[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 15 2007, 12:13 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 14 2007, 11:41 PM, said:

QJxxx Axxx x Axx
"0 H losers, 1- D losers, 1- C losers, 2 S losers, but pd is bidding like they Have Something.  Hmm.  AKxx.x.xxxxx.KQx or AKxx.x.Axxxx.Kxx or ... and 6♠ is cold."

Yes obv partner always assumes you have NOTHING wasted in diamonds. And opposite his aces you always have a singleton or KQ, never another holding. Very fair. When he has QJxxx Axxx x Axx he won't be able to sign off fast enough. Unless he has never played bridge before. He knows you have Axx KQx AQxxx xx. Ok from now on partner makes a 2/1 he never has the K, Q, or J of his suit, I hope I'm short there.

Sometimes you are too ridiculous for words.

Josh, you are being a bit "over the top". You know as well as any here that ITRW expert bidding is a process of playing the hand in your head based on the likely shapes and values pd has shown thus far and then either continuing the conversation or placing the contract.

Responder =has= to have a 5-6 loser hand with decent controls that is concerned not only about overall strength but even more so about value placement or they would not be bidding this way.

In addition, there are lot's of useful negative inferences from the choices Responder !didn't! make in describing their hand.

...and I "played honest" with the example opening hands I gave and the thought process I'd expect to be used. If I had a pd I trusted and We were using Precision when the example auction I gave came up while holding the hands put forth as examples, I'd do exactly as I posted I would.

Bids where either shortness or values in a particular suit are supposed to be good and where empty length or soft values are supposed to be bad have as long a history and as much precedent as two-way game tries. (for example )

[jdonn]

"Would you like your hand as much if you had a singleton in your partner's suit? You shouldn't"
- Fred Gitelman (from "Improving 2/1 Game Forcing - Part 1", discussing opener's feelings about a singleton club on the auction 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ 3♠)

"Bids where either shortness or values in a particular suit are supposed to be good and where empty length or soft values are supposed to be bad have as long a history and as much precedent as two-way game tries. (for example tongue.gif )"

See the difference?

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 15 2007, 01:40 AM, said:

"Would you like your hand as much if you had a singleton in your partner's suit? You shouldn't"
- Fred Gitelman (from "Improving 2/1 Game Forcing - Part 1", discussing opener's feelings about a singleton club on the auction 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ 3♠)

Agreed if that's all there is to the auction.

But in the context of 2/1 GF w/ Fast Arrival, Responder is showing a "Moose".

Let's translate that conversation into "LTC speak"

1S= "I have 7- losers, the controls you'd expect, and 5+S"
2C= "I also have 7- losers, the controls you'd expect and either 5+C or significant extra values and 4+C".

2S= "I have a minimum opening bid"
3S= "So what. I have the World's Fair ™. My 5- loser hand is interested in slam even opposite your miserable 7 loser minimum."
At this point Opener basically owes Responder at least one cuebid or other useful bid rather than signing off in 4S unless they opened an 8 loser sub-minimum.

3N= "cheapest cue, in this case SA or SK+SQ, as demanded."
4D= "My =4135 thanks the gods that you did not open your usual 8 loser trash. If you have =anything= extra, I want to hear more cuebids or bids of value concentration."

Now all of the sudden Opener's stiff C is a potential asset, not a liability since
Responder has heard Opener's negativity and =still= is pressing the issue.
What's Responder got to justify this course of bidding by them?

I don't know what Responder has, but I =do= know that Responder has basically told Opener that they don't want this auction to stop if Opener doesn't have 2 fast losers in C's...