[Robert]

My dear, dear Kalvan14

How many posts do you put up on this forum? The pot calling the kettle black?

I quoted the 'more' recent Max Hardy Book. I do believe that I also have the

'older' thin red covered paperback. I will check to see if Mr. Hardy 'changed his

mind.' Why do you suppose that Mr. Hardy 'changed' his mind in the 1989 version

of 2/1 bidding. He changed to the normal meaning of FA?

Who jumped to the first definition? I quoted from his "more" recent work. You

feel that a writers older work is his current thinking? Explain that if you can.

Dear, dear Kalvan14 Max Hardy has at least two versions of 2/1 the red cover

and the yellow cover. I suspect that he also has a more recent version than his

1989 'yellow' covered book.

Who is cherry picking his examples? You ignore his more recent example hands

and definition from his 'more' recent booK? Why is that?

You appear to be still confused since the auction we are talking about is your

suggestion that 1S-2H-3H opener has not limited his hand. Playing FA(according to

Max Hardy) he has 'shown' extra values. You also failed to explain why you bid 2H

with a 4 card suit and your source(Max Hardy) promises 5+ hearts for the 1S-2H

auction.

hrothgar is not someone to trifle with. Just my guess. Good luck with his reply.

I will check my "older" red covered Max Hardy.

The last time I was a teenager, South Vietnam was still fighting against North

Vietnam.

Anyone who quotes from a more recent source that disagrees with you is a spoiled

teenager? Would you like to buy a lovely bridge in Brooklyn? I can offer you the

bridge for a really a good price? Consider it a post Christmas sale price.

It is Christmas night.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

Best regards,
Robert

[hrothgar]

Kalvan14, on Dec 26 2005, 02:02 AM, said:

"If responder jumps to game in opener's major suit after his initial 2/1 response in an auction where opener's values are still unknown, he again uses the principle of Fast Arrival, but this time his purpose is to convey that a complete picture of his hand has been given. The message sent by responder in this auction is that all of his values are in the 2 suits he has bid, his hand is a minimum for a GF auction and that he has no high card or shortness control in either of the 2 suits he has not bid"

The fact that you can find an isolated quote of Hardy's that backs your position still doesn't establish that your definition of Fast Arrival is standard usage. I'd appreciate it if someone could check the Encyclopedia of Bridge and see what it has to say:

For kicks and giggles, I just Googled Fast Arrival and Bridge: Here are the top links:

The Bridge World: http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glossf.html

Fast arrival

A jump to the level the bidding is already forced to deny extra values. [e.g., one heart--two clubs--two spades--four spades to show spade support but a minimum two-club response]. The Bridge World site also has quotes describing Fast Arrival the "opposite" of Picture Jumps.

Heres an interesting quote from Fred Gitelman which seems directly relevant
http://www.imp-bridg...cles/2over1.htm

PROBLEM 2: The (misguided) principle of fast arrival

You hold this hand:

S xxx H AQJxx D Ax C KJx

You open 1H, partner forces to game with 2C. You raise to 3C (isn't it nice to know partner has a good five card suit?) and partner jumps to 4H. What should you do now? If you play 2/1 the way that most pairs do, partner's unnecessary jump in a forcing auction shows a minimum hand (the principle of fast arrival). That information is not very useful here.

Opposite this minimum:

S Qxx H Kxx D Kx C AQxxx

the five level is not safe. The problem here is the jump to 4S. This bid deprives you of finding out at a safe level whether or not a spade control exists.

2/1 OKB Style Simplified http://www.annam.co.uk/2-1.html

The concept of "fast arrival", jumping to game to show less strength than a lower raise, should only apply in situations when opener is usually minimum. This is when opener rebids 2NT or rebids his opening suit, the catchall. Thus:
1-2-2NT-4 and 1-2-2-4 show a minimum GF hand with 3+ support.

Bridge Buff: http://www.bridgebuf...onvfastslow.htm

In a game-forcing sequence, a fast jump to game is not as strong as a slower route to game. This approach creates more room for slam exploration. Consider the auction 1S/2C//2H/?? where the 2C response was game forcing. If responder bids 4H, it shows a weaker hand than 3H.

