[jdonn]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 07:19 AM, said:

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?

Obviously he is not cuebidding, he is bidding out his pattern. It's definitely the style that I prefer. I would do it on any strength hand - maybe we belong in 3NT after all, and it certainly helps to judge slam possibilities.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2008, 08:20 AM, said:

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.

Ken, I appreciate your effort to smooth ruffled feathers (If I interprete your motives accurately), but I disagree with your arguments.

Firstly, an approach in which one bids 2♣ with 3 spades and a 5 card heart suit is definitely non-standard, and if this is part of the partnership method, then it has to be pre-agreed, and definitely alerted.

Secondly, whether it is systemic or not, if opener rebids 2♥, pray tell how (absent specialized agreements) responder is going to distinguish between the hand type held and a run-of-the-mill hand with 4 hearts and longer clubs, with which all of us (natural) bidders would respond 2♣ and raise hearts.

Josh, while I appreciate that Han was patterning out, as would you, with KJxxx KQx Axxx x (despite my describing the 3♥ as a cuebid), I am puzzled by why one would bid this way on a not-great hand, rather than rebid, for example, 2N... if one were inclined to cater to 3N doesn't 2N offer more bidding space while showing the heart values and suggesting club shortage? Of course, we might be 5242 with good hearts (I doubt we'd suggest notrump with only 1 heart stopper if 2♠ promised 3+ support, as it seems most play.. presumably using 2♥ over 2♦ as a stall). Personally, while I also pattern out in these auctions, 3♥, for me, shows a better hand... maybe KQJxx KQx Axxx x, but I recognize that maybe I am being too conservative.

[Winstonm]

Quote

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.

This is the reason it is umimportant for me to debate - all you are doing is cliaiming that the way you think about a hand is superior. But here is the deal - I see your point that there could at times be some merit in bidding 3H; I disagree that doing so is the best method.

It would be good if you point out also the problems of your methods along with the benefits. If you cannot see any problems with the methods, then there is no way to debate the issue.

Quote

As for winstonm:


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



Then why not stay in the watercooler?   

Lack of targets.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

Josh, while I appreciate that Han was patterning out, as would you, with KJxxx KQx Axxx x (despite my describing the 3♥ as a cuebid), I am puzzled by why one would bid this way on a not-great hand, rather than rebid, for example, 2N... if one were inclined to cater to 3N doesn't 2N offer more bidding space while showing the heart values and suggesting club shortage? Of course, we might be 5242 with good hearts (I doubt we'd suggest notrump with only 1 heart stopper if 2♠ promised 3+ support, as it seems most play.. presumably using 2♥ over 2♦ as a stall). Personally, while I also pattern out in these auctions, 3♥, for me, shows a better hand... maybe KQJxx KQx Axxx x, but I recognize that maybe I am being too conservative.

I would always pattern out here (and so would Han). 2N just shows 5242, in fact I would even do it with xx in hearts (in which case I would of course not pass 3N by partner). 3♥ is automatic with 5341; partner is unlimited and may have a balanced hand for which club shortness is great news. Strength can be sorted out later with serious/frivolous 3N.
Mike, I would also find it nice if you could in future eliminate your frequent "bidding this way shows you think your partner is a moron/you don't trust your partner" arguments. You bring these up very often when someone is suggesting a bidding style different to the one you are used to.

One reason for 2H that Han is a little overstating, I think, is the heart shortness with partner. If partner has a heart singleton, then that isn't all that great news.

[han]

So now we have two people suggesting that the 5341 14-count is too weak to pattern out after 1S-2C-2D-2S? And both would respond 2C with a 16-count holding something like Axxx in clubs. I don't understand these methods.

As for Arend's comment that a singleton heart isn't great, I agree (although it is not as bad as partner would expect if we'd respond 2H, and if we did, partner would not be able to show it).

As for mikeh's comment that after 1S-2C-2H-3H, partner will not expect us to hold 5 hearts and we are in a worse position, I agree. If I was as confident as Joe Grue about the merits of 2C I wouldn't have restarted this discussion.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 8 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

It would be good if you point out also the problems of your methods along with the benefits. If you cannot see any problems with the methods, then there is no way to debate the issue.

