[Robert]

Hello MikeH

I saw the Chip Martel-Lew Stansby partnership use the same bidding holding virtually the same dummy. 1m-(1M)-2M* as a limit+ without 10+HCP more like an Ace and a King. They might have had a stray Jack. 7-8HCP and long minor support.

They do play a KS type system with a weak NT so there 1m opening shows a long minor or a balanced hand 15+.

If you are a better player than the Chip Martel-Lew Stansby partnership, may I have your autograph?

Hello Fluffy Yes! You can splinter with 3Ss! Bid 1D-(1S)-2S* as a limit+ D raise.

Regards,
Robert

[Kalvan14]

Robert,
3♠ is not a splinter raise in diamonds. 3♠ (as Western Q bid) asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper ib spades (if LHO had overcalled in hearts, the Western Q would have been 3♥). It is just a coincidence that I have diamonds, and/or a shotness in spades. My hand might have been: xx xx xx AKQTxxx.
Regards

[ArcLight]

> If you reread the first post, it says 1D-(1S)-?
>He later said, after the hand, he considered the 3S bid to be the best bid.

The poll clearly says "3 Spades - Western Cue bid". So the question needs to be answered using the methods of the partnership, not your own methods. However, its ok to mention why you would rather use a different meaning for a bid.

>1. a) A number of people(including myself) suggested that they want(or use) a 3S bid to be a splinter raise showing diamond support.

Thtas irrelevant to the question, because its not the method used by that partnership. Regardless of what YOU think of their methods, the person was asking what the best bid was in the context of their partnership, not yours.

I happen to agree with you that 3 Spades is better used as a splinter bid. But it wasn't one of the choices.

[Free]

I was thinking of bidding 3NT on the way to 5♦ to mislead opps if they end up in 5♠, partner however will probably let it there and might go down on unfavorable ♠ layout... If they double I'll bid 5♦ i guess.

[mikeh]

Robert, on Nov 25 2005, 10:36 PM, said:

Hello MikeH

I saw the Chip Martel-Lew Stansby partnership use the same bidding holding virtually the same dummy.  1m-(1M)-2M* as a limit+ without 10+HCP more like an Ace and a King.  They might have had a stray Jack.  7-8HCP and long minor support.

They do play a KS type system with a weak NT so there 1m opening shows a long minor or a balanced hand 15+.

If you are a better player than the Chip Martel-Lew Stansby partnership, may I have your autograph? 

You missed my point. I criticized your earlier post not because of your methods, but your philosophy. If your agreed style counts this as a limit raise, then show it as such. You, however, posted that your methods required more hcp for a limit raise, but that you intended to mislead your partner because he would be better able to work out that you had distorted your hand than would the opponents. I was pointing out that intentionally misleading partner in a constructive auction was something that I never want my partners to do.

In the context of a KS method (which is NOT the method posted), upgrading this hand to a limit raise makes considerable sense, since there is a significant chance that 3N is correct and/or that they cannot both bid and make 4♠.

In the 2/1 'std' post, then one must choose between a slow route, preserving the chances of 3N or the blast, catering to the opps having a good 4♠ contract and/or 5♦ being as good as or better than 5♦.

Having played against Martel-Stansby and having read many, many of their matches in the BW, I think it is safe to say that they do not actively mislead each other in constructive auctions.

[kenrexford]

"Misleading" partner assumes that partner does not have the capacity to interpret action based upon strange hands. It is true that "throwing off" is a goal behind 2S as an option, but such is good bridge. When you have superior information, preempts and Bergen Raises and the like "throw off" the opponents. 2S allows more room, but their techniques are probably not catered to such action. 4D merely invites 4S, as does 3S. 2S, however, often yields a much more intelligent auction for you and a poor auction for them.

[Robert]

Hello kalvan14

Sorry for the misunderstanding, however, the question and possible answers were not made very clear.

The first post gave an auction of 1D-(1S)-? with a list of bids to 'vote' for.

No where did it state that I had to use all of the meanings of the listed bids, since they often conflict with each other. 'Other' appeared to suggest that 'other' meanings were acceptable.

Given the choice of votes, I picked 'other.' Which I explained that my 'other' vote of 2S* would show a limit+ diamond raise.

Most(all?) of my partners 'race' to bid 2NT(3NT?) over my limit+ cuebid raises.

