[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

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?

As to the first, I can agree that it makes sense to actually treat 3♠ as a double-fit bid and 3NT as a call that shows extras without ability to make any other cue (hence, COV in hearts and spades). Where I think this fails is actually a bit more obscure, namely in that you lose a lot of options as to extremely cooperative actions. In other words, perhaps the use of 3♠ as a double-fit indicator, IMO, creates [--this much--] definition when there is no double-fit, whereas skipping that restriction on 3♠ enables [-------this much-------] definition, and I personally think that the difference, whatever that is, outweighs whatever perceived gain there is to showing the double fit, as I cannot even fathom how that double fit showing is worth much if anything at all.

On the second, I am not opposed to switching 3♠ and 3NT, in principle. In this auction, though, the question is somewhat strange. As it currently is (3♠ is just a cue), Opener will tell is he is serious or not, with that information about the spade card available, and Responder will only be able to express immediate seriousness or lack thereof if he also lacks a spade card. The switch would allow Responder to express seriousness or lack thereof whether he has the spade card or not, but he would only cue the spade card if he does not have serious interest. A rough estimate of the sums suggests that keeping 3♠ as the cue and 3NT as the serious call is best, because the cue is so critical. Reversing order stresses "seriousness" before the presence or lack of that spade card. So, in this specific event, I don't think switching works. If a spade cue were a cue of a side suit, in some other auction, then reversing the meanings makes more sense.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 7 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

As to the first,

That and what followed it look like a response to the part of my post that you didn't quote, but you didn't say anything about the first part of the portion that you DID quote.

Quote

On the second, I am not opposed to switching 3♠ and 3NT, in principle.  In this auction, though, the question is somewhat strange.  As it currently is (3♠ is just a cue), Opener will tell is he is serious or not, with that information about the spade card available, and Responder will only be able to express immediate seriousness or lack thereof if he also lacks a spade card.  The switch would allow Responder to express seriousness or lack thereof whether he has the spade card or not, but he would only cue the spade card if he does not have serious interest.  A rough estimate of the sums suggests that keeping 3♠ as the cue and 3NT as the serious call is best, because the cue is so critical.  Reversing order stresses "seriousness" before the presence or lack of that spade card.  So, in this specific event, I don't think switching works.  If a spade cue were a cue of a side suit, in some other auction, then reversing the meanings makes more sense.

Can I shorten that to say you believe the ability to cuebid or not in partner's main suit is the most important information because it let's partner decide if he is serious or nonserious more accurately? If that's what you're saying then I see your point, but in that case why not play the following?

1♠ - 2♦ -
2NT - 3♠ -

3NT = Diamond cuebid.
4♣ = (Non)Serious slam try (same by partner over 3NT)
4♦ = Club cuebid
4♥ = Whatever combination of heart cuebid / last train you normally use.

[whereagles]

There's a nice book on capitaincy by Denis Klein. One of the things he argues is that capitancy isn't just one thing, but several. There's capitaincy with respect to shape, to level, etc.

After, say, a 2NT opener, responder is capitain with respect to level, but opener is allowed to make decisions after responder's level suggestions. I.e. if responder makes a slam try, some capitaincy is transferred to opener.

[han]

Here is a sarcasm-free response:

mikeh, on Dec 7 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

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.

Nonsense, that was not the reason and surely you can read better than that.

Quote

So your choice of 2♣ will render partner incapable of ever understanding the key features of your hand.

I think that having a gameforcing balanced hand with spade support is the key feature of our hand, not the ace-fifth of hearts.

Quote

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.

There we go again, can't we just have a bridge argument in which you don't state that those who disagree with you are not experts or disrespect partner? On the first hand I was playing with Justin who I think is a very strong player. I believe he agreed with 2C and he certainly wasn't offended. He asked some other very strong bridge players what they would do with my hand, if I call correctly Joe Grue said that 2C is obviously better than 2H. The second hand was given to me in Boston by a very good Swedish player. I said I would bid 2H and he made a very good effort to convince me that 2D is better with this shape.

