[MarkDean]

one thing I wondered when faced with this problem at the table, is what hand types are likely to have bid 2S over 1S with the 3154 hand type.

I also agree with those who say that 2S over 2H does not promise three spades. A prompt 2S shows that (yes, I am joking).

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 14 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

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.

OH! I see what the problem is. You are concerned about Opener being able to promise a fourth heart when he has 1444 or 0454 shape, in case Responder has a normal-looking 5♠/4♥.

I now get the problem. What do you bid with something like ♠x ♥KQx ♦AJ10xx ♣KJxx after a 2♥ rebid from Responder?

If you bid 3♥ to show a fragment in hearts, you might also have ♠x ♥KQxx ♦AJ10x ♣KJxx or ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦AJ10xx ♣KJxx. When I say that it "shows a fragment," I do not mean that it shows ONLY a fragment. I mean that it promises a fragment but that it might be longer.

I suppose one could play that 3♥ shows a fragment but 3♠ promises four hearts. That makes some sense.

If, however, 3♥ promises four hearts the way you would bid (1444/0454), then 3♠ would show the same thing with a better hand. 2NT would, I suppose, catch all of the heart fragment hands.

It still gets me back to 3♠ as a shortness bid. I don't get the limited hand jumping up and stealing space to tell me hardly anything that important to mention right now, especially if it kills my ability to do anything intelligent except your 5♠ idea.

(BTW, if Opener bids 3♥ to show 3-4 hearts, he has 0-1 spades, right? So, 3♠ after this seems to me to be a heart check-back, in a sense. TRhus, I'm not concerned about 3♥ beoing a mere frag+ instead of guaranteed 4. But, that's me I suppose.)

[han]

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

I now get the problem. What do you bid with something like ♠x ♥KQx ♦AJ10xx ♣KJxx after a 2♥ rebid from Responder?

Comfortable 2NT here in Wisconsin.

[kenrexford]

han, on Jul 14 2008, 10:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 14 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

I now get the problem.  What do you bid with something like ♠x ♥KQx ♦AJ10xx ♣KJxx after a 2♥ rebid from Responder?

Comfortable 2NT here in Wisconsin.

OK, but then 3♥ would be 4-card, and 3♠ 4-card hearts but better.

[FrancesHinden]

2S, for me, virtually promises exactly two spades because I'd have raised spades on all minimum 3154s last round (actually I'd bid 2S on Q Jxx AKxxx Kxxx as well, but you'll probably think that's warped).

That means I need a bid to show extra values and 3-card spade support. The natural bid to use for that is 3S. Yes, you are now a bit high, but opener has about 16+ and responder a game force opposite a minimum opener, so that should not be a disaster, as opener has described their hand pretty well.

You could agree that you also bid 2S on hands with three spades and extra values, but you then needs ways to make sure you can get back into spades when it's right, and not when it isn't.

Ken would never actually put it as simply as this, but his suggestion seems just to swap the normal meanings of 3H and 3S in this auction, to allow responder to bid 3S to set spades and 4m naturally. This means you gain one bid when opener has spade support, and lose when bid when opener has hearts. Whether this is a good idea or not depends on the rest of your methods (e.g. can responder have a strong jump shift in spades type hand when he goes through 4th suit?) but does seem to have some theoretical merit.

The thing is that if you start down that route, you start thinking that you should actually start playing totally artificial rebids over fourth suit....

In one partnership I play that 1S - 2C - 3H shows a 3S rebid and 1S - 2C - 3S shows clubs. That allows 3S by resopnder to set trumps and 4suit natural.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't play this method if you dn't play FG. With one partner we play fourth suit as non-FG, so 3H is needed to show a 2=2=5=4 with extra values (possbly 1=3=5=4 without a heart stop), and responder needs a forcing 3S bid over that.

[ulven]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

[Codo]

MarkDean, on Jul 15 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

Opps silent:

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

What does this show? What is your plan?

I am thinking about the idea what 3 NT now would have been? Is there a possibility that I will bid 3 NT to play after pd told me that he has 3154 or 3055?

I hardly can construct hands where this is useful.I think this should show a good hand for spades. But I would not try it undiscussed.

I go for RCKB.

