[Chris L]

[quote name='mycroft' timestamp='1291341976' post='513334']

As to why 3D instead of passing 2Dx, is passing 2Dx really "I'd rather play diamonds than your major, pard"?

It's not uncommon to play a pass of the double as "I'm happy to consider playing in 2Dx if you are at all suitable, pd" with redouble saying "bid your major" and other bids as they would be without the double.

[vigfus]

There must be very strong evidence that south knew that north was messing upp things, to rule his 3♦ bid amber or red.
South's 3♥ bid is very logical. He had not yet told his partner which was his major.
TD's have to be careful not to destroy the fun of bridge in situations like that.
Has psycing been banned in poker ?

[gordontd]

 vigfus, on 2010-December-05, 11:16, said:

South's 3♥ bid is very logical. He had not yet told his partner which was his major.

His partner's bid has said "I'm not going to ask you which major you hold, because it's more important for me to tell you I have diamonds". In that context, why would you bid a major your partner doesn't want to know about, rather than supporting his minor?

[alphatango]

 gordontd, on 2010-December-05, 11:38, said:

His partner's bid has said "I'm not going to ask you which major you hold, because it's more important for me to tell you I have diamonds". In that context, why would you bid a major your partner doesn't want to know about, rather than supporting his minor?

In the context of holding a "good weak two" with diamond support, how about a plan of 3H followed by 4D over 3NT, 5D over 4H, 5C(!) over 4D, etc.? Perhaps inferior to a direct 4D/4H bid, but not illogical, surely? (What if an inquiry might have required opener's (wrong) weak two to respond 3M, forcing responder to bid 4D to show the diamond suit -- also a plausible reason for bidding 3D here rather than 2NT?)

The possibility of strong options in 2D also seems to detract from the viability of 3D as a controlled psyche, even if one were to require opener bid 3M all the time with a weak 2. Perhaps it depends on the relative frequency of the various options?

[RMB1]

 vigfus, on 2010-December-05, 11:16, said:

There must be very strong evidence that south knew that north was messing up things, to rule his 3♦ bid amber or red.

There is no such requirement for "very strong evidence" to rule "amber". All that is needed is "some" evidence.

EBU Orange Book said:

6 B 4. A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche.

[Free]

 gordontd, on 2010-December-05, 11:38, said:

His partner's bid has said "I'm not going to ask you which major you hold, because it's more important for me to tell you I have diamonds". In that context, why would you bid a major your partner doesn't want to know about, rather than supporting his minor?

Because he's probably void in one of the Majors and expects you to hold that suit based on percentages. That doesn't mean you always hold that particular Major (2♦-2♠ P/C isn't always passed out either), and IF you happen the have the OM you might be going for grand slam very easily. Say you have KJxx-void-AKJxxx-Axx and partner opens 2♦ multi. You expect partner to have ♥ so bidding 2NT won't give you any useful information. But what if partner happens to have AQxxxx-xxx-Qxx-x or AQxxxx-xxx-Qx-xx? If he supports ♦ then what is your ♠KJxx worth? If opener rebids his Major first, with or without ♦ fit, then you can valuate your hand much better.

3♦ doesn't say he's not interested in your Major, it merely says he thinks he knows which one I hold (and is not interested in that one) so the responses over 2NT won't be as helpful as describing his own hand first most of the time. Responder usually won't have a void in both Majors.

There is something to be said to support ♦ with a good holding, but then you still need to be able to find the Major fit. See the above example, if the auction would go 2♦-3♦-4♦-4♠, what does it mean? I'm pretty sure most people won't have detailed agreements on such sequences. I've been playing multi for years, have detailed agreements about lots of auctions, but I've never made any agreements like this and it has never come up either! That's why I think it's quite logical to show the Major anyway.

[phil_20686]

It does seem a bit absurd to decide that partner cannot bid 3d with x Axx AKJTxxx Kx because if he does partner is not allowed to bid his heart suit? Surely 3H over 3d is just normal. If partner bids 3N then I can bid 4d. Moreover, partner should always basically have a GF hand here. If he had an invitational hand with support for one major he would probably have either bid 2N or bid 2M P/c planning to invite if partner had the other one. Bidding diamonds before raising your major might just be a way to help you evaulate your hand for slam. Not sure whar agreements you have but with:
Axx Axx AKxxxx x or something you would surely start with 3d on your way to making a slam try in the major.

[mycroft]

I'm still confused, all ye 3D "bid your major in case I have it" people, at what you do after 2D-X-3D-p; 3H-p-4H-p; 5D?
Or do you pass 4H with the opener's hand and potentially miss 6D? How do you tell when partner has the OPs hand and when he has xxx KJxxxx x Kxx? or xxx KQxxxx x xxx?

I do realize I come from the "multi is impossible to defend against" part of the world, so I don't have experience answering exactly these questions.

[Edit - removed 14th card]

[bluejak]

Will someone explain this to me, because I do not understand it. On a sequence [does not matter which] a player, in a position where playing in a minor is very rare, makes a natural forcing bid of 3♦. Partner, who has shown nothing in the suit [could be void] has Kxx and a singleton elsewhere. In what circumstances do you not raise?

Looks blood Red to me. Ok, there are other possibilities, as Jeffrey mentions, as to whether it is a psyche or not, but when a player fields an apparent psyche, and his partner said "I psyched", I reckon Red psyche.

[gordontd]

 Free, on 2010-December-07, 09:40, said:

There is something to be said to support ♦ with a good holding, but then you still need to be able to find the Major fit.

You make a forcing enquiry, and if partner turns out to have the major for which you don't have support, then you bid your diamonds.