[MarkDean]

Scoring: IMP

---

Opps silent:

1D-1S
2C-2H(art, GF)
3S

What does this show? What is your plan?

[kenrexford]

Good question.

[rogerclee]

It shows 3154, extras.

I can't cuebid anything, and am not thrilled about KJ9x opp stiff unless it's the A or Q. I think I have to move, though, so I would go with 5♠. I think this is close.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jul 14 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

It shows 3154, extras.

I can't cuebid anything, and am not thrilled about KJ9x opp stiff unless it's the A or Q. I have to move, though, so I would go with 5♠.

Why would you jam the auction in a GF sequence just to show a pattern that you can show otherwise at a lower level? I mean, 2♠ shows this pattern. I can show extras later, in a cuebidding sequence.

The problem with a 3♠ bid, IMO, is that we have a leaping call without any focus suit yet. Partner's 2♥ call could have any number of bases; maybe he was planning to support one of my minors. 3♠ seems to say, "I have extras, so place the contract."

To me, 3♠ should have more of a picture bid definition. What that is, precisely, I am still unsure. It does not fit into a "previously described" status.

A few possibilities make sense:

1. Two of the top three honors in both minors, one of the top three honors in spades, and a void. 3055.
2. Same as 1, but a stiff. 3154.
3. Stiff/void in spades, same as 1/2 (but hearts as the fragment).
4. Three of the top four diamonds, two of the top three spades (third), a stiff heart, and no control (1st/2nd) in clubs.

Something like that. I wonder what makes the most sense. As 3♥ could handle the alternative of a short/frag heart, it seems like I should have meanings for these two options. General defaults seem to suggest bidding the shortness (saves space when partner wants to agree and set spades via 3♠ after 3♥), yielding an interpretation of 3♠ as a shortness bid. Consistency seems to suggest internal minor quality.

I suppose I'd want 3♥ and 3♠ to each be splinters (not sure if stiff or void) with a picture of one of the top two in the fragmentary major and two of the top three in each minor.

[rogerclee]

If you raise on 3154 minimums, 2♠ here promises 2. If you bid 2♣ on 3154 minimums, then 2♠ here promises a 3154 minimum, and 3♠ promises promises a 3154 max. I think.

[mikeh]

3♠ shows 3=1=5=4 (or something very close) and extras.

My hand is pretty good.. the 6th spade and the Axx in partner's presumed 5 card suit (please don't tell me he'd bid this way with a good 3=1=4=5 )

The problem is that I haven't set trumps yet... if I bid 4♦, I would be setting that suit as trump. No matter how the auction goes thereafter, I may never find out about the spade Queen (there are methods in which keycard would now involve both pointed suits, but they are not standard).

So I cannot cue bid: the only suit I cannot now logically bid naturally is hearts, and I would never cue KJxx when I 'know' partner has a stiff.

I am not at all sure what 5♠ means, and if I don't know, as the one making the bid, I am not going to risk partner being as confused as I am.

I will keycard.

I expect a hand similar to KQx x KQxxx AJxx or better

Space consuming jumps, in constructive auctions, should deliver full values.

[kenrexford]

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show? It cannot logically show the same thing without being absurdly redundant.

Most people play that a jump shows shortness, so I would expect 3♠ to show shortness if 3♥ would also show shortness. (I could also imagine 5521's could be handled this way, which adds another level of complication as to what this should mean.) I could accept that the bids show length, being fragments, but I still think that the issue of focusing spades cheaply argues for shortness bids.

I mean, look at the actual problem. If Opener does, in fact, have a 3154 maximum, a 3♥ call would have allowed Responder to agree spades by bidding 3♠, and Mikeh's problem of how to bid next is solved. Tada!

As an aside...If the bid was to show a stiff spade, HHxxx in diamonds, HHxx in clubs, and Kxx in hearts, then 6♦ has play, 7♦ is absurd, and I have no real way to decipher how to bid this "properly." So, 6♦ as a quantitative blast might make the most sense.

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show?

Not a jump.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jul 14 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show?

Not a jump.

Oh yeah. Good point.

Hmmmm.

I'm now torn. Part of me wants to treat 3♥ as a shortness bid without the jump anyway, because it helps the likely auctions so much. But, I still think that the useful space available after a simple 2♠ rebid when you have three spades makes 3♠ more useful as a splinter (distinguishing 3♥ as a weakish 1354 and 3♠ as a maximum 1354).

THOUGHT MORE: 100% in my mind now that 3♠ should be a maximum 1354/0355. 3♥ same but minimum.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show?  It cannot logically show the same thing without being absurdly redundant.

Most people play that a jump shows shortness, so I would expect 3♠ to show shortness if 3♥ would also show shortness.  (I could also imagine 5521's could be handled this way, which adds another level of complication as to what this should mean.)  I could accept that the bids show length, being fragments, but I still think that the issue of focusing spades cheaply argues for shortness bids.

I mean, look at the actual problem.  If Opener does, in fact, have a 3154 maximum, a 3♥ call would have allowed Responder to agree spades by bidding 3♠, and Mikeh's problem of how to bid next is solved.  Tada!