Alright, what's the big problem with patterning out on a 5341 14-count when partner could have a monster? What's the big advantage of jumping to game with this hand?

[sathyab]

han, on Dec 8 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

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

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.

Why not splinter ? May be because your hand contains neither a decent suit that can be a source of tricks for slam purposes nor very many controls ? A minimum splinter might look like KQJxx Axx x Axxx ?

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

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

The solution is in your hands: don't post the hyperbole in the first place, and nobody will be distracted from your bridge arguments.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Dec 8 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

Mike, I would also find it nice if you could in future eliminate your frequent "bidding this way shows you think your partner is a moron/you don't trust your partner" arguments. You bring these up very often when someone is suggesting a bidding style different to the one you are used to.

Actually, I think I bring this up only when I think that the proposed bidding method represents an attempt to take over control of an auction prematurely... usually by making a non-standard bid. There are a lot of bidding methods with which I am unfamiliar, and many of them have (to me) obvious merit. Rebidding 1N with a stiff is one... responding to 1♥ via 2♣ with a gf hand and 4=4 in the blacks is another. I learn a lot from the posters who explain why they advocate methods that are new to me... but not from the posters who ignore the problems and tout only the advantages of the method, or claim that the method is good because (fill in the blank) plays it.

What I find interesting is that neither you nor Han have tried to rebut the arguments that immediately preceded the comment that so offends you.... just how are you going to have an informed, collaborative auction with partner if he rebids 2♥ over your 2♣? Indeed, Han has agreed that this is a problem.. a problem to which he offers no solution, even tho the OP contained a specific reference to the possibility that hearts was the better trump suit if opener rebid 2♥. Be careful what you hope for, I guess.

Now, the odds are that a 2♣ response will end up being as effective as a 2♥, and that some of the time it will be more effective.

But whether the distortion is justified or is masterminding depends both on the frequency of when it costs/helps but also on the significance of the loss or benefit. To me, the fact that a 2♥ rebid by opener means, essentially, that we can no longer involve partner, on an informed basis, in a collaborative auction is a very big strike against the method.

Having said that, such a strike accounts for little if partner cannot be expected, due to his or her skill level, to meaningfully evaluate his or her hand, holding good heart support, after a 2♥ response. So, in that case (a case in which we do not respect partner's ability) the cost of the 2♣ distortion diminishes, and it may well be that taking control early on will lead to a superior outcome.

It is in that sense that I wrote the passage that so annoyed you.

Finally, as I tried to convey in my last post, before this one, I welcome any bridge arguments that counter the ones on which I base my 'partner is a moron' comments... I think that you will find that I (usually) explain why I think the auction in question reflects that mindset... and if I am wrong, as I concede I often am, I do try to understand the arguments that demonstrate that error. You haven't made any, and Han, who shares your annoyance with me, concedes that the auction in question is a problem, to which he offers no solution... instead, telling me I was wrong because Joe Grue said so, and then saying (as I read his last post) that maybe Joe Grue was wrong.. I'm getting confused.

Ok, my last paragraph wasn't the final one My posts tend to read dogmatically, at least in part. I have no pretensions of being a bridge authority. I do have views.. I state them... I read countering views, and sometimes change mine as a result... please bear that in mind when reading anything else of mine that you find offensive.

[han]

Quote

What I find interesting is that neither you nor Han have tried to rebut the arguments that immediately preceded the comment that so offends you.... just how are you going to have an informed, collaborative auction with partner if he rebids 2♥ over your 2♣? Indeed, Han has agreed that this is a problem.. a problem to which he offers no solution, even tho the OP contained a specific reference to the possibility that hearts was the better trump suit if opener rebid 2♥. Be careful what you hope for, I guess.

It takes more than a bridge post from you to offend me Mike.

You started your first post by saying that the 2C bidders hope to get a 2H response from partner so that they know we have a 9-card fit. This is just wrong and you know it, nobody said this. The claim was that we wouldn't miss a superior heart fit by not bidding 2H ourselves, because if we have a 9-card fit partner will bid them and we find hearts, and if partner doesn't then we'd rather play in spades. This is a very different statement and I don't understand why you keep distorting it.