Did you really expect me to bid 3S* Western cuebid 'after' the poll showed a clear winner in percentage vote for a 5D bid?

If the conditions of contest stated that the second highest percentage 'vote' would be deemed to be the subject for discussion, I would have posted my reply based on that statement.

I have no problem with you playing 3S* as a western cuebid in this auction. You might want to list the auction as showing 1D-(1S)-3S*=Western Cuebid 'if' you wanted discussion about that auction.

Hello ArcLight

The largest % vote of the poll was for 5Ds, not for 3Ss.

If a discussion was desired on 3S* used as a Western Cuebid, why let us vote for multiple choices?

The poll 'clearly' gave a possible choice for 'other.' Which I took as meaning 'choose' any 'other' bid and explain the meaning.

Any agreement that Kalvan14 wants to play is fine with me.

If he had asked for comments on the use of 3S as a Western cuebid, I would post that his agreement was playable. I happen to use a different method which I also believe is playable.

I suspect that 3S* played as a splinter could be chosen by 'voting' for other' and explaining that your 'other' vote meant 3S*=splinter with D support.

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

Hello mikeh

Sorry that I missed your point.

You apparently missed my point. My methods do not require any artificial limit on my bidding showing "X" number of HCP.

I heard partner open 2S weak and I raised to game holding 11HCP

Axxx xx AKxxxx x Partner made exactly ten tricks with a combined 19(?)HCP.

We had an unusual hand and I made the bid that seemed best to me. I do not always have such success, however, I do often guess right.

My agreements show a given HCP range most of the time, if I choose to mislead partner on very rare occasions, my agreement with any partner is that 'any blame' resulting will fall back on me.

My partners like the way I bid(most of the time) I am allowed to bid whatever I feel is the best bid. My methods often 'lock me' into very narrow channels. Sometimes the presence of a single critical Jack will determine the best bid.

What methods you chose to play are fine with me. Please enjoy playing them.

I am not misleading partner, he expects me to make the best bid that our methods allow. Holding AKQJ1098765432 I only have 10HCP, however, my methods will bid to Seven of this suit(unless partner holds 13 tricks in the side suits so that we can play 7NT.

Partner will not be displeased with me bidding this way. I am normally the conservative half in my partnerships.

I made a complete explanation of my bid and the KS style of Chip Martel-Lew
Stansby partnership so that no one could accuse me of withholding any possible information.

Playing with 'my partners' and bidding using almost any system including 3+ diamonds(not one that promises an 'unbalanced hand' 1D opening*) my bidding would be the same.

We are in complete agreement about Martel-Stansby only rarely vary from using exactly their system bidding methods. I have enjoyed reading BW since the
late 70s.

I do not vary from my methods, except in very rare occasions. I do reserve the right to value my hand as I see fit. My partners agree to this condition or we part on friendly terms.

I would guess that you do not wish to play bridge with me, so my philsophy of bidding should not affect our exchanging these friendly and most interesting posts.

I would certainly 'not' make any such bid with a 'pick-up' partner. Only with someone who knows the 'style' that I play.

Regards,
Robert

[Kalvan14]

Robert, on Nov 26 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

Hello kalvan14

Sorry for the misunderstanding, however, the question and possible answers were not made very clear.

The first post gave an auction of 1D-(1S)-? with a list of bids to 'vote' for.

No where did it state that I had to use all of the meanings of the listed bids, since they often conflict with each other. 'Other' appeared to suggest that 'other' meanings were acceptable.

Given the choice of votes, I picked 'other.' Which I explained that my 'other' vote of 2S* would show a limit+ diamond raise.

Most(all?) of my partners 'race' to bid 2NT(3NT?) over my limit+ cuebid raises.

Did you really expect me to bid 3S* Western cuebid 'after' the poll showed a clear winner in percentage vote for a 5D bid?

If the conditions of contest stated that the second highest percentage 'vote' would be deemed to be the subject for discussion, I would have posted my reply based on that statement.

I have no problem with you playing 3S* as a western cuebid in this auction. You might want to list the auction as showing 1D-(1S)-3S*=Western Cuebid 'if' you wanted discussion about that auction.

Hello ArcLight

The largest % vote of the poll was for 5Ds, not for 3Ss.

If a discussion was desired on 3S* used as a Western Cuebid, why let us vote for multiple choices?

