Allocate Responsibility

[spenser]

The following hand came up in a Regional Bracket I KO match and both
parties believe that the other is primarily responsible for missing the
good, albeit not iron-clad, slam.

Axx 10987x AQJxx ---
Kx Ajxx K10xx J1087

the auction proceeded:
1H - P - @N* - 3C *=Jacoby
P P 3NT P
4H p P P

Noth contends that South should bid 3D rather than 3NT. South argues
that N should bid 4D either over 3C or over 3NT.

Opinions, please.

--
Dennis Cohen

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:44:26 AM UTC-7, spenser wrote:
> The following hand came up in a Regional Bracket I KO match and both
> parties believe that the other is primarily responsible for missing the
> good, albeit not iron-clad, slam.
>
> Axx 10987x AQJxx ---
>
> Kx Ajxx K10xx J1087

South has 14 cards.


> the auction proceeded:
>
> 1H - P - [2]N* - 3C *=Jacoby

> P P 3NT P
> 4H p P P
>
>
>
> Noth contends that South should bid 3D rather than 3NT. South argues
> that N should bid 4D either over 3C or over 3NT.

North's pass of 3C is terrible. His partner asked him for a description of his hand, and he could have done so easily since West's bid didn't take up any room. So what could the point of passing be? 100% to North; no blame to South because at that point South had such an inaccurate picture of North's hand that I can't blame him for any call he might have made. Also I can't blame South because I don't have an accurate picture of his hand. :)


> Opinions, please.

My opinion is that you need to give us the vulnerability on a hand like this, especially since some of the motivation for some of the calls may be to leave open the possibility of defending, and since N-S here will have some inferences about the length and strength of West's club suit from the vulnerability.

-- Adam

[derek]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:17:39 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:44:26 AM UTC-7, spenser wrote:
>
> > The following hand came up in a Regional Bracket I KO match and both
> > parties believe that the other is primarily responsible for missing the
> > good, albeit not iron-clad, slam.
> >
> > Axx 10987x AQJxx ---
> >
> > Kx Ajxx K10xx J1087
>
> South has 14 cards.

Awkward - but I can't see any reason why this should actually make much difference.

>
> > the auction proceeded:
> > 1H - P - [2]N* - 3C *=Jacoby
> > P P 3NT P
> > 4H p P P
> >
> > Noth contends that South should bid 3D rather than 3NT. South argues
> > that N should bid 4D either over 3C or over 3NT.
>
> North's pass of 3C is terrible. His partner asked him for a
> description of his hand, and he could have done so easily
> since West's bid didn't take up any room. So what could the
> point of passing be? 100% to North; no blame to South
> because at that point South had such an inaccurate picture of
> North's hand that I can't blame him for any call he might
> have made.

Agreed

> Also I can't blame South because I don't have an accurate picture of his hand. :)

Seems to me that South already overbid. He doesn't imo have a Jacoby bid, since he only has 12 HCP and no advantage for shape - especially with one of those points being a jack high club suit. One must assume the extra card is a diamond (since he named all the clubs, and one fewer card in either major would make it an even worse J2NT), so WHY would he think of bidding them, now? So, if they bid slam and went down, it would have been his fault, but as it is, he's done everything he can to get them there. A correct 4D bid by North would give them a much better chance to find the slam.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 11:43:43 AM UTC-7, derek wrote:

> Seems to me that South already overbid. He doesn't imo have a Jacoby bid, since he only has 12 HCP and no advantage for shape - especially with one of those points being a jack high club suit.

But it's a jack that's backed up by a 10 and some intermediates, which could amount to something if North has any honors in the suit. (Of course it isn't worth garbage if North is void.) Anyway, I don't see treating Kx AJxx KTx Jxxx as a mere invitational raise even without the club spots, but that's just me--I tend to get more optimistic when there's a 9-card fit, and most of the points are in aces and kings. If you want to treat that as invitational, I'd call that quite conservative but not silly.

-- Adam

[vsp...@hotmail.com]

In a contested auction 3 bids showing a
singleton should be off. 3D is sufficient
to show diamonds, although it may promise
only four diamond cards.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:00:05 PM UTC-7, vsp...@hotmail.com wrote:

> In a contested auction 3 bids showing a
> singleton should be off. 3D is sufficient
> to show diamonds, although it may promise
> only four diamond cards.

I wonder how many pairs have discussed interference in this auction.

