What does it mean?

[TimG]

Maybe:

 

♠ A74

♥ J965

♦ 863

♣ K43?

[eyhung]

Sure, but let's not get carried away - I will put a limit on 3 guesses per person.

Very well, here are my three guesses :

 

Board 4 in the Nail 1Q, East holds T93 A64 875 QJ63

 

Board 11 in the Open BAM 2F, West holds K7543 T63 4 JT42

 

Board 6 in the Reisinger 2S, North holds A74 J965 863 K43

[eyhung]

Darn it looks like I was beaten to the punch on the 3rd hand while writing it up.

[TimG]

Or

 

♠ A85

♥ J854

♦ K83

♣ 853?

[gnasher]

Exact hand.

 

Hand records are available through acbl.org (see Vilgan's post for an example URL).

So I'm supposed to look through the bulletins working out what events you played in and which direction you sat, then find the hand records, then look through each one for a deal that fits? I think I'll just do it blind, instead.

 

Here are my three:

 

  A1075 QJ3 7 65432

 

  AJ105 Q43 7 65432

 

  KJ105 QJ3 7 65432

 

Let me know if you want me to provide the full deal.

[TimG]

Final guess:

 

♠ Q32

♥ Q65

♦ K9654

♣ Q4

[fred]

Nobody has found the hand yet.

 

I will try to keep an eye on this thread and I will certainly let you know as soon as I notice a winner.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

My thinking would be along these lines.

 

1. I won't have a diamond stack or else I would double (as maybe partner can double them if they have clubs). That takes away the "natural" interpretation

 

2. I won't have scattered defense against both minors, else again I will double (or pass).

 

3. I must think they have a reasonable spot and/or I have a more offensive hand, as I am competing to 3♥ in front of partner.

 

4. If spades were our agreed major, then we'd have a convenient way to show heart values. Here we do not, without going to the 3-level.

 

So, I'm going to go with having concentration in the majors as I cannot think of a reasonable way to show this. Something like:

 

KQxx

Qxx

xxx

xxx

 

Depending on our style, we could also be something like:

 

KQxxx

Qxx

xx

xxx

 

Or maybe even:

 

KQxx

Qxxx

xx

xxx

[maggieb]

Was the 1♥ opener the dealer, or are we not supposed to know?

 

Edit: First guess, A97643 963 K4 65

Edited December 16, 2009 by maggieb

[fred]

Was the 1♥ opener the dealer, or are we not supposed to know?

 

Edit: First guess, A97643 963 K4 65

You win! :)

 

If let me know your mailing address and name of the CD you want (best to e-mail this info to fred@bridgebase.com), I will get a package in the mail for you within the next few days. You can find a list of CDs through:

 

Link to Bridge Base CD list

 

Obviously I thought 3D meant "I am willing to compete to the 3-level, but I want to make sure we play in the right major". Well done by the several people who suggested this possibility, especially those of you who suggested that my expected spade length was (at least) 5 cards.

 

Note that I am not suggesting that I am necessarily "right" about what 3D "should" mean or that I necessarily bid my hand wonderfully. I might post some more thoughts on this sequence later, but now I have to get back to work...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[maggieb]

Thanks Fred, I was very lucky to find the hand. When you have time, I would like to know your thoughts on raising to 2♥ vs bidding 1♠, since I would have done the latter. I would also like to know if your partner understood the meaning!

 

I will browse the list and send you an e-mail soon. Thanks again Fred.

[Fluffy]

This is obvious another call of unnusual vs unnusual

 

3♦ shows spades, probably 6-3 in the majors. Or good 5 ones.

 

suggests to play 3♠, probably because otherwise you'd have to ruff with ♥ honnors

 

♠Kxxxxx

♥KQJ

♦x

♣xxx

[fred]

Thanks Fred, I was very lucky to find the hand. When you have time, I would like to know your thoughts on raising to 2♥ vs bidding 1♠, since I would have done the latter.

Nowadays I think it is fairly normal expert practice (at least in North America) to raise to 2H (instead of bidding 1S) with a hand like this:

 

AKxxx

Jxx

xx

xxx

 

The reason is that, if you bid 1S and partner rebids 2 of a minor, 2H by you would suggest a different sort of hand - typically you would have only 2 hearts and you might have a really awful hand for playing in hearts (not to mention a really awful hand period). It is not possible for partner to evaluate intelligently for heart-purposes if you bid like this.

 

The hand I held is a more extreme example of the same principle.