Quote

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!.

It is a wonderful hand but slam is very poor (no play after a diamond lead, and otherwise you'll need the club ace onside and hearts splitting). I'd say that short clubs opposite our Kxx in clubs is not a positive feature.

Quote

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.

Change the minors and slam is much better, indeed, and fortunately that is what partner will expect. If we respond 2H then partner will not know. Of course we will be thrilled when we bid 2C and partner splinters in diamonds.

Quote

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

I disagree, I don't think that it is significantly more descriptive to bid 2H and then raise spades. Partner will not expect a balanced hand with a poor heart suit that is very suitable to play opposite shortness. We'll also be a level higher when we respond 2H and partner will often not be able to show his key features.

About the second hand:

Quote

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.

This is what I wrote in my opening post, condensed into one short sentence.

Quote

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.

I try to make the bid that I think is best rather than worry about the impression my bids make in partners mind. If we change the hand slightly to A10x A109xx AQxxx - then I think that 2D is better than 2H and I would bid it, not worrying to much about what partner would think about me.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Dec 6 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

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.

Give partner ♠KQxxx ♥Jxx ♦Axx ♣Ax, and is he supposed to get frisky at this point, opposite a "non-serious" hand?

You can prove almost anything with a properly constructed example, but you do actually have to construct it properly. Which slam would you like to be in with these two hands?

(Sorry about the hijacking Han.)

[H_KARLUK]

han, on Dec 4 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

AQx
Axxxx
xx
Kxx

Partner opened 1S and I bid 2C, gameforcing. The idea is that there is no need to introduce hearts unless partner has 4. Would you do the same?

Sorry Han, really curiosity.

AQx
AKxxx
xx
xxx

Would you bid 2 ♥ (same shape/only ♣ K interchanged. Maybe th idea is "good heart suit" or not.)

Imo, missing hearts is no big deal. Even if three small with my p I can hope to concede 2 and bring 3 tricks with 3-2 layout when it's settled as trumps. Moreover, what's wrong with :
1♠ > 2♥
say 3♥ received. (5+3 fit found. Double fit understood by responder of opener at an early stage.)

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

Hamdi

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 4 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

Another advantage of 2C is that it allows partner to bid 2D, which gives you more information at a lower level and gives you the option to set trumps at the 2-level.

Our auction (not with cherdano) started with 1S-2C-2D-2S-3D-3H, by now we had exchanged much more information than we would have if I had responded 2H. I think ace-empty fifth is not such a good suit to tell partner about if you are not really interested in playing in it.

Let me ask you a non-sarcastic question. When holding a flat, featureless, minimum game-forcing hand, what is the reason for misdescribing suit lengths in order to save bidding room?

I appreciate the consideration that Axxxx of hearts is not a great suit, but if I bid my natural length and then support spades, at least I have conveyed some degree of shape and partner knows I hold no more than 5 minor-suit cards.

If I bid 2C as you suggest, then bid spades, I could either have real clubs or a balanced hand and have not accomplished much other than space savings. I am not sure if the confusion over shape makes up for the limited value of saving space on this hand.

And another good reason to bid your long suit is that partner may have been dealt something like Jxxxx, KJx, AKJx, x .

[jdonn]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 7 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

Come on, seriously? If you're not even going to bother reading the thread then I don't think anyone is going to summarize it for you.

[han]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 7 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

han, on Dec 4 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

AQx
Axxxx
xx
Kxx

Partner opened 1S and I bid 2C, gameforcing. The idea is that there is no need to introduce hearts unless partner has 4. Would you do the same?

Sorry Han, really curiosity.

AQx
AKxxx
xx
xxx

Would you bid 2 ♥ (same shape/only ♣ K interchanged. Maybe th idea is "good heart suit" or not.)