-- Adam

[Nick France]

I allocate 100% to lack of argreement as to what a double and 3D
show. Does a double of 3C show shortness, a contol, values in the
suit or suit length. Does 3D show shortness, a control, values in the
suit, or a real suit?

Before you blame partner (either one), if you don't know what a bid or
double means then how can you blame the other for making or not making
a bid

As for actually bidding the slam, it isn't the easiest one to get to

Nick France

[Will in New Haven]

On May 17, 11:44 am, spenser <s...@dogbreath.com> wrote:

As opener, I could not pass (or double) the 3C bid since either action
would deny shortness. I could bid 4C to show the void but I don't like
my hand _that_ much, so I would bid 3D. Not knowing your partnership's
agreements in that situation, I don't know who to blame but I hate the
3NT bid as it gives partner the idea of wasted honor strength in
Clubs.

--
Will in New Haven
All change for round ten; slow pairs please go home

[Lorne]

I do not agree with either second round bid.

Opener has first round control of all 3 side suits and a good 5 card
side suit and knows there is a 9 card fit so his poor trumps are not as
bad as they may seem so he should tell partner what he has with a bid of
3D (or 4D if you think 3D is shortage).

Responder should not be suggesting 3N of a J high suit as it misleads
partner about wasted values in clubs that don't exist. However he is
minimum for 2N so I doubt that 4H would get to a slam anyway.

[rhm]

How about taking all such bids for which you have no special
agreements as N A T U R A L , if that makes any sense at all?
Why do you need agreements about all possible sequences which come up
every other leap year?

Have the following meta agreement, where you "forgot in advance" to
discuss a possible special meaning, in particular after opponents
interfere:
Assume you were playing a round in an individual with a unknown
expert. How would you take such a bid with a grain of common sense ?

Rainer Herrmann

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Responder should not be suggesting 3N of a J high suit as it misleads
> partner about wasted values in clubs that don't exist.

A problem with that reasoning: J1087 is the *perfect* holding in the opponent's suit to play NT if opener is *not* short.

Carl

[dake50]

I'm beleiving one of the heart honors missing (K or Q)
is in the hand that obstructed 3C.
**NOT!??**

[axm...@hotmail.com]

Consider the following critic:

First, the partnership committed two errors in judgment [1] they did
not know which of the 600 varieties of 2N they were employing and [2]
they did not understand the underlying principles of 2N.

Post mortem- at the point when a member of the partnership knows the
solidity of the diamond suit he can visualize that slam has prospects.

Once responder bypasses diamonds it is unlikely that the partnership
can find out about diamond solidarity. The values of responder are at
the top of the range for a limit raise of hearts and thus to force to
game is a judgment to risk going too high. Notably, the effect of a
3H limit raise is to shut out discovering the solidity and source of
diamond tricks. I prefer the judgment of 2D because [a] discovering
if there are diamond tricks/fit may be crucial for choosing a thin 4H
or avoiding a failing 4H [b] if opener has a forward going hand the
sooner he locates distribution and controls the better position he
will be in investigate or beg off [c] if the auction gets out of hand
responder can keep on returning to hearts.

Responder’s election for 2N suggests that starting hands for 1H are
Roth-Stonish. This either puts the partnership in the position of
guessing what to do with minimum Goren style starting hands or takes
them out of too many auctions- not very appetizing. Many partnerships
rebid a new suit at the 4 level that is 5 card length of any quality.
My preference** is that a new suit at the four level is no losers [ie
AKQ and better] since it is useful to responder should he have rags in
the suit.

I probably would judge that AQJxx looks enough like AKQ to treat so
and rebid 4D. which, in this case responder in fact holds the DK so
he should deduce [a] opener has at least five and that they have been
made solid [b] with two five card suits opener has at least one short
suit [c] there is ample room to make sure that the right controls hare
held and [d] count the expected tricks before choosing to bid slam, or
not- …4D-4S-5C-6D-??

** note: I don’t employ Jacoby 2N anymore even if it is system
??- btw we have a monster diamond fit, what is your preference

Since opener did not act over 3C he logically should be presumed to
not have any of the special hands he would have had to act so
responder does not have the data needed to visualize the diamond
situation. Thus, it would be dubious to make a slam move [3D]
opposite a partner [without the values to] that didn’t cooperate. It
can be said that 3N is questionable because there are too many hands
that opener will pass out when it is wrong to pass.



regards
axman

[Nick France]

To make judgments without knowing the system is meaningless to me.
Basically it looks like neither player was sure what bids meant and
stayed conservative to avoid a bidding disaster.