I have indeed admitted that bidding 2C can work out less well when partner has 4 hearts, after 1S-2C-2H-3H partner will not be aware of our 9-card fit, and partner will not know that we have a side fit in spades.

I do not know what you mean by "a problem to which he offers no solution". I know exactly what I play with Arend after such a start and I think we would often do well enough. The situation actually can't occur for us because after a start equivalent to 1S-2C-2H we would find out partner's shape and strength with relays and it is not clear that we would be worse off. But if we were still playing "standard" 2/1 then I think our cuebidding agreements over 1S-2C-2H-3H are refined enough to find out whether we have slam most of the time. Partner would start by bidding 3S to deny serious slam interest or cuebid to show serious slam interest. In the latter case slam is almost guaranteed (unless we don't have a diamond control), and in the former case we still have some room to investigate.

But I admit that it is possible that we do less well after 1S-2C-2H then after 1S-2H-3H, but I think I also showed situations where 2C can do better than 2H. In fact, isn't it the case that for almost any close choice you make there are follow-up auctions where you wish you would have chosen the alternative?

So such situations don't necessarily need to be rebutted.

[han]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

instead, telling me I was wrong because Joe Grue said so, and then saying (as I read his last post) that maybe Joe Grue was wrong.. I'm getting confused.

Alright, now you are really at the winstonm level of debating, leaving all truth behind in an attempt to win and argument.

[kenrexford]

OK, Mike. You keep saying things that do not make any sense to me because you seem (I may be wrong) to keep forcing your style into the subsequent auction and offering that incorrect assumption as a means of explaining why the initial sequence with a 2♣ start will leave partner in the dark.

One way to reach resolution in the debate might be to actually propose hands and then see how the auctions play out. That, of course, would take a lot of time and effort and would undoubtedly break down into minutae analyses of specific bids and questioning of every tactical decision (like, for example, Han's decision to bid 3♥ in one of only two hands proposed).

A more theoretical approach has been attempted, but this still seems to break down into obsession with presumptions about the stylistic differences about to be unleashed. However, always lacking judgment in this sort of discussion, I plod forward with another stab at it.

In an auction that I would have, a 2♣ response to a major opening may be short (3-card is possible). It will typically fall into one of three categories:

1. Balanced
2. Real clubs
3. Frag+ with 5-3 in the majors (3-card fit, 5-card other).

Thus, when partner hears 2♣, he will not be surprised if any one of these three patterns later shows up.

You then posit the great question of how partner is supposed to participate in an informed, collaborative sequence if you start this way. Well, the simple answer is that he, upon hearing your 2♣ call, will be informed that you have one of these three hand types and will then collaborate with the rest of the auction.

If he, for instance, bids 2♦, and you now bid 2♠, he will be able to make cuebids. As will you. From this point forward, we will have some information exchange that will be better than your techniques, and, hence, more informative and collaborative. Other aspects of the sequence will be less so. Whereas you may know more about shape in the end, we will know more about fitting honors in the end. I will, for instance, immediately know whether Opener does or does not have two of the top three spades, whereas you may not know this until after RKCB, which may be too late. I may know exactly how many club honors he has, whereas you may have a more generalized feeling about heart honors.

Your claim, therefore, that you cannot have an informed and collaborative auction without stressing shape properly is biased. For, I could easily challenge your techniques as masterminding and uncooperative because you cannot possibly have an informed and collaborative sequence if you cannot tell partner about all of your cover cards, and hear about all of his.

When you note the inability for Opener to know that the fit is 5-4 instead of 4-4, I can rebut that after a 2♥-3♥ sequence Responder cannot know whether the fit is 5-3 or 5-4. Each time, someone is in the dark. My way, however, both of us will know that at least a 4-4 fit exists. I'd rather know for sure that a 4-4 fit exists than a second 5-3 fit, as the 4-4 (or 5-4) is often the more powerful holding. So, which is worse?

