[JLOGIC]

Quote

My reason for not liking 3S is (as the answers from various posters seem to confirm) that there are several issues, many of them complex and with no obviously clear answers, that impact what North's various possible actions (including 3S) *should* mean from a theoretical point of view. I feel pretty strongly that it is not practical to make a fairly subtle bid in such circumstances while expecting that even an expert partner will be on the same wavelength - there are just to many ways that partner's thinking process can differ from yours.

Fred, I agree with you 100 % about being practical over being subtle/theoretical in ambiguous spots, I hope you find me to be a practical player rather than kenrexford! After all, Bob Hamman and my dad were my biggest bridge influences, and to me they are both the most practical players around, focused on winning rather than having pretty auctions. As you know, I love to win!

That said, my biggest error was not considering/understanding how complex/ambiguous this situation was. I know since you have spent a lot of time with me recently, I am going to sound like a broken record talking about how being rational is the most important thing in life, and how overcoming our humanness/biases is what will help us become more rational, in both life and bridge, but that said...

I feel like I have a good grasp on what auctions will be ambiguous, and which won't. So why, on this hand, did I fail to see it (assuming you believe me that I was not just trying to make a good theoretical bid because it was pretty and I could win the post-mortem, which I'm sure you know is 100 % not the case. So what happened here?

Perhaps I got somewhat clouded/tilted, because had RHO passed 2H, I was going to jump to 3S which would be pretty obvious what I was doing. When RHO bid 3D, perhaps because I failed to get an opportunity to jump, my judgement was clouded about the downside of bidding 3S now. Perhaps I rationalized that it would be clear, because I wanted to bid 3S and have a cuebidding auction. Perhaps it was just being stubborn, ***** them for taking away my cuebidding auction!

It is funny, but it is a common error. You have a plan. Then something goes wrong. You are emotionally invested in that plan. Jumping to 3S was my plan. I was invested in it. I failed to reconsider and make a new plan when they bid 3D. Jumping to 4S seemed imperfect, my hand was too god, in my eyes. You see this thought error far more often in cardplay, especially defense. Like, you have a plan that will 100 % defeat the hand. Partner then does something else, despite how you signal. Now you're in. You stubbornly go back to your plan, when in reality partner had a different plan that would 100 % beat the hand. Now they're going to make. This is something I see commonly. You lose rationality for a moment.

Quote

- North was 6232 and had sufficient values to make a mildish slam try after partner's takeout double.

Quote

In this case that would be 4S which to me at least would be an obvious mildish slam try with a long spade suit.

I am not trying to defend my bidding, but I do *strongly* disagree with your classification of my hand as a mild slam try. For those who don't know, my hand was:

AKT9xx Kx Kxx xx

To me, this hand is enormous. If you want to downgrade my DK, that is fine, but I would then say that you are undervaluing the THIRD diamond in my opinon. To me that is such a huge card, compared to AKT9xx Kx Kx xxx for instance. It is not a full trick better, but it is pretty damn close to me with partner having an extremely likely stiff. Even if they lead a trump, if you think partner does not have 3 spades (I agree), then my partners shape is 3415. So my doubleton club offers the chance to ruff out the suit. On top of that, if I have any club or heart finesses, I can expect them to be on...the honors are well placed. Give partner Qxx Axxx x AQxxx even. Even if hey lead a trump, this slam has a lot of play, and if they lead a non trump I would say I'm in awesome shape. I do not think partner would consider moving over a jump to 4S with this hand. Maybe it is possible partner is 3424, and the opps have bid a ton, but that is the exact reason I so badly wanted to have a cuebidding auction in my mind.

Maybe you do not play the same style as me, but I always cuebid with an opening bid and 5 spades, followed by jumping to 4S. To me that is what mild slam try means. I dislike jumping to 4S on a hand like that, when I would also jump to 4S on KQxxxxx x xx xxx (a gambling type bid that does NOT want partner to pull, and is not HCP rich, so partner with a double and bid again hand can comfortably pass without a strong fit). I would cuebid with AJxxx xx xxx AQx followed by jumping to 4S.

