[MickyB]

1♦-(3♣)-X-(P)
3♠-(P)-4♥

What does this show?

To any Acol players out there - do you think it is any different playing Acol, when responder has to routinely act on any hand that wants to be in game opposite 15-16 bal and opener has promised an unbalanced hand?

[Fluffy]

this is rare , but I would take it as teh hand with ♥ that doesn't have the apropiate strenght for 3♥, if 3♥ is forcing as most people do, then 4♥ should admit a 5♦ rectification

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 19 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

Maybe it should in theory be a slam try in spades with no club control with 4C showing a club control but that seems a little esoteric and no one would try that at the table without discussion.

Uhhhhhhhhh... [ ]

Why not? How is that esoteric?

[Limey_p]

Maybe it is a game hand with diamonds and only 4 hearts?

[mikeh]

Justin identified a key issue in his first post: opener may have been about to bid 4♠ over the double.

Either he is completely misbidding, or he had a hand that he felt could play in 5♦ but that he wants to offer 4♥ as a spot... now even this requires an illogical step: why not bid 3♥? Or why not bid 4♦ over 3♠?

So my thinking is that partner has a good playing hand with only moderate hcp: and he was afraid to promise a strong hand: say 1=6=5=1 with x KQ10xxx KJxxx x. Had we bid 4♠, he'd happily bid 5♦, expecting to make, and (indeed) he expects to have a play for 5♦ if we reject 4♥.

If you'd bid 3♥ on the example, maybe he wouldn't ... or you can tweak the general idea to see if you can come up with a similar hand on which you'd consider the auction as given.

[Rebound]

If I may be so bold:
If I were to make this sequence of calls, I picture something partially along the lines of what Justin has said, i.e. 4-6 in ♠/♥, suggesting slam but needing help in the heart suit for it to be a realistic possibility, and, I suppose, denying club control.

However, what if 4♥ is Last Train?

[han]

I think partner has something like KJx AQJx AJxx xx or something like that. Good hand, giving opener the choice to play in the 4-3 fit. Responder doesn't have 4 spades, a club stopper, 5 hearts or a great diamond fit. The 3 spades are certainly not guaranteed, but I would take 4S by opener now as a suggestion to play in that 4-3 fit.

I echo Justin's comment about not wanting to risk such bids at the table.

[kenrexford]

If a call is ambiguous, then making that call is a bad idea, even if there is some theoretical merit to it. However, "ambiguous" means that the interpretation is subject to serious debate or is extremely hard to figure out at the table.

I have no earthly idea how this 4♥ call is ambiguous, notwithstanding some of the unusual interpretations. That's my point. It's not about wanting to do the theory thing and win the post-mortem. It's about doing the obvious thing and winning the board.

Responder doubled 3♣. If he had five hearts initially, he'd bid 3♥. If he has four spades, spades are trumps. If he has four hearts and not four spades, his escape plan after 3♠ was 3NT or 4♦.

4♣ and 4♥, therefore, are clearly slam moves, agreeing spades. 4♣ shows a club control when you have an alternative to deny a club control. That alternative is 4♥.

I mean, look at the alternatives suggested so far, somehow as not the esoteric bids. Sometimes poor diamonds sometimes great diamonds, enabling differentiation between great and good four-card heart suits, offering spade fragments, errors, or logical blunders? Is a bid only esoteric if it is a slam-seeking bid?

For that matter, what is the sense to "writing posts" on this specific question at all? The question was "what does this show?" If you read the posts so far, it apparently means that you have both good and lousy diamonds, great hearts or just average hearts, and either three spades or not three spades, unless partner made a mistake, and it also is Last Train and a cuebid denying clubs. It means this because no one agrees what it means, so it must mean all of these things.

Unless, of course, it does actually mean something. As I would always bid 3NT or 4♦ without four spades in this auction, without variance (except possibly raising to 4♠ on a fragment), 4♥ is not confusing to me. The people I play with would not lose in the post-mortem, because we would be on the same page -- this would obviously be a slam move to them as well, agreeing spades. So, there would be no disagreement in the post-mortem.

I mean, look at the insanity of your own position, Justin. You essentially concluded that no other meaning except a slam move without a club control makes any sense. So, this is not a matter of multiple theoretical possibilities. You saw this as the only plausible meaning. But then you decided, instead, that partner made a mistake. What?!? Why can't partner just be making the right call, with a slammish hand but no club control? Can't the obvious actually be so?

[Impact]

Justin,

no need for vituperation.

Also, consider that neither of you (Justin nor Ken) has clarified a couple of other bids which would affect the possibilities eg direct 4H over 3C should also be defined eg if fit-showing it effectively should take care of Fluffy's concern (albeit such a hand as Hannie suggested should be able to make a forcing raise of D anyway in Acol if not in standard at imps).

