[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

As to the enjoyment of the game.

This is the part that really boggles me most, from my personal perspective. Winning is nice, of course. But, one major appeal to bridge for me is in the ability of the game to enable amazing discourse between two partners, at bidding and defense. If I end a game in second place, I might be disappointed at the result. But, if my partner and I were on the same page in extremely interesting ways throughout the game, reaching amazing contracts or making excellent stops with confidence because of a developed partnership, or finding incredible defense for the same reasons, then I enjoyed the game. In the end, the performance of the act is much better than the reward of the result.

For me winning is not just "nice" - it is a substantial part of my income.

It also means that I am under a lot of pressure when I play. If my partner and I get to an absurd contract due to a bidding misunderstanding, I can't just write it off as "that was interesting" - such incidents are professionally embarassing.

Of course I understand the satisfaction you get when you and your partner are on the same wavelength and get to a wonderful contract as a result. But I can assure you that you can experience at least as much satisfaction after a well-judged natural auction.

For me the key is not maximizing the fun that comes from getting a hand right. It is minimizing the pain that comes from disasters that could have been avoided.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

My first thought was something like Han's interpretation but then Justin convinced me and reading on further, Fred convinced me. Seeing the actual hand I'm back to Hannie's interpretation, I think that's a hand that comes up frequently and has a serious bidding problem.

But maybe it could be argued that 4♦ or 5♦ is technically just as good, so you might as well adopt Fred's interpretation or maybe Justin's. At the table, I would bid 5♦ which I consider a reasonable and at least non-ambigous bid.

Added: Couldn't Fred's and Han's interpretations work together? Both essentially mean "pass with three hearts, otherwise bid 4♠". Fred's hand will then pass 4♠ while Han's will correct 4♠ to 5♦.

[fred]

helene_t, on Feb 21 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

My first thought was something like Han's interpretation but then Justin convinced me and reading on further, Fred convinced me. Seeing the actual hand I'm back to Hannie's interpretation, I think that's a hand that comes up frequently and has a serious bidding problem.

But maybe it could be argued that 4♦ or 5♦ is technically just as good, so you might as well adopt Fred's interpretation or maybe Justin's. At the table, I would bid 5♦ which I consider a reasonable and at least non-ambigous bid.

Added: Couldn't Fred's and Han's interpretations work together? Both essentially mean "pass with three hearts, otherwise bid 4♠". Fred's hand will then pass 4♠ while Han's will correct 4♠ to 5♦.

I was not very proud of my example hand with 4-6 in the majors since there are obviously other reasonable ways to bid this hand. At the time I wasn't really trying to solve the problem - I was mostly trying to show a different type of example hand where partner might want to make a natural non-forcing 4H bid.

I prefer the example hands with 4 strong hearts including the one that existed when this deal was actually played. If my partner bid that way with the hand in question I would definitely offer him a "well bid partner".

But the main point here is that your first thought should be "Is it possible that this undiscussed 4H bid in natural?". If you answer "yes" then you will at least know that partner is offering 4H as a final contract. Even if you don't know exactly what his hand looks like you have a reasonable chance of making the winning decision.

Probably most people would interpret 4D over 3S as non-forcing (I would). If that is the case then the only alternative for bidding a 2443, 3442, or 3433 (maybe other shapes too) hand with lots of points, 4 strong hearts, and no club stopper is to bid 3H instead of making a negative double. In real life I suspect very few experts would bid 3H on such a hand - DBL is very normal.

So now I am thinking that it makes a lot of sense to bid hands in this family by starting with a negative DBL and then bidding 4H over 3S.

For those of you who:

- Can't buy that 4H is a useful natural bid and
- Agree that 4D would be non-forcing and
- Don't mind having numerous obscure agreements about numerous obscure auctions

I suggest you use 4H as an artificial slam try in diamonds (as opposed to a cuebid in support of spades with no club control).

For those of you who buy that neither of these agreements about the (artificial) meaning of 4H are ridiculous from a pure bidding theory point of view, perhaps the very fact that (at least) 2 such agreements exist will convince you that inventing conventions at the table is a bad idea (but I doubt it).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I hear what you are saying, Fred, but you still keep missing a major point here.

You have provided several examples of what 4♥ could mean without discussion. Thus, as 4♥ could mean any number of non-natural things, and any number of natural things (forcing or non-forcing, etc.), then any bid of 4♥ without discussion or parameters is wrong.

Bidding 4♥ as "natural" without more definition is just as wrong as bidding 4♥ as "artificial" without more.