As for what I would do with North hand, the answer is bid 4C which
probably will be understood as a control in clubs. But now we are
back to the same problem. Do we cuebid second round controls or first
round controls? Over 4C does south really have enough to go passed
4H. Yes I know we are playing with a "30 point" deck and all his
points but the Jack of clubs are working but still is it enough.

Change North's hand to QJx T987x AQJxx A
and do you really want to be in 6 yet just how do you avoid it.

Nick France

[rhm]

I do not doubt that agreements help.
What I doubt is the perfection some people search for. It seems to me
of dubious value.
Some players, who have grown up in the duplicate world in fixed
partnerships feel always lost when they come into uncharted territory.
Getting into uncharted territory is part of the game.
The Bridge I grew up with was rubber Bridge, where your partner
changed with every rubber.
Partnership agreements were very limited and you learned how to deal
with scenarios where you had no firm agreements and you had to make
bids, which were as clear as possible.

For example on the above problem, I simply would bid 3D showing a
diamond suit in my simple mind and hinting at club shortage.
When opponents interfere in such a sequence with a natural bid it is
odds on that if you have a side suit shortage it will be in their
suit.
If possible I would then follow up with 4C to reinforce that and leave
the rest to partner.
With your example hand QJx T987x AQJxx A
I might bid 3D, but I would then not follow up with 4C, which would be
too encouraging for this hand.
If I held a stronger hand with a club void I would follow up with 5C.
I call this judgment and this is what is required for such scenarios.
Agreements are no substitute for judgment.
For me Pass over 3C would not mean I have a minimum hand, but that I
have nothing special to contribute at this point, probably a balanced
hand with more than one club..
In the old rubber Bridge days every decent player would have
understood this message.

Rainer Herrmann

[derek]

Not choosing to use Jacoby 2N doesn't remotely suggest that you think the hand is only "invitational".

I don't have a problem with the bid - but my point is that he's already stretched to make it, so he's got nothing left. Personally, I'm going to keep forcing to game, but a Jacoby 2N is _slam_ invitational - you're specifically looking for shape to make a slam.

[france...@googlemail.com]

> How about taking all such bids for which you have no special agreements as N A T U R A L , if that makes any sense at all? Why do you need agreements about all possible sequences which come up every other leap year? Have the following meta agreement, where you "forgot in advance" to discuss a possible special meaning, in particular after opponents interfere: Assume you were playing a round in an individual with a unknown expert. How would you take such a bid with a grain of common sense ? Rainer Herrmann

Without discussion, "natural" is an excellent assumption to make.
However, this is not a sequence which comes up "every other leap year", I would say that my RHO intervenes over Jacoby about half the time when NV, a bit less when V so this is a position we have agreements for. We play:

Double = singleton club, nothing better to do
Pass = no club control
non-jump bids = natural, promise at least 2nd round club control
3NT = natural
4 level bids = void (also promising a club control)

[judyo...@gmail.com]

> For example on the above problem, I simply would bid 3D showing a
> diamond suit in my simple mind and hinting at club shortage.
> When opponents interfere in such a sequence with a natural bid it is
> odds on that if you have a side suit shortage it will be in their
> suit.>

I don't understand.

Given that you were playing J2N, how will your partner know, without prior discussion, that 3D shows a suit over 3c?

Carl

[france...@googlemail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 3:37:28 PM UTC+1, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> > For example on the above problem, I simply would bid 3D showing a > diamond suit in my simple mind and hinting at club shortage. > When opponents interfere in such a sequence with a natural bid it is > odds on that if you have a side suit shortage it will be in their > suit.>

I don't understand. Given that you were playing J2N, how will your partner know, without prior discussion, that 3D shows a suit over 3c? Carl

On the excellent assumption that if a bid is not discussed, it is natural.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

And if you have never discussed that meta-agreement???

Maybe you win the post-mortem.

Carl

[france...@googlemail.com]

And if you have never discussed that meta-agreement??? Maybe you win the post-mortem. Carl

"Winning the post mortem" is an irrelevance. Getting the best result on the actual hand is the objective.