Again, I am not saying my 3S bid is right, I no longer think that, and in fact when Sheri and I were talking about this hand with people afterwards I *fully* admitted and apologized that this was a very complex auction, and I actually said something very similar to what you said "in ambiguous spots, good/logical people can both make logical points for something different, nothing is obvious." It is really a good point that people should remember. But I did think my hand was much better than a mild slam try, maybe that is just optimism, but it is what contributed to me so badly wanting to jump to 3S over 2H if RHO passed, and have a cuebidding auction, I definitely wasn't going to bid 4S over 2H to show the mild slam try, or courtesy slam try. In fact I'm kind of thinking maybe the right bid was 5S over 3H right now...or maybe that is crazy. Maybe 3S then move over partners 4S? I will think about it, let's talk tomorrow.

[JLOGIC]

For those who would like to hear my case on why I think 3S should be a slam try in spades with 5+ spades in the theoretical sense, it is something like this:

1) I think that when you bid 2D, you have either:

1a) inv with both majors
1b) a GF hand with doubt about strain (just a 4 card major, a 4 card major + clubs, a GF hand with clubs and doubt about strain, etc, lot's of hand types fit this bill)
1c) A hand that knows what strain it's going in, but has a power rather than shape game bid, and is cuebidding to show that, in case partner has a double and bid again hand type. This could be a legit slam try or a courtesy to partner to show your hand type.

Over 3D, if I had 1a, I would bid 3H, not forcing. If I do not bid 3H, I have no heart fit, ergo I have 1b or 1c, both of which are game forcing hands, so pass is forcing.

When passes are forcing and you have doubt about strain, in general you pass. When you are sure about strain, you bid. So, with 1a I would pass. So bidding 3S is 5+ spades, and is stronger than bidding 4S, which would be spades and the courtesy cue hand. If I had a heart fit and a GF, I would bid 4D with a legit slam try, 4H without one. If I had clubs, I would bid 4C, legit slam try and stronger than 5C (courtesy) unless trying to get to 3N, in which case I would pass (doubt about strain)

So 3S shows the same thing it would show if RHO passed (there I would have no FP, but 2S would show the doubt about strain hand, 4S the courtesy cue, 3S the legit slam try).

Thus, when partner bid 4S over 3S, I thought this was the most negative bid, so I passed. At the time, in my mind, this was crystal clear! But of course in the postgame discussion with various experts about these issues, it was obvious to me that I was wrong and misguided...I've offered my reasons about why this might have happened, so I won't rehash this.

[JLOGIC]

fred, on 2011-November-18, 07:46, said:

I was more than somewhat surprised that few (if any) of you seemed to consider that North might have a hand like this for his cuebid:

---

(where to me a cuebid is normal). This is meant to be an invitational hand. If you think this hand is a game force then make it a little weaker/different.

Ah ha, well this completely identifies the crux of our disagreement! I would never have considered a cue with this hand, likely because I consider 2D-2H-2S to be GF. You say that we are forced to suit agreement, if it goes 2D-2H-2S-3C, doesn't that make this forcing? Or does 2S just imply clubs, which makes the 3C bid suit agreement. I suppose this could work...if partner has a club fit and a GF hand he bids 3D. But what if he also has a diamond stopper? I suppose responder can bid 3H now to ask for a diamond stopper, but this is getting murkier and murkier and murkier to me...

What about 2D-2H-2S-2N. Is this forcing? If so, we have basically game forced because we have no fit.

And how about if they bid something like 3D over 2D. How will partner bid, and how will everything work itself out, when you have no known suit as well as possibly not a GF hand. Had you bid 2S, at least your hand is limited and you've shown a suit.

I guess my personal philosophy is to just bid 2S with this hand, because if partner is rejecting your game invite, you are playing 2S in a 4-3 fit with a takeout X opposite a game invite. It is very likely to me that 2S is a playable spot in that case, I am not that concerned about playing 2S in a 4-3 isntead of 2C in a 4-4. It is kind of similar to meckwell lite after 1C 1D 1M 2C, you just scramble out into 2M when you find a 7 card fit, because you have more than half the deck so it should be playable, and the other bids are reserved for game/slam bidding.

Likewise here if partner has game going values over 2S, I think it will be easy to work everything out, and it makes your overloaded and vulnerable cuebid less overloaded.

I think we should give this hand to hampson/others (Jxxx xx Axx AQxx) and see how common it is to cuebid vs bid 2S. I am quite curious, since this is the crux of our disagreement regarding the hand types of the cuebid, and obviously it's an important one (plus you and I rarely say something like "i think 2D is normal" and the other says "I think 2S is normal") heh. Glad you posted because it is clear to me this is the difference.