Making up a meaning at the table with one rule ("if it could be natural, it is") is not necessarily better than making up a meaning with a different rule (maybe "if it sounds artificial, it is a slam cuebid for the last bid suit"). Actually, the latter is more usable, as (1) I know what a cuebid shows, but (2) I have no idea what merely "natural" means if I cannot know whether it is natural and forcing, natural and passable, natural implying choice between diamonds and hearts, natural implying choice between hearts and spades, natural implying good diamonds, natural implying bad diamonds, or whatever.

This problem really, then, boils down to an impossible issue. One cannot define 4♥ at all unless one has agreed defaults. Your agreed default seems to be "if it could be natural then it is." That rule seems too simplistic and unusable for me, best illustrated by the number of different and conflicting nuances offered by all of the "it could be natural" folks.

My default in this situation is clear to me and usable. If I make a call that essentially asks partner to pick a four-card major at the three-level, and he shows spades, then my immediate bid of hearts at the four-level agrees spades and is a slam move. In other words, I cannot immediately offer an alternative Moysian.

Why would my default be worse than your default? Mine at least is clear, as opposed to the ambiguous "natural." Admittedly, in the problem presented, no defaults were mentioned at all, such that the "could be natural" default might be an inferior but generally accepted default.

The idea that 4♥ could be a slam move in diamonds does appeal to me, admittedly. I usually play that four of the out-of-focus major is RKCB for the agreed (or inferred) minor. However, that rule only kicks in and trumps the rule I actually applied if the minor has been agreed already (it has not yet) or if inferring the minor is contextually necessary. This would be contextually necessary if 4♦ would be non-forcing and if 3♦ also would be non-forcing, and if there is no way in this auction to show diamond support, four hearts, and GF values.

To me, X...4♦ would be not be passable. I am not all that interested in a tight stop at 4♦ after this preemption. In the long run, I'll sacrifice an occasional small set in 5♦ when 4♦ would make, or will give the Moysian 4M a go, to allow better auctions for slam purposes and better auctions to game in a major. After 4♦ forcing, now we can discuss Moysian fits, or I might raise 3♠ immediately to 4♠ on occasion.

[inquiry]

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

You have provided several examples of what 4♥ could mean without discussion. Thus, as 4♥ could mean any number of non-natural things, and any number of natural things (forcing or non-forcing, etc.), then any bid of 4♥ without discussion or parameters is wrong.

If natural, 4♥ CAN NOT BE FORCING.

[jdonn]

fred, on Feb 21 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

I was not very proud of my example hand with 4-6 in the majors since there are obviously other reasonable ways to bid this hand. At the time I wasn't really trying to solve the problem - I was mostly trying to show a different type of example hand where partner might want to make a natural non-forcing 4H bid.

Let me preface by saying Justin asked me what I think 4♥ should mean and I immediately said cuebid, basing that on my own version of bridge logic rather than a blanket rule. However I would still never bid it at the table (except maybe now with Justin) since I have no idea how any other partner would interpret it.

I actually think your first example of Qxxx AKT9xx xx x was pretty good and a very convincing example to make an argument that the bid should be natural. It's true you could bid 3♥ instead of starting with a negative double, but if you knew that on the given auction partner would interpret 4♥ as natural then wouldn't you certainly bid it that way? It would avoid partner with say 4144 having to guess between 3♠ and 3NT over 3♥ (and if he happened to guess 3NT you would miss spades). It might also reach the best contract if partner has hands with 3 spades where he was stuck for a bid

AKx Qx QJTx xxxx

or 4 lousy spades where playing in that suit might create an extra loser that you have a chance to pitch if playing in hearts

Kxxx Qx KQJTx Kx
xxxx Jxx AKQx Ax

Those may not be perfect examples since they were hastily constructed, but they make the point anyway. Even though I still believe that bid should be a cuebid, a partner could make a perfectly logical argument the other way with hands like these, and who would I be to say partner is wrong?

And Inquiry is right of course. It is beyond ludicrous to suggest 4♥ could possibly be forcing, IF it is natural.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

Why would my default be worse than your default?  Mine at least is clear, as opposed to the ambiguous "natural."  .

You are assuming clearly defined=necessarily good.

A natural 4H does not have to be clearly defined in terms of expected hand type(s) in order for this bid to be highly effective.

It is not important that 4H is ambiguous as to what it *shows*

All that matters is the (natural) message that a natural 4H carries:

If 4H is natural it means "I think we might be able to win 10 tricks with hearts as trump. What do you think?".