If the opponents intervene, and you haven't discussed what to do, you have to assume _something_. You can't just say "we haven't discussed this auction, therefore I refuse to bid" and sulk like you can on a newsgroup.

Whatever you do, partner has to guess what it means. You can refuse to bid a suit because you haven't discussed whether it shows length or shortage, but even if you pass, partner has to guess whether that means "I don't have anything more useful to say" or "I have a minimum" or "I have a non-minimum (bidding game would be weaker)" or "I don't know what to do because we haven't discussed it"

Luckily in real life anyone I've ever played with would assume that a new suit bid in an (otherwise undiscussed) contested auction was natural. The uncertainty would be over whether it was forcing or not, but luckily that isn't a problem here.

Some people have the meta-agreement that bids mean the same in a contested auction as they would do without intervention, if that is possible. I assume that would make 3D shortage here. But I can't think of any reason to assume that without explicitly having the agreement (and I think it's a poor agreement, but that's a different matter).

[Will in New Haven]

On May 20, 12:27 pm, "judyorc...@verizon.net" <judyorc...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:41:24 AM UTC-4, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 20, 2013 3:37:28 PM UTC+1, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > For example on the above problem, I simply would bid 3D showing a > diamond suit in my simple mind and hinting at club shortage. > When opponents interfere in such a sequence with a natural bid it is > odds on that if you have a side suit shortage it will be in their > suit.>
>
> > I don't understand. Given that you were playing J2N, how will your partner know, without prior discussion, that 3D shows a suit over 3c? Carl
>
> > On the excellent assumption that if a bid is not discussed, it is natural.
>

What _else_ is 3D logically going to show? If it shows shortness, then
you probably aren't short in Clubs. While no one else here seems to
think so, I don't think opener should bid _anything_ here unless he is
short in Clubs.

While we originally had one thing to "discuss," when partner made his
J2N bid, now we have a third possibility. It may be right to take the
penalty that is being offered right now. If we decide not to, we can
go on to making a slam/no slam decision. Yes, we have a nine-card fit
and game-going values and it _still_ might be right to defend.

If I'm short in Clubs, then it is probably wrong to defend and I can
make a descriptive bid. And I _should_ because my LHO may be about to
raise. And we are at too low a level to be making simple control bids.
Certainly, the 3D bid implies a control but it is also a suit of
sorts. if I'm not short of Clubs, I will almost certainly have another
chance to act at a reasonable level.

Of course, one could _double_ if not short in Clubs. Oddly enough, we
play that as penalty.

[Martin Carpenter]

On 20/05/13 18:12, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> And if you have never discussed that meta-agreement??? Maybe you win the post-mortem. Carl
>
> "Winning the post mortem" is an irrelevance. Getting the best result on the actual hand is the objective.
>
> If the opponents intervene, and you haven't discussed what to do, you have to assume _something_. You can't just say "we haven't discussed this auction, therefore I refuse to bid" and sulk like you can on a newsgroup.
>
> Whatever you do, partner has to guess what it means. You can refuse to bid a suit because you haven't discussed whether it shows length or shortage, but even if you pass, partner has to guess whether that means "I don't have anything more useful to say" or "I have a minimum" or "I have a non-minimum (bidding game would be weaker)" or "I don't know what to do because we haven't discussed it"

This is very true and always terrifies me because I find it so easy to
dream up multiple reasonable, very different, meanings for pretty well
any sequence :)

In general its fairly silly to try and assign individual blame when a
partnership hasn't discussed a frequent sort of sequence like this. Its
collective. Just move on and make sure to sort it for next time.

> Luckily in real life anyone I've ever played with would assume that a new suit bid in an (otherwise undiscussed) contested auction was natural. The uncertainty would be over whether it was forcing or not, but luckily that isn't a problem here.
>
> Some people have the meta-agreement that bids mean the same in a contested auction as they would do without intervention, if that is possible. I assume that would make 3D shortage here. But I can't think of any reason to assume that without explicitly having the agreement (and I think it's a poor agreement, but that's a different matter).

Its probably my relay upbringing showing but I do think that step bids
make a fair bit of sense here. With something like Jacoby you might well
have taken the time to develop it quite deeply.

If I'd done that then I'd be really rather reluctant to allow a modest
intervention like 3C/D completely change how my system worked. It might
be optimal to do that but my memory wouldn't cope :)

So over a 3D overcall, pass = a normal 3C response, dble = a 3D response
etc. Over a 3C overcall as here you do of course get a spare bid.