[nige1]

Fred asked...

1: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you cuebid 2D as North? A good hand with no other clear-cut descriptive alternative
2: How high are North-South forced? Until we've supported a suit, reached game, or clearly established a misfit.

---

Note that East has DBLed.
3: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you Pass as South? Flat minimum. Denies ♦ stop or good 4+ M.
4: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you RDBL as South? Half-stop in ♦ to right-side notrump.
5: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 2H as South? 4+ ♥.
6: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 2S as South? 4+ ♠.
7: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 2NT as South? ♦ stop.
8: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 3C as South? 5+ ♣.
9: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you cuebid 3D as South? Max denies ♦ stop or 4M.
10: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you jump in a suit as South? Good single suiter.
11: If you think that the cuebid promises another bid, does South have a way to suggest "I have a bad hand and I hereby relieve you of the force you created on yourself"? Yes. Pass.

---

12: Would Pass be forcing? Yes
13: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you Pass as North? Denies 4+ ♥, 5+ ♠ or good ♦ stops.
14: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you DBL as North? Penalty suggestion.
15: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 3S as North? 5+ ♠.
16: What does this prove? Any agreement is better than nothing.

---

[pooltuna]

q1] this of course depends on your entire doubling call structure. I would use it as having an ordered series of possible meanings. Initially it means "I can play either major, I need your preference."
q2] a 1 round force
q3] a minimum TOX with no major preference.
q4] xtras with a max of 3 cards in either major
q5] minimum TOX with ♥ preference
q6] minimum TOX with ♠ preference
q7] balanced 18-19 with ♦ stopper(s)
q8] minimum TOX with 33 majors
q9] xtras with no great preference between the majors.
q10] xtras if a major preference or a really good ♣ suit
q11] I think previous answers should make this clear
q12] no
q13] 4 card constructive raise of ♥ and ♠
q14] this is where other possible means for 2♦ kick in; really telling partner we are in a GF
q15] GF with 5+ ♠
q16] that you need to review your doubling structure from time to time

[fred]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-18, 08:36, said:

Fred, I agree with you 100 % about being practical over being subtle/theoretical in ambiguous spots, I hope you find me to be a practical player rather than kenrexford! After all, Bob Hamman and my dad were my biggest bridge influences, and to me they are both the most practical players around, focused on winning rather than having pretty auctions. As you know, I love to win!

In my experience playing against you in long matches (in which I believe your team's record is something like 4-0 and that you are the only person in the world with this good of a record against me!), I have actually found you to be a highly-practical player. The same goes for my impressions of you from watching vugraph and reading a ton of your Forums posts.

Really I am not just saying this to be nice!

Quote

That said, my biggest error was not considering/understanding how complex/ambiguous this situation was.

Well it is a very easy error to make even (perhaps especially?) for a great player. It is very natural for people to think about a new, difficult, and complex problem, finally see the light, fall in love with their beautiful (and theoretically correct) solution, and let their adrenaline get the best of them.

(not that I am suggesting this is what necessarily went through your mind+body, but that sort of thing has certainly happened to me enough times and I also like to think of myself as a practical player).

Quote

I know since you have spent a lot of time with me recently, I am going to sound like a broken record talking about how being rational is the most important thing in life, and how overcoming our humanness/biases is what will help us become more rational, in both life and bridge, but that said...

I feel like I have a good grasp on what auctions will be ambiguous, and which won't.

I have no doubt that you have an excellent grasp on such things, but keep in mind:

1) I could be the one who is wrong!

2) What is ambiguous is partly a function of who your partner is and it is not like you have played enough with Sheri to always know what to expect from her. Turns out you would have been correct if Hampson had been your partner on this hand. You might have also been correct if I had been your partner on this hand or if you had been playing with several of the people who have posted in this thread. On a different day you might have even been correct with Sheri as your partner.

Quote

So why, on this hand, did I fail to see it (assuming you believe me that I was not just trying to make a good theoretical bid because it was pretty and I could win the post-mortem, which I'm sure you know is 100 % not the case. So what happened here?

Yes of course I believe you 1000%.

I think you are being too hard on yourself and too concerned about what it means. At worst you misjudged. It happens to everyone. Furthermore, there is obviously nothing you can do about the hand now and you seem determined to learn from your "mistake" (if it even was a mistake).