Inferential bids at the table require a partner who will think through the possibilities involved - having particular regard to the set of agreements in place in the partnership.

There is only a tiny percentage of players AT ANY LEVEL who are interested in this aspect of the game - and hence it is inherently the antithesis of "winning bridge at the table with an unknown partner".

Anyone who has played rubber bridge or been exposed to S. J Simon or played with clients will eschew such bids as impractical unless they have great faith in their partner (or enjoy sadism or are in cahoots with the opponents to skin the palooka).

That does not make the bid wrong - it just serves to show the risk as few enough players will start with the same premises for reasoning - let alone be prepared or capable of working it out.

Occasionally only a single line of reasoning will be attractive - but usually only with a more defined system. Even BWS which is considerably more defined than "standard" spawns all sorts of alternative premisees to cope with proclivities of practitioners thereby making MSC interesting.

regards

[kenrexford]

Suppose your partner is red on white, first seat, and passes. RHO opens 1♣, you pass, and LHO responds 1NT. Your partner now bids 2♥.

What does that mean? Does he have 6♥/4♠?

If you ask me what 2♥ shows, at these colors and in this auction, I'll say 6♥/4♠. I'll act on that. This is obvious to me.

Granted, perhaps some parameters of system might make a different conclusion, but I'm assuming fairly normal agreements and that 2♥, therefore, show 6♥/4♠.

Now, suppose this is a posted question on this forum. I'd answer 6♥/4♠. If Justin also said 6♥/4♠ "in theory" but decided that this was "too esoteric" and that partner probably has made a bad call, I might ask why partner might just be making the right call.

Then, of course, Justin would attack me with oh-so-subtly veiled mockery and claims that I am too interested in theory over practical, apparently because he does not understand that my regular partner and effective mentor far outclasses anything he might expect. A person who was asked to kibitz Hamman by Hamman to give Hamman pointers on his bidding. Not that this matters, of course. But, I'm not playing with idiots.

So, in any event, I would respond that I do not believe this to be esoteric, but obvious, with explanation. Granted, some may disagree for some reason, but citing these people as great authorities of conventional wisdom is somewhat flawed if this bank of people disagree amongst themselves, as they do on this hand. In other words, had 90% felt that a bid meant X and I thought Y, then I might be esoteric. However, it seems on this hand like the only two who agree 100% with what it should mean are actually me and Justin, strangely.

Anyway. The next stage is Justin calling me a poor bridge player (as if he has a clue about how well I play when I'm not Devil's Advocating and analyzing a hand while answering calls at work). Much hostility, and the like. I've not yet seen a comment about my mother, GRHS.

So, here's my two points. [edited by rain]

Second, bridge is a game involving communication. You need two people with similar mindsets to communicate effectively. This "problem" is an easy one for me, and is one that everyone with whom I play at a competent level would find easy, not because it is obvious but because general agreed parameters to which I and they adhere lead unambiguously to this conclusion. I can't help that.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

Then, of course, Justin would attack me with oh-so-subtly veiled mockery and claims that I am too interested in theory over practical, apparently because he does not understand that my regular partner and effective mentor far outclasses anything he might expect.  A person who was asked to kibitz Hamman by Hamman to give Hamman pointers on his bidding.  Not that this matters, of course.  But, I'm not playing with idiots.

I'm sorry to rise to the bait... but who is this partner of yours to whom Bob Hamman looks for advice? This smacks of the American Idol show where some appallingly bad perfomers seem to think that they are great. Sorry, if that seems insulting, but you play with a partner to whom Hamman looks for pointers on bidding????? I know that Kokish coaches that team.... but I also know Eric, and I don't think you play with him.....

Now, Justin actually knows and plays with Hamman, so I should probably leave the comments to him... but if your partner really believes that Hamman regards him as a bidding advisor..... either he is mistaken or he is one of the world's top dozen players and I think we'd have heard of him by now.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

Responder doubled 3♣. If he had five hearts initially, he'd bid 3♥. If he has four spades, spades are trumps. If he has four hearts and not four spades, his escape plan after 3♠ was 3NT or 4♦.

You see, if you just make one different assumption than partner in such a logical reasoning, you will come to a different conclusion. For me, 4♦ is non-forcing. If partner has a hand such as Han's, he certainly can't bid this; his escape plan with a GF 3442-hand without stopper can't be 3N nor 4♦. So your argument breaks down already.

Btw, I am not saying that your line of reasoning won't work with a regular partner. Your regular partner may know that you often treat new suit bids as slam tries for the previously bid suits, after you have implied somewhat limited length in the previously bid suit earlier. So maybe he will read 4♥ here and 5♦ in the other thread as slam tries.

Myself, I would have been absolutely confident about the 5♦ bid in the other thread when playing with Han, but not about 4♥ here, so I wouldn't bid it.