All that said, I don't even care as much about the 4-4 or 5-4 question, as the perhaps more pressing need is to find out about the security of the trump suit below game (which I can do whenever I can set trumps at the two-level) and about controls. I find that 2♣ calls in sequences like this are the best route to avoiding the 5-level when slam is off, a task that your methods probably will not as easily allow.

Besides, you finally acknowledge that here may be specialized tools to enable finding out what needs to be discovered, to solve these problems. Well, guess what?

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 8 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

instead, telling me I was wrong because Joe Grue said so, and then saying (as I read his last post) that maybe Joe Grue was wrong.. I'm getting confused.

Alright, now you are really at the winstonm level of debating, leaving all truth behind in an attempt to win and argument.

Asshole. There, you can't get more truthful than that! Satified?

[han]

Twice in one week, such honor!

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 8 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 8 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

It would be good if you point out also the problems of your methods along with the benefits.  If you cannot see any problems with the methods, then there is no way to debate the issue.

Alright, what's the big problem with patterning out on a 5341 14-count when partner could have a monster? What's the big advantage of jumping to game with this hand?

Do you see any downside to your suggestion of method that opener should pattern out in the bidding?

I can tell you some plusses and minuses to my methods.
Plusses:
1) Opponents are kept in the dark as to opener's shape.
2) Opener can limit his hand and slam interest with fast arrival
3) Pattern bids or cue bids convey at least mild slam interest
4) Stoppers and controls are known quicker than with shape-showing

Minuses:
1)Opener's shape is withheld from partner
2) Fast arrival takes up bidding room.

I still get back to the first point I made in this thread - if responder has a strong enough hand that a pattern-bid by opener with a lower-range opener is important then the problem is in the initital response structures.

In other words, if this is the problem then the question raised is moot because it does not solve the underlying problem. IMHO.

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 8 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

Twice in one week, such honor!

Quote

Alright, now you are really at the winstonm level of debating, leaving all truth behind in an attempt to win and argument.

No problemo - it's a technique I learned from Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Kristol, Bolton, ad nauseum...

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

OK, Mike. You keep saying things that do not make any sense to me because you seem (I may be wrong) to keep forcing your style into the subsequent auction and offering that incorrect assumption as a means of explaining why the initial sequence with a 2♣ start will leave partner in the dark.

One way to reach resolution in the debate might be to actually propose hands and then see how the auctions play out. That, of course, would take a lot of time and effort and would undoubtedly break down into minutae analyses of specific bids and questioning of every tactical decision (like, for example, Han's decision to bid 3♥ in one of only two hands proposed).

A more theoretical approach has been attempted, but this still seems to break down into obsession with presumptions about the stylistic differences about to be unleashed. However, always lacking judgment in this sort of discussion, I plod forward with another stab at it.

In an auction that I would have, a 2♣ response to a major opening may be short (3-card is possible). It will typically fall into one of three categories:

1. Balanced
2. Real clubs
3. Frag+ with 5-3 in the majors (3-card fit, 5-card other).

Thus, when partner hears 2♣, he will not be surprised if any one of these three patterns later shows up.

You then posit the great question of how partner is supposed to participate in an informed, collaborative sequence if you start this way. Well, the simple answer is that he, upon hearing your 2♣ call, will be informed that you have one of these three hand types and will then collaborate with the rest of the auction.

If he, for instance, bids 2♦, and you now bid 2♠, he will be able to make cuebids. As will you. From this point forward, we will have some information exchange that will be better than your techniques, and, hence, more informative and collaborative. Other aspects of the sequence will be less so. Whereas you may know more about shape in the end, we will know more about fitting honors in the end. I will, for instance, immediately know whether Opener does or does not have two of the top three spades, whereas you may not know this until after RKCB, which may be too late. I may know exactly how many club honors he has, whereas you may have a more generalized feeling about heart honors.

Your claim, therefore, that you cannot have an informed and collaborative auction without stressing shape properly is biased. For, I could easily challenge your techniques as masterminding and uncooperative because you cannot possibly have an informed and collaborative sequence if you cannot tell partner about all of your cover cards, and hear about all of his.