As an aside...If the bid was to show a stiff spade, HHxxx in diamonds, HHxx in clubs, and Kxx in hearts, then 6♦ has play, 7♦ is absurd, and I have no real way to decipher how to bid this "properly."  So, 6♦ as a quantitative blast might make the most sense.

Ken, I know, and so does every other reader of the forums, that you take infinite delight in inventing esoteric meanings for sequences.

My understanding is that most posters are looking for advice on how to handle real life situations with real life partners, most of whom are not part of the type of partnership that is ever going to be interested in the type of 'solutions' you invent.

And when someone posts in the SAYC and 2/1 Discussion forum, they are (believe it or not) looking for advice on how to bid using SAYC or mainstream 2/1.

As I have said before, some of your ideas have some apparent merit, but most of them are just plain silly... your idea may 'solve' the problem at hand, but often at the cost of distorting auctions on other hands.. auctions on which most would have no problem.

Look at this one: 3♥ to be shortness, agreeing spades! What nonsense.

How does opener rebid with 0=4=5=4, or (for those of us who do not rebid 1N with 1=4=4=4 or whose hand is too big for that) 1=4=4=4??????

In short, many of your posts are the bridge theory equivalent of public masturbation..... an indecent showing off of something best kept private, that annoys and offends more than it entertains.

[han]

3S shows 3154 with extras, that's normal bridge to my mind.

I want to try for slam in spades. 4C shows clubs, 4D shows diamonds, 4H is a slam try in spades but useless and keycards may not give us the answers either. Although, perhaps partner surprises us by showing 3 plus the queen! I'll go with 4NT.

[peachy]

To me, it would mean "better than minimum, 3 spades, setting trumps, singleton heart"

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show? It cannot logically show the same thing without being absurdly redundant.

Most people play that a jump shows shortness, so I would expect 3♠ to show shortness if 3♥ would also show shortness. (I could also imagine 5521's could be handled this way, which adds another level of complication as to what this should mean.) I could accept that the bids show length, being fragments, but I still think that the issue of focusing spades cheaply argues for shortness bids.

I mean, look at the actual problem. If Opener does, in fact, have a 3154 maximum, a 3♥ call would have allowed Responder to agree spades by bidding 3♠, and Mikeh's problem of how to bid next is solved. Tada!

As an aside...If the bid was to show a stiff spade, HHxxx in diamonds, HHxx in clubs, and Kxx in hearts, then 6♦ has play, 7♦ is absurd, and I have no real way to decipher how to bid this "properly." So, 6♦ as a quantitative blast might make the most sense.

I think its logical to play 3♥ and 3♠ as fragments. Just because its a jump, doesn't mean its shortness. Your own picture sequences confirm that.

5-5's need to show the 5th club first.

[han]

Well, opener could be 3055.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jul 14 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show?  It cannot logically show the same thing without being absurdly redundant.

Most people play that a jump shows shortness, so I would expect 3♠ to show shortness if 3♥ would also show shortness.  (I could also imagine 5521's could be handled this way, which adds another level of complication as to what this should mean.)  I could accept that the bids show length, being fragments, but I still think that the issue of focusing spades cheaply argues for shortness bids.

I mean, look at the actual problem.  If Opener does, in fact, have a 3154 maximum, a 3♥ call would have allowed Responder to agree spades by bidding 3♠, and Mikeh's problem of how to bid next is solved.  Tada!

As an aside...If the bid was to show a stiff spade, HHxxx in diamonds, HHxx in clubs, and Kxx in hearts, then 6♦ has play, 7♦ is absurd, and I have no real way to decipher how to bid this "properly."  So, 6♦ as a quantitative blast might make the most sense.

I think its logical to play 3♥ and 3♠ as fragments. Just because its a jump, doesn't mean its shortness. Your own picture sequences confirm that.

5-5's need to show the 5th club first.

Phil: take another look at the auction: 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥... 3♥ is a raise, not a jump, and it is precisely how one shows a 0=4=5=4 hand, or many 1=4=4=4 hands (even if you rebid 1N on that shape, maybe you hold a 15 count or better and 1N would be an underbid).

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Jul 14 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 14 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

If 3♠ shows 3154 maximum, what does a jump to 3♥ show?  It cannot logically show the same thing without being absurdly redundant.

Most people play that a jump shows shortness, so I would expect 3♠ to show shortness if 3♥ would also show shortness.  (I could also imagine 5521's could be handled this way, which adds another level of complication as to what this should mean.)  I could accept that the bids show length, being fragments, but I still think that the issue of focusing spades cheaply argues for shortness bids.

I mean, look at the actual problem.  If Opener does, in fact, have a 3154 maximum, a 3♥ call would have allowed Responder to agree spades by bidding 3♠, and Mikeh's problem of how to bid next is solved.  Tada!

As an aside...If the bid was to show a stiff spade, HHxxx in diamonds, HHxx in clubs, and Kxx in hearts, then 6♦ has play, 7♦ is absurd, and I have no real way to decipher how to bid this "properly."  So, 6♦ as a quantitative blast might make the most sense.

