[barmar]

Rule #3 is followed whenever you make a "fake" reverse or jump shift into a 3-card suit. Opener needs some way to show extra strength, and standard bidding doesn't provide ways to do this with all hand shapes.

[kenrexford]

barmar, on 2014-August-18, 09:24, said:

Rule #3 is followed whenever you make a "fake" reverse or jump shift into a 3-card suit. Opener needs some way to show extra strength, and standard bidding doesn't provide ways to do this with all hand shapes.

That's the issue. Almost no system handles all hands in all auctions. The hole exists. How do you handle the situation? Follow a path designed for a different hand with steps that are increasingly flawed to a really bad end, or switch to a path that better approximates the actual hand when you get to the end?

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-18, 10:04, said:

That's the issue. Almost no system handles all hands in all auctions. The hole exists. How do you handle the situation? Follow a path designed for a different hand with steps that are increasingly flawed to a really bad end, or switch to a path that better approximates the actual hand when you get to the end?

Try framing the proposition in a balanced fashion. You have created a false dichotomy, acceptance of which would logically compel acceptance of your point of view. However, you miss-describe both your approach and the approach used by almost everyone else.

1. The common approach used by good players around the world when faced with a systemic hole or crack, uses the principle of the least distortion. This, you imply, leads to 'steps that are increasingly flawed'. Nonsense. That's why we use the principle of the 'least' distortion tempered by a tendency to use, when options are available, the cheapest distortion, maximizing the bidding space available to recover. Is this perfect? No. No approach that incorporates misdescription into the auction is going to be perfect.

2. Your method, of an intentional and substantial distortion (suggesting, for example, 5=4+ majors in the auction 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ on a 5323 hand) is said by you to 'lead to a path that better approximates the actual hand'. Nonsense.

No sequence, after your 2♥ call, will ever persuade partner that you lack 4 hearts. Now, is this going to be fatal? Most often, no. But give partner 4 hearts and you are doomed. And give him a doubleton in each major and you may well be in 3N (or higher in NT) with no heart stop and inadequate length.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the specific controversy, as I expected a different one.

The example of the 3 card heart rebid might have been extreme, to make a point. Consider perhaps a simpler example, which avoids the idol majors.

You are dealt 6313 with 18 HCP. You open 1S because that's obvious. Partner bids a forcing 1NT.

The book says rebid 3S. The auction now sucks, and you know it. Before you bid 3S, though, you recall how nice the auction is after a 2C rebid, and you expect to be able to jump to 3S if the auction survives one round. Which call, then, is better? Can you improve in the future by redefining 3C as not gf?

The conventional wisdom seems to be one of step by step calls. I understand that to be the case. So what? Maybe cw is wrong in some areas. The 3S rebid with 3 hearts seems wrong to me.

a series of approximations out of context does often compound. This is even more so when you force partner to approximate, as well. The 3S rebid forces partner to pick whether he is closer to 4S, 3NT, or pass. A 2C lie allows him to approximate with more nuance. A conventional tweak to 3C is a good compromise.

An entire auction view, both self focused and empathetic, seems superior to me for these reasons. Obviously, partner will never play you for the deviation, which could cause a problem. I don't deny this. But, to ignore the cost of the accepted sequence is rather biased. I could just as easily point to the resulting miss of the 5-3 heart fit, or in the heart fragment example the insanity of not spotting the 6-2 spade fit, but your analysis seems to discount that problem with no reason.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-18, 21:00, said:

You are dealt 6313 with 18 HCP. You open 1S because that's obvious. Partner bids a forcing 1NT.

The book says rebid 3S. The auction now sucks, and you know it. Before you bid 3S, though, you recall how nice the auction is after a 2C rebid, and you expect to be able to jump to 3S if the auction survives one round. Which call, then, is better? Can you improve in the future by redefining 3C as not gf?

