[kenrexford]

I think my take is different here.

The first four bids seem fairly normal.

The first question seems to be Opener's decision to bid 3♦ rather than 4♦. I have no problem with 3♦.

The next question is the 3♥ call. How this is clearly a cue and not possibly a notrump probe evades me. This seems like ostensibly a probe/punt call. (I am assuming that Responder could have jumped to 3♥ earlier with 5-5 majors and GF).

When Opener then bids 4♦, he seems to be rejecting 3NT (which makes sense) and leaving the auction flexible (which also makes sense). The suggestion that Opener bid 3♠ here seems sick, as I would expect that to show some spade tolerance, Hx?

Once this auction develops to this point, which seems fine to me, I think Responder owes an assumed cue of 4♥, personally, which should do the trick. That call, however, seems like the toughest call to make at the table, especially if this sequence is (as is likely) undiscussed.

[phil_20686]

kenrexford, on 2012-May-01, 10:33, said:

When Opener then bids 4♦, he seems to be rejecting 3NT (which makes sense) and leaving the auction flexible (which also makes sense). The suggestion that Opener bid 3♠ here seems sick, as I would expect that to show some spade tolerance, Hx?

If you raise immediately with 35(14) shape, then its impossible for you to bid three diamonds when you have a Hx spade. You would bid 2S over 2H.

[mikeh]

So far we have people opting for 3♥ as a splinter; as a cue for diamonds; as 5-5 invitational; as ambiguous....either a try for 3N or an advance cue.

All of which reinforces my point about the auction: in a new partnership, wherein this sequence almost certainly hasn't been discussed, N should NOT have bid 3♥ on his actual hand (or, indeed, almost any hand!).

There are two types of bidders when it comes to sequences undiscussed with a relatively new partner (with long-time partners, one usually has explicit or implicit meta-rules so that one can guess how partner will think). One school avoids the ambiguous bid, even if it means making a theoretically less than ideal call that won't confuse partner, and then discusses the auction later. The other just makes the ambiguous call and hopes for the best.

I am one of the former, and I think the majority of serious players operate the same way in newish partnerships.

In that context, the auction first came off the rails with 3♥, but the alternative, of 4♦, wouldn't necessarily have got the partnership to slam.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on 2012-May-01, 11:29, said:

So far we have people opting for 3♥ as a splinter; as a cue for diamonds; as 5-5 invitational; as ambiguous....either a try for 3N or an advance cue.

All of which reinforces my point about the auction: in a new partnership, wherein this sequence almost certainly hasn't been discussed, N should NOT have bid 3♥ on his actual hand (or, indeed, almost any hand!).

There are two types of bidders when it comes to sequences undiscussed with a relatively new partner (with long-time partners, one usually has explicit or implicit meta-rules so that one can guess how partner will think). One school avoids the ambiguous bid, even if it means making a theoretically less than ideal call that won't confuse partner, and then discusses the auction later. The other just makes the ambiguous call and hopes for the best.

I am one of the former, and I think the majority of serious players operate the same way in newish partnerships.

In that context, the auction first came off the rails with 3♥, but the alternative, of 4♦, wouldn't necessarily have got the partnership to slam.

Fantastic point, generally. And, as it turns out, it seems to have application to this auction by force of experience. Meaning, if people can actually have all of these meanings for 3♥, then clearly the bid must be ambiguous.

That said, I remain mystified by the analysis of others. One of my personal problems is not in electing to make ambiguous bids intentionally but in failing to understand when a call actually is ambiguous. In other words, in a real life bidding sequence, I would not bid 3♥ out of disrespect for the ambiguity, expecting partner to field something. Rather, it would not even occur to me that 3♥ could have all of these meanings to people.

I mean, 5-5 invitational, for instance, makes no sense, as 2♥ was defined as GF. How can you force game with one call and then later have a call defined as "I was just kidding with that GF stuff?"

The splinter meaning makes no sense to me, as an undiscussed non-jump is rarely treated as a splinter, if ever.

The cue meaning makes little sense to me, as (1) game before slam suggests that we need 3♥ as a punt for probe purposes and (2) there is no reason in this auction that diamonds must be the sole focus suit (what about clubs?). 3♥ as "punt" therefore seems like the only plausible meaning.

But, again, I am clearly wrong in my assessment, not of what the call might ideally mean at least in my world but of the solidity of my convictions in the mind of a random partner.

[awm]

I think there are really only two meanings for 3h: its either a natural 5+/5+ GF in the majors or its a punt/stopper ask. Unfortunately these are pretty opposite as to what partner should do!

[kenrexford]

phil_20686, on 2012-May-01, 11:02, said:

If you raise immediately with 35(14) shape, then its impossible for you to bid three diamonds when you have a Hx spade. You would bid 2S over 2H.

Do you raise immediately with ♠xxx ♥-- ♦AKQJxx ♣KJxx or ♠xxx ♥-- ♦AKQJx ♣KJxxx?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2012-May-01, 12:09, said:

I mean, 5-5 invitational, for instance, makes no sense, as 2♥ was defined as GF. How can you force game with one call and then later have a call defined as "I was just kidding with that GF stuff?"

The splinter meaning makes no sense to me, as an undiscussed non-jump is rarely treated as a splinter, if ever.

"5-5 invitational" and "splinter" were offered as meanings for 1♦-1♠;2♣-3♥.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2012-May-01, 12:51, said:

"5-5 invitational" and "splinter" were offered as meanings for 1♦-1♠;2♣-3♥.

Well, then what the heck is Mike talking about?!?!? Obviously, one would expect 3♥ to mean different things in different sequences. I mean, if that's his definition of ambiguous, then 3♣ has got to be unbidddable ever, as who knows that that means as a general rule for all possible auctions! LOL

[Cyberyeti]

kenrexford, on 2012-May-01, 12:09, said:

The splinter meaning makes no sense to me, as an undiscussed non-jump is rarely treated as a splinter, if ever.

Ah, I was talking about a jump in the 4th suit, so probably 3♥ a round earlier than you were.

1♦-1♠-2♣-3♥ was the auction I thought I described as a splinter.

1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-3♦-3♥ I would play as forcing 5-5 with partners that play old school and "5th suit forcing" with people that play more modern style.