Quote

Perhaps I got somewhat clouded/tilted, because had RHO passed 2H, I was going to jump to 3S which would be pretty obvious what I was doing. When RHO bid 3D, perhaps because I failed to get an opportunity to jump, my judgement was clouded about the downside of bidding 3S now. Perhaps I rationalized that it would be clear, because I wanted to bid 3S and have a cuebidding auction. Perhaps it was just being stubborn, ***** them for taking away my cuebidding auction!

It is funny, but it is a common error. You have a plan. Then something goes wrong. You are emotionally invested in that plan.

Agree.

Quote

Jumping to 3S was my plan. I was invested in it. I failed to reconsider and make a new plan when they bid 3D. Jumping to 4S seemed imperfect, my hand was too god, in my eyes. You see this thought error far more often in cardplay, especially defense. Like, you have a plan that will 100 % defeat the hand. Partner then does something else, despite how you signal. Now you're in. You stubbornly go back to your plan, when in reality partner had a different plan that would 100 % beat the hand. Now they're going to make. This is something I see commonly. You lose rationality for a moment.

Agree again.

Quote

I am not trying to defend my bidding, but I do *strongly* disagree with your classification of my hand as a mild slam try.

Well I did say "mildish"

That is a word I invented because I couldn't think of a better one and it is probably not adequate, but it is the case that I did not know your hand included the 109 of spades.

Here's how I would think about it:

1) Mild slam try: You need partner to take control in order for slam to be good. Your hand is better than this.
2) Mildish slam try: If partner shows some sign of life you will be willing to risk the 5-level (via Blackwood or cuebidding or whatever). This is about what your hand feels like to me.
3) Strong slam try: Even if partner signs off you are going to try again, but you will respect his subsequent signoff.
4) Near slam force: Only a bad response to Blackwood or similar will keep you out of slam.

Anyway, probably you think that my scale from 1 to 4 is not far off the mark. "Mildish" is not a very good name for 2 - sorry about that

Quote

For those who don't know, my hand was:

AKT9xx Kx Kxx xx

To me, this hand is enormous. If you want to downgrade my DK, that is fine, but I would then say that you are undervaluing the THIRD diamond in my opinon

To me that is such a huge card, compared to AKT9xx Kx Kx xxx for instance. It is not a full trick better, but it is pretty damn close to me with partner having an extremely likely stiff. Even if they lead a trump, if you think partner does not have 3 spades (I agree), then my partners shape is 3415. So my doubleton club offers the chance to ruff out the suit. On top of that, if I have any club or heart finesses, I can expect them to be on...the honors are well placed. Give partner Qxx Axxx x AQxxx even. Even if hey lead a trump, this slam has a lot of play, and if they lead a non trump I would say I'm in awesome shape. I do not think partner would consider moving over a jump to 4S with this hand. Maybe it is possible partner is 3424, and the opps have bid a ton, but that is the exact reason I so badly wanted to have a cuebidding auction in my mind.

This is excellent analysis.

Quote

Maybe you do not play the same style as me, but I always cuebid with an opening bid and 5 spades, followed by jumping to 4S. To me that is what mild slam try means.

I dislike jumping to 4S on a hand like that, when I would also jump to 4S on KQxxxxx x xx xxx (a gambling type bid that does NOT want partner to pull, and is not HCP rich, so partner with a double and bid again hand can comfortably pass without a strong fit). I would cuebid with AJxxx xx xxx AQx followed by jumping to 4S.

Agree with all of this (though I might also jump to 4S with something like 5215 and 8 HCPs or so).

Quote

I will think about it, let's talk tomorrow.

OK but the tournament is today! (so I have to stop posting soon and get ready).

Anyway, don't sweat it too much. I am pleased that the predication I made (on Forums I think) a number of years ago that you had a real chance to one day be the best player in the world seems to be well on schedule. If this is the worst "mistake" you ever made, you are already there

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gnasher]

Playing Fred's style, it's easy to differentiate between Jxxx xx Axx AQxx and KJxx xx Axx AQxx: bid dbl-2♦;2♥-2♠ with the invitational hand and dbl-2♦;2♥-2NT with the game-force (or vice versa). I'm not suggesting that this is standard.

One solution to the problem of bidding hands like AKT9xx Kx Kxx xx is to use1♦-dbl-pass-3♦ as a game-forcing one-suiter (or a 5332 with a good suit). Doubler usually bids the next step, then responder shows his suit, with 3NT showing the relay-suit.