If 4D by North over the 3C overcall would have been a 'picture' 5,5+ bid
then it was possible but the H suit is awfully weak for it.
--
MartinCarpenter

[HoneyMonster]

Don't be so silly. Post-mortems are not for winning or losing; they are
for determining where a partnership erred, and agreeing how to reduce or
eliminate those errors in future.

Anyway, to assume that an undiscussed bid is natural is simple common
sense.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

> Anyway, to assume that an undiscussed bid is natural is simple common
>
> sense.

That is simply untrue. (I am sure it is the *best* meta-agreement, but that is irrelevant.)

You are claiming your own preference as natural law.

Carl

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:12:11 PM UTC-4, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> And if you have never discussed that meta-agreement??? Maybe you win the post-mortem. Carl
>
>
>
> "Winning the post mortem" is an irrelevance. Getting the best result on the actual hand is the objective.
>
>
>
> If the opponents intervene, and you haven't discussed what to do, you have to assume _something_. You can't just say "we haven't discussed this auction, therefore I refuse to bid" and sulk like you can on a newsgroup.
>
>
>
> Whatever you do, partner has to guess what it means. You can refuse to bid a suit because you haven't discussed whether it shows length or shortage, but even if you pass, partner has to guess whether that means "I don't have anything more useful to say" or "I have a minimum" or "I have a non-minimum (bidding game would be weaker)" or "I don't know what to do because we haven't discussed it"
>

But you can and absolutely should avoid any bid that might be understood catastrophically.

That means, on the posted auction, *never* bidding 3D unless you have discussed the situation. Bidding 4D, even if you might not have done so without the intervention.

And you *are* talking about winning the post-mortem.

Carl

[france...@googlemail.com]

> But you can and absolutely should avoid any bid that might be understood catastrophically.

Yes, I agree

> That means, on the posted auction, *never* bidding 3D unless you have discussed the situation. Bidding 4D, even if you might not have done so without the intervention.

I don't understand your post. Are you saying that you should *never* bid 3D unless you have discussed it, but that you *should* bid 4D? Why on earth is 4D easier to understand than 3D?

If I were playing in a new partnership and partner bid 3D, I would assume it was natural because that seems the obvious meaning (I would also be aware I could be wrong).

If partner bid 4D I would have no idea what it meant, because the meaning of 4D depends on the meaning of 3D (if 3D is natural, 4D is shortage. If 3D is shortage, 4D is natural).

> And you *are* talking about winning the post-mortem. Carl

No, you are the one who keeps going on about the post-mortem.

I repeat, at the table you have to make a call, whether you have discussed the auction or not. Whatever call you make, partner might not be on the same wavelength. There is no call you can make on this auction that isn't open to misinterpretation.

[france...@googlemail.com]

Its probably my relay upbringing showing but I do think that step bids make a fair bit of sense here. With something like Jacoby you might well have taken the time to develop it quite deeply. If I'd done that then I'd be really rather reluctant to allow a modest intervention like 3C/D completely change how my system worked. It might be optimal to do that but my memory wouldn't cope :) So over a 3D overcall, pass = a normal 3C response, dble = a 3D response etc. Over a 3C overcall as here you do of course get a spare bid. If 4D by North over the 3C overcall would have been a 'picture' 5,5+ bid then it was possible but the H suit is awfully weak for it. -- MartinCarpenter

Yes, if you already play artificial rebids after Jacoby (which not many people do) then you can continue to play them after intervention.

The problem is that _my_ memory can't cope with that. After 3C, you have an extra call, so do you assign an extra meaning or move everything down one step? After 3D you are back to equality. After 3H (assuming spades are trumps) you have lost a call, so how do you know which hand type you no longer fit in below game?

So I think my memory copes _better_ by changing my methods so they are always the same after intervention. Otherwise I have to treat each possible overcall differently.

Also, we play an artificial scheme of rebids after 1M-2NT (3C = any minimum, 3D = non-minimum no singleton etc) with artificial continuations. These work well on an uncontested auction, but after 1S P 2NT 3C there's always the risk that 2nd hand will raise.

[Nick France]

On May 20, 5:28 pm, HoneyMonster <nob...@someplace.invalid> wrote:

Here I would disagree. Since over Jacoby 2NT you show your shortness,
It makes as much sense that 3D is a singleton.

