[MarkDean]

han, on Dec 4 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Well you can want all you want but we weren't playing a natural 2NT response or something equivalent so basically 2C has to show 3 (it would be automatic on AQx Axxx xxx Kxx). So it wouldn't be a misdescription. From my point of view 2C showing 5+ is very non-standard (by which I don't mean to say that it isn't a good method) so basing your answer to my bidding question on your methods when it is absolutely clear that I was not playing such methods is rather useless.

Quote

Perhaps I am just a simple guy, but I tend to bid my long suits.

Fair enough, certainly something to be said for that approach.

I would still bid 2C in standard, but I agree telling you what I would do in my pet system is useless...and I always get aggravated when people do it to me.

[awm]

On the first hand it is kind of a style thing. I like a treatment where 2♣ is bid on many balanced hands (start of GF relay or something) but without this agreement partner will usually consider 2♣ to show a suit. This can lead to evaluation problems like Mark pointed out, despite the fact that it is always possible that 2♣ was bid on three cards (it's not frequent if you don't bid that way on canape hands like this). It is also possible that bidding 2♥ will set up "two suit keycard" later in the auction which could be quite useful, and bidding 2♥ right off also helps determine whether partner has extras (i.e. makes a high reverse) which can help in slam bidding too.

On the second hand, most of the time your auction is going to start 1♠-2RED-2♠. What's the next call? It seems like you are probably going to bid either 3♠ or 4♣ in this case (depending on how much you like to splinter). Wouldn't you rather have started with 2♥ (tell partner ♥K is a huge card) rather than 2♦?

[brianshark]

I like to bid my 5 card suits because it's a useful thing to show in slam auctions, even if that suit is not going to be the trump suit. Even if you have the agreement that 2♣ is a semi-natural GF bid, it tends to deny the ability to GF by showing a good 5-card red suit, so it's still a misdescription. In the case of hand 1, the suit wuality is borderline, but I think I'll still bid it.

Agree with Adam about the second. Bidding 2♥ means you don't find find out about a 9-card heart fit, but you find out about 8+ card heart fits which are almost as useful and a lot more common.

[whereagles]

Just wanted to say that when a 2/1 if game forcing, the "usual" rules for showing suits kind of shift. The idea of altering priorities therefore has merit.

What to alter is, however, a different story. The ideas presented here are just the beginning. Discussion is encouraged.

[maggieb]

Well let us hear about that story of yours smart guy!

As for me, I would always bid 2H at the table but I can see the merits of 2C. It's just not something I would ever do.

[benlessard]

Its normal that when holding semi-balanced hands that you are more interested in what partner hold than making a descriptive bid. Its just that if your system isnt built for it the benefits are probably marginal, in the example partner will often raise to 3C giving little information while if you bid 2H and partner raise you are much better placed.

If you often bid 2C on fake suit that partner will bid 2 red with a 4 card suit instead of raising you.

If youre often tempted to bid 2C often on fake suit why not just play a relay system im sure youll like it.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Dec 5 2008, 03:43 AM, said:

♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx. Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts. Now what?

I bid 3 non-serious notrumps. If you play 3NT as serious, now you have another reason not to.

[whereagles]

maggieb, on Dec 5 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

Well let us hear about that story of yours smart guy!

I haven't given it any thought yet. Sorry I just think it's worth considering.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Dec 6 2008, 08:39 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 5 2008, 03:43 AM, said:

♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx.  Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts.  Now what?

I bid 3 non-serious notrumps. If you play 3NT as serious, now you have another reason not to.

That does little, IMO, to further the story. When you have three key cards, plus the Queen of trumps, that's fairly big, IMO. When you add in that you have all three internal honors (and hence partner has no heart honors, which will discourage him) and the one side key card is in the one spot partner will care about most (spades), this is HUGE.

Give partner ♠KQxxx ♥Jxx ♦Axx ♣Ax, and is he supposed to get frisky at this point, opposite a "non-serious" hand? All that 3NT as non-serious has accomplished is to divide into two bids your options to underbid this hand. An egregious underbid, and a lousy underbid.

