[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Feb 20 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

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.

That's my rule.

The only difficulty sometimes is in working out if partner's natural bid is weak, invitational or strong.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 20 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

fred, on Feb 20 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

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.

That's my rule.

The only difficulty sometimes is in working out if partner's natural bid is weak, invitational or strong.

Well the other bromide is,

"When in doubt its forcing".

So, to be clear, all strange bids are NATURAL and FORCING.

Got that?

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Feb 20 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

Well the other bromide is,

"When in doubt its forcing".

So, to be clear, all strange bids are NATURAL and FORCING.

Got that?

Hold on, my other rule is

"When in doubt, game is to play"

[MickyB]

SoTired, on Feb 20 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

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?

This is one of three problems from Bridge Magazine's equivalent of the MSC. I decided not to give the hand, because it include Axx heart when playing first round cuebids, making pass almost automatic. Unfortunately, a large proportion of the panel didn't think any further than "hearts, too weak for a direct 3♥ bid".

[fred]

pclayton, on Feb 20 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Feb 20 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

fred, on Feb 20 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

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.

That's my rule.

The only difficulty sometimes is in working out if partner's natural bid is weak, invitational or strong.

Well the other bromide is,

"When in doubt its forcing".

So, to be clear, all strange bids are NATURAL and FORCING.

Got that?

I actually use "if it is possible that the bid is non-forcing, it is non-forcing".

Non-forcing bids suggest a final contract and there is something appealling about the concept of trying to maximize the number of possible final contracts, especially after an undiscussed sequence.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[MickyB]

fred, on Feb 20 2007, 07:42 PM, said:

I actually use "if it is possible that the bid is non-forcing, it is non-forcing".

Non-forcing bids suggest a final contract and there is something appealling about the concept of trying to maximize the number of possible final contracts, especially after an undiscussed sequence.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Roy Hughes makes the point that an undiscussed forcing bid is more likely to lead to ambiguous continuations than an undiscussed non-forcing bid.

[kenrexford]

Great fear and loathing.

OK. How about simple parallels, instead of quotable quotes.

1NT-P-2♣-P-2M-P-3OM.

When one partner has made a call (like 1♦-3♣-X) that usually asks for a 4-card major, and seems to deny five of one and three of the other,

And then partner complies with picking one of the majors,

Then bidding the other major agrees the selected major and is a slam try.

Using the other logic, 1NT-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-3♥ shows some kind of double-major Moysian probe, allowing Opener to select between his 4-3 and partner's 4-3 major.

For that matter, any call that seems to ask partner to pick one of two suits, followed by bidding the one partner does not pick, is usually viewed as a strong move, not as cancelling the meaning of the first call.

Rules like "if it could be natural" or "if its sounds natural" are not useful tools for the situation if it could not be natural and it does not sound natural.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Feb 19 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

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♥.

I didn't even bother to contruct a sensible hand for my point of view and now I read yours it looks it is harder than I suposed. I think 5♥-5♦ is probably enough, maybe bad 6♥ with 4♦ as well.

[inquiry]

Well Ken, the auctions are not at all similar.

1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥ is forcing, and most people play this as slam try agreeing spades. The other "major" here is artificial in that sense.

After
1♦-(3♣)-X-(P)
3♠-(P)-4♥

The situation is very different. First, if responder had real hearts and a good hand, he could bid 3♥ or with hearts and spades, he could bid 4♣. The negative doubel DOES not promise four cards in a major. In fact, here it might have one four card major, two four card major, or no four card major but not a good enough hand to make a free bid but too good to pass.

An important point, the negative double can have a longer suit than four cards. This is because a free suit bid is forcing. Second the negative double has to be prepared for partner to 1-PASS, 2-Jump to 4 of either major, 3-rebid his original suit.

So after stayman, where if opener had long hearts he would have transferred to hearts and perhaps bid spades, a stayman bid followed by new major over partners major suit is EASILY used as a conventional slam try, the auction you give is quite a different kettle of fish. Let's imagine some potential hands, shall we...


S-Axx H-AQT9x D-JTxx C-x Too strong for neg dbl, bid 3♥ then raise ♦

S-KQxx H-AJ9xx D-xx C-xx Perfect neg dbl, but you would raise 3S to 4S

S-Txx H-KQxxx D-Kxx C-xx Not good enough for neg dbl at 3 level.

S-xx H-KQ9xx D-Kx C-JTxx You would pass, not sure if you are hoping to pass reopening double or offer 3NT/4♥ as final contracts.

S-xx H-KQT9xxx D-Qxx C-x, Ok, here I bid 3♥ and then rebid 4♥. Hand not strong enough for this auction, but they held a gun to my head.