If the partner of the natural 4H bidder wants to waste some time and energy he can sit there and think about what hand type his partner might have.

Or he could look at his hand. If he has Axx of hearts he will know what to do.

Isn't that an appealling way to bid?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I shied away from this problem cause I thought it was a bitch...

I'd like to backtrack from rather involved discussion about the 4♥ and look at the original double. A number of the folks who are discussing this thread seem to be assuming that the initial double unambiguously absolutely promises 4+ cards in both majors. However, I've (occasionally) seen double that look quite different: For example, what should one bid with the following:

♠ KQT
♥ 65432
♦ AQJ9
♣ 2

I think that double is (probably) the most reasonable call. I certainly prefer double to 3♦ or 3♥. Furthermore, if you allow a double with this hand type, you need a rebid over 3♠.

Using 4♥ as a grope for strain seems reasonable... I'm not claiming that this is necessarily the best treatment, however, I don't believe that 4♥ as a slam try with Spades agreed to is complete unambiguous.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2007, 01:57 PM, said:

I'd like to backtrack from rather involved discussion about the 4♥ and look at the original double. A number of the folks who are discussing this thread seem to be assuming that the initial double unambiguously absolutely promises 4+ cards in both majors.

Huh? I didn't see anyone assuming that, and I hope you are wrong.
A negative double with two unbid majors never promises both majors, unless you are doubling 1♦. In this auction 1D (3C), with a 2443 too strong to pass, everybody will double.

Arend

[kenrexford]

fred, on Feb 21 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

It is not important that 4H is ambiguous as to what it *shows*

All that matters is the (natural) message that a natural 4H carries:

If 4H is natural it means "I think we might be able to win 10 tricks with hearts as trump. What do you think?".

If the partner of the natural 4H bidder wants to waste some time and energy he can sit there and think about what hand type his partner might have.

Or he could look at his hand. If he has Axx of hearts he will know what to do.

Isn't that an appealling way to bid?

Not really.

If I have no idea whether your 4♥ shows really good hearts (AQJx maybe), I cannot know what to do with Kx, where passing might be right. What about xxx?

If 4♥ could be great hearts, or could be the only way to force with diamonds and hearts, perhaps Qxxx is enough, because of great diamonds?

For that matter, if natural all the way makes sense, why not have an auction where we keep creeping up toward which Moysian or 4-2 major fit makes sense, at the cost of any constructive slam auctions?

This is so insanely simple to me. If I have a hand that cannot force game, with diamonds, I'll bid 3♦ after 3♣. If partner wants to pass, we're probably high enough. If not, he can introduce a major.

If I am too strong to have 3♦ passed, I'll probably double with at least one major, but maybe neither. If partner bids either major, I might raise it. If he bids hearts, I might introduce spades. If he bids spades, hearts is now out of the picture. If I don't like his choice, I bid diamonds. OR, I might even bid 3NT.

If I had held a five-card major, I'd bid it.

Now, how simple is that? How appealing is that? I simply bid what I have, and I don't make weird "which Moysian" calls like 4♥. I game bash, to a degree, and bid naturally initially. If I have 6-4 in the majors, I bid the long one, especially if it is hearts, instead of doubling and then catching up with some weird 4♥ call.

I'm the esoteric one???

I've seen how these double-first-then-guess auctions work out in practice. Doubling is not the solution for all possible hands.

Look at the recent suggested hand problem. With xxxxx in hearts, and KQJ in spades, bid 3♥. How difficult is that? Or, if you prefer, double and then bid 4♦, letting partner bid 4♥. We know, now, that we have a diamond fit, and that Opener has 4342 pattern, probably.

All this nonsense wriggling about with a double and then punt 4♥ call seems so absurd in comparison with the simple idea I have as to clear bidding, especially when I'm being described as the esoteric one. I just do not get why Responder must bid 4♥ to offer the Moysian, when 4♦ allows Opener to bid 4♥ to offer the Moysian. Why do we both need to offer the Moysian? Is this to clarify Axxx opposite KQx, as opposed to AQxx opposite Kxx? No one has suggested this yet, and it might make some sense, but apparently all of the "if it sounds natural then it is" people have no real grasp of the reason for this two-way bidding.