Fifth Chair: http://www.fifthchai...cing%20bids.pdf

Principle of Fast Arrival

The principle is basically that when you leap to game, it is usually intended as a signoff bid. So if you make a forcing bid first and then bid game it shows a bit more interest in slam. Bidding game is usually a a sign of giving up on slam.

The key point in each of these examples is that they focus on clarifying range rather than controls. I can find a LOT more examples if you really care.

[bearmum]

Free, on Dec 24 2005, 10:53 PM, said:

bearmum, on Dec 21 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

FIRSTLY WHY is SEVEN ♥ the optimum contract? -- only 4/4 fit (useless against a 5/0 dist if in SEVEN ♥)

Since nobody cared to respond to the question asked: 7♥ is better because you can get rid of your ♦ loser on the ♠ length. 6♠ is as good as 6NT since you don't need ruffs and if the suits behave you have 12 tricks, no more no less.

TY Free -- nice to get away from the two folks going on and on and ON about FA according to Hardy

Hope everyone had a good Christmas and 2006 will be a happy and peaceful one for you all

[temp3600]

Christmas did arrive fast this year. Happy holydays to everyone !

[Kalvan14]

This discussion (which I was ready to style childish and boring) would have been over a lot of time ago.

This is my last post on the subject:

• I play FA as defined by hardy in the 1982 edition
  
• If Hardy later changed his mind, fine and good; but I am not obliged to buy (or even to read) all the various versions of a bridge book. In any case, even if Hardy - or Culbertson - were to raise from the grave and tell me that the principle of FA is just to show a minimum, i could not care less.
  
• I've never said that this is a "standard".

Thank you vry much and Merry Xmas

[hrothgar]

Kalvan14, on Dec 26 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

This discussion (which I was ready to style childish and boring) would have been over a lot of time ago.

This is my last post on the subject:

• I play FA as defined by hardy in the 1982 edition
  
• If Hardy later changed his mind, fine and good; but I am not obliged to buy (or even to read) all the various versions of a bridge book. In any case, even if Hardy - or Culbertson - were to raise from the grave and tell me that the principle of FA is just to show a minimum, i could not care less.
  
• I've never said that this is a "standard".

I fail to understand why you have this bizarre fixation with using the expression "Fast Arrival". No one is criticizing your methods. Rather, we are suggesting that if you value the ability to communicate with other bridge players, you should make an effort to use standard vocabularly. Even if you don't want to use standard vocabulary, you should make a sincere effort to avoid misusing it.

You certainly aren't obliged to do so. A 2♣ response to a 1NT opening which asks for a 4 card major can certainly be called a Jacoby transfer. However, you shouldn't be surprised if said usage simply confuses (and potentially irritates) your audience.

[pbleighton]

"I'd appreciate it if someone could check the Encyclopedia of Bridge and see what it has to say"

The definition of Fast Arrival, from my 6th edition:

"The idea that the faster a contract is reached, the weaker the hand that places the contract; and, conversely, the slower the approach, the stronger the suggestion that a higher contract may be appropriate."

Peter

[Kalvan14]

hrothgar, on Dec 26 2005, 10:05 AM, said:

Kalvan14, on Dec 26 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

This discussion (which I was ready to style childish and boring) would have been over a lot of time ago.

This is my last post on the subject:

• I play FA as defined by hardy in the 1982 edition
  
  
• If Hardy later changed his mind, fine and good; but I am not obliged to buy (or even to read) all the various versions of  a bridge book. In any case, even if Hardy - or Culbertson  - were to raise from the grave and  tell me that the principle of FA  is just to show a minimum, i could not care less.
  
  
• I've never said that this is a "standard".

I fail to understand why you have this bizarre fixation with using the expression "Fast Arrival". No one is criticizing your methods. Rather, we are suggesting that if you value the ability to communicate with other bridge players, you should make an effort to use standard vocabularly. Even if you don't want to use standard vocabulary, you should make a sincere effort to avoid misusing it.

It's quite simple: because I learn abt FA more than 20 years ago from Hardy's book on 2/1. There was no intention of offending, at least on my side.