[MickyB]

Oh, I forgot to give partner's hand -

---

[Fluffy]

inquiry, on Feb 20 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

S-xx H-KQT9xxx D-Qxx C-x, Ok, here I bid 3♥ and then rebid 4♥. Hand not strong enough for this auction, but they held a gun to my head.

If you play 3♥ as forcing then this is better bid with direct 4♥ IMO, rest of hands I fully agree with you Ben. Just tell me what you bid with 5-5 with 8 usefull HCP

[kenrexford]

Now I'm just trying to learn from the Masters.

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner?

I just do not get this issue or the logic of some of y'all, vehement though it may be.

This seems so incredibly simple to me; explain my error if you will, to the below:

With at least 4-4 in the majors, you double and live with partner's choice. You do not use this tight of an auction to find the best contract with 5-4's and 6-4's.

With 4♠/3♥, you double. If partner bids spades, great. If not, you bid spades.

With 4♥/3♠, you double. If partner was 4-4, he'd bid 3♥, to allow you to bid spades. That would be great. If he bids spades, you could raise if you like the MOysian, or bid diamonds (or 3NT).

With only one four-card major, you double as above, ignoring the 3-card.

With a five-card major and not 4+ in the other, you bid the one you have.



BTW, Justin, I'm not sure why "Good For You Justin" is a matter of concern to the moderators.

[Fluffy]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner?

The hands that say: ok partner I will strech to game because pass is too risky, but please please, I don't wanna play any higher

[inquiry]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

Now I'm just trying to learn from the Masters.

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner? 

I just do not get this issue or the logic of some of y'all, vehement though it may be. 

This seems so incredibly simple to me; explain my error if you will, to the below:

With at least 4-4 in the majors, you double and live with partner's choice.  You do not use this tight of an auction to find the best contract with 5-4's and 6-4's.

With 4♠/3♥, you double.  If partner bids spades, great.  If not, you bid spades.

With 4♥/3♠, you double.  If partner was 4-4, he'd bid 3♥, to allow you to bid spades.  That would be great.  If he bids spades, you could raise if you like the MOysian, or bid diamonds (or 3NT).

With only one four-card major, you double as above, ignoring the 3-card.

With a five-card major and not 4+ in the other, you bid the one you have.



BTW, Justin, I'm not sure why "Good For You Justin" is a matter of concern to the moderators.

two ways to do this...

First way if your hand is STRONG and 4-4 in the majors, is to ... cue-bid 4♣ rather than double = but requires ability to play in 4 or 5 ♦. This loses out on some chances to double 3♣ for penalty if RHO stepped out of bounds and bypasses 3NT on others. So use only with appropriate hands.

Method number two... double then either,

• raise to 4♠ with enough for game opposite 4 in partners hand, or
  
• cue-bid 4♣ now, NOT showing a control, but rather a hand too good for an immediate raise to 4♠

You will notice after the DBL then cue-bid, you are likely to get a chance to cue-bid that HEART ACE any way, since your partner will probalby cooperate with a ♦ cue-bid unless he is DEAD minimum. He has already limited his hand a fair bit with his 3♠ bid.

A final nitpik, 3♠ is not always a four card suit. Sometimes partner will be pressed into bidding a 3 card suit. This is more often after 1C-(3D)-DBL rather than 1D-(3C)-DBL. Also, I thought FRED's hand with spades and hearts was a nice example where hearts are held. I have to admit, I wuold be much more likely to have diamonds and hearts than spades and hearts, but partenr who can't stand hearts can bid 4♠ to find out.

To fluffy, with 5-5 in the reds, I would rebid 4♦ or 4♥ depending on how I felt about my hand. If I felt like I wanted to force game, 4♥, if not 4♦. But then, if it was a yucky 5-5 I might have just bid 3♦ over 3♣. An important feature if the quality of the spot cards in my two long suits.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

Now I'm just trying to learn from the Masters.

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner?

I just do not get this issue or the logic of some of y'all, vehement though it may be.

This seems so incredibly simple to me; explain my error if you will, to the below:

With at least 4-4 in the majors, you double and live with partner's choice. You do not use this tight of an auction to find the best contract with 5-4's and 6-4's.

With 4♠/3♥, you double. If partner bids spades, great. If not, you bid spades.

With 4♥/3♠, you double. If partner was 4-4, he'd bid 3♥, to allow you to bid spades. That would be great. If he bids spades, you could raise if you like the MOysian, or bid diamonds (or 3NT).

With only one four-card major, you double as above, ignoring the 3-card.

With a five-card major and not 4+ in the other, you bid the one you have.



BTW, Justin, I'm not sure why "Good For You Justin" is a matter of concern to the moderators.

Ken,

I am not sure if your post is meant as a pure discussion of bidding theory or if it is meant to represent the sort of thought process you think you would use at the table to decide on the meaning of undiscussed 4H in this auction.