Imo, missing hearts is no big deal. Even if three small with my p I can hope to concede 2 and bring 3 tricks with 3-2 layout when it's settled as trumps. Moreover, what's wrong with :
1♠ > 2♥
say 3♥ received. (5+3 fit found. Double fit understood by responder of opener at an early stage.)

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

Hamdi

Yes I would bid 2H, and I don't think it is close. If we bid 2H followed by 3S then we've painted a very good picture of our hand. And if partner raises hearts then we wouldn't mind playing in hearts instead of spades.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 7 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Let me ask you a non-sarcastic question.  When holding a flat, featureless, minimum game-forcing hand, what is the reason for misdescribing suit lengths in order to save bidding room?

If you bid 2H first, partner won't know your shape. He'll know that you have 5 hearts and 3 spades, but often that's it. He'll think that a holding like Qx in hearts is a very good holding, while it isn't. Those considerations don't hold for a 2C response when you play 2C shows 3+ clubs as most of us do.

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx. You'd like to be in slam opposite the second one but not opposite the first. How do you distinguish? Well, if you start with 2C then the auctions are simple:

1S - 2C
2D - 2S
3H

Now you know partner's shape and you know that the hands fit badly. On the second hand the auction would probably start with 1S-2C-3D (splinter) and now you know that the hands fit very well.

But if you start with 2H then with both hands the auction would start 1S-2H-3H-3S, and now there simply is no way to sort it out. At least not for people like me who cuebid first and second round controls.

In general I'd say that it is more useful for the unbalanced hand to describe his pattern to the balanced hand than the other way around. Here, with a poor heart suit and a known fit, it seems more important to give partner the room to describe his hand then to show a heart suit in which you have no interest in playing.

[Winstonm]

Han,

It's not important enough to me to debate, but....these auctions make no sense to me. (If they do to you, then that is fine.)

Quote

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx. You'd like to be in slam opposite the second one but not opposite the first. How do you distinguish? Well, if you start with 2C then the auctions are simple:

1S - 2C
2D - 2S
3H

Why, with a poor fit and minimum, would opener bid 3H and not simply bid 4S? What is the purpose of bidding 3H?

Quote

Now you know partner's shape and you know that the hands fit badly. On the second hand the auction would probably start with 1S-2C-3D (splinter) and now you know that the hands fit very well.

I cannot imagine a splinter over 2C - especially if it is known that partner will introduce Kxx as a club suit with a balanced hand! I would bid 3C and think nothing much of it.

To each his own.

[H_KARLUK]

jdonn, on Dec 8 2008, 04:22 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Dec 7 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

Come on, seriously? If you're not even going to bother reading the thread then I don't think anyone is going to summarize it for you.

What I am confused the 2/1 book I bought is 2 level forcing natural tho may not have 5 cards sometimes but exactly at least 4 cards.

That's why i sympathise and believe natural approach is best to fix.

Hey I am a good guy and I really like to read new ideas. Okay, anyway I ll reread all posts abt this issue again. Hopefully did not miss anything coz to be honest only focused Han's sample :
AQx
Axxxx
xx
Kxx
I think each HCP of opener worthy for declarer. At least 24 HCP on their side. So after 1♠ > 2♥ prospects bright. I expect opener would follow so on :
2♠ 6+limit- denies 3 cards ♥
2N-denies 3 cards hearts, balanced 5-2-3-3
3♥ 3+ cards
3♣/3♦ natural 4 + side suits , still may have 3 cards ♥, like responder did not show direct support to spades this time opener just showing side values.

If p alerts 2♣ artificial relay np. If p sticked 2/1 dont you think he thought 4+ and gave 3 ♣ with such one :
5-3-1-4 or 5-3-2-3 limit with bad ♦. Obviously you will find ♥ fit soon or late. On th other hand partner would not be comfortable and sure that you have four or five hearts bcos you did not bid at start.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 7 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

Quote

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx. You'd like to be in slam opposite the second one but not opposite the first. How do you distinguish? Well, if you start with 2C then the auctions are simple:

1S - 2C
2D - 2S
3H

Why, with a poor fit and minimum, would opener bid 3H and not simply bid 4S? What is the purpose of bidding 3H?