Nick France

[derek]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:08:25 PM UTC-3, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > But you can and absolutely should avoid any bid that might be understood catastrophically.
>
> Yes, I agree
>
> > That means, on the posted auction, *never* bidding 3D unless you have discussed the situation. Bidding 4D, even if you might not have done so without the intervention.
>
> I don't understand your post. Are you saying that you should *never* bid 3D unless you have discussed it, but that you *should* bid 4D? Why on earth is 4D easier to understand than 3D?

I don't usually agree with JudyOrCarl (I'm not sure which), but this one's easy. The "book" bid without the interference is 4D. Surely, then, bidding 3D after interference is more confusing.

[derek]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:12:30 PM UTC-3, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> What _else_ is 3D logically going to show? If it shows shortness, then
> you probably aren't short in Clubs. While no one else here seems to
> think so, I don't think opener should bid _anything_ here unless he is
> short in Clubs.

I like that - but my wife insists that pass should show club shortness, so that double can be for penalty.

Still, if "anything" should show club shortness, then why wouldn't 4D have its original meaning of a good 5-card suit - since I can use 3D to show a poorer suit?

[Will in New Haven]

On May 21, 9:32 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:12:30 PM UTC-3, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > What _else_ is 3D logically going to show? If it shows shortness, then
> > you probably aren't short in Clubs. While no one else here seems to
> > think so, I don't think opener should bid _anything_ here unless he is
> > short in Clubs.
>
> I like that - but my wife insists that pass should show club shortness, so that double can be for penalty.

Bidding anything else can show Club shortness. I guess passing to show
Club shortness can allow partner to double for penalty but it can also
force partner to act over LHO's big raise. I agree that double should

be for penalty.

>
> Still, if "anything" should show club shortness, then why wouldn't 4D have its original meaning of a good 5-card suit - since I can use 3D to show a poorer suit?

We don't play 4D to show a good five-bagger. We play the previous
original meaning, a void. And we don't play either of those over
interference.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 22-5-2013 3:29, derek schreef:

Sorry, but for me is your meaning of 4D much more confusing then Frances
her meaning of 3D

Your 4D bid would in all my books, either mean diamond shortness, or a
lack of club control.

Co Wiersma

[Martin Carpenter]

On 22/05/13 19:47, Co Wiersma wrote:

> Sorry, but for me is your meaning of 4D much more confusing then Frances
> her meaning of 3D
>
> Your 4D bid would in all my books, either mean diamond shortness, or a
> lack of club control.

Whenever 3D shows shortness its fairly normal to play 4D as showing a
decent 55+ two suiter. Whether you should be doing that with a ten high
main suit is probably open to debate.
--
MartinCarpenter

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:08:25 AM UTC-4, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > But you can and absolutely should avoid any bid that might be understood catastrophically.
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree
>
>
>
>
>
> > That means, on the posted auction, *never* bidding 3D unless you have discussed the situation. Bidding 4D, even if you might not have done so without the intervention.
>
>
>
> I don't understand your post. Are you saying that you should *never* bid 3D unless you have discussed it, but that you *should* bid 4D? Why on earth is 4D easier to understand than 3D?
>
>
>
> If I were playing in a new partnership and partner bid 3D, I would assume it was natural because that seems the obvious meaning (I would also be aware I could be wrong).
>
>
>
> If partner bid 4D I would have no idea what it meant, because the meaning of 4D depends on the meaning of 3D (if 3D is natural, 4D is shortage. If 3D is shortage, 4D is natural).
>

There is nothing automatic about what you wrote. Indeed, on your default = natural law, BOTH 3D and 4D show diamonds, with 4D showing a strong 5+. And if the competition continues, you'd better be able to show a strong side suit below the 5-level.

Everything you say about natural being default in absence of discussion accomplishes nothing.

Except being one-up in the post-mortem. Why else would you say such a thing?

Carl

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Responder committed the partnership to playing game in the suit opposite 65432, and demanded that opener show side shapeliness (at least over an intervening pass), regardless of opener's misgivings. Suit quality is not opener's problem. Certainly, opener should not give a microsecond thought to the possibility that 2NT was ill-advised.

Carl

[Adam Beneschan]

I don't worry too much about things like that when there's a known 9-card trump fit. If all your partner needs is one or two of the top three trump honors, he can find out. I'd worry more about showing a 5-card *side* suit to the ten.

