[Cyberyeti]

Teams, love all

---

Your agreements are that 3♦ first time would have been GF, X would have been a strict 8-12 HCP.

[MrAce]

Anything but automatic what to do.

[Fluffy]

I would had doubled, and I don't sell out without mentioning my KQJxxxx often, and I wouldn't this time either.

Some people will hate me, but have you heard about rubensohl?

[Cascade]

I would say automatic to bid 5♦. You have little defense and great offense - six tricks opposite an opening bid.

To me methods that require a pass on the previous round are deeply flawed and one of the main reasons they are flawed is this auction. You must be better off taking your risk a round earlier and two levels lower. As fluffy says Rubensohl offers a solution. I also think negative free bids are useful especially after a sound overcall - a few points and a long suit is a reasonably common hand type that needs to be able to bid.

[the hog]

I would bid 5D as well now. I find the pass on the previous round nauseating.

[wank]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-11, 13:47, said:

X would have been a strict 8-12 HCP.

xx
Axx
KQJx
AQxx

?

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2014-May-11, 18:19, said:

xx
Axx
KQJx
AQxx

?

Don't ask me, wasn't my system. My suspicion is that although that is what she said, she meant "If single suited with diamonds it's 8-12".

Guessing about their system is difficult, they play 2♣ is Acol 2 in clubs or balanced range, 2♦ similar and 1N equivalent to a normal 2♣ amongst other oddities, so finding peers is a problem.

[aguahombre]

Aha...we are looking for peers.

[gnasher]

The criticism of the pass seems over the top. Half of the world plays new suits as game-forcing and double as negative in this sequence. Playing those methods, you don't have a good way to describe this hand on the first round. Passing and then bidding 5♦ has the advantage that it doesn't overstate either your values or your club length.

On the next round, I think 5♦ is clearcut.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-May-12, 00:46, said:

The criticism of the pass seems over the top. Half of the world plays new suits as game-forcing and double as negative in this sequence. Playing those methods, you don't have a good way to describe this hand on the first round. Passing and then bidding 5♦ has the advantage that it doesn't overstate either your values or your club length.

On the next round, I think 5♦ is clearcut.

What about an immediate 5♦?

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2014-May-11, 19:10, said:

Aha...we are looking for peers.

I thought that was kinda obvious from the type of post, the pass over 4♥ was slow, the first instance ruling was that there was no LA to 5♦.

[ahydra]

rhm, on 2014-May-12, 03:03, said:

What about an immediate 5♦?

Rainer Herrmann

Exclusion for spades?!

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2014-May-12, 04:28, said:

Exclusion for spades?!

ahydra

For you and me maybe, not for this pair I wouldn't have thought

[gszes]

5D

If we manage to go down 3 (-500) it is a small amount of risk
vs our expected -420 or -450 if the opps can make 4h and there
is also a tiny chance both sides can make game.

If the opps cannot make 4h it is because p has extras and was unable
to show them given the bidding. If we go down in 5d (probably down 1)
we assume about the same amount of risk we took bidding 5d when the
opps are making 4h. The reward side here is massive since we are much
closer to making game when p has extras enough to set 4h.

The 5d bid shows a willingness to pay small amounts in the majority of
cases and win big when the long shot pays off (5d making). The thing about
small payouts is not to be underestimated since paying off large puts a
lot of pressure on your team that small amounts fail to do.

[whereagles]

Going with 5♦ here. If pard couldn't dbl, they'll probably make it.

[broze]

ahydra, on 2014-May-12, 04:28, said:

Exclusion for spades?!

*retch*

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2014-May-11, 19:10, said:

Aha...we are looking for peers.

The point I was making was that, IMO, we should spend less effort looking for peers..and pay more attention to available experts whom we place in the position of the player and have given the partnership agreements. They are also capable of judging what a person of the given skill level might consider and do.

gnasher, on 2014-May-12, 00:46, said:

The criticism of the pass seems over the top. Half of the world plays new suits as game-forcing and double as negative in this sequence. Playing those methods, you don't have a good way to describe this hand on the first round. Passing and then bidding 5♦ has the advantage that it doesn't overstate either your values or your club length.

On the next round, I think 5♦ is clearcut.

There is a good example.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-12, 03:19, said:

I thought that was kinda obvious from the type of post, the pass over 4♥ was slow, the first instance ruling was that there was no LA to 5♦.

The laws as I read them refer to what a person of a particular level with the given agreements would have as logical alternatives. It is not required that these L.A.'s be determined by a poll of actual peers. What we want are people who can comprehend the inferences of the (sometimes homegrown) methods and apply them to the specific case at hand. Gnasher has done that, and whether he is a peer is moot.