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 6 2008, 09:51 AM, said:

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

May I humbly suggest the reason that auction is easier is because no one seems to define what last train actually shows, some people just seem to bid it any time it's available to bid. It's there, we are in a cuebidding auction, I'll bid 4♦!

[Winstonm]

The answer to the basic question: there are not sufficient raises available under most structures to describe 3-card forcing hands. The decision would not have to be made under some kind of decent raise contruct (See Better Bergen Bidding).

Secondly,

Quote

Partner opens 1S, do you bid 2H or 2D? His argument was that 2D will get you to either red 5-4 fit and is therefore superior. That makes sense but that queen of hearts seems an even bigger reason to bid hearts instead. What do you think?

Why is it that we are the only ones who should know what is going on? If I bid 2D, then subsequently raise 2H to 3H I am the only one who knows it is a 5/4 fit. What is that value? However, if I bid 2H the first time, not only will I get a raise when partner has 4, but also when he has 3 and no other good bid. The fact that partner has a fit with my 5-card suit m-a-y be important (or do we make all those fit-bid jumps just to dazzle our opponents?).

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 6 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 6 2008, 09:51 AM, said:

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

May I humbly suggest the reason that auction is easier is because no one seems to define what last train actually shows, some people just seem to bid it any time it's available to bid. It's there, we are in a cuebidding auction, I'll bid 4♦!

If 3♠ shows a double fit, then I have two options with this hand:

1. 4♥ showing complete disinterest (apparently)
2. 3NT, showing either serious interest (an overbid) or non-serious interest (an underbid).

I show nothing more than interest.

If 3♠ shows a control, I have three options:

1. If partner now bids 3NT as serious, I have it.
2. If partner now cues 4♣, I can distinguish my general interest as above with the additional info of that spade control.
3. If partner now bids 4♦, I don't care that I have great values -- we lose two club tricks.
4. If partner now bids 4♥, I don't care because he has a dog. We may go down one.

I also have more options that are not apparent when 3♠ shows a control. That is, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ all specifically deny the spade honor, which is huge.

[mikeh]

I am late to the thread.

I am no longer surprised, but still mildly puzzled, by the number of posters who seem to view bidding questions as if the only person engaged in the decision-making process is themselves.

I see that several posters advocate 2♣, on the first hand, and 2♦, on the second, because IF partner bids 2♥, they will know that a 9 card (or better) fit exists.

Sure.. I will grant you that.

But, partner won't! Let's look at some of the consequences of his rebidding 2♥:

1. He will believe you have 5 card support only if he also believes you to be 5=6 in your suits.. not something that is likely to happen or, should it happen, be conducive to accurate evaluation by him

2. You will never show your primary spade support.. after all, I assume you are going to raise hearts next. While 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ is natural, 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ 4♦ (say) 4♠ is a cue bid (or kickback if that is your preference)

So your choice of 2♣ will render partner incapable of ever understanding the key features of your hand. This is wonderful if your partner is a moron, and you are able to read through the backs of his cards. It is woeful if he is a bridge player.

And what if he doesn't rebid 2♥? Surely that is the most probable outcome? Say he rebids 2♦? Now, you can reach spades okay, but he will never appreciate that, for example, KJxxx KQx Axxx x is a wonderful hand.. that his short club (opposite your ostensibly natural, but 'could be 3' 2♣ response was a positive feature) and that he probably has 5 heart tricks available!.

And what if he is 5=3=1=4... again, you can get back to spades, but his evaluation will be horribly distorted. And so on.

Let's take another look at our 2♥ response.

If partner holds 4 card support.. guess what? He knows it. While you 2♣ bidders are so wrapped up in trying to make sure that YOU know about the fit, you forget that partner may actually be able to bid intelligently if HE knows about it.

And when no heart fit exists, we still show our spade fit, and now he knows much more about our hand.