Arend

[SoTired]

I think of the meaning of 4H cannot be determined without 1) knowing the partnership and 2) looking at more evidence (like opening bidder's hand). I also think the meaning of 4H is a poor question. A better question is: Here is opener's hand (....), what should opener bid over 4H?

Is 4H ambiguous? Obviously. You read all these posts and notice all the opinions about its meaning and easily conclude that.

I hate these personal attacks. Especially when a reknown expert rips an intermediate player who was getting a little too full of themself, even when the intermediate player instigated the fight and deserves it. Too crushing and too close to home...

This post has been edited by SoTired: 2007-February-20, 12:55

[kenrexford]

You know, there is a problem here.

If 4♥ shows slam interest without a club control, then 4♣ shows a club control. If 4♥ is some sort of natural punt, then 4♣ says nothing about a club control. If you do not know what 4♥ means, then you do not know what 4♣ means. Electing out by simply bidding 4♣ in not an option.

If 4♥ is not a slam move, then 4♦ has tweaked meanings. Some disagree as to what 4♦ means, even if 4♥ is natural of some variety.

So, apparently nothing means anything specific? Is 1♦-3♣-X that peculiar an auction?

Point: Sometimes you do not have the luxury of not pulling an "esoteric" bid on partner. Especially, if all bids would apparently have esoteric implications.

Point 2: I find it humorous that, to me, the practical bid with uncertainty is always 4♦, such that 4♥ is clearly slammish with spades. That seems pretty non-esoteric. Using 4♦ and 4♥, without discussion, to distinguish fine details of Responder's heart-diamond-spade matrix seems a tad more esoteric.

[fred]

Maybe 4H suggests a hand like this:

Qxxx
AK109xx
xx
x

That is, a hand for which 4H might be the best contract despite the 4-4 spade fit - imagine that!

Sure you might bid 3H with this hand the first time (but you might not).

Sure you might judge to Pass 3S or raise to 4S (but you might not).

I have never thought about this sequence before. If my partner used this sequence I would try to apply the "if an undiscussed bid can be natural it is natural" principle.

Since 4H could be a useful natural bid (for example with the hand above) that is what I would play my partner to be doing.

If it turned out that partner was testing my ability to figure out the obvious and artificial nature of 4H, then I would fail his test. Hopefully partner would learn from the experience and not test me like this in the future.

Otherwise our partnership would be unlikely to last long.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Maybe it is just me but if partner has spades and a slam try hand and needs a club control why not just bid 5s over 3s?

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Feb 20 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

Then, of course, Justin would attack me with oh-so-subtly veiled mockery and claims that I am too interested in theory over practical, apparently because he does not understand that my regular partner and effective mentor far outclasses anything he might expect.  A person who was asked to kibitz Hamman by Hamman to give Hamman pointers on his bidding.  Not that this matters, of course.  But, I'm not playing with idiots.

I'm sorry to rise to the bait... but who is this partner of yours to whom Bob Hamman looks for advice? This smacks of the American Idol show where some appallingly bad perfomers seem to think that they are great. Sorry, if that seems insulting, but you play with a partner to whom Hamman looks for pointers on bidding????? I know that Kokish coaches that team.... but I also know Eric, and I don't think you play with him.....

Now, Justin actually knows and plays with Hamman, so I should probably leave the comments to him... but if your partner really believes that Hamman regards him as a bidding advisor..... either he is mistaken or he is one of the world's top dozen players and I think we'd have heard of him by now.

Well, I doubt Bob Hamman really needs much advice from anyone. But it is possible a much lessor player may have suggested a new treatment that Bob likes but had not yet studied. In such case, he might want some instant feedback (no doubt he would quickly study the treatment and decide what is best on his own).

There seems to be no real reason to call Ken out on this one. Justin was a little dogmatic (point out some obvious things dealing with how people will take 4♥) and Ken defended himself. I think it is clear enough that 4♥ can be taken several different ways, which was justins long winded point.

Ken has written an interesting book on cue-bidding, and has a description of it written by david bird. Anyone who has google can do an online search to see who might have partnered ken over the years. Perhaps one of them was asked by Bob to comment, perhpas they TOLD ken bob had asked, rather it is true or not. I see this going no where useful. Does Ken play with any world class players? Is it on line or in ACBL or over dinner at someone's home? Even if not, does the partner know Bob Hammon and advise him? Let's not go there.

As for the meaning of 4♥, I think it has to be HEARTS and a willingness to play either hearts or spades or hearts or diamonds. It is NOT forcing (partner could have bid 3♥ to force), and it is not slam invitational (partner can pass, remember opener has shown NOTHING extra, how can responder be inviting slam if too weak to do something other than negative double?). I suspect long hearts and either weak four spades or weak four/five diamonds.