[mike777]

kenrexford, on Jul 26 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ AKxxxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ K ♣ Ax ♠ x ♥ Qxx ♦ AQxxxx ♣ K10x

Playing 2/1 GF, the auction that occurred:

1♠-P-2♦-P-
2♥-P-2NT-P-
3♠-P-4♥-P-
4NT-P-answer-P-

...blah, blah, blah...

6♥-P-P-P.

Assuming partner does not open very sound then:
I like all of opener's bid.
I dislike all of responder's bids


1s=1nt
2h=2nt
4s=p

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 26 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

Ken posts an auction and does so in the context of 'spot the mistakes' and then posts his analysis which assumes that 'correct' bidding requires inferences drawn from his idiosyncratic preferences.

...

The point is not what, in his system, a bid should mean. It is what it does mean in an undiscussed 2/1 partnership. In such a partnership 'who's to blame' discussion, assigning meanings to 4♦/♥ per his 'personal preference' is almost as stupid as it is irritating.

Again, I could care less what style of cuebidding one elects to use. The question is whether 4♥ is an offer to play hearts or is an advanced cue in support of spades (showing whatever your agreements would have it show).

One cannot abdicate the question by forcing a default to "natural" when undiscussed any more than one could abdicate the question by forcing a default to "cuebid" when undiscussed.

Relying upon a general default, like "It must be natural if undiscussed" is not an excuse for not knowing that which others know, if others do in fact "know" something that is being discussed.

Again, as I mentioned, I might have thought that 4♥, as an advanced cue, was something that would need discussion. However, the word I received was that this is obviously an advanced cue. "Obviously" to those powers-that-be who are my mentors or who are the mentors of my mentors.

Your objections, quite heated at that, sound like the words of the raving people I run into at club games, just at a different level. They might argue that 1♥-P-2♥-P-3♣ as a two-suited game try is esoteric; "You would bid 3♥ with that hand -- invitational!"

The reasoning on this hand is really simple. If you have a hand where you might prefer hearts to notrump if partner is 6-4, why are you bidding 2NT and not 3♦ or 3♣?!?!?

Oh, and Mikeh... Do you think that the folks in Nashville who discussed this hand before I even heard about it were my students? I take that as great praise indeed! LOL

[kenrexford]

joshs, on Jul 26 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

I would have assumed that 4H was something like the hand I gave above, and asking partner to pick a major...I don't see why a moysian can't be the right game contract on this misfitting sounding auction, so I would never have suspected that 4H was anything other than a suggestion of a final contract.... (If it might be natural, it is natural...)

If you would want to bid 4♥ over 3♠ as a pick-the-strain bid, then you should not have bid 2NT. That's the simple answer, I suppose. You bid 3♣ or 3♦ with all such hands.

2NT commits the partnership to declare in notrump or in any strain that is at or above (in rank) any strain reintroduced by Opener. If Opener rebids spades, spades or notrump are the only possible contracts (unless Opener pulls 3NT to 4♥ on some freak -- again, Opener is reintroducing the strain). If Opener rebids 3♥, either major, or NT, can be the final strain. If Opener makes a delayed diamond raise, any strain (except clubs) is potentially viable. If Opener bids clubs (5404), this may be an exception -- I don't think that diamonds is an alternative now, but otherwise the rules work.

Simple rule, easy to follow.

[jtfanclub]

You're still avoiding the question, though, Ken...what the heck did opener mean by the 6♥ bid?

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Jul 26 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

You're still avoiding the question, though, Ken...what the heck did opener mean by the 6♥ bid?

Well, I left that out because the story, as told to me, did not include this part, because that was not the topic of the heated discussion.

I can imagine what happened, though.

Opener's 4NT, if not passed, must have been taken as 1430 RKCB for hearts. Responder's response would be 5♣, which is the same response had 4NT been 1430 for spades.

Opener now may have asked for the spade Queen, Responder showing the heart Queen.

The answer would have been 6♣, I'm assuming.

Opener then visualized something like ♠Qx ♥Qxx ♦AJxxx ♣Kxx

Opener needed a little more stuff. Maybe the club Queen, maybe better diamonds, maybe the heart Jack. Something more. Responder must have at least one of these cards, and he will surely go with all three, and two allows a judgment decision that Opener can live with.

So, he might have bid 6♥, intending that to be Last Train, but was shocked by the pass.

Who knows?

Of course, that would be stupid, seeking a grand off an Ace. I don't know!

[jdonn]

One thing Ken, though I know what you mean I disagree with your use of the term "advance cuebid" in this context. To me, that means I make a bid which is not defined as a cuebid, but then on my next bid support partner to show that my previous bid was a cuebid. On this auction, you are arguing that (maybe? definitely?) 4♥ and the other four level bids are specifically defined as cuebids. They aren't advance cuebids, they are just cuebids

I still don't think what Ken is suggesting is either unusual or idiosyncratic. There are many slowish 2/1 auctions in which responder can cuebid for opener without explicitely supporting the suit. For example
1♠ 2♥
2♠ 3♣
3♠ 4♦
Or for another example, the given auction but with responder bidding 4♣ over 3♠. So really the only question is whether 4♥ is likely enough to be the best game that bidding it should be natural. If you believe so then ok. If you believe not, then a cuebid for spades would be the obvious meaning (as what makes those other examples cuebids is the obviousness that the bid strain is unlikely to be where we belong). Maybe on Ax Kx Axxxxx QJx, if you believe responder bidding his own suit in a cuebidding auction shows a better suit (as many would). If you disagree then fine, but it's not so strange or exotic that it should be blasted.

JT, I think it's hard to disagree that 6♥ was an awful bid, even if you take 4♥ as natural (since for sure it would still just be a three card suit). That's why it's not really an issue

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 26 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

One thing Ken, though I know what you mean I disagree with your use of the term "advance cuebid" in this context.

It's funny that you disapproved of that term. I almost wrote down that this term is not my term, because I also disapprove of that term. However, because the "others" used that term (improperly, I agree), I used it.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Jul 27 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 26 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

One thing Ken, though I know what you mean I disagree with your use of the term "advance cuebid" in this context.

It's funny that you disapproved of that term. I almost wrote down that this term is not my term, because I also disapprove of that term. However, because the "others" used that term (improperly, I agree), I used it.

I never heard the word "advance(d) cue" used in this context. It seems to me that it renders the term completely meaningless. Is any cue-bid an advance(d) cuebid, then? Or is it because it's the cue that sets trump? Or is it because it is just a proposal to play in spades? Or is it because it may have bypassed a control in a minor suit, for whatever reason (maybe the ace of hearts an only a minor king)?

jdonn's defintion is the one I learned as well.

[cherdano]

joshs, on Jul 26 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

Give East x AQx Axxxxx Kxx. Over 3S its pretty clear that 3N is not right unless opener has significant extras (you have no tricks) or if opener's spades are running, in which case 4S is probably as good a spot. The problem is you have no idea which is the correct major (partner can have 4 small hearts after all). So personally I would have assumed that 4H was something like the hand I gave above, and asking partner to pick a major.

That's exactly what I thought 4H should show.
(And for the record, I think rebidding anything but 2N on this hand is very bad.)