When you note the inability for Opener to know that the fit is 5-4 instead of 4-4, I can rebut that after a 2♥-3♥ sequence Responder cannot know whether the fit is 5-3 or 5-4. Each time, someone is in the dark. My way, however, both of us will know that at least a 4-4 fit exists. I'd rather know for sure that a 4-4 fit exists than a second 5-3 fit, as the 4-4 (or 5-4) is often the more powerful holding. So, which is worse?

All that said, I don't even care as much about the 4-4 or 5-4 question, as the perhaps more pressing need is to find out about the security of the trump suit below game (which I can do whenever I can set trumps at the two-level) and about controls. I find that 2♣ calls in sequences like this are the best route to avoiding the 5-level when slam is off, a task that your methods probably will not as easily allow.

Besides, you finally acknowledge that here may be specialized tools to enable finding out what needs to be discovered, to solve these problems. Well, guess what?

At the risk of validating a troll-like approach... your argument seems to be that '2♣ is the correct bid if we agree that systemically 2♣ will include this specific hand type'. As a lawyer, you are familiar with the term 'tautology'?

I very much doubt that Han would have posted the problem if by agreement the partnership used 2♣ as you suggest: i.e as an artificial bid known to contain, as one of its meanings the precise hand in question. Had he specified that, by agreement, 2♣ could show 3=5=2=3 opening values, what other call makes sense?

As I have said, I have played relay methods in which, by systemic agreement, 2♣ is artificial and assumes captaincy (at least temporarily and often conclusively). But I would not dream of suggesting that the rationale for bidding 2♣ was that 'my partner will know it is a relay', nor can you answer the issues in this thread by stating that in your artificial methods, you bid such and such. Who cares about my relay methods or your 3-way 2♣ agreement? The thread is NOT about designing an effective system, but about the merits or lack thereof of a call of 2♣, within the context of a 'normal' 2/1 gf method in comparison to the alternative call of 2♥. Your 'solution' may make some sense.. I can't be bothered to analyze it.. as a new method or as an agreed-upon tweak to 2/1 but so what? How does that advance the issues raised by Han?

Oh sh*t, I shouldn't have used all those question marks... Ken won't be able to resist 'answering' the questions, even tho they are intended as rhetorical.

[Winstonm]

It looks to me as if the problems with these questions is that they cannot be removed from context and can only be debated in the construct of the entire structure that surrounds them.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 8 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

Mike, I would also find it nice if you could in future eliminate your frequent "bidding this way shows you think your partner is a moron/you don't trust your partner" arguments. You bring these up very often when someone is suggesting a bidding style different to the one you are used to.

Actually, I think I bring this up only when I think that the proposed bidding method represents an attempt to take over control of an auction prematurely... usually by making a non-standard bid. There are a lot of bidding methods with which I am unfamiliar, and many of them have (to me) obvious merit. Rebidding 1N with a stiff is one... responding to 1♥ via 2♣ with a gf hand and 4=4 in the blacks is another. I learn a lot from the posters who explain why they advocate methods that are new to me... but not from the posters who ignore the problems and tout only the advantages of the method, or claim that the method is good because (fill in the blank) plays it.

No, you also bring up similar points on other occasions.

Quote

What I find interesting is that neither you nor Han have tried to rebut the arguments that immediately preceded the comment that so offends you.... just how are you going to have an informed, collaborative auction with partner if he rebids 2♥ over your 2♣? Indeed, Han has agreed that this is a problem.. a problem to which he offers no solution, even tho the OP contained a specific reference to the possibility that hearts was the better trump suit if opener rebid 2♥. Be careful what you hope for, I guess.

Why should I rebut that point? I agree that it is a drawback of 2C, I thought we are trying to debate the drawbacks and advantage of 2C, not arguing who is right.
(I don't even have a strong opinion on whether 2C is right, except I would always bid 2C if I have agreed that 1S 2H 3H 3S is a cue.)
However, you are certainly overstating your case. Cuebidding with serious or frivolous 3N over 1S 2C 2H 3H will work reasonably well, even if partner thinks we may have a 3433 or 2434 hand, but can't imagine us being 3523.

[maggieb]

Never mind.