[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Aug 26 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

han, on Aug 26 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

Perhaps I'm influenced by the actual hand, but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx. What is this hand supposed to do over 3♦?

3 hearts?

Sorry, misposted. I meant a 4144.

If Responder has ♠AKxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣AQxx, why would he not raise diamonds?

This is such a bizarre discussion. "What the Heck is Responder supposed to do when he has nothing resembling even remote heart preference, when he does not have anything extra in his own suit to show, when he has no reason to introduce a four-card club suit randomly (or means to do this anyway), but he does have tremendous support for Opener's second suit?" Uh, raise.

If Opener bids 3♦ as a tactical bid, he sure better have a game plan for handling the most obvious bid in bridge -- the raise.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 23 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx.
...
I think this is the kind of hand that bids 4♣. If you want to call 4♣ a strong diamond raise and 4♦ a weaker raise, I suppose thats OK, but I would want to include hands that want to 'punt' over 3♦.

In other words you want to play 4♣ as Fourth Suit Forcing (or, as Ken might put it, Non-Specific LTTC). I'm usually in favour of the fourth suit being FSF even when we're already game-forced, but I think this is going too far. You need it only on hands which are too strong for a natural 4NT and don't fancy 3♥ - a very rare beast.

On this hand I'd bid 3♥, hoping to find out why partner game-forced. I'm probably going to bid 7NT in due course anyway, so the slight distortion is unlikely to cost.

Is 4♣ really so different than:

1♥ - 1♠
3♣ - 3♦

as a stall?

Yes it is.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Aug 26 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 26 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

han, on Aug 26 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

Perhaps I'm influenced by the actual hand, but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx. What is this hand supposed to do over 3♦?

3 hearts?

Sorry, misposted. I meant a 4144.

If Responder has ♠AKxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣AQxx, why would he not raise diamonds?

This is such a bizarre discussion. "What the Heck is Responder supposed to do when he has nothing resembling even remote heart preference, when he does not have anything extra in his own suit to show, when he has no reason to introduce a four-card club suit randomly (or means to do this anyway), but he does have tremendous support for Opener's second suit?" Uh, raise.

If Opener bids 3♦ as a tactical bid, he sure better have a game plan for handling the most obvious bid in bridge -- the raise.

Ken Rexford, the voice of reason.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Aug 26 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

Ken Rexford, the voice of reason.

Yeah, but I did not say how to raise. LOL