I think its logical to play 3♥ and 3♠ as fragments. Just because its a jump, doesn't mean its shortness. Your own picture sequences confirm that.

5-5's need to show the 5th club first.

Phil: take another look at the auction: 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥... 3♥ is a raise, not a jump, and it is precisely how one shows a 0=4=5=4 hand, or many 1=4=4=4 hands (even if you rebid 1N on that shape, maybe you hold a 15 count or better and 1N would be an underbid).

Hi Mike - yes, its not a jump, but I might bid with a good 1354 the same way, especially if the hearts were real good.

[kenrexford]

If you notice, Mike, I somehow got confused early on by thinking that 3♥ would have been a jump, which of course screwed everything else up before that. Had 2♦ been the GF checkback, then of course the rest makes sense.

All that said, I'm not sure how the end conclusion is intellectual masturbation and not simply a matter of bidding like an intelligent person (that 3♠ should be a shortness bid). It seems rather simple, actually.

After 2♥, Opener bids:

2♠ = 3-card spades (3154, 3064, 3055), unlimited, GF. Clarifies strength and exact shape as needed, later.

2NT = balanced-ish

3♣ = 1255/2155 expected. Clarify shape/strength later, as needed.

3♦ = 1264/2164 expected. Clarify shape/strength later, as needed.

3♥ = heart fragment, minimum

3♠ = splinter (meaning, heart fragment, maximum)

This way, your unnecessary jump (3♠ is unnecessary because 2♠ shows spades and because we are in a GF sequence) retains it usual, expected meaning of a shortness bid. You also are able to give ranges below 3NT for the most expensive alternative (bidding 3♥ is more expensive than any other call as far as space consumed). Note, also, that 1354 patterns probably occur more frequently than 3154, for that matter.

Seems rather a good, and not so complicated, technique.

Alternatively, the idiot bid of "3♠ = three spades plus extras," which consumes ridiculous amounts of space for no apparent reason, and leaves no room to even set trumps, is touted as less esoteric. True. Bidding something one has is never esoteric. Stupid, perhaps, but not esoteric.

[kenrexford]

BTW -- if 2♦ was a GF checkback, for some reason, then 3M should be shortness and not flag, simply because of the ability to bid 3♠ after 3♥ to set trumps. Plus, parallel structure to other situations. Fragments could be used in many siytuations, but this seems wrong for them.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

If you notice, Mike, I somehow got confused early on by thinking that 3♥ would have been a jump, which of course screwed everything else up before that.  Had 2♦ been the GF checkback, then of course the rest makes sense.

All that said, I'm not sure how the end conclusion is intellectual masturbation and not simply a matter of bidding like an intelligent person (that 3♠ should be a shortness bid).  It seems rather simple, actually.

After 2♥, Opener bids:

2♠ = 3-card spades (3154, 3064, 3055), unlimited, GF.  Clarifies strength and exact shape as needed, later.

2NT = balanced-ish

3♣ = 1255/2155 expected.  Clarify shape/strength later, as needed.

3♦ = 1264/2164 expected.  Clarify shape/strength later, as needed.

3♥ = heart fragment, minimum

3♠ = splinter (meaning, heart fragment, maximum)

This way, your unnecessary jump (3♠ is unnecessary because 2♠ shows spades and because we are in a GF sequence) retains it usual, expected meaning of a shortness bid.  You also are able to give ranges below 3NT for the most expensive alternative (bidding 3♥ is more expensive than any other call as far as space consumed).  Note, also, that 1354 patterns probably occur more frequently than 3154, for that matter.

Seems rather a good, and not so complicated, technique.

Alternatively, the idiot bid of "3♠ = three spades plus extras," which consumes ridiculous amounts of space for no apparent reason, and leaves no room to even set trumps, is touted as less esoteric.  True.  Bidding something one has is never esoteric.  Stupid, perhaps, but not esoteric.

You're doing it again, Ken (but I am not surprised)

Your scheme of advancing over 2♥, which you describe as 'rather a good and not so complicated technique' doesn't allow opener to bid a 0=4=5=4 hand or even a 1=4=4=4 hand.

Now, I admit that one rarely holds those shapes... but I point out that the odds of holding those shapes increase once one has opened 1♦ and rebid 2♣.

And to use 2N as 'balanced-ish'.... I suspect that virtually all experts would rebid 2♠, not 2N, on Kx xx KJxxx AQxx. So restricting 2♠ to 3 card support is going to be a minority position.

Once again, and I realize that I am wasting my time here, the point of the forum is to discuss mainstream bidding in SAYC or 2/1. You either don't know much about mainstream bidding or you are more interested in showing off than being useful. I don't, by this comment, mean that thoughtful variants shouldn't be mentioned, but they should be thoughtful and should be clearly identified as idiosyncratic or (preferably) lay out a developing approach... e.g... traditionally this bid shows such and such but some experts have begun using it on this (other) type of hand, and here is why.... etc.

Any 'technique' that won't allow opener to bid a normal hand is not something I'd call 'rather good'.