My tone may be angry, but it simply frustrates the heck out of me to be attacked by Justin and argued with as if I was applying some esoteric nonsense thinking when I genuinely believe that this 4♥ call only is ambiguous if you completely ignore a simple way to bid in this situation. If any of this 4♥ as natural stuff makes any sense, then what the heck would 4♥ be by Opener if you do bid 4♦? If natural, offering a place to play, then we do not need 4♥ by Responder to offer that contract. The only way we need that is if 4♦ is non-forcing. So, this entire nonsense seems to revolve around why you would not bid 3♦ with diamonds (and easily a major) and passable, double then 4♦ forcing.

[cherdano]

Ken, maybe you should have realized by now that most treat double, then 4♦, as non-forcing, about invitational values. Of course you can bid 3♦ with that, but that bid has a much lower end, and you are making it very wide-ranging. There are also many hands where you are really close to game if you find a major fit (or if partner has a club stopper), but 5♦ needs substantial extras from partner.

When you claim a lot of stuff is nonsense based on an assumption that you still not realize isn't standard makes your reasoning a little....esoteric.

Arend

[inquiry]

Hmmmm....

Seems justin and jdonn have agreed to play it the way you suggest (I could be wrong, I am not going back to read all the post), so justin is just disagring with your statement that 4♥ is unambigious (if undefinced). Clearly if YOU and YOUR partner have an agreement, then it is not unambigious.

To the next point. Are you being esoteric? Well, let's at least say non standard. Lets examine a few of your statements in light of typical negative double dogma.

Quote

This is so insanely simple to me. If I have a hand that cannot force game, with diamonds, I'll bid 3♦ after 3♣. If partner wants to pass, we're probably high enough. If not, he can introduce a major.

With four card major and four diamond, and not enough to force to game (say 10 to 11 points), most people would make a negative double. Add to that, the 3♦ raise over a preempt is often considered under pressure and might be just viewed as competitive. I think at least some of your suggested 3♦ bid hands would be considered non-standard.

Quote

If I had held a five-card major, I'd bid it.

This lumps negative free bids in with forcing bids in the major. This makes no sense whatso ever. Especially given you obviously can not DOUBLE with a good hand and then rebid hearts (as if playing negative free bid), because you asign a different meaning to heart rebids, and if you have a five card major you "bid it".

One thing you get right is...

Quote

If I am too strong to have 3♦ passed, I'll probably double with at least one major, but maybe neither. If partner bids either major, I might raise it. If he bids hearts, I might introduce spades. If he bids spades, hearts is now out of the picture.

Here when you "bid spades" over his ♥ bid, presumably you have five (or more of them). This is of course correct (a hand not good enough for a forcing 3♠ initially).. but how does this fit into your other statement that if you had a five card major you would bid it?

As for this auction,

Quote

. If any of this 4♥ as natural stuff makes any sense, then what the heck would 4♥ be by Opener if you do bid 4♦? If natural, offering a place to play, then we do not need 4♥ by Responder to offer that contract.

Not sure if I understand, but lets assume the auction was 1D-3C-X-P-4D, now 4♥ is clearly an invitation to play 4♥ or 5♦, and 4♥ is still non-forcing. On this auction, hearts are pretty good, and diamonds (bid and rebid with a jump) is always a possible strain. And you do need a 4♦ rebid by responder. If he is 2-4-4-3 for instance, after 3♠, he rebid 4♦ as a possible final contract. Opener with undisclosed 4♥'s or reasonable hand for moysein can bid 4♥, or he can pass or take a shot at 5♦ (lwhich is unlikely given the 3♠ response).

Would I call your treatment esoteric? No. Would I call it non-standard? Certainly.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

My tone may be angry, but it simply frustrates the heck out of me to be attacked by Justin and argued with as if I was applying some esoteric nonsense thinking when I genuinely believe that this 4♥ call only is ambiguous if you completely ignore a simple way to bid in this situation.

The problem is not so much with your suggested interpretation of the meaning of 4♥ (altho I certainly don't agree with it), and not even with your proposition that your interpetation is 'simple'.

It is the stunning illogic of the proposition that if your approach is 'a' simple way of bidding, then it is 'the' simple way of bidding, and those of us who fail to appreciate that point must be morons... our moronic inability to see the 'true path' of your bridge logic drives you to frustration!

I happen to think that my idea of 4♥ (long ♥s, with long ♦s and moderate hcp but lots of playing strength) is very simple and logical. 'Partner, let's play a red suit game, but don't play me for opening hand values'.

I actually do think that my regular partners would at least consider this as my intended meaning were I to perpetrate the bid, but I am not so arrogant as to imagine that my 'simple' idea is the only logical suggestion. I certainly recognize the logic behind the other uses put forward so far.