In fact, the book suggests you bid 3♠ with an 18 count you deem not to be a gf, and you bid 3♣ with an 18 count you deem to be a gf. I expect you recognize that not all 6313 18 counts are equal

Indeed, some players (me, for one) have incorporated this systemically. For me, the 3♣ js is gf, with one of 3 hand types: a single suiter in spades, a black 2 suiter, or precisely 4 hearts.

As for the auction sucking after 3♠, no it doesn't. Yes, once in a long while, we will miss a good heart contract, but that is about the only significant downside.

Meanwhile, I shudder to think of what happens after a 2♣ rebid. Absent a systemic agreement (either explicit or implied, and you'd better be squeaky clean on alerts), you can never catch up after 2♣ (especially if it gets passed).

I am not dismissing the entire idea. In a very good partnership, we played the auction 1♠ 1N 2♣ was virtually unpassable, because we defined our 3♠ rebid, on 16 to bad 17 counts, as requiring good texture in the major. AK6432 wouldn't be enough....we'd want AK108xx or such. Thus we passed 2♣ only if we expected to pass a standard 3♠rebid and, of course, held 5+ clubs. We alerted the 2♣ call. Others have explicitly agreed that 2♣ is a 1-round force.

However, my point is that when you adopt these ideas, you are in fact modifying your system, unless you are doing this only with partners with whom you very rarely play. So you are no longer 'distorting'...you are playing an agreement, whether you like it or not.

[Zelandakh]

Instead of distorting the auction 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣ on a quasi ad hoc basis why not simply define it as conventional and optimise the follow-ups? That way you get the maximum benefit from the sequence and can better inform the opponents. Is this not basically the traditional way that conventions formed in the first place? Indeed there are several conventions around to deal with the strong 63xx hand in the last example. Doing it that way seems like a better idea than the "creative" approach.

[kenrexford]

We seem to be getting somewhere. As I mentioned several posts back, the deviation is not a deviation for long, if ever. Perhaps the better term is exception, sometimes not yet recognized, sometimes emerging, and sometimes formally adopted. The beauty of some of the emerging exceptions are that they self protect long enough to evolve.

The common theme, though, is that several auctions call for an agreement, exception, or deviation that consistently looks like a one card shy natural bid.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-19, 04:32, said:

We seem to be getting somewhere. As I mentioned several posts back, the deviation is not a deviation for long, if ever. Perhaps the better term is exception, sometimes not yet recognized, sometimes emerging, and sometimes formally adopted. The beauty of some of the emerging exceptions are that they self protect long enough to evolve.

The common theme, though, is that several auctions call for an agreement, exception, or deviation that consistently looks like a one card shy natural bid.

"Emerging"? Once you have decided that X non-systemic bid is the best way to handle a particular hand type, X needs to be alerted the second time it comes up. Also some non-X bids may require alerts.

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2014-August-19, 09:21, said:

"Emerging"? Once you have decided that X non-systemic bid is the best way to handle a particular hand type, X needs to be alerted the second time it comes up. Also some non-X bids may require alerts.

Here's an example of how things "emerge" and are alerted. My partner opened 1♦. I responded 1♠, and he rebid 2♣. I rebid 2♦, and he bid 2♥. He had 1-4-5-3 shape with extras. Whatever the auction, we later discussed the sequence and agreed that this sequence seemed best as a means of showing a hand slightly too weak for a reverse but with the length in the heart suit as four cards more reliable than the length in the club suit. Once that agreement was reached, the sequence was alerted.

Prior to that, I had a tendency to pre-alert that several calls might be made at any given time with one fewer in length than expected. Articulating exactly when that might occur is difficult, as these rare situations are not easily catalogued. However, I also am extremely precise when describing calls, including nuances that I might consider from a theoretical perspective, if they occur to me at the time. This often drives my partners nuts, if they have not worked out the nuances themselves yet.

