[jukmoi]

Would this be a correct explenation of 3♦? "Responder will bid like 3♦ is a help-suit-trial. 3♦ just shows that opener believes that he can control the action whatever responder bids, so he could hold various types of hands."

To me this is just playing normal bridge. I would not have thought that any alerts are necessary.

[bluejak]

fred, on Jun 3 2010, 03:18 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 01:28 AM, said:

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche.  If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass.

In the same way that it is smart for the better players here to listen to you when it comes to matters of bridge law, it would be smart for you to listen to the better players here when it comes to matters of bridge (yes, I know you are a decent player).

No offense intended, but what you suggest is completely absurd. If opener was still interested in slam after hearing 3H from responder, he would cuebid.

You also seem to be ignoring the 3NT possibility I mentioned. I am not just making this up. In fact, this concept was mentioned in another recent thread where opener had to decide what to do with something like xxx AKQxx xx AKJ after 1H-2H. If you don't think it is reasonable to bid 1H-2H-3C-3H-4H with that, then I am sure you can imagine a similar hand with which you think it is. If you ever bid that way with such a hand and your partner moves over 4H (thinking you were making a slam try instead of just trying to get to the right game) I doubt you would be impressed.

I certainly listen to what is told me, but I do not have to agree. If I play 3♦ differently from you - which it appears I do - then this has certain effects, one of which is that I have made a slam try on the given sequence, however mild. I do not play 3♦ as a no-trump probe.

I do not think that I have to play the same system, or methods, as better players. In fact, it is arguable anyway whether a player who is better than myself necessarily has a better grasp of methods than I do: the main reason such a player is better than me is pretty certainly because his judgement and/or technique is better. Of course that does not mean that my methods in this position are superior, just that I prefer them.

As for absurd, I do not see why, if you have a mild slam try hand, it is absurd to bid 3♦ to see the effect, and then give up when partner fails to show extras. Which is what bidding 4♥ over 3♥ does in my partnerships. True, it is a very rare hand type that will lead to a re-evaluation by responder which might justify progression, but I do not think very rare and impossible are th same. One of the difficulties in bidding is that evaluation for game and slam purposes are not always the same.

As for the hand you show, my methods are such that a 3♣ bid is wildly inappropriate. But, if your partners cannot progress over 4♥, perhaps it is a safe psyche for you. But is it legal?

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2010, 09:02 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 2 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche.  If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass.

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥.

Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things.

Amen to this! We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora

[aguahombre]

pooltuna, on Jun 3 2010, 07:41 AM, said:

We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora 

Adam already gave one (AKX AKJXX QJXXX -).

Also who said anything about the 2♥ raise having been constructive in OP's style?

Of course, Adam's hand would cue 3S after the 3H decline (per Fred). And again no alerts necessary --help suit 3D, then 3S control bid, arriving at slam opposite a partner who quite reasonably didn't jump to game over 3D with XXX QXXX KXX JXX. Some would have bid 4H with that hand if their style is to always accept with any help. Others would not, just using the help-suit try as a guide, if neutral about accepting.

[fred]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

I do  not think that I have to play the same system, or methods, as better players.  In fact, it is arguable anyway whether a player who is better than myself necessarily has a better grasp of methods than I do: the main reason such a player is better than me is pretty certainly because his judgement and/or technique is better.  Of course that does not mean that my methods in this position are superior, just that I prefer them.

Do whatever you want when you are playing. I just hope you don't bring the same attitude to the table when you are a TD.

In my experience, the best TDs are those who always defer to the wisdom of stronger players when it comes to matters of bidding theory, bridge judgment, what constitutes "standard" these days, etc.

Meanwhile, the worst TDs tend to be those whose bridge-egos are sufficiently large for them to think that they are qualified to be making such decisions on their own.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[dburn]

pooltuna, on Jun 3 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2010, 09:02 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 2 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche.  If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass.

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥.

Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things.

Amen to this! We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora

And you keep failing, because you do not know what logic is (any more than you know what the plural of "forum" is).

This:

♠None ♥AKxxxx ♦xx ♣AKxxx

is by no stretch of the imagination a 2♣ opening, yet it would want to make a slam try over a constructive raise of 1♥.

Indeed, it might reasonably just bid a slam over a constructive raise, hoping either that it will be cold or that it will make on a non-diamond lead.

But what the clever school does is to make a "trial bid" of 3♦ and then bid a slam. Naturally, they also do not tell the opponents that this is what they may be doing. Hence the concern expressed by some posters here.

