[kenberg]

Over 1S I suppose 2C might even be on a 3-4-4-2 shape? In for a penny, in for a pound.

[cherdano]

Actually, my auction with Han would also start 1♥ 2♣ 2♦, but I would not call them fuzzy bids:
2♣ is 3-way, either natural GF, or bal GF, or a 3-card limit raise
2♦ is waiting, denying a bare minimum, denying a good 5-5 hand, or a balanced hand in the 15-17 range, etc.

So we would start 1H 2C 2D 2N= bal GF (does not deny 3-card support) 3D 3H 4C 4D. I don't know where we would end up, but I would be happy enough if it's not 6D.

Arend

[mike777]

I am not convinced by what I see here so far that starting out 1h=3nt is not best. Sure it sucks up alot of space but it is a very defined bid.

[the hog]

kenberg, on Jan 27 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Over 1S I suppose 2C might even be on a 3-4-4-2 shape? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

"I am not convinced by what I see here so far that starting out 1h=3nt is not best. Sure it sucks up alot of space but it is a very defined bid."

Defined as what and by whom? Many play it as some 3244 shape with gf values, others play it as a S splinter, others still play it as some sort of hand with 4 card support; it all depends on what you have agreed with your partner. It is a real butcher's bid unless it is shape specific with the minors or if it shows some sort of 4 card H raise. How else can you find a good minor suit slam and avoid the 5-3 M suit fit?

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Jan 26 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 27 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Over 1S I suppose 2C might even be on a 3-4-4-2 shape? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

"I am not convinced by what I see here so far that starting out 1h=3nt is not best. Sure it sucks up alot of space but it is a very defined bid."

Defined as what and by whom? Many play it as some 3244 shape with gf values, others play it as a S splinter, others still play it as some sort of hand with 4 card support; it all depends on what you have agreed with your partner. It is a real butcher's bid unless it is shape specific with the minors or if it shows some sort of 4 card H raise. How else can you find a good minor suit slam and avoid the 5-3 M suit fit?

I said how it is defined. See my post.

[the hog]

As I already said, this is a butcher's bid. How do you find a possible 4-4m slam when 12 tricks are not possible in the 5-3 fit?

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jan 26 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

Actually, my auction with Han would also start 1♥ 2♣ 2♦, but I would not call them fuzzy bids:
2♣ is 3-way, either natural GF, or bal GF, or a 3-card limit raise
2♦ is waiting, denying a bare minimum, denying a good 5-5 hand, or a balanced hand in the 15-17 range, etc.

So we would start 1H 2C 2D 2N= bal GF (does not deny 3-card support) 3D 3H 4C 4D. I don't know where we would end up, but I would be happy enough if it's not 6D.

Arend

I borrowed the term "fuzzy" from a prior post, BTW.

This structured description is fairly on-point with what I was speaking on. 2♣ after 1M usually shows either a balanced hand or an unbalanced hand with a club anchor suit. It can be a doubleton club on occasion (balanced). It might even be semi-balanced (i.e., 1♥-P-2♣ with 5422 pattern).

2♦ by Responder usually is legitimate. However, it might be a prepared bid IF Responder has support for the opened major and expects a specific auction where bidding 2♦ first will facilitate later cues. For example, maybe 1♠-P-2♦ when holding ♠KQxx ♥K ♦AQx ♣xxxxx. Responder expects a fair chance that the rebid after 2♦ will be 2♥; this will allow him to set trumps at 2♠, he will be assured of 2NT from Opener (not two top trumps), he will the cue 3♦ (two top diamonds, no club stop), will hope for 3♥ (AQxx), and can cue 3♠ (two top trumps), later to cue 4♥ and complete the picture. Nice auction, so perhaps Responder fudges at 2♦.

After 2♣ from Responder, Opener usually bids 2♦ with many balanced hands (or unbalanced with diamonds), for similar reasons -- keep below 2M.

The minor-fit slam move deals that start this way, without a fit in the major, can be worked through when the auction is only at 2♦ so far, even though both minor bids might have been short. It works out after waiting bids like 2NT sometimes. Sometimes it works out following similar principles to when a "short club" opening proves length-based because of a major suit bid (e.g., 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♠ in Walsh "proves" the club legitimacy).

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 26 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

.. this is not an easy hand to bid, unless we are making up the meanings of our bids to suit the hand.. which is what Ken appears to be doing... heck,

I always thought posters here were joking when they referred to Ken's book on Cuebidding, but it does exist on amazon.

