[Fluffy]

I seem to disagree with many, for me:

-4♥ is an unbalanced hand that aims only for game.

-2♠ can be bid on balanced strong hands with support

-3♠ has slam interest, otherwise looks liek nonsense, why do you wanna tell opponents hw the ♠ lie when we are competing for the game?.

The given hand is an obious 1♥ opening, but that's another history.

[skjaeran]

Fluffy, on Aug 19 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

The given hand is an obious 1♥ opening, but that's another history.

I disagree. Absolutely prefer 1♦. I normally open the my longest suit, and with such suit quality descrepancy in favour of the longest suit, there's no question to me about opening the longest.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Aug 18 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

I'm with Justin on most of his points:

1. 3S and 4H tend to show about the same playing strength, although since 4H is more balanced it shows more controls but less shape. There's nothing preemptive about 4H.

2. 2S absolutely denies 4 card support.

As Justin points out, the idea that 2♠ denies 4 card heart support is not the majority expert usage, if one assumes that the BW survey is a good approximation of current expert usage, as I think it is.

So, it is one thing to say : well, for me 2♠ denies support and therefore I use 3♠ and 4♥ as power raises, the first with splinter and the second pure power, and a different thing to say that 4♥ is a power raise EVEN WHEN 2♠ may have 4 card support.

If 2♠ denies support, then of course we need a power raise with 2 or more spades. Ax AKxx AQJxx xx: we NEED 4♥ here, since we have no other possible power raise.

But when we can bid 2♠ with this hand, why do we need to bid 4♥ with it as well?

A basic rule of system design, as I know Phil understands, is that we never assign the same meaning to two different bids in the same sequence. If we show 4 card power raises via 2♠, then 4♥ MUST be assigned a different meaning.

In that context, I use 4♥ as a bid based on shape: my hand is in fact ideal for the usage: I expect to make a good deal of the time even opposite not much, and I alert my partner to the fact that I am bidding on shape, and that he cannot play me for defence.

As I wrote in my first post, if I bid 4♥, I should pass partner's double, because he should have the nuts to double.

Now, is the majority usage of 2♠ the best? Obviously there are arguments both ways. The particular minority view espoused by Justin and Phil (the other minority view is that 2♠ promises 4♥) is playable and avoids a tough situation when LHO bounces, and partner doesn't know if you have support. The majority view works just as well if LHO doesn't bounce, and gains here by allowing for a better-defined use of 4♥.

But my main point is that it makes no sense to post an opinion based on a minority approach without acknowledging that it is just that: as Justin did. I'd be interested, Phil, in knowing how you'd see the situation if your partner had insisted on using the majority approach: 2♠ might be based on a high card raise to game with 4 card support.

[Fluffy]

skaeran, on Aug 19 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 19 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

The given hand is an obious 1♥ opening, but that's another history.

I disagree. Absolutely prefer 1♦. I normally open the my longest suit, and with such suit quality descrepancy in favour of the longest suit, there's no question to me about opening the longest.

This is another endless discusion, I know 1♦ can work best at times, on this hand 1♥ could work wonderfully if the bidding goes 1♥-ps-4♥-all pass. Or any other raise that keeps opponents silent.

Anyway this is just style, you just auto-open longest, I just auto-open higher ranked .

[Gerben42]

This hand is huge. I bid 3♠ now.

[kfay]

I also agree with Justin, I'd definitely bid 3♠ here. I'm just describing my hand. I already opened 1♦ intending to bid ♥ (I agree) so I don't see the problem. Anyways I also agree that it doesn't show any more values than bidding 4♥ right now.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Aug 19 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

I'd be interested, Phil, in knowing how you'd see the situation if your partner had insisted on using the majority approach: 2♠ might be based on a high card raise to game with 4 card support.

If 2♠ might be based on a high card raise with 4♥, then it makes sense from a construction standpoint to assign a weaker, distributional raise to 4♥ - if that answers your question. It seems pointless to jump to 4♥ on a 19 count 2443.

However, I take issue with the idea that this is a majority view. I suppose we are both speaking from our collective experience, but mine is that 2♠ denies 4 card support. Why?

There are so many ways we can make a direct raise with 4 trump, that diamond oriented hands and hands with 3 card support need to go through the cue. Examples are:

xx, AKx, AKxx, KQxx;

xx, Ax, AKQxx, AQxx (maybe this is a 2N opener for some);

x, Ax, AKQxxxx, Axx

xx, x, AKJxxxxx, AKx

This is a similar situation to a hand that makes a takeout double and responds to partner's one bid. I would generally exclude hands with 4 card support after (1x) - x - (p) - 1y - (p) - 2x for the same reason.

Mike, if your sources tell you that a cue bid could include 4 card raises I believe you, but that hasn't been my experience.

[jdonn]

I've had this discussion with a lot of experts, and I can assure you that it is "standard" though perhaps not best that 2♠ can include power 4♥ raises.