[mikeh]

ulven, on Jul 15 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

How do you bid 0=4=5=4 or a 15 count 1=4=4=4?

[kenrexford]

What's with all the recurring panicking about having four hearts? If you bid 3♥ to show 3 hearts (note: 1♦ initially showed 4♦ and does not deny five diamonds; similarly 3♥ shows three hearts and does not deny four hearts), your pattern will be:

1354
0355 (probably a 3♣ call)
0364 (probably a 3♦ call)
0454
1444

If you elminate out the "probably something else" options, you end up with:

1354/0454/1444

If partner wants clarification, he bids 3♠. You can then bid:

3NT = 1354
4♣ = 1444
4♦ = 0454

If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0355, you can bid 4♥ (club flag) after 3♠.
If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0364, you can bid 4♠ (diamond flag) after 3♠.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jul 15 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H  p 2C p 2S.

The fact that you might have a heart fit doesn't mean that your methods have to be able to find it. The benefit of being able to rightside 3NT may well be worth more than the the less frequent benefit of finding a heart fit when one exists.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-July-15, 17:38

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jul 15 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

What's with all the recurring panicking about having four hearts?  If you bid 3♥ to show 3 hearts (note: 1♦ initially showed 4♦ and does not deny five diamonds; similarly 3♥ shows three hearts and does not deny four hearts), your pattern will be:

1354
0355 (probably a 3♣ call)
0364 (probably a 3♦ call)
0454
1444

If you elminate out the "probably something else" options, you end up with:

1354/0454/1444

If partner wants clarification, he bids 3♠.  You can then bid:

3NT = 1354
4♣ = 1444
4♦ = 0454

If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0355, you can bid 4♥ (club flag) after 3♠.
If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0364, you can bid 4♠ (diamond flag) after 3♠.

I suspect you are just trolling. But on the off chance that you truly think that what you propose makes sense in a thread on SAYC and 2/1 bidding, consider:

Any expert advocating a new approach would, if truly trying to advance the game, look for the problems that will ALWAYS arise from any deviation from existing standard practice. And there ALWAYS will be problems. Even stayman over 1N created a problem: we lost the natural 2♣ response, whether it be played as weak or forcing or constructive.

Your treatment is an incredibly bad solution in search of a problem.

Why is it so incredibly bad?

Consider responder with a good but not slam-forcing 4=2=3=4.

1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ ?

Your 'solution' is to use 3♠ as an artificial shape ask.

Let's ignore the rather basic problem of how responder is to handle a strong hand with long, good spades.. the type of hand shown by a strong jumpshift, except that many, and perhaps most 2/1 players don't play sjs.. let's assume that they are so enamoured of your idea that they adopt sjs and don't need 3♠ as natural..

Opener bids 3N. He has 1=3=5=4. Does he have a heart stopper? We don't know. Does he have a good hand in context, such that we should go to 6♣? We don't know. Will 3N be the best contract? We don't know. Does he hold an indifferent 12 or 13 count or a nice 15-16 count? We don't know. Can we set clubs as trump and then keycard? Probably not.. but we don't know.

Nice method. Boy, I sure hope that this method 'solves' a very tough, high-frequency problem, because we are going to get screwed a lot of the time.. not to mention we had to agree to strong jump shifts and give up alternate uses for 2♠. How would an old-fashioned pair ever deal with this minor suit fit issue?

I'm really old-fashioned. I and every other real bridge player, using 2/1, would have rebid 2N over 2♥ (I am not saying Frances is wrong to suggest 2♠ on some hands.. I am talking about a typical 1=3=5=4 opening hand).

Then responder gets to show his club interest via 3♣ and we have lots of room below 3N to find out whether slam is possible, or whether we have a heart stopper, and so on.

And precisely WHAT problem are we solving?????? And precisely how does your method solve that problem???? And what other costs are there????

I started this post by stating that I was going to assume you were not merely trolling, but by writing about the idiocy of your ideas, I am driven to conclude that you are either a bridge idiot or an utter troll.

A troll would write precisely as you do... always advancing arguments to support an absurd proposition while NEVER asking 'do my ideas have issues?'. A real bridge thinker considers the cost of the solution and decides for or against the proposal based on that assessment, which will inevitably incorporate some subjective elements. A troll, otoh, isn't interested in the actual merits of his ideas, only in the petty thrill he gets from riling others.