I do not mean to denigrate you: I have no idea of how strong a player you actually are. But I am morally certain that you lack the experience and insight of players such as Fred. That is by no means to say that your bridge logic is thus inherently worse than his: but surely you should at least consider that it may be.... and get rid of the frustration act. To be blunt, the idea that you are frustrated because players such as Fred and Justin disagree with you is risible. It's akin to a high school physics teacher in the 1920s being frustrated because Einstein wouldn't agree with his approach to relativity.

Try to learn from the thought processes described by Fred... recognize that other points of view have validity and your appreciation of the game will expand, as will your abilities. Less certainty and more willingness to understand are both good bases for improvement in many aspects of life... bridge being one of them.

[jikl]

As an example of two expert players having major disasters in esoteric sequences, this is my favourite one in print (The Big Game). This is rubber bridge and you are playing £100 Chicago. North is Micheal Courtney, South is Zia.

---

North - South
2♠(1) - 3♦
3♥ - 4♦
4♠ - 4NT(2)
5♠(3) - 5NT
6♦(4) - 7♣(5)
Pass!!

(Alerts mostly paraphrased from book)

1: An Acol Two. His suits are rather straggly; however, if he had opened 1♠ and been passed out, he could have been missing as high a contract as 7♥ opposite say:

---

2: Zia admitted that when he was recounting the hand that because it was MC he sould have bid 6♠ at this point.

3: Three Aces

4: One King

5: This is the master bid. Zia meant it to say'pick the right major-suit grand slam'. The point of 7♣ is to make North bid 7♠ with:

---

when delcarer may be able to cater for a bad heart break by establising the diamonds, or to bid 7♥ with:

---

when he can ruff a spade in dummy to cater for a bad spade break.

Apart from this the bid was unwise, because it can lead to a majordisaster. Remember Zia had not supported either of Courtney's suitsat any stage. Courtney convinced himself Zia must have something like:

---

when 7♣ would be the best spot. With that hand Zia would have bid 4♣ over 3♥, but when you adopt these confusing sequences, bad things can happen.

-------

Outcome:

When Zia went seven down in 7♣ Courtney was unabashed; he pointed out his pass had cost only 300 - the spades were 4-1 and 7♠ and 7♥ were failing also.

(From author) I stress that Zia and Courtney are two of the best players in the game, which is why it is instructive to see that even they occasionally have a disaster.

-------

Back to me:

I thought this might illustrate the points Justin, Fred and Mike were trying to make. Whilst many might not know who Michael Courtney is, it is still illustrative.

Sean

[SoTired]

I don't want to find the exact quotes..

BUT I HAVE IT NOW. EVERYBODY IS RIGHT! It was Einstein that had it right! Everything is relative.

Fred/Justin/Mikeh point of view: It is professionally (or financially) embarrassing to have a disaster, so disasters are to be avoided. Therefore, since 4H having any surprise unnatural meaning is a terrible bid undiscussed, it must be natural and non-forcing. My partners would not spring this on me otherwise.

Ken's point of view: I will risk a disaster for a bid I see as clear. Since 4H is unlikely to be a natural bid, it must be a heart q-bid in support of spades and lacking a club q-bid. If partner sees this another way, too bad, next hand.

[kenrexford]

Still missing glaring points over and over and over.

If Opener has 4342/4351/4360/4333, will he not open 1♦, reply 3♠ to the negative double, and then pattern out with 4♥ after 4♦, in an attempt to find the right contract, when 4♥ makes sense?

E.g., opener has 4342 pattern, the one you seek when bidding 4♥ as responder. So, instead, watch the auction:

1♦-3♣-X-P
3♠-P-4♦-P
4♥ (4342 expected)

If this is true, Responder does not need to bid the four-card heart suit.

Had I been told that this idea was non-standard, I would agree. Not that this non-standard thinking is therefore errant. Not that my lack of credentials or believed lack of experience refutes the position. (I've actually played this game for 27 years, a decent amount of experience, for what it is worth.)

However, the other side argued that I was being esoteric. The word esoteric is often used to refute a concept that one disagrees with or does not get, often unfairly. The "attack" on the field of "could be natural" people is not a specific attack on one person. It is an attack on the principle. For, if the principle has been applied by many people to lead to many possible conclusions, a fact no one can deny, then that principle itself is not all that useful.