On the second hand, I accept that there is a valid reason for considering a 2♦ response.. but it has nothing to do with hearts.

if we respond 2♦, we will back into a 5-3 spade fit, and we won't much care about the missed 5-3 heart fit, most of the time. We still have issues about his valuation, and about convincing him, should he bid 2♥, of the nature of our hand. But the real issue is that 2♥ over 1♠ poses a very real risk of losing the diamond suit.. it is fairly easy to posit hands on which diamonds is the best suit for slam or grand slam possibilities, and yet find that it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to get there after a 2♥ response.

However, while this is a real issue, in my view, it is low in frequency and I would prefer to keep partner involved, and not create the impression in his mind that I consider myself to be the only intelligent member of the partnership.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, Mike, I think your analysis missed the fact that some of us actually catered to your basic issue, in a sense.

I think you will acknowledge that any decision, any route taken, may leave one partner better informed and the other less informed. When you make a descriptive bid, you expect partner to be better informed and you yourself less informed, trusting parter to move correctly. If you make an asking bid, you will be more informed and partner less so.

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy. Obviously, most of us would bid 2♥ in response to a 1♠ opening usually. However, these two hands are discussed as exceptions because, IMO, these two hands, because of their unusual shape and immediate knowledge of the spade fit, seem to merit handling in such a way as to essentially grab captaincy.

This is not so say that captaincy should always be grabbed.

When you do grab captaincy, the result is possibly that partner is in the dark.

The question is whether your hand is one where more descriptive action is calculated to lead to good decisions by partner because you can fully describe your holding, or whether inducing partner to describe will leave you better able to seize captaincy even if partner is scratching his head.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy

Ken,

IMHO the issue of captaincy is vastly overrated, incredibly overused, and mostly misguided unless one wishes to play a strict relay/captaincy system.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on Dec 7 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

Quote

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy

Ken,

IMHO the issue of captaincy is vastly overrated, incredibly overused, and mostly misguided unless one wishes to play a strict relay/captaincy system.

OK. I accept that as your position.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 7 2008, 02:46 PM, said:

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy.  Obviously, most of us would bid 2♥ in response to a 1♠ opening usually.  However, these two hands are discussed as exceptions because, IMO, these two hands, because of their unusual shape and immediate knowledge of the spade fit, seem to merit handling in such a way as to essentially grab captaincy.

This is not so say that captaincy should always be grabbed.

When you do grab captaincy, the result is possibly that partner is in the dark.

The question is whether your hand is one where more descriptive action is calculated to lead to good decisions by partner because you can fully describe your holding, or whether inducing partner to describe will leave you better able to seize captaincy even if partner is scratching his head.

captaincy is a concept often invoked by those who mastermind.

Captaincy is a valid and sometimes important concept.. it underlies relay bidding (and even standard involves some forms of relay... blackwood, stayman are relay bids, for example)

But captaincy is a concept that involves mutual understanding. Both partners need to know when captaincy has been assumed.

The making of a 2/1 gf response in 2/1 gf is not a captaincy bid. Opener has no reason to assume that the 2♣ bid was an assumption of captaincy and captaincy cannot be exercised unilaterally. It can be asserted, or surrendered, unilaterally.. but only by a call or sequence of calls that, within the partnership methods, announces the assumption or relinquishment of captaincy.

Captaincy does not apply when partner doesn't understand that it has been invoked. Most importantly, I completely reject the notion that captaincy auctions should EVER have partner scratching his head in puzzlement. That is, to me, the most obvious distinction between masterminding and captaincy.

When we assume captaincy, partner makes descriptive bids and, until and unless we relinquish captaincy, respects our decisions. If we assume then relinquish captaincy, we need to have bid in such a way as to allow partner to readily infer why we have bid as we have. i could give you examples from relay auctions in which relayer broke the relay after several rounds because, as partner could infer, another relay ran the risk of a (coded) response taking us past the level of safety. Or examples from a J2N auction in which after coded responses, responder started cue-bidding rather than asking via keycard or signing off in game... indicating that opener's responses to date left open the possibility of slam but that responder felt that collaborative bidding, rather than ask-and-answer bidding, was the way to go.