Well, consider me riled

Of course, the alternative is that you are a bridge idiot (note... I know some remarkably intelligent, thoughtful and good people who, despite their intellects, are hopeless at bridge, so don't take the bridge idiot designation, if you are innocent of trolldom, too much to heart )

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 15 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I suspect you are just trolling. But on the off chance that you truly think that what you propose makes sense in a thread on SAYC and 2/1 bidding, consider:
(continued below in quotations)

"Any expert advocating a new approach would, if truly trying to advance the game, look for the problems that will ALWAYS arise from any deviation from existing standard practice. And there ALWAYS will be problems. Even stayman over 1N created a problem: we lost the natural 2♣ response, whether it be played as weak or forcing or constructive."

True, sort of. If this were that new of an approach, I would definitely want to consider this. Further, if this is an old approach, I would also want to consider this. I don't necessarily accept that old truths are infallible and that new truths must pass a test; I consider that all truths must pass the same test. I'll accept that sometimes old truths carry gravitas of presumed testing success. That said, I am not convinced that your assessment is accurate as to what is old and what is new.

"Your treatment is an incredibly bad solution in search of a problem. Why is it so incredibly bad? Consider responder with a good but not slam-forcing 4=2=3=4.

1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ ?

"Your 'solution' is to use 3♠ as an artificial shape ask."

Now precisely. 3♠ is not exactly an "artificial shape ask." Rather, 3♠ is a bid that expresses general uncertainty in this sequence, which makes sense, as it is a bid in a suit in which Opener has shown shortness. Would you call a "fourth suit forcing" call an "artificial shape ask?" Technically, it is, but it is not so mystical and artificial, especially when the call is in a suit where fit potential has wildly decresed beyond possibility.

"Let's ignore the rather basic problem of how responder is to handle a strong hand with long, good spades.. the type of hand shown by a strong jumpshift, except that many, and perhaps most 2/1 players don't play sjs.. let's assume that they are so enamoured of your idea that they adopt sjs and don't need 3♠ as natural.."

Actually, this is a poor idea, ignoring the elephant in the room. I am assuming a fairly normal idea of a 1minor-P-2major auction as either weak or intermediate, the latter being my choice. That makes 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♣-P-3♠ a GF rebid. This, of course, solves a world of hurt. But, carry on...

"Opener bids 3N. He has 1=3=5=4. Does he have a heart stopper? We don't know."

Opener does not bid 3♥ with a heart suit that is not quality, meaning that he does not bid 3♥ unless he would have a heart stopper. So, we actually do know that answer. I am not a slave to nonsense pattern bidding.

"Does he have a good hand in context, such that we should go to 6♣? We don't know."

Again, actually we do know, at least more than your approach, where you end up making quantitative 5♠ raises because you have no real clue what Opener has and not even an ability to ask. The reason I will know whether partner has a good hand or a bad hand in context is because, you may recall, I use 3♠ to show the same hand with a good hand. Hence, 3♥ is a lesser hand. This was my precise point to bidding 3♠ as a strong shortness bid. Strange that you would argue the deficit of your approach as if it was ythe deficit of my approach, considering that my approach solves this problem that your approach cannot and does not adequately solve.

"Will 3N be the best contract? We don't know."

Knowing whether 3NT is the best contract is one of the most evasive goals in bridge. You know that. What we do know, however, is more. I know more because I do not combine all hands into 3♥ but add a layer of complexity, one that you lack, with the 3♠ shortness bid.

"Does he hold an indifferent 12 or 13 count or a nice 15-16 count? We don't know."

Again, yes we do. That, again, is why I bid 3♠ with that "nice 15-16 count" as a shortness bid. Keep up, Mavis.

"Can we set clubs as trump and then keycard? Probably not.. but we don't know."

Who is trolling now? This is getting silly. The man who blasts 5♠ because he cannot set trumps in friggin' spades now wants to question me about inability to agree clubs? What?!? The answer is rather simple -- yes. Bid 4♣. Then, Opener might even last train with 4♦, ask RKCB-style with 4♥, or cue above 4♠, or I could cue above 4♠ or ask (4♥) after LTTC 4♦. Easy that.