???

Because this isn't a minimal hand and you can easily have slam, partner is allowed to have extras too. And because by bidding your pattern you have a better chance to reach good slams. And by bidding your pattern you might stay out of a poor slam.

Quote

Quote

Now you know partner's shape and you know that the hands fit badly. On the second hand the auction would probably start with 1S-2C-3D (splinter) and now you know that the hands fit very well.

I cannot imagine a splinter over 2C - especially if it is known that partner will introduce Kxx as a club suit with a balanced hand! I would bid 3C and think nothing much of it.

To each his own.

Why on earth wouldn't you splinter? Partner can have 3 clubs but partner can also have long clubs, and then it would be good for partner to know your shortness. If partner has only 3 or 4 clubs he may still want to know because you might have a spade fit, or maybe partner will perhaps bid 3NT next and then you'd certainly wish you had shown your shortness.

[maggieb]

As I said before, I agree with those that just bid their suits in their natural order. That's how I've been bidding my hands for almost 35 years and I'm happy doing so. I think my partners wouldn't know what to expect from me if I suddenly started bidding 3-card suits when I have a perfectly normal 5-card suit to bid.

Of course, if I had AQx xxxxx Ax Kxx then I would bid 2C as I'm sure everybody here would, so I don't understand the objection to bidding 2C on king-third. And probably even HARLUK's book would tell you to bid 2C on AQx xxxx Axx Kxx. But that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to bid 2C on a 3-card suit, we don't open 1C with AQx Axxxx xx Kxx either do we?

As for winstonm:

Quote

It's not important enough to me to debate...

Then why not stay in the watercooler?

[gnasher]

han, on Dec 8 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx.
...
But if you start with 2H then with both hands the auction would start 1S-2H-3H-3S, and now there simply is no way to sort it out.

Wouldn't they bid 1S-2H-4C and 1S-2H-4D respectively, or would that promise four hearts?

[Fluffy]

This reminds me of my italian friend who wanted to show me why with a 4243 strong hand, you wanted to bid 2♦ over 1♥ from partner, it really worked well on the hand given (you saved a lot of space by showing GF on first round even with a expensive bid compared to 1♠).

About the hands, I hope everyone agress that you can do these things only because you always can play back in spades, and lying about a major suit lenght without assured fit is nonsense.

I don't like 2♦ on the second hand because it creates missperception on ♥K (we want partner to know it is BIG!), a lonelly ♦Q (its better to have it anywhere else!) and singleton diamond.

On the first hand, forgetting about hearts sounds reasonable being a big winner when partner has singleton.

[mikeh]

han, on Dec 7 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

Quote

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.

There we go again, can't we just have a bridge argument in which you don't state that those who disagree with you are not experts or disrespect partner? On the first hand I was playing with Justin who I think is a very strong player. I believe he agreed with 2C and he certainly wasn't offended. He asked some other very strong bridge players what they would do with my hand, if I call correctly Joe Grue said that 2C is obviously better than 2H. The second hand was given to me in Boston by a very good Swedish player. I said I would bid 2H and he made a very good effort to convince me that 2D is better with this shape.

[

Why don't you read, quote, and respond to the bridge arguments which preceded the hyperbole that you did quote?

You began the OP by stating that the reason for 2♣ was that you were only interested in hearts if partner could bid the suit... you then tell me that I misread your post....

I posted an argument that if partner DID bid 2♥, which was what you were looking for in order to play in hearts, he would never believe that you held 5 of them... a point to which you haven't responded.

I also argued that you would never be able to describe your spade support if he rebid 2♥, because you'd have to raise hearts first.... a point to which you haven't responded.