[pooltuna]

dburn, on Jun 3 2010, 09:07 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Jun 3 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2010, 09:02 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 2 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche.  If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass.

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥.

Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things.

Amen to this! We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora

And you keep failing, because you do not know what logic is (any more than you know what the plural of "forum" is).

This:

♠None ♥AKxxxx ♦xx ♣AKxxx

is by no stretch of the imagination a 2♣ opening, yet it would want to make a slam try over a constructive raise of 1♥.

Indeed, it might reasonably just bid a slam over a constructive raise, hoping either that it will be cold or that it will make on a non-diamond lead.

But what the clever school does is to make a "trial bid" of 3♦ and then bid a slam. Naturally, they also do not tell the opponents that this is what they may be doing. Hence the concern expressed by some posters here.

Where in my post did I say that hands that are not 2♣ openers can't have slam aspirations. What I was asking, rhetorically, was what do they look like and you provided an unneeded example. If the 3♦ call was a demand to bid game with ♦ help then the opener knew he would be able to bid slam. With a 3♥ rejection then 4♥ is an order for the responder to pass, as JDonn opined. BTW your sense of humor(Americanized) level seems to be running a tad lower than normal, not that I have ever detected it to be particularly high.

[blackshoe]

fred, on Jun 3 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

In my experience, the best TDs are those who always defer to the wisdom of stronger players when it comes to matters of bidding theory, bridge judgment, what constitutes "standard" these days, etc.

Meanwhile, the worst TDs tend to be those whose bridge-egos are sufficiently large for them to think that they are qualified to be making such decisions on their own.

I would say that the best TDs are those who don't make judgement rulings without consulting with other TDs and other players who are not involved in the case at hand. And I think David would agree with that, as he's said it himself quite often.

I'm not going to get into "bridge egos", except to observe that in my experience most bridge players I've known have had pretty big egos.

I'm damn sure I'm not just going to accept without question the pronouncements of the expert involved in an actual case, whoever he may be. Particularly if they favor that expert and are not the way I think I should rule. No, I will consult with other, uninvolved parties, and hope to get objective opinions.

[dburn]

pooltuna, on Jun 3 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

Where in my post did I say that hands that are not 2♣ openers can't have slam aspirations? What I was asking, rhetorically, was what do they look like and you provided an unneeded example.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. It seemed to me that you were subscribing to the notion that a player who opened 1♥ could not have a slam try facing a raise to 2♥. If you were instead ridiculing it, then more power to you.

Of course, as Fred correctly observes, such a player would bid something other than 4♥ after responder's discouraging 3♥. But that auction is not the real problem.

The real problem is this auction: 1♥-2♥-3♦-4♥-6♥. Now, ever since (and very probably before) Zia published the concept of the "sting" cue bid or trial bid in Bridge My Way, an expert player might be trying to do one of (at least) two things: show a real "help suit try" to elicit cooperation, or make a fake cue / trial bid in order to inhibit a diamond lead.

The issue is: if North-South have some partnership experience based on history rather than explicit discussion, are East-West entitled to knowledge of that experience? Is redress due to a non-expert West who, let us say, leads a spade from ♠QJ10x rather than a diamond from ♦QJ10x and says later "3♦ wasn't alerted, so I had no way of telling that it could be two or three low in a slam-going hand - I thought both my opponents had something in diamonds"?

[Pict]

dburn, on Jun 3 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jun 3 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

Where in my post did I say that hands that are not 2♣ openers can't have slam aspirations? What I was asking, rhetorically, was what do they look like and you provided an unneeded example.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. It seemed to me that you were subscribing to the notion that a player who opened 1♥ could not have a slam try facing a raise to 2♥. If you were instead ridiculing it, then more power to you.

Of course, as Fred correctly observes, such a player would bid something other than 4♥ after responder's discouraging 3♥. But that auction is not the real problem.

The real problem is this auction: 1♥-2♥-3♦-4♥-6♥. Now, ever since (and very probably before) Zia published the concept of the "sting" cue bid or trial bid in Bridge My Way, an expert player might be trying to do one of (at least) two things: show a real "help suit try" to elicit cooperation, or make a fake cue / trial bid in order to inhibit a diamond lead.

The issue is: if North-South have some partnership experience based on history rather than explicit discussion, are East-West entitled to knowledge of that experience? Is redress due to a non-expert West who, let us say, leads a spade from ♠QJ10x rather than a diamond from ♦QJ10x and says later "3♦ wasn't alerted, so I had no way of telling that it could be two or three low in a slam-going hand - I thought both my opponents had something in diamonds"?