So his approach may be totally unplayable (I personally don't understand how Ken wants to base slam bidding entirely on cuebidding and with, e.g., this North hand never admitting to having an unbalanced hand - I have had consistently better results by bidding my shape first, and I have never seen a successful partnership bid a 5440 hand as a balanced hand), but I don't think he is making up the meanings of the bids on the fly.

[keylime]

When I was first learning 2/1, my mentor had a treatment where 2C was a potentially omnibus G/F or 2+ and 2D was 4+ pieces.

With that in mind I start with 2D. After I hear a raise, the double fit potential of a 3H rebid comes into play. I do think tho that pard should pattern out at 4C here showing a decent hand. Getting to six should be somewhat comfortable at this point via cuebids, Turbo, RKC (yick), etc.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jan 27 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

I personally don't understand how Ken wants to base slam bidding entirely on cuebidding and with, e.g., this North hand never admitting to having an unbalanced hand - I have had consistently better results by bidding my shape first, and I have never seen a successful partnership bid a 5440 hand as a balanced hand.

You are missing inference here. After reviewing several options in the context of hundreds of slam-potential hands, I have come to the conclusion that inferential principles to an approach based "entirely on cuebidding" actually discloses pattern as well as pattern bidding, at least when pattern is relevant. This conclusion came after years of experience with a few different canape systems, where pattern bidding is often stressed.

This hand illustrates the principle extremely well, actually, in a way that disproves the assertion that "this North hand never admitt[ed] to having an unbalanced hand." North's first cuebid was 2♠. As South held A-K in spades, 2♠ was known to be based upon at most a stiff. So, the very first cuebid clarified that the North hand was in fact unbalanced (if six hearts, then four diamonds also; or 1543/1534 without the "right hand" for a Picture Splinter; or 0544/0553).

The later cue of 3♠ clarified the holding of a void (6♥/4+♦ or 0544/0553). Thus, whereas the "field action" to show pattern seemed to have been 3♠, showing a stiff or void, my eventual 3♠ call was assuredly and unambiguously a void. My "pattern bidding" through inference was actually superior in describing pattern. That, and I was able to show one of my club honors and deny more than one top heart honor before showing a void, and allow partner to show me a diamond honor and deny a second top heart as well.

You might object that it was only the fact that North held A-K of spades that enabled this inference. That is a fair objection. I cannot prove the effectiveness of the approach with one hand. However, you must admit, I would hope, that your specific comment was particularly poorly timed.

[cherdano]

Ken, of course I realized that this particular South could deduce that North had a spade void. But I don't care how an auction works out opposite the actual hand when it is easy to imagine many hands where this sequence would leave partner guessing. If South had ♠QJxx he would expect four tricks from the spade suit...

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jan 28 2007, 01:25 AM, said:

Ken, of course I realized that this particular South could deduce that North had a spade void. But I don't care how an auction works out opposite the actual hand when it is easy to imagine many hands where this sequence would leave partner guessing. If South had ♠QJxx he would expect four tricks from the spade suit...

Yes, he might. However, this holding reduces his HCP contribution from the spade suit by four points. Those four point must be placed somewhere else now. Sure, he might only have to place two of them elsewhere. But, where? He cannot have any more in clubs. He cannot have any more in hearts, because he cuebid 2NT. The most he could have would be the diamond Queen. So, THAT holding amounts to one where pattern does not matter.

You are right that this one hand does not prove my point, as I acknowledged. Nor would I try to convince you in as short a space as is available in posts. You may have your mind made up anyway.

[Winstonm]

The_Hog, on Jan 27 2007, 12:03 AM, said:

As I already said, this is a butcher's bid. How do you find a possible 4-4m slam when 12 tricks are not possible in the 5-3 fit?

This entire problem of good balanced hands is problematic in most 2/1 styles, so much so that it made me look for a better way. I am not trying to blow my own horn, here, but give some history on how something transpired.

I began working on the problem of bad forcing raises about 3 years ago, unsatisfied with the 1N forcing followed by 4M solution. At the time, we were playing Bergen raises so it dawned on me that this hand could be incorporated into those raises.

As time went by, more and more dawned on me until I set it all down on paper and sent it to Bridge World and they accepted it - it has not been published as yet so I am not allowed to give particulars but there is (IMO) a better way to bid this hand, and the structure leaves room to discover secondary 4/4 fits.

I can say this much, I believe - if you had the flexibility to bid either 2N or 3M, both forcing, the hand becomes much less of a problem.

A "trickle effect" of having good methods to bid forcing balanced hands is that the 2/1 minor bids do not have to be manufactured and become more reliably real suits.