When "natural" can be 6♥/4♠ or 4♥/3♠, how useful is this "could be natural" as an analysis tool? Obviously, something more than a simple "could be natural" is guiding people in their achieving different interpretations, and that something else is not identified.

So, when Fred implicitly infers that my interpretation of this auction is unnecessarily difficult by noting how simple his idea is, namely that 4♥ offers hearts as a contract, not admitting that there is a vast difference between the "could be natural" theories leading to 4-card, 5-card, and 6-card heart suit, and 3-card, 4-card, or even 2-card spade suit possibilities, this sounds and is absurd.

Any theory of bidding that results in a pen-ultimate 4♥ call where logic and rules adopted by the partnership lead to a conclusion that Responder has 4-6 hearts and 2-4 spades, and we are at game, is silliness; I'm sorry, but it is.

Quote all the results you have in high-level competition, all the great teams you have been on, and how long you have played the game, and 4-6/2-4 still is silliness.

My way, Opener shows his pattern and is known to be 4342/4351/4360 (with 4333, he'd open 1♣). Great pattern description, as compared to a Responder holding 4-6 hearts, 2-4 spades, and some unknown number of diamonds.

If that is non-standard, then perhaps standard needs to change?

[kenrexford]

SoTired, on Feb 22 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

I don't want to find the exact quotes..

BUT I HAVE IT NOW. EVERYBODY IS RIGHT! It was Einstein that had it right! Everything is relative.

Fred/Justin/Mikeh point of view: It is professionally (or financially) embarrassing to have a disaster, so disasters are to be avoided. Therefore, since 4H having any surprise unnatural meaning is a terrible bid undiscussed, it must be natural and non-forcing. My partners would not spring this on me otherwise.

Ken's point of view: I will risk a disaster for a bid I see as clear. Since 4H is unlikely to be a natural bid, it must be a heart q-bid in support of spades and lacking a club q-bid. If partner sees this another way, too bad, next hand.

The arrogance and simple election to attack here and praise the idols is why I am so frustrated, and frankly livid.

Contrary to the repeated assertions, I am not risking a disaster by bidding this way. Far from it, I discuss these matters with partners. So, they will understand it, and we will only use it if we agree on the merits.

How rude and idiotic is this kind of comment.

I mean, suppose you open 1NT, partner bids 3♦ (5-5 in majors, invitational or better). If you think about 4♣ as a super-acceptance of hearts and make that call, are you being esoteric and expecting partner to field something that has multiple possible meanings?

Of course not, if you and partner have agreed to use flag bids after any two-suited bid.

Get real. I am not risking any disaster by pulling this stuff with a partner who gets it. I would only be risking this with a new partner, after no discussion. I would not pull this or almost anything on a new partner.

For that matter, see above. If Fred and Justin are so much more partnership-oriented by using 4♥ as natural, why are there definitions of natural that include 2-4 spades, 4-6 hearts and an unknown number of diamonds?

If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that some of my ideas as to auctions like this are embodied in a text that one of my favorite partners helped to create. Obviously, we are on the same page if we wrote the page together.

[SoTired]

kenrexford, on Feb 22 2007, 09:17 AM, said:

How rude and idiotic is this kind of comment.

And to think I was trying to be nice to you.... Amazing... You have started a flame war and stated the same position over and over again. Each time with more vitriol. You have refused to acknowledge that there is any other possible opinion but yours. Over and over again.

Amazingly, when a third-party tries to show how your stubbornness actually makes some sense, you attack them.

No doubt you will attack this post also. I will let you have the last word.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Feb 22 2007, 08:08 AM, said:

Still missing glaring points over and over and over.

If Opener has 4342/4351/4360/4333, will he not open 1♦, reply 3♠ to the negative double, and then pattern out with 4♥ after 4♦, in an attempt to find the right contract, when 4♥ makes sense?

E.g., opener has 4342 pattern, the one you seek when bidding 4♥ as responder. So, instead, watch the auction:

1♦-3♣-X-P
3♠-P-4♦-P
4♥ (4342 expected)

If this is true, Responder does not need to bid the four-card heart suit.

Had I been told that this idea was non-standard, I would agree. Not that this non-standard thinking is therefore errant. Not that my lack of credentials or believed lack of experience refutes the position. (I've actually played this game for 27 years, a decent amount of experience, for what it is worth.)

Uhm. I think I told you about 5 times that in my opinion, 4♦ is non-forcing in standard. Hence a weak NT with 4342 will pass 4♦, not bid 4♥.

Your sequence shows a 4351 or 4441 hand with mild extras.