"Nice method. Boy, I sure hope that this method 'solves' a very tough, high-frequency problem, because we are going to get screwed a lot of the time.. not to mention we had to agree to strong jump shifts and give up alternate uses for 2♠. How would an old-fashioned pair ever deal with this minor suit fit issue?"

Huh?

"I'm really old-fashioned. I and every other real bridge player, using 2/1, would have rebid 2N over 2♥ (I am not saying Frances is wrong to suggest 2♠ on some hands.. I am talking about a typical 1=3=5=4 opening hand). Then responder gets to show his club interest via 3♣ and we have lots of room below 3N to find out whether slam is possible, or whether we have a heart stopper, and so on."

This, of course, says nothing about the original problem, namely whether 3♠ should be a maxi-3154 or a shortness bid. However, I'll bite for a second. You apparently have 2NT to show anything from Hx in spades and a stiff heart to a heart fragment to a good heart fragment, and you want to unwind this? And you think you can well? And you think you have room to do all of this after focusing a minor (start focusing diamonds here)? Wow. Three bids to unwind the majors AND make slam tries AND check for stoppers. I'd love to see that write-up.

"And precisely WHAT problem are we solving?????? And precisely how does your method solve that problem????"

Um, all of the problems that you suggested above, as well as the problem of insane wuantitative bash slam sequences because trumps cannot be set below the five-level in a forcing manner.

"And what other costs are there????"

Explaining bidding theory to "old-fashioned" idiots. It gives me a headache.

"I started this post by stating that I was going to assume you were not merely trolling, but by writing about the idiocy of your ideas, I am driven to conclude that you are either a bridge idiot or an utter troll. A troll would write precisely as you do... always advancing arguments to support an absurd proposition while NEVER asking 'do my ideas have issues?'. A real bridge thinker considers the cost of the solution and decides for or against the proposal based on that assessment, which will inevitably incorporate some subjective elements. A troll, otoh, isn't interested in the actual merits of his ideas, only in the petty thrill he gets from riling others. Well, consider me riled."

Um, if you read back through this, I hope that you will realize that you are not on solid ground here. All of your assumptions and conclusions seem to have been shown fairly easily to be nonsensical blathering. This is especially sad for you in light of the basic question that you still seem incapable of addressing, namely how you find yourself in the idiotic position of advocating a quantitative 5♠ bid because you cannot set damned trumps even after Opener shows support for you, whereas I have no problem in that respect, can cuebid, can kick in Serious 3NT and Last Train, and all of this with the bonus of distinguishing weak from strong heart-frag hands. Surely you are not so riled that you cannot question your own sanity?

"Of course, the alternative is that you are a bridge idiot (note... I know some remarkably intelligent, thoughtful and good people who, despite their intellects, are hopeless at bridge, so don't take the bridge idiot designation, if you are innocent of trolldom, too much to heart )"

I'll rest on my arguments rather than on your insightful assessments.

[mikeh]

Earth to Ken: in your diatribe you repeatedly attack me for bidding 5♠ as my bid over the 3=1=5=4 extras shown by 3♠. I didn't specify exclusion keycard, but that is what I meant when I said I would keycard over 3♠....5♣ is unambiguously exclusion in spades... at no time did I ever suggest 5♠...I considered it, as I often consider alternatives, and rejected it

Nice attempted troll.....

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 15 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

Earth to Ken: in your diatribe you repeatedly attack me for bidding 5♠ as my bid over the 3=1=5=4 extras shown by 3♠. I didn't specify exclusion keycard, but that is what I meant when I said I would keycard over 3♠....5♣ is unambiguously exclusion in spades... at no time did I ever suggest 5♠...I considered it, as I often consider alternatives, and rejected it

Nice attempted troll.....

Exclusion? From what you wrote earlier, where you indicated that you have no idea what 5♠ would mean, you now claim that 5♣ would unambiguously be exclusion? OK, I'll give benefit of the doubt on that one. It would be for me, after settoing spades as trumps.

You previously described simple keycard, suggesting that 4NT is RKCB for spades. At least you must agree that you have two options -- ask or resign.

