You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some bids are understood purely by itself, and some needs process of elimination. If you play good/bad 2NT here, then 3 directly would show a good two suiter hand. And then there is the question of what X follows by 3 shows (another of your post). Eliminating all those possibilities, then that would tell what 4 should show.

A scary question is can 4 ever be a splinter?
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any auction with more than two bids shown would greatly benefit from using the bidding diagram, not to mention it is much easier to type than the way you do it.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is Kx, xx, xx, KQJxxxx not possible, and partner decided not to preempt? Why should you have to guess what opponents have or cannot have anyway? If 3 weak is an alert, and they did not, then you treat it as limit with all its upgrading and psyche possibilities.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When we read, we interpolate a lot, much more than one realties. When I read the OP, I also automatically put the word “NOT” in, and had no idea what the post was saying. It was not until a comment from Frances in response to another's reader's misreading that made me reread the OP and finally saw there was no word “not” in there.

In that sense, having the word “does” there acts to the opposite of its intent.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is why repeatedly I have urged people to be honest. If you truly upgrade your hand ti GF, then fine, but if you do it to fool opponents, then admit that.

To upgrade a hand that is less than limit raise to GF would require something spectacular in distribution. I am assuming the 2NT bid was GF, and not limit+. To those that claim that GF just means ready to get to game, GF is an abbreviated way to say something. We have a commonly accepted understanding of what that is, if you play differently, then full disclosure. And if that amounts to a psyche by standard of GF, then it is subjected to the legality condition for psyching artificial bid at that level.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For all S knew, N had 2=4=3=4 hand. Why should she be optimistic about 5 and pessimistic about defending 4? Who knows what the 4 bid by was?

N was the one who knew they had working singletons (turned out it was void from S), and that even the Q was a useful card.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You know whether your side has 9+ if you have 4. And partner knows if your side has 9+ if she has 6+. So why do you need the support X to know whether to compete?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None of us know if our memory is not implanted in us a moment ago.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about good hands without 3 ? Is responder never allowed to bid 4?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see how bidding 5 is taking two bites out of the same apple.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is too late now, but this could have been resolved by a bidding poll by E after a 3 LR. I suspect the number voting 5 would not be negligible.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was not justifying E's bidding. We are not talking about good vs. bad bidding. The failure to alert planted an illusion on E. The question is is there any rationale for bidding 5 instead of 4. Anyway, my question to Phil was should E be able to tell from staring at her hand that N's 3 could not be LR.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think for E, if N's bid is say LR+, there is no chance for slam. So fast arrival to 5 and not let opponents additional chance to figure things out. If you bid 4, S has P and X available.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why can't W have xx, Kx, xxx, KQJxxx?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is your right and privilege.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, if you are going to accuse someone of something, back it up. To accuse someone of something and then say you won't enter into a discussion is underhanded to say the least.

My first line: “ I can't believe this whole thing about top players being more ethical than players like me. ” So what group am I talking about? Do you think I was saying that all top players did the 3 things I mentioned? Since you have not committed any of those 3, you are not in the group, so why would you be offended?

Would you think that the two incidents I mentioned, the top player(s) would have behaved the way they did if their opponents were also top players?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was offensive about it? Those were actual incidents, the first proven on BW, the other two from first hand experience. I did not name names. I simply said top players are about their abilities, there is no reason why they are more ethical than common players like myself. Some top players are super ethical presumably, others not so, just like common players.

So according to you, it is OK to say top players are super ethical, but not to say that they may not be so?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simple answer. Play limited opening, then you can support X anything you want.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the really bad cases for support X with 12-21 is when it goes 1m - (P) - 1M - (1NT), where 1NT is natural. Some don't play support X in that situation.

Playing support X is overkill when you have a known 8 card fit, and need the X to show a good hand.
Jan. 29
.

Bottom Home Top