If the later, I don't think this is a practical approach to bridge, but I suppose that is something that you and your partner have to decide for yourselves. My experience suggests that the path you are taking will lead you to a lot of bidding misunderstandings, heated arguments, and poor results. If you disagree and want to ignore this advice, I will be the first to offer you sincere congratulations when your partnership is successful.

In you are trying to engage in a discussion of pure bidding theory, however, I think you are being naive about the complexity of this problem. I have no doubt that your approach will gain some of the time. But there are several other ways that you could define 4H (some of which are "natural and non-forcing") that will also show a gain some of the time. I think it would take a pretty serious simulation (as well as serious thought about other bids that took place, might have taken place, or might take place later in the auction) in order to "solve" this problem.

There is a large class of bidding theory questions that cannot be solved using only the type of "logic" that you are engaging in. The problem of what 4H *should* mean falls into this class.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

I would just take this as natural weakish (and pass if the hand is suitable). If pard intended this as some sort of advanced cue or whatever.. well, tough luck for him.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Feb 20 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

I am not sure if your post is meant as a pure discussion of bidding theory or if it is meant to represent the sort of thought process you think you would use at the table to decide on the meaning of undiscussed 4H in this auction.

Fred,

The point that I was trying to make is perhaps a blend of theory and practice.

Justin's initial observation was that his "theory" interpretation was too esoteric for partner to field at the table, and so he would not do it. I called him out for being, IMO, too afraid of "esoteric" bids.

In all honesty, I'll concede that different people can have different ideas or foci for their theory. Different defaults. Such that, in a pickup/new partnership, trying the esoteric would be dangerous.

However, working through these things, to enable use of the "esoteric" as no longer strange, is the goal, I would hope, of any partnership.

I mean, consider this actual problem. If you had this 4♥ call come up at the table with some random person, you would scratch your head.

However, I'll bet that both you and Justin, if actually playing across the table from me, would take a large bet if offered that my 4♥ was a slam try, right? Just from simple forum posts, this is so obviously my bent that this could be worked out.

Now, sit up at night with me drinking beer until 4:00 talking stupid bridge hands, smoke 10,000 packs of cigarettes with me between rounds, and work through round-after-round of tossing "esoteric" bids out one-after-another. Unless one of us is schizophrenic, I bet we'd start to understand each other and reach similarity of mindset when partnering up, all sufficient for fielding the undiscussed.

1♦-3♣-? should not be the start of mass confusion in an established partnership, with complimentary understanding of theory and agreed defaults.

On the other hand, if I were to claim that such-and-such auction called for an empathetic splinter, that the two unknowns from the E.S. matrix were the ace-only side and the 5-3 side, and that clearly my call was indicating either the lower of two equally-catering possibilities or that just the lower was catered to the agreed default, that I had to cue their suit as a flag for that lower cater position, and that next-up by you would have been LTTC, inquiring if I have a double-cater position, all of which is not made up by the way and is theoretically supportable, you would be quite right to tell me that I was out of my mind and to just bid a GD 4♠ like a normal person.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

However, I'll bet that both you and Justin, if actually playing across the table from me, would take a large bet if offered that my 4♥ was a slam try, right?  Just from simple forum posts, this is so obviously my bent that this could be worked out.

No that is not correct. Here is what I would think:

"Ken knows that I don't like trying to figure out what particular estoric meaning of a particular esoteric bid he has in mind. Surely he won't try this playing with me".

It is not about being "afraid" - it is about trying to win. I think the approach that I (and Justin) have is more conducive to winning than your approach. For me it also happens to be more conducive to enjoying the game, but of course that is a personal matter.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Feb 20 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

No that is not correct. Here is what I would think:

"Ken knows that I don't like trying to figure out what particular estoric meaning of a particular esoteric bid he has in mind. Surely he won't try this playing with me".

It is not about being "afraid" - it is about trying to win. I think the approach that I (and Justin) have is more conducive to winning than your approach. For me it also happens to be more conducive to enjoying the game, but of course that is a personal matter.

Actually, in all fairness, you are right. If somehow I had you across the table from me, I would be playing your game. That is true.

But, I think you may understand my larger point. That is that the difference between esoteric and obvious may be a fine line, but partnership practice and experience should make more and more obvious then esoteric.

As to what is the ideal approach.

If you actually agree with the useful space principle, then ideally you should be able to use as many bids as possible. If, say, you and partner have no idea in a given auction what anything after a specific 3♠ call is, except 4♠, then you have one way to describe all hands on route to 4♠. If your partnership theory adopts an inferior concept of priority, but this enables you to at least have a meaning for all other four-bids, you are better off than having no alternatives.

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.

I happen to believe that mastering what I enjoy about the game leads to success in the win-loss category. But, if I had to choose one as my motivation, it would be theory.