The poll 'clearly' gave a possible choice for 'other.' Which I took as meaning 'choose' any 'other' bid and explain the meaning.

Any agreement that Kalvan14 wants to play is fine with me.

If he had asked for comments on the use of 3S as a Western cuebid, I would post that his agreement was playable. I happen to use a different method which I also believe is playable.

I suspect that 3S* played as a splinter could be chosen by 'voting' for other' and explaining that your 'other' vote meant 3S*=splinter with D support.

Regards,
Robert

Robert,
I do believe you are a barracks lawyer .
The poll rules were quite clear, IMHO.
3♠ was defined as "Western Q", so that was the meaning. By the same token, 3♦ was defined as "invitational" so could not be used as a forcing bid.
Other was referred to any bid not identified among the options (so you can answer 2♠).

My aim was to see which would have been bid by the majority: it was 5♦, which, incidentally, was also my choice at the table.
OTOH, what looked like the most effective bid did not result in a good contract.
My own analysis (post-mortem ) was that bypassing 3N was not the best choice. How to eplore the feasibility of playing 3N? IMO, 3♠ (asking for a stopper) was (and is) the best way (with the caveat that partner is not guaranteed to hold ♦A - which means that even a sure stopper in spades might not be enough).

Quote: Did you really expect me to bid 3S* Western cuebid 'after' the poll showed a clear winner in percentage vote for a 5D bid? Unquote

Do you really bid according to the poll results? That's quite surprising for me.

Quote: If the conditions of contest stated that the second highest percentage 'vote' would be deemed to be the subject for discussion, I would have posted my reply based on that statement.Unquote

I will not even try to unravel this statement. Why the 2nd highest vote (or the nth, by all means) has to be the subject for discussion?

[Fluffy]

Kalvan14, on Nov 28 2005, 12:05 AM, said:

I do believe you are a barracks lawyer  .
The poll rules were quite clear, IMHO.
3♠ was defined as "Western Q", so that was the meaning.

If I defined a bid as 'Northern B' would you feel it would be clear?. Because that's exactly what I felt when I saw that explanation of 3♠. That, ,and teh fact that I supose western refires to some american convention (wich probably means it was developed by people who raise on 3 cards so I won't like it, but that's another story). Because is the only country that I know that sometimes divides east-west. You might think northern is irish or korean

[Robert]

Hello kalvan14

I call them like I see them.

You believe that the 'rules' were quite clear. I disagree. That is why people bet on horse races, they have a difference of opinion.

I cannot claim to be a barracks lawyer, I posted that, "I know nothing about civil law."

I did chose 'other.' I am glad that my choice of 'other' was within the 'rules.'

Playing 2S* as limit+, I also use a jump to 3D as a 'weak' jump raise. That eliminated any chance of my voting for the 3D* bid as it was defined on the post.

We both agree that bypassing 3NT was not the best choice. Even if partner bid 3NT it would still be a gamble. I liked the odds here.

We could both be wrong if 3NT was bid and it went down.

If the posts 'rules' stated that you must 'only' discuss the winning vote of the poll, I would have followed the post rules. Unless I am mistaken that would eliminate 3S* for discussion, since the 5D vote got the 'highest percentage' of the vote.

I follow the rules, why should that surprise you? Everyone should follow the rules or be subject to whatever penalties apply.

The second highest 'vote' was for '3S* used as a Western cue' so 'some' people expected that the 5D 'vote winner' had indeed won. Isn't the winer the choice that has the highest percentage of the vote?

In the Real World the 'chioce' that gets the most votes wins.

"To the winner belongs the spoils."

Regards,
Robert

[Kalvan14]

Robert,
a "barracks lawyer" is a guy in the army who sleeps with the military code under his pillow, and always picks up a discussion I remember you had a stint in the army....

The aim of my poll was to see if I had chosen a bid (5♦) which would not have been chosen by the majority. Ok, so I was one of the majority of lemmings that jumped off the 5♦ cliff. Or maybe it was just an unlucky hand.

I have to insist: if 3♠ was defined as Western Q, that was it. Same for 3♦, invitational (note that I play 2N as a pre-emptive raise in a minor, and 3m as an invitational raise. Other people play different systems, and they are welcome to them. However, I posted the poll: IMO, when in Rome....

regards

[luke warm]

mike777, on Nov 24 2005, 07:51 PM, said:

5D

Game try.

heheh