[Zelandakh]

I thought I had effectively answered Q17 with the answer to Q1: "Invitational with both majors or a GF based on strength rather than pure shape". In other words, jumping to 4S immediately shows shape while making a cue bid first shows more strength. In dealing with Fred's example hand I made up a method as a junior using 1NT as a Lebensohl-like relay. Now I just bid 2S on that hand and allow Doubler's cue bid over a jump to contain 3 card support and enough for game. Perhaps this is not as sophisticated as allowing invitational hands with one major to advance with an initial cue but it is nonetheless nice and simple to play.

Aside from that I think I agree with Justin's logic almost completely even when he perhaps now thinks it was wrong. For me it is "obvious" that 3S has to be game forcing with more than 4 spades and that the invite with 4-4 majors would have bid 3H over 3D. The practical bid of 4S sounds to me instead more like a minimum GF that Doubler should generally pass. For me this hand is a clear 3S and not 4S, but then again I think I can say that sometimes trying to be over-scientific with my bidding is a fault. I have no doubts that most (all?) of my partners would agree too!

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-18, 07:18, said:

You have an uncanny knack for confusing simple things. Multiple HANDS per thread is the "rule" that you are talking about. Multiple questions about the same auction and the developing auction is obviously fine.

Snipe aside you are right. About multiple questions that is.

I think this thread is a great format to delve into an auction. I hope I see more like this in the future.

[Gerben42]

---

Question 1: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you cuebid 2D as North? 8+ with both majors or 12+ any
Question 2: How high are North-South forced? Up to two of a major

---

Note that East has DBLed.

Question 3: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you Pass as South? No 4-card major or a big NT with good ♦, should show extras otherwise I couldn't Dbl
Question 4: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you RDBL as South? Invitational strength, unsure about strain
Question 5: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 2H as South? Up to 14, 4♥
Question 6: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 2S as South? Up to 14, 4♠
Question 7: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 2NT as South? Natural 19+, not too many ♦
Question 8: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 3C as South? Natural 18+
Question 9: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you cuebid 3D as South? GF hand with both majors
Question 10: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you jump in a suit as South? Invitational bid
Question 11: If you think that the cuebid promises another bid, does South have a way to suggest "I have a bad hand and I hereby relieve you of the force you created on yourself"? 2 of a major

---

Question 12: Would Pass be forcing? No
Question 13: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you Pass as North? 8 - 10 with 4 - 4 majors
Question 14: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you DBL as North? Penalty!
Question 15: With which sort(s) of hand(s) would you bid 3S as North? 4♠, should ask for stopper or fit

Question 16: What does this prove?
Raising directly would have been better for responder

In other news, I'm not too sure about jumping to 3M with an invitational hand, perhaps one should just redouble? But waiting for strong major-suit 1-suiter on this hand might take a while too...

[awm]

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Justin on this one.

1. 44 majors invite, or any GF that doesn't want to blast
2. New suits are forcing, opener's 2M would be forcing.
3. Pass = equal length in the majors and/or very bad hand, takeout shape
4. XX = Game values, not suitable to 2NT+
5, 6. 2M shows longer major (4+), forcing one round
7. 2NT = "power double" natural, typically 19+ balanced w/ diam stop
8. 3♣ = "power double" 16+ with good clubs
9. 3♦ = very strong takeout with short diamonds, like 4414, 4405
10. 3M = strong hand with 6+ in M
11. For me, the way to get out of the force is to pass and have north redouble, after which south's 2M is NF
12. Pass is forcing here, since north raises with GF and otherwise has a GF.
13. Well it's a forcing pass, so GF w/o clear direction seems normal
14. X = Penalty; admittedly I sometimes invert 13/14 by partnership general agreement about forcing pass auctions
15. 3♠ = slam try in spades, hand w/o clear direction would pass or double, hand with hearts would raise to 3 or 4 or bid 4♦
16. I'd be a better partner for Justin than for Sheri? Not that I'm likely to get to play with either except possibly in a late-night team game on BBO.

I think Gnasher's style could be hard to play in some situations, since doubler has to jump to show pretty mild extras with 2M NF. Obviously it's a win on some invites (or slightly-less-than-invites) for advancer but slam bidding is tough. Holding Fred's example hand of Jxxx xx Axx AQxx I would bid 2♠ (invitational). Yeah, it's possible that 3♣ is better, but 4-3 major fits with ruffs in the short hand often play okay and while I lose the ability to offer "invitational choice of a major or a minor", I should get better slam bidding clarity in a lot of sequences (at least in my opinion).