I find it odd that you castigate me for the passage you quoted, and ask that we have a bridge argument, and then fail to put forward a bridge argument.

Instead, we get a reference to authority... and while Justin and Grue are better players than I am, I do not consider either to be authorities whose simple word is gospel, especially when I have no idea what discussion took place. I would enjoy a bridge discussion with them, but find your resort to them as the voice of authority to be a ducking of the issues, not an answer.

Moving along to opener's posited KJxxx KQx Axxx x, you suggested that opener rebid 3♥ after 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠.

That may have merit (I am not being sarcastic)... but it also smacks to me of perhaps being influenced by knowledge of the actual responding hand. It seems difficult to justify a cue bid with weak trump, a misfit in the minors, a near-minimum in hcp, and no heart A. Unless we have reserved 2N as an artificial call, that choice would seem to be more descriptive, and, if not, then why not 3♠? That might allow for a very smooth 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ auction on some hands.... after all, opener is not actually looking for 5 heart tricks, is he?


Han, I tend to make arguments in black-and-white language, and to express my thoughts bluntly, but much of this is aimed at generating a response, not to truly assert that those who disagree with me are 'morons', or non-experts. As anyone who reads these forums as much as you do will know, I make a lot of errors, and a lot of very good bridge players disagree with much of what I post. That isn't going to stop me from expressing myself... if for no other reason than that the bridge arguments countering my arguments help me to broaden my understanding of the game. Yes, it might be useful if I were able to restrain myself on occasion, but that won't happen as much as either you or I might like.... I tend to get carried away

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

I make a lot of errors, and a lot of very good bridge players disagree with much of what I post.

I disagree with this, doh!, then I agree, doh!!, oh wait, I ain't good player anyway

[kenrexford]

If y'all read through what each other is saying and think through things, you might realize that no one is really disagreeing, IMO. To disagree, people must discuss the same issue and come to different conclusions. Instead, people are discussing different issues and coming to different conclusions, which does not establish true disagreement.

There are some dumb analyses of the other discussion at times, though. For instance, Mike, you say that partner will never believe that you have five hearts if you do not bid hearts. Surely you see how obviously wrong this is. If partner would expect you to do exactly what he would do, namely to frequently bid a minor when you have a GF hand with three-card support for the opened major and five of the other major, then the auction 1M-P-2min-P-2OM-P-3OM will often feature the double-fit.

The reason, though, that I say that people are not really discussing the same thing is that the decision as to how to respond is governed by the style of bidding afterwards. One initial decision might cater to one latter style, whereas another initial decision might cater to a different latter style.

Take the KJxxx-KQx-Axxx-x hand. Han would cue 3♥ after 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠. Mike questions that as not making sense with a misfit and weakness. Well, tada! The bidding styles are different.

Personally, I would cue 2NT, which denies, for me, good trumps (not two of the top three honors). That erases any need for blasting slam considerations. Lacking that tool, 3♥ is not so obvious unless you use Serious 3NT and Last Train, but if you do then it is, IMO, whether it is a pattern bid or a cue. This is especially so if 3♠ would be a trump cue and because there was no splinter to 4♣, assuming that the 4♣ call would be a splinter.

So, can't anyone recognize that different starts cater to different styles? This is not a mater of foolish people, or masterminds, or whatever - it is style-catering and prediction, and style-centric experience.

[H_KARLUK]

maggieb, on Dec 8 2008, 07:39 AM, said:

Of course, if I had AQx xxxxx Ax Kxx then I would bid 2C as I'm sure everybody here would, so I don't understand the objection to bidding 2C on king-third. And probably even HARLUK's book would tell you to bid 2C on AQx xxxx Axx Kxx.

AQx xxxxx Ax Kxx >I bid 2 ♥
AQx xxxx Axx Kxx >I bid 1N F1

Like or dislike.