All that said, you might be overstating things a tad. I doubt that everyone alerts all the calls where in their memory partner made some situation-specific deviation to handle some unique problem. For example, other than myself, I have never once heard anyone alert a 1♠ response to a 1♥ opening as "possibly something resembling 3-1-4-5 and ultra-light," let alone including this in a simple answer to a question about the 1♠ call.

[blackshoe]

These days, if partner does something asystemic, and I end up as dummy defender, I'm quite likely not to notice. Even as declarer I might not notice. After all, I'll have other things on my mind. I'd hate to play against Lamford's Secretary Bird: "Aha! Your partner did this same thing last week, and you didn't alert this time! You have a Concealed Partnership Understanding! Director!"

[glen]

mikeh, on 2014-August-18, 16:16, said:

... That's why we use the principle of the 'least' distortion tempered by a tendency to use, when options are available, the cheapest distortion, maximizing the bidding space available to recover. Is this perfect? No. No approach that incorporates misdescription into the auction is going to be perfect ...

the fun of generating Bridge World Death Hands is seeing how many bids are selected in trying to get the least/cheapest distortion.

I gave this auction, 1♣-1♠-?, and this type of hand:

♠ AJ3
♥ AK4
♦ A
♣ QT7632

Getting answers/reasons such as:
2♣: a cheapest distortion attempt, if partner doesn't pass I'm in good shape
2♦: a cheapest distortion attempt, the fake reverse
2♥: a least distortion attempt, if partner has 4♥s, then will have at least 5♠s
2NT: a least distortion attempt, as if the hand is 3-3-2-5
3♣: a least distortion attempt, should have better suit
3♦: a least distortion attempt, singleton shouldn't be ace, doesn't have 4♠s
3♠: a least distortion attempt, should have 4♠s

[kenrexford]

glen, on 2014-August-19, 10:21, said:

the fun of generating Bridge World Death Hands is seeing how many bids are selected in trying to get the least/cheapest distortion.

I gave this auction, 1♣-1♠-?, and this type of hand:

♠ AJ3
♥ AK4
♦ A
♣ QT7632

Getting answers/reasons such as:
2♣: a cheapest distortion attempt, if partner doesn't pass I'm in good shape
2♦: a cheapest distortion attempt, the fake reverse
2♥: a least distortion attempt, if partner has 4♥s, then will have at least 5♠s
2NT: a least distortion attempt, as if the hand is 3-3-2-5
3♣: a least distortion attempt, should have better suit
3♦: a least distortion attempt, singleton shouldn't be ace, doesn't have 4♠s
3♠: a least distortion attempt, should have 4♠s

That's exactly what I hate about the traditional analysis. None of these decisions are tied to the future auction expectations, except to a limited degree the 2♥ call analysis.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-19, 09:38, said:

For example, other than myself, I have never once heard anyone alert a 1♠ response to a 1♥ opening as "possibly something resembling 3-1-4-5 and ultra-light," let alone including this in a simple answer to a question about the 1♠ call.

Perhaps that is not a coincidence. Do you know of anyone else who plays this?

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2014-August-19, 13:41, said:

Perhaps that is not a coincidence. Do you know of anyone else who plays this?

You don't? Seriously? This is a very well known "deviation" that is often discussed. I could not think of a more obvious one.

[Vampyr]

glen, on 2014-August-19, 10:21, said:

the fun of generating Bridge World Death Hands is seeing how many bids are selected in trying to get the least/cheapest distortion.

I gave this auction, 1♣-1♠-?, and this type of hand:

♠ AJ3
♥ AK4
♦ A
♣ QT7632

Don't most serious partnerships have a toy for this sort of hand nowadays?

[benlessard]

I see this as a simple optimization of bidding space, in the majority of auctions the 2 cheapest call cannot have high requirements otherwise they will be too infrequent and you will leak bidding space.

1S--??

2C as art GF or as showing S fit 10+ rather than a real club suit and GF values is clearly better.

1S-2D
??

Bidding 2H as art or could be just a H fragment is clearly preferable than waiting to always have 4H for bidding 2H.

