[Phil]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-15, 12:43, said:

This nuanced discussion of what Responder might have is making me laugh.

The laughs continue.

Quote

Let's give partner a 7-count in the form of ♠K, ♦A.

Yes, its reasonable to expect the ♦A in partner's hand instead of our RHO who came in at the three level.

Quote

Now, I can count 10 tricks if the diamond hook is working against the person who entered the three-level, assuming that I do not catch LHO with J-x-x-x in hearts.

??

Quote

If pertner has both useful Kings, a six-count, I might also make 10 tricks if the hearts behave, if RHO has the heart Queen, and if I can get the third heart tricks somehow.

I like the nested ifs here.

Quote

If partner has the club King and diamond Ace, a six-count, I might be able to play hearts for no losers and trumps for one loser, or something like that, again getting to 10 tricks.

The opponents will reject your claim.

Quote

The only debatable point, I would imagine, is whether Opener should actually bid 4♠, which seems reasonable if 2♠ promises constructive values. But, in that event 3♥ operates as a reasonable hedge against wasted values in diamonds and allows us to snoop about for a possible 4♥ contract if partner has 3♠/4♥.

Yes, most of that I would consider debatable.

[semeai]

Let's say the range for the 2♠ bid is A points (low end) to B points (high end).

Then the probability I'm bidding 3♥ (general game try) is:

Max(0,Min(1,1-.5(10-B)-.1(7-A)))

***

More seriously, this looks like a game try to me. I hope my matchpoint sensors aren't improperly aligned.

Added: There is a slight advantage of the game try, relative to our intuition. We aren't in 2♠, so there's no worry about losing the safety of the 2 level in exchange for a game try, and I'm fine competing here at all white.

[rduran1216]

I was surprised to see the player holding these cards sell out to 3S. Looked like a clear action to me. If we make a try and partner's values include something awful like KJx of diamonds then life sucks and we're playing 3S anyway. partner can have spade K and heart Ace can't he? or club K, heart Q, spade j? I think a game try is clear. hard to give partner values that aren't working if they're outside the diamond suit.

[JLOGIC]

Passing is just horrible. We must be good favorites to make 3S opposite the subset of hands partner will pass 3D out with. Defending 3D just seems like a disaster to me.

You can debate 3H vs 3S but the main point is you must bid with this hand.

[lalldonn]

JLOGIC, on 2012-August-15, 14:48, said:

Passing is just horrible. We must be good favorites to make 3S opposite the subset of hands partner will pass 3D out with. Defending 3D just seems like a disaster to me.

You can debate 3H vs 3S but the main point is you must bid with this hand.

Which of 3H or 3S do you prefer? Just curious

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2012-August-15, 14:48, said:

Passing is just horrible. We must be good favorites to make 3S opposite the subset of hands partner will pass 3D out with. Defending 3D just seems like a disaster to me.

You can debate 3H vs 3S but the main point is you must bid with this hand.

Did anyone advocate passing 3D? Surely not. Also, I think 4S is in the picture opposite a constructive raise.

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on 2012-August-15, 15:21, said:

Did anyone advocate passing 3D? Surely not. Also, I think 4S is in the picture opposite a constructive raise.

Well, yes. Phil (+ed by HeleneT), then I agreed with Phil. Some others don't like the pass, and still others recognize that partner has another call. None of us seem to be certain what THIS responder's 2S response might look like; we are operating from what OUR 2S responses might look like.

Mine is not constructive, and might include four-card support. It might also contain length in the interference suit, such as a 3-3-4-3 ten count not deemed worthy of a limit raise. Perhaps a Pass of 3D will result in something really good (defending with six or seven trumps) or something equal to if we didn't pass because partner looked at her hand and rebalanced with 3H or 3S.

[kenrexford]

Phil, on 2012-August-15, 13:09, said:

The laughs continue.



Yes, its reasonable to expect the ♦A in partner's hand instead of our RHO who came in at the three level.



??



I like the nested ifs here.



The opponents will reject your claim.



Yes, most of that I would consider debatable.

I did laugh. The diamond ace was supposed to be the heart. On the one, no one contests my claims. Lol

[JLOGIC]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-15, 15:17, said:

Which of 3H or 3S do you prefer? Just curious

3H

[phil_20686]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-15, 15:37, said:

Well, yes. Phil (+ed by HeleneT), then I agreed with Phil. Some others don't like the pass, and still others recognize that partner has another call. None of us seem to be certain what THIS responder's 2S response might look like; we are operating from what OUR 2S responses might look like.

Mine is not constructive, and might include four-card support. It might also contain length in the interference suit, such as a 3-3-4-3 ten count not deemed worthy of a limit raise. Perhaps a Pass of 3D will result in something really good (defending with six or seven trumps) or something equal to if we didn't pass because partner looked at her hand and rebalanced with 3H or 3S.

You basically have to think that you are beating 3d better than half the time to justify pass. I mean, its pretty unthinkable that you will go more than two off undoubled here. And it seems pretty unlikely that anyone can double you on this auction, so bidding will improve your score whenever three diamonds is making, and whenever you can make 3S. I was going to bid 3S anyway, and was wondering about 3H and 4S depending on partners strength.