hand type. We have support for partner, beyond that the shape in the other suits doesn't really matter.

[gnasher]

I have never seen a psychic redouble on this auction

I'm surprised - I used to do it now and then, as a variation on bidding three-card majors, until I realised that everyone knew how to cope with it. If it's that rare, maybe I should start doing it again.

[y66]

4H. Pard will know I have this hand.

[helene_t]

Pass followed by a free bid later would show a stronger hand, wouldn't it? If so I prefer Wayne (manudude03)'s 2♦, which sounds weaker to me. Is this non-standard?

[mikegill]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sakxxhkjtdxxxcqtx&w=sqtxhxxdkqjtxxcax&e=sxxhaxxdaxxxckxxx&s=sj98xhq9876dcjxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

p p 1♦ X

XX 4♥ p p

X All pass[/hv]

 

4HX was -300, and although they are cold for 3NT, they can't make 5♦ with neither of them having any shape (not to mention partner not having any shape either).

 

At the table I decided that probably both sides could make something and that it was time to make them guess. I still think that's true, although in restrospect I think that 3♥ is probably a better bid. However, small changes to the other 3 hands can result in 4♥ being only -100 while 5♦ is making, so I still like 4♥ way more than anything less than 3♥.

 

I really think preemption is called for here. It just has to be extremely unlikely pard has a power double here (even if you routinely power X on 16 - that only leaves 20 for the opponents who opened the bidding and redoubled). I think we should be catering to the way more likely case where pard has a normal takeout double and the opponents have the bulk of the strength and normally 11 (or maybe even 12) diamonds.