 

If I had the same distribution and stronger/different spades, something like:

 

KQJ10xx

Jxx

xx

xx

 

I think it would be best to respond 1S and plan to rebid 2S.

 

The actual hand I held is a nightmare - there is a good chance you will feel sick no matter which way you choose to go.

 

I would also like to know if your partner understood the meaning!

In fact he did :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Fred what would you expect 3♣ to mean in conjunction with how you intended 3♦? 5-3 in the majors?

[fred]

Fred what would you expect 3♣ to mean in conjunction with how you intended 3♦? 5-3 in the majors?

At the table I did not give much thought as to what 3C vs. 3D would be all about. It might be interesting to consider this question from a theory point of view, but for me at least it is not smart to try to make agreements about such things.

 

3D seemed better than 3C for 2 reasons:

 

1) It was better from a tactical point of view in that 3C would give my LHO a chance to bid either minor at the 3-level (via a Double if it was clubs that he wanted to bid).

 

2) I realized that I was throwing partner a curveball and I thought that 3D would make it easier for him to understand what I trying to express (since he might naturally think "unusual versus unusual").

 

Rightly or wrongly, it is not our style to raise to 2H and then switch gears by making a game try (even though it is obviously the case that your hand can improve as a result of action taken by the opponents). So for us at least, neither 3C nor 3D would be about moving toward 4H - both bids would be geared toward competing at the 3-level.

 

So to answer your question, I really have no idea :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Interesting, I guess it's important to know how your partner thinks. Absent discussion I know the only meanings I would consider intuitive would be something where there is a counteracting meaning for the other minor suit bid. In other words it's funny to me you say you didn't give much thought to the meaning of 3♣, since if my partner made such a bid my first thought would be to reject anything unless that is symmetrical with some other logical meaning I can think of for 3♣. :)

 

But there is no doubt that having some bid to show spades there would be very useful, and perhaps the most useful of any available meaning.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, it seems to me that a logical extension of this concept would create a sort of parallel. If there is one "artificial" call, that shows interest in the "other major."

 

Thus, for instance, had the interference been 3♣, then 3♦ would operate equally.

 

An interestiong question suggesting itself, then, is whether the red card ever should have that meaning. For instance,

 

1♥-P-2♥-P-

P-3♦-X

 

Now, in that sequence, the double seems best used as for penalty. However, there might be a similar auction (I haven't thought of one yet) where the double would be more effective as a strain reconsideration suggestion. By the nature of the general principles of the game, the situation would seem to develop when the agreed strain is lower-ranking than an alternative strain, and typically in an auction where a practical raise makes sense.

 

A situation I sometimes see is the raise of a minor burying a major. Maybe 1♦-(2♣)-2♦ when Responder buries a four-card heart suit, for example? Then, after a 3♣ call, perhaps doubling as re-introducing hearts? You would need the opther major introduced in a way where a penalty double is unappealing. Not sure when that would occur, but worth remembering in case it's seen at the table.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3D should show 4 card support, a max. for 2H, what consist of a max,

depends on f you happen to play constructive raises or not,

and also depending on your general style, 3D either showes diamond

values or diamond shortage, most likely diamond shortage makes more

sense, which would be in sync with the a style, where you can only make

a splinter in their suit.

 

So I come to 4 hearts, 1diamonds, 4-5 spades, 3-4 (small) clubs, 8HCP-10HCP,

if 8HCP - they should be kings and Aces.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

So I come to 4 hearts, 1diamonds, 4-5 spades, 3-4 (small) clubs, 8HCP-10HCP,

if 8HCP - they should be kings and Aces.

Wouldn't that hand have raised 1♥ to game on the first round?

[PeterGill]

Maggieb also won this Forum's tipping competition for Sao Paulo results in September - well done maggieb - like the Nickell team (World Championship and Reisinger), you have two wins.

[Ant590]

Maggieb also won this Forum's tipping competition for Sao Paulo results in September

Fancy picking some lottery numbers for me Maggieb?

[Fluffy]

dumb no wI see that my answer entered late lol, well done maggie.

[hanp]

Well done Sherlock B!

 

Perhaps you could also post the winning call with 9xxx Axx xxx AKx? :D

[peachy]

Not even attempting to read Fred's mind!. here is what I think though. I think you had 3-card heart support, spades stopped (maybe a suit) and now you wanted to investigate game or alternate strain and showed diamond stopper for 3NT. Sometimes the balancer's actions allow us to reach game. If you don't lusua;;y go with this strategy, then I think you had a diamond singleton:)

[peachy]

Oops. I didn't read the thread before I answered... It was already solved.