This captures part of the dilemma of the game as it is now.

It seems that if I ask about this auction, I might be told 'lead a diamond, he was probably trying to put you off the best lead.' (or words to that rough effect).

I don't want that information and I dont want to claim after the event, that I did want that information.

I want to work it out for myself.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jun 2 2010, 09:07 PM, said:

I am sorry, you find it silly, but I sort of play a partnership game, whereby when one player makes a slam try, the other is allowed to accept. I realise it is more fun to play a solo game where partner just does what he is told.

Ah yes, a partnership game. One partner makes a nonforcing 3♥ bid and moves toward slam over nothing further but a sign off. The other has a hand that you seem to think could still be interested in slam over 3♥ and yet fails to make a further slam try. This partnership deserves each other.

I'm still convinced you are simply unable to locate all those useful bids between 3♥ and 4♥ that can be used to make slam tries. I mean seriously, how do you suggest opener bid when he is interested in slam only opposite a responder that will do something other than 3♥ over 3♦? The method you are advocating isn't even arguably better, it's absolute nonsense.

[pooltuna]

dburn, on Jun 3 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jun 3 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

Where in my post did I say that hands that are not 2♣ openers can't have slam aspirations? What I was asking, rhetorically, was what do they look like and you provided an unneeded example.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. It seemed to me that you were subscribing to the notion that a player who opened 1♥ could not have a slam try facing a raise to 2♥. If you were instead ridiculing it, then more power to you.

Of course, as Fred correctly observes, such a player would bid something other than 4♥ after responder's discouraging 3♥. But that auction is not the real problem.

The real problem is this auction: 1♥-2♥-3♦-4♥-6♥. Now, ever since (and very probably before) Zia published the concept of the "sting" cue bid or trial bid in Bridge My Way, an expert player might be trying to do one of (at least) two things: show a real "help suit try" to elicit cooperation, or make a fake cue / trial bid in order to inhibit a diamond lead.

The issue is: if North-South have some partnership experience based on history rather than explicit discussion, are East-West entitled to knowledge of that experience? Is redress due to a non-expert West who, let us say, leads a spade from ♠QJ10x rather than a diamond from ♦QJ10x and says later "3♦ wasn't alerted, so I had no way of telling that it could be two or three low in a slam-going hand - I thought both my opponents had something in diamonds"?

Yes that is a conundrum for an appeals committee. It is of course not restricted to this auction or similar ones but is subject to coming up anytime one player decides to run the bluff by psyching a control. Clearly the opponents, if they ask, are entitled to the information of previous occurrences. What is not clear to me is the need to alert in effect a psyche. If an alert is required here where does it stop? Do I alert partner's 2NT call over my weak 2 opening or his forcing 2♠ call over my weak 2♦ opening, not to suggest it's forcing nature but the psyche possibility? I suspect this should fall under general bridge knowledge.

[blackshoe]

There's general bridge knowledge, and then there's partnership experience. In general, the latter trumps the former, meaning that if you have sufficient experience with this partner of a particular "psych", it becomes no longer a psych, but instead an implicit partnership understanding, and as such it must be disclosed IAW the procedures specified for the event in question.

How much is "sufficient experience"? Well, at one end we have "one swallow doesn't make a summer". Some say three times is sufficient, but frequency is important — 3 times in a month is one thing, three times in three years is quite another. Basically, if you find yourself thinking "I wonder if partner is psyching again", you should treat it as a partnership agreement.

[nige1]

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

Jilllybean may have a fair hand but no help in ♦ and no room between 3♦ and 3♥ to suggest help elsewhere. Are there hands, with which you reject a 3♦ help-suit trial-bid for game; but then you re-evaluate to co-operate in slam exploration, when 3♦ turns out to be a control cue-bid try for slam? Fred and Jdonn say "no". Bluejak says "yes" and I tend to agree.

[dburn]

nige1, on Jun 3 2010, 07:08 PM, said:

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

Jilllybean may have a fair hand but no help in ♦ and no room between 3♦ and 3♥ to suggest help elsewhere. Are there hands, with which you reject a 3♦ help-suit trial-bid for game; but you re-evaluate and co-operate in slam exploration, when 3♦ turns out to be a control cue-bid try for slam?
Fred and Jdonn say no. Bluejak says yes and I tend to agree.