Ken, I am not surprised that you don't understand this. Your post on your director issues, after psyches (I sympathized with your situation, btw) was revealing in that you posted that it was your responsibility to keep your team 'afloat'. While you have some interesting ideas, your discussions of auctions almost always seem (to me) to have you as the central decision maker. Of course, the fact that hands are posted as they are tends to make all of us post answers that have that tendency... the hand is posted BECAUSE a decision has to be made, and that decision will often involve some captaincy issues.. but not as frequently as many posters seem to think.

[keylime]

Mike,

Your last post, I have printed and put on my bulletin board here. Lots of meat to chew on.

FWIW, 2♥ with me, since it's a five card suit headed to an honor.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 7 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 6 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 6 2008, 09:51 AM, said:

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

May I humbly suggest the reason that auction is easier is because no one seems to define what last train actually shows, some people just seem to bid it any time it's available to bid. It's there, we are in a cuebidding auction, I'll bid 4♦!

If 3♠ shows a double fit, then I have two options with this hand:

1. 4♥ showing complete disinterest (apparently)
2. 3NT, showing either serious interest (an overbid) or non-serious interest (an underbid).

I show nothing more than interest.

If 3♠ shows a control, I have three options:

1. If partner now bids 3NT as serious, I have it.
2. If partner now cues 4♣, I can distinguish my general interest as above with the additional info of that spade control.
3. If partner now bids 4♦, I don't care that I have great values -- we lose two club tricks.
4. If partner now bids 4♥, I don't care because he has a dog. We may go down one.

I also have more options that are not apparent when 3♠ shows a control. That is, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ all specifically deny the spade honor, which is huge.

If the point of that post is to convince me that 3♠ showing spade control makes the auction easier when you want to show (or deny) spade control, you didn't have to work so hard to convince me! Personally I won't bother with the same effort to convince you that 3♠ showing spade support makes the auction easier when you want to show (or deny) spade support.

Other than that, two quick things:
- Since when is there any space between serious and nonserious slam interest? Isn't your choice (let's say when spades are trumps) generally between showing one with a 3NT bid or the other with a cuebid? I don't believe it's possible for one to be an overbid and the other to be an underbid at the same time.
- Given that you want 3♠ to be a cuebid, have you considered switching 3♠ and 3NT so that 3♠ shows serious (or not) slam interest and 3NT is a spade cuebid by either player?

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Dec 7 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

But captaincy is a concept that involves mutual understanding. Both partners need to know when captaincy has been assumed.

This one little snippet captures that with which I most disagree (or the application of which I deem flawed), rendering the rest of what you wrote, necessarily reliant upon this concept, inapplicable to my perspective.

I believe that there are many auctions that are effective when each side thinks they will be best-suited to take control and hence act "captainlike," as are there auctions where each person is simply cooperating with partner in the event that partner will assume captaincy, with neither ultimately ever doing so.

This has nothing to do with who is on what side of the table. In fact, most 2♣ calls, for instance, on short suits to facilitate lower setting of trumps is done for the purpose of helping Opener (partner) decide what to do (and, hence, "anti-captain").

On the second hand (3550), the reason for considering 2♦ is that Responder (1) most likely has the most wild abnd unbiddable shape and (2) has immediate knowledge of the first fit (partner does not yet) and more rapid knowledge of a possible superior second fit in a double-fit scenario (will know at Opener's next call -- Opener will not know this at that point). Hence, Responder has wild informational superiority over his partner, and he does not even have a route to share that information if he wants to. Thus, he can fairly prepare for captaincy.

On the first hand (3523), the reason for bidding 2♣ is actually to more rapidly and effectively cater to Opener (not you, but your partner) seizing captaincy, should he be so inclined. The only fit that can be established at the two-level is in his suit, and only if you start with 2♣. This maximizes your ability to cue controls FOR HIM. Granted, you cannot cue a trick source oin this manner, but an entire level of cuebidding is more important in the methods I use. For others, not as much. I also can show trick sources, but, as Han noted initially, Ace-empty is not a suit good enough for my "trick source" bids. Interpretation of this as masterminding is silliness. This has nothing to do with masterminding. This is instead a result of making a call that best facilitates my ability to make the largest number of cooperating cues in the quest to help partner decide what to do, in the context of the cue style used.