The_Hog, on Feb 22 2009, 01:47 AM, said:
kenrexford, on Feb 20 2009, 11:52 PM, said:
I'm a firm believer in handling this holding with a rebid of 1♠ if partner responds 1♥.
I'm a firm believer in not lying to my partner.
I would prefer to open 1D and rebid 2C, but if partner is not happy with that, I would open 1C and rebid 1NT.
This kind of comment drives me nuts.
Sure, if you are one of those kind of people who believes that your opinion is correct and that your partner obviously will expect you to have what you believe you should have, and bidding 1
♠ here is not right in your opinion, then bidding 1
♠ here is a lie.
However, guess what? There is a very good argument as to why my 1
♠ call with this hand is not a lie to partner. I wonder if maybe ou can guess what that is...
As the ignorance of your comments like this suggests that you might need help with this problem, I'll help you out.
I discuss this sort of thing with my partners.
That makes it no longer a "lie." Rather, the call actually shows this.
Weird, huh?
So, for instance, when I have this pattern, open 1
♣, hear a 1
♥ response, and bid 1
♠, my partner knows that I have five+ clubs and 3-4 spades (only three spades when precisely five clubs). Since I have 3
♠/5
♣, a holding allowed by definition, then I have told no lie. We have seen this situation before and have discussed it.
Similarly, if I would have instead heard 1
♠ and raised to 2
♠, this would also not be a lie, as the 2
♠ raise shows 4-card support or 3-card if I have specifically 3145 or 3415 shape. In that sequence, I cannot simply have 3
♠/5
♣ but also need 1-4 in the reds, either way, because with 3325/3235 I rebid 1NT or possibly 2
♣. If partner now bids 2NT, by 3
♣ call shows the 3-card fit and hence 14/41 in the reds. Again, not a lie because of discussion.
See, the reason I bid 1
♠ is not that I come up with a solution for a difficult problem on the fly, willing to lie because I am a mastermind. Rather, I as Opener will bid this way and as Responder will expect partner to bid this way because we have discovered that this is a problem hand and have discussed this solution as the best solution, agreeing to adopt the same for that reason.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.