"Diatribe?" I believe that I was responding tit-for-tat, with no length increase. Who called whom out?

BTW:

Start 1D-1S-2C-2H (4th Suit GF)

Opener:

2S = 3-card spades.
Responder can agree spades (3S) and starts cuebidding/Ser3NT/LTTC (and Exclusion, for that matter).
Responder can bid 2NT naturalish, forcing.
Responder can agree minor.
Responder can bid 3H. Natural but not 5-5 (would bid 3H directly over 2C is 5-5 GF). Bid where live.
Responder can bid 3NT, I suppose. Strange, but probably slammish.

2NT = Punt. Might not have a heart stop (won’t if 1354-ish)
Responder can bid a minor to set focus. If Opener next bids 3H, this tends to be a denial probe (shape but needs help). Opener could introduce a spade doubleton naturally, as well.
Responder can rebid 3H, as above.
Responder’s 3S is natural, ongoing. 3S directly over 2C would have been GF with spades (with weak, 2S; with intermediate, 2S direct over 1D)

3C = 5-5 expected, without spade frag. Logical thereafter.
3D = 6-4 expected, without spade frag. Logical thereafter.
GP = Avoid 3minor with minimum, defaulting 2NT, because 3minor takes up space.

3H = Heart frag+, 1454, 1444, 0454 expected. Opener can bid 3S as PUNT.

3S = Heart frag+ (short spade); extras. Alternatively, proves fourth heart – bid 3NT with 1354 maximum.

3NT = Either 1354 maximum OR ugly-as-sin 2254 with a heart card.

Not so difficult. Some detail is of course not present.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jul 15 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 15 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H  p 2C p 2S.

The fact that you might have a heart fit doesn't mean that your methods have to be able to find it. The benefit of being able to rightside 3NT may well be worth more than the the less frequent benefit of finding a heart fit when one exists.

Good point, but you can have the cake and eat it too.

[Impact]

ulven, on Jul 15 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

Yes, me too. The "fudge" bid to say that I cannot give more distributional information and lack a H stop since we are already in GF , but 3NT may be the right spot - while warning partner that if he wants to play S he should be prepared to play opposite x.

Sure, you COULD retain 3H to show a H suit but more likely that can be untangled over 2NT (promising a H stop) if required...

Not by any means certain that a majority of Antipodean experts would play it that way but certainly a very significant proportion.

I think the difference stems from use of 4SF initially as a stopper ASK (as well as forcing) down South whereas my understanding of US bidding (from BW over 3 decades mainly) is that the 4th suit is more likely to SHOW values there but still be forcing...

Perhaps, mistaken, & Frances can confirm, but old-fashioned UK/Acol style was also
"Antipodean" or Swedish in this style?
regards,

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Jul 15 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

ulven, on Jul 15 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H p 2C p 2S.

Eh, how could you know what's true over here, being over there?

I understand why you don't like the approach, but that's something different!

[kenrexford]

Another problem that resolves by unstated agreements. Does Opener liberally or conservatively or never raise 1♠ with 3154? Does Responder have some sort of jump response in spades that tailors later-auction meanings? Does Responder have the ability to jump to 3♥ to show 5-5 GF? All of these questions (and probably others) have varying answers that dictate need, and need often leads to common clique understandings among those who have the same answers to the predicate questions. Not much sense arguing about conclusions without noting differences leading up, again, to the "what now" question.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 16 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

Another problem that resolves by unstated agreements. Does Opener liberally or conservatively or never raise 1♠ with 3154? Does Responder have some sort of jump response in spades that tailors later-auction meanings? Does Responder have the ability to jump to 3♥ to show 5-5 GF?

In SAYC the first two of these are, in fact, stated: a single raise requires "good three-card support", and a 2♠ response to 1♦ is a "strong jump shift" which "invites a slam".

The SAYC booklet is less helpful about fourth suit bids: apparently fourth suit "may be artificial/conventional". Does that mean that you're supposed to agree whether you're playing Fourth Suit Forcing before you start, or do they really mean "is artificial and may or may not have the suit bid"?

Of course, none of this applies to 2/1 systems, or any non-SAYC variant of Standard American, so Ken's point is entirely valid in those instances.