[phil_20686]

SO what does it mean to bid (1d) x p 3d ?

Feels like when they bid at the one level you could remove some of the hands into this. Anyone have any agreements?

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-20, 06:07, said:

SO what does it mean to bid (1d) x p 3d ?

Feels like when they bid at the one level you could remove some of the hands into this. Anyone have any agreements?

I usually play it as asking for a diamond stop with a source of tricks, something like xx xxx xx AK10xxx. I think that the method I mentioned earlier in the thread is better though.

Edit: Actually, you could play it as both. After
1♦ dbl pass 3♦
3♥

3♠/4♣ = strong one-suited
4♦/♥ = strong one-suiter in hearts
3NT = asking for a diamond stop.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-November-20, 08:26

[fred]

awm, on 2011-November-19, 20:26, said:

Holding Fred's example hand of Jxxx xx Axx AQxx I would bid 2♠ (invitational). Yeah, it's possible that 3♣ is better, but 4-3 major fits with ruffs in the short hand often play okay and while I lose the ability to offer "invitational choice of a major or a minor", I should get better slam bidding clarity in a lot of sequences (at least in my opinion).

.
Strange (to me) that you think that my preferred style is better for partscore bidding, think that your preferred style is better for slam bidding, but don't seem to consider game bidding (which is obviously rather important, especially at IMPs).

Opposite my example hand, If the takeout DBLer has close to a notrump overcall with something like 3433, he will Pass a jump to 2S but 3NT could easily be cold or very good. Patterns like 3415, where you might belong in 5C, are also a problem for your preferred style.

In my preferred style, 2S is not just an expression of values, it is a strong suggestion that the partnership probably belongs in spades.

And about slam bidding, where you claim that your preferred style results in "better clarity" (probably true after a cuebid, but certainly false after a jump to 2S), here is one of many valuable pieces of advice that I have received over the years from Jeff Meckstroth: once your opponents have opened the bidding, do not devote a lot of resources to slam bidding.

Of course Jeff knows that it is not exactly rare to have a playable or laydown slam when the opponents open the bidding - he is not saying to never bid a slam under those circumstances. What he is saying is that such hands are sufficiently rare that it is not a good use of your time to do serious study in this area and it is not a good use of available bidding space to try to optimize your system for accurate slam bidding. Accurate partscore and game bidding is far far more important (due to frequency).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

fred, on 2011-November-20, 09:54, said:

.
Opposite my example hand, If the takeout DBLer has close to a notrump overcall with something like 3433, he will Pass a jump to 2S but 3NT could easily be cold or very good. Patterns like 3415, where you might belong in 5C, are also a problem for your preferred style.

See this would never occur to me. The 2♠ jump shows something like 10-11 for me (yes it could be lighter with five spades), and I wouldn't imagine passing it with enough for game opposite those values (regardless of holding only three spades).

[JLOGIC]

Yeah I'm with awm, I would not pass with a strong NT if I was the t/o Xer (maybe there is a 15 count bad enough that I would pass). I would obv pass with a 14 count but that is no sure game.

Partner passing with 3415 that makes 5C is possible but also seems rare because 11 tricks are hard!

[fred]

awm, on 2011-November-20, 10:06, said:

See this would never occur to me. The 2♠ jump shows something like 10-11 for me (yes it could be lighter with five spades), and I wouldn't imagine passing it with enough for game opposite those values (regardless of holding only three spades).

Then I would respectfully suggest that you need to work on your imagination.

If the takeout DBLer has a hand with 3 spades and has to cater to both 10-11 balanced with 4 spades and a lighter hand with 5 spades, I believe you will frequently end up in an adsurd contract. You cannot possibly evaluate accurately for both 3NT and 4S at the same time. Granted such combinations are less common, but when you throw 5C into the mix it gets even worse.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-20, 10:17, said:

Yeah I'm with awm, I would not pass with a strong NT if I was the t/o Xer (maybe there is a 15 count bad enough that I would pass). I would obv pass with a 14 count but that is no sure game.

Well I did say "near strong notrump"

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JLOGIC]

fred, on 2011-November-20, 10:20, said:

Well I did say "near strong notrump"

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Yes you did, sorry. I agree we might miss game opposite a 14 count with 3 spades and no shape.