-- Adam

[rhm]

Ask yourself:
How often will you hold a singleton diamond in such a sequence when
opponents interfere with 3C?
How often will you hold a diamond side suit and be short in clubs when
opponents interfere with 3C?

What makes sense is, that cheap bids are used for showing common hands
and expensive bids for specific uncommon ones.
After the 3C bid your chance holding diamond shortage has been
reduced by an order of magnitude.
That is the reason why it is in general not a good idea to ignore
interference and continue playing what you would have played without
interference.
What might make sense is to agree to play splinters (jump bids) as
showing shortness in an unbid side suit after interference.
However, I would not do that without prior agreement.

Rainer Herrmann

[Nick France]

This is not a discussion about what the best agreement is but what a
bid means without discussion. To me a good agreement without
discussion is your bid means what it would mean if there was no
interference (or at least as close to that as possible).

My point is that it is a reasonable agreement. Without a good second
5 card suit partner can always bid 3 of the major to show extras. I
find good players get into trouble because they make bids that are
"obvious" except to partner who has a different "obvious" meaning.

Nick France

[Martin Carpenter]

Defintely.

You do need standards for this sort of bid though. You are, after all,
using an awful lot of space in a potential slam auction. Partner doesn't
even have a last train bid below game.

So I think you'd typically want a little more than this for it. Or at
least a bit 'purer'.

There is of course a very real argument that, in competition, you should
notably relax those requirements and treat it much more like a fit jump
than a 'real' slam try in which case it easily qualifies.
--
MartinCarpenter

[derek]

Who would do that? The 4-level bid is supposed to show a _good_ five card suit. If you have 5 to the Q, most would say show the shortness. If you have 5 to the T, I don't know anybody recommending showing the 5-card suit.

So, online sources say of the 4-level bid:
http://www.bridgehands.com/J/Jacoby_2_Notrump.htm: "A good 5 card side suits... Note: A minority play opener's 4 level new suit bid shows a void" (and they endorse my wife's method of "pass" showing shortness in an intervenor's suit).

http://richmondbridge.net/PDF/handouts/deyerleyNov28a.pdf: "... this jump rebid by the opener shows a two-suited hand. The second suit should have at least two honors and must be a 5-card suit,..."

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Jacoby2NT.html: which I usually find reliable, gives a definition unlike any version of J2N I've ever seen, with Drury-like responses and nothing about shortness.

http://www.acbl.org/play/in-their-own-words.php?convention=jacoby: (claiming to be the original word from Jim Jacoby) "With a singleton in a side suit, opener identifies it by bidding that suit at the three level. With a void, opener jumps to the four level in the void suit."

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Commonly_Used_Conventions/jacoby2NT.pdf: (apparently claiming to be the original word from _Oswald_ Jacoby) says: "A four-level response in a new suit shows a good-quality five-card suit"

...but nobody is suggesting to bid a 5-card 10-high suit

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-05-22 6:08 PM, Martin Carpenter wrote:
> Whenever 3D shows shortness its fairly normal to play 4D as showing a
> decent 55+ two suiter.

I'd say common, though different agreements are also common.

> Whether you should be doing that with a ten high
> main suit is probably open to debate.

If your original suit is bad, in a slam auction it's all the more
important to show a better suit if you can. I agree it would be a bad
idea to show the second suit if it's the bad one.

As Martin wrote in a later message, when the opponents butt in,
competitive decisions have to take precedence over slam decisions. That
may mean bidding worse suits so partner can tell whether there's a
double fit or not. (This is the underlying reason for fit jumps, too.)

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Eric Leong]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:44:26 AM UTC-5, spenser wrote:
> The following hand came up in a Regional Bracket I KO match and both
>
> parties believe that the other is primarily responsible for missing the
>
> good, albeit not iron-clad, slam.
>
>
>
> Axx 10987x AQJxx ---
>
> Kx Ajxx K10xx J1087
>
>
>
> the auction proceeded:
>
> 1H - P - @N* - 3C *=Jacoby
>
> P P 3NT P
>
> 4H p P P
>
>
>
> Noth contends that South should bid 3D rather than 3NT. South argues
>
> that N should bid 4D either over 3C or over 3NT.
>
>
>
> Opinions, please.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dennis Cohen

The partnership doesn't have a chance to get to 6H unless North shows great distribution.

Eric Leong