You should not, for this will class you as a hopeless bidder (and rightly so).

As Fred and jdonn point out, there isn't a hand on which any rational partnership can conduct the auction 1♥-2♥-3♦-3♥-4♥-anything other than pass.

But that isn't the issue. Suppose that instead of bidding 3♥, responder had bid 4♦. Now, bluejak (and I) might imagine that responder had some right to bid on over opener's 4♥ with such as:

♠x ♥Qxx ♦QJxxx ♣Kxxx

At least, I would bid on with that unless I were playing with some card-carrying member of the cool school, in which case I would have to "guess" whether his bidding meant what it said or whether he was just kidding. After all, how are we supposed to bid to six diamonds if he really holds ♠xxx ♥AKxxx ♦AKxx ♣A? What is he supposed to do over 4♦ with that hand? Or was I supposed to splinter with 4♠ over 3♦ when 3♦ could be based on any one of the number of hand types Fred suggests?

Don't get me wrong - I don't disapprove at all of the notion that 3♦ should in an all-expert game mean what Fred says it means. The theoretical advantages of forbidding responder from ever bidding beyond 4♥ are very great compared to the advantages of allowing him to do so.

But in an all-expert game no one has to disclose anything, because in the immortal words of Leonard Cohen:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded,
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed.
Everybody knows that the war is over,
Everybody knows the good guys lost.
Everybody knows the fight was fixed -
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich -
That's how it goes.
Everybody knows.

The question, as I have remarked before, is: do the Laws and the regulations allow the rich to steal from the poor without declaring the means by which they already attempt to steal from the rich?

[655321]

dburn, on Jun 3 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

As Fred and jdonn point out, there isn't a hand on which any rational partnership can conduct the auction 1♥-2♥-3♦-3♥-4♥-anything other than pass.

Yes I agree, but

dburn, on Jun 3 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

But that isn't the issue. Suppose that instead of bidding 3♥, responder had bid 4♦. Now, bluejak (and I) might imagine that responder had some right to bid on over opener's 4♥ with such as:

♠x  ♥Qxx  ♦QJxxx  ♣Kxxx

At least, I would bid on with that

1♥ 2♥
3♦ 4♦
4♥

Why would you bid over game with this hand? Surely opener's expected hand is a game try in diamonds rather than a slam try, cool school or not.

[dburn]

Because, with apologies for obvious confusion and with downcast head, I confess to being a reluctant and temporary member of the cool school (or perhaps in my case the lukewarm school).

You see, in the last eighteen months or so I have been persuaded to adopt this method, which I am assured is all the rage:

After 1♥-2♥, 2NT is "any game try". A new suit is a slam try. (The really cool school play 2♠ as any game try and 2NT as a slam try in spades or some hand with which 3NT could be right, after which responder relays with... but I am an old man and would forget all this stuff even if I were inclined to remember it in the first place.)

Hence, on the auction I quoted, 3♦ was an unequivocal slam try and showed... well, it showed either ♦AKxx or two low and the rest solid, or...

The point remains the same, though: what disclosure are you obliged to provide, on the basis of past partnership history (or even on the basis of a mutual suspicion that partner has read Bridge My Way or the BBO forums)?

[FrancesHinden]

Well, I play short suit game tries, and one partner alerts 3D (which is alertable anyway as a short suit try) and describes it as "either a short suit try or a hand that wants to avert a diamond lead"

This works better, of course, when responder jumps to game rather than signs off and sees opener bid on anyway.

It doesn't take partnership experience or anything more than general bridge knowledge to work out that the auction

1H - 2H
3D - 3H
6H

almost certainly means either
"I was trying to put you off a diamond lead", or
"I was trying to make you think I didn't want a diamond lead whereas in fact I've got AQ108x of the suit"

as the opening leader, you just have to look at declarer and decide quite how devilishly cunning he is trying to be

[blackshoe]

I said I would ask HQ what the policy is. Here's Mike Flader's reply:

Quote

Like you, I wouldn't alert 3D. I would offer to explain the agreement to the opponents after the auction was over.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 18 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

I said I would ask HQ what the policy is. Here's Mike Flader's reply:

Quote

Like you, I wouldn't alert 3D. I would offer to explain the agreement to the opponents after the auction was over.

This surprises me:

If there is a reason for at the end of the auction offering opponents an explanation of a call I don't understand why this call should not have been alerted at the time it was made (except when the call is above 3NT and the relevant alert regulation specifies "no alerts above 3NT")?