1H--??
ill never play a system where ill need 5S to bid 1S it simply terrible to me.

1Nt--2D could be just 4H instead or some other hands rather than "at least 5H" is just a superior method & its not really close.

1C(strong)-?? both 1D and 1H need to have low requirements otherwise their frequency is too low.

making the cheapest bid with a wide variety of hand while having precise requirement for the space consumming bids is imo the only way to go.

Here is a hand we bid in this previous weekend tournament.

http://tinyurl.com/lq3ymna Partner had the Q of D or Ks/Qs since he got a S lead and IIRC he didnt need to ruff a diamond. Anyway those slammish 5431 are fairly frequent and treating the bidding space like a precious metal is a sound strategy.

[Zelandakh]

Ben, take that to its obvious conclusion and you get 1♦ - 1♥, 1♥ - 1♠, 1♠ - 1NT and 1NT - 2♣ as relays. That is indeed the basis for the method I like where the first 3 of these are INV+. It is also fundamentally the way the F1NT response works over a 1♠ opening, which is why doing the same for 1♥ - 1♠ is also a reasonable option. Finally, skip bids are another way of increasing the frequency of the cheapest steps without having complicated rules, for example 1♦ - 1♥ = any hand without 4 hearts and 1♦ - 1♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades. To me these are clearer than your 2nd step examples.

[benlessard]

You dont need to play relays (its what I prefer however) you just need to be flexible with your cheapest bids. IMO allowing to bid some 3 cards, some art waiting bids & some switch is good enough to have a world class system IMO.
The problem is not getting a world class system its remembering it and understanding the inferences.

some examples
1D-1H = could be 3 if bal GF

1S-2C-2D = art waiting bid or D (the other bids are more precise, 2H show 4,2S show 6, 2NT show short clubs and goodies in unbid suits (5341,5413 poor H)

1D-2D-2H = art game try.

1S-1nt-3D-?? = here switching 3H/3S/3NT is surely a winning solution. You simply dont want to bid 3S and 3NT 3 or 4 times more often than 3H.

1D-1S-2H = 2H really need to be a 2 way or 3way bid since its your cheapest forcing bid, keeping 2H only for the reverse hand is a poor method.


Also if you can you should always make your "signoff" and some of your raises in transfers.

Ex

1C--1D (1C is strong 1D is neg or....)
1H--??

none of the responder bid should be non forcing here except 1Nt.

Making your weak hands or rebids in transfers is awesome.

1C--??

1NT= 6C weak or GF
2C= 6D weak or GF
2D= 6H weak or GF
2H= 6S weak or GF

but if we are inv we go via 1D but will still use transfers

1C-1D (H or pts)
1H-?? (15-20 with 3H)

1S bal gf or inv no M or INV with 6C
1NT INV with 4-5 S (our only bid non forcing)
2C = 6D inv or H+D GF
2D = H Inv or H+C GF
2H = S INV or H+S GF
2S+ = all C+H GF

So there is no waste here and its not too hard to remember.

Our bal GF by responder are the 2 or 3 cheapest forcing bids.

1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT-2D (2D is bal GF but we know opener is 15-16 and got at least 3H not 5C not 6M)

1C-1D-1NT-2C-2D-2H (2H is bal GF but we know opener is 17-18 bal without 4H)

1C-1D-1S-2C-2D-2H (2H is bal GF but we know opener got 0-2H and cannot super accept D)

These are very frequent auction for us opener is 15-18 bal or semi bal,responder is 9+bal any shapes. But instead of responder showing a precise amount of point we make a series of 2/3 ways bids giving opener the chance to describe his unbalanced hand or to pinpoint his strenght if hes balanced. Its easier for frequency for opener to show 15-16,17-18,19-20 than for responder to show 9-11,12-14 and 15+ and its more precise. When responder is bal GF opener is 15-16 about 75% of the times.