[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Feb 16 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

Ken:

This isn't a hand we can seize the captain's wheel on. 3♠ doesn't solve a bidding problem, it creates several. I'm not worried about pard playing me for spades and raising since he didn't bid 1♠. What I'm worried about is pard playing me for diamond support or a probe for 3N and the resulting nightmare.

Quote

First, 3♠ completely distorts my hand.  However, it expresses the fifth heart.  I am hoping that we have a fit there.  If so, life will be much easier.

We can't have a spade fit since pard bid 3♦, although I suppose I could be 5-6. I disagree that it promises a 5th heart. What would you bid with AQx, KQxx, xx, xxxx?

Quote

Second, although 4♣ describes my pattern, the resulting auction will undoubtedly be preempted beyond recognition.  If he has a heart fit, he will probably bid 4♥, whereas 3♠ will allow partner to cuebid 4♣, which I would play in this auction as agreeing hearts, suitable.

Yikes! All this cuebidding, no trump agreement. Why in the world would 4♣ over 3♠ agree hearts? Why wouldn't it agree spades (by your own logic)? I would think it expresses serious doubt about 3N perhaps. You're also being inconsistent; below you state that pard should try 3N holding the A♣, so a 4♣ call here becomes impossible.

Quote

Third, if I bid 4♣ and partner likes clubs, he has a problem with no good solution.

Uh, he can "raise clubs". Should 4♠ over 4♣ now be a cue bid for clubs? Why not?

Quote

Fourth, I am willing to deal with a spade raise by bidding 6NT if necessary, especially if partner raises spades.

When in doubt, bar pard. Works for me

Quote

Fifth, if partner bids 3NT after 3♠, I'll know that he has the club Ace and no heart fit.  .

Finally something that I agree with. If pard shows you a club stop, I think the practical bid is 7♣

Quote

Now, if I bid 4♣ (not Gerber LOL), he will play me for 4505, which is close enough and OK because he will not raise spades.  My best hope after 4♣ is 4♦, which agrees the only suit it could agree -- clubs -- allowing me to use 4♥ as RKCB, because hearts are now out-of-focus.

Out-of-focus? I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think your reasoning here is extremely flawed.

First, you say that we cannot seize control on this hand. If not now, when? We have a 19-count, void-in-partner's-suit-possessing, 4-loser hand opposite a very strong hand, with predictions of problems. This seems like the deifinitional seize-control hand.

Second, although you agree that 3♠ is unlikely to yield a spade raise, you believe that it might suggest a diamond fit. That seems really weird. However, you do acknowledge that 3NT would imply the club control (as I did).

Third, you think that 4♣ might agree spades, really really odd. Why would the one available cuebid be interpreted as support for the one suit we are least likely to have a fit for and not support for the one suit that we are most likely to have a fit for? Let alone that Flags might be interpreted here, with 4♣ for hearts (again) and 4♦ for spades?

Fourth, you are worried about a nightmare if partner takes 3♠ as a probe for 3NT. Where is this nightmare? He either has the club Ace (useful) or not (also useful). If you think that 4♣ might simply be patterning out in this auction, that seems to be the strange method here. What -- I rebid diamonds after you bid hearts for length, then you bid spades as a notrump probe to indicate club weakness, and now I offer clubs as a strain for game???

Fifth, you disagree that 3♠ guarantees a fifth heart, as you would bid 3♠ with a balanced 3424 pattern because of the lack of a club stopper. What?!?! SO, you have no bid with xxxx-KQxx-xx-AQx? Just bid 3NT with the parallel 3424 with poor clubs and enjoy the ability to promise a fifth heart in a forcing auction by bidding 3♠. Furthermore, even if 3♠ were simply a probe and not guaranteeing five hearts, 4♣ would support hearts.

Sixth, there is a difference between Opener bidding 3NT with the club Ace because he cannot support hearts and bidding 4♣ with the club Ace because he can support hearts. Besides, I never said that 4♣ would show a club control. IMO, when there is only one cuebid available as an alternative to bidding game, bidding game shows a minimum (or inability to bid 3NT and this is my best guess) and the cue shows "extras" generally (Last Train, "general" cue). Fortunately, whatever South plays, he has both meanings covered.

Seventh, Opener has no "good solution" after 4♣ (with a fit) for two obvious reasons. First, a 5♣ call is not a "good solution" because it preempts us. Second, 4♠, although possibly played as a cue (a call he cannot make on this hand, when a grand is cold) or as a "general cue" (thereby also preempting us), is most likely RKCB, and the wrong side is answering (also not good), let alone that Opener is unlikely to see the merits of asking at that high of level and commitment.

[pclayton]

I'll respond to this later.

[mikeh]

I can't resist the temptation to stir the 3♠ pot a bit

Firstly, as far a raise goes, what how are we to bid:

KQx Jx AKQxxx xx opposite AJxx Axxxx xx xx? Anyone else want to reach 4♠ here, or should we give up because these hands are too tough?

I'd happily bid 3♠ here, as well as on hands with shorter ♠s and an inability to bid 3N... but I'd have some ♦ tolerance as well such that I could play 5♦ if he raises 3♠.

I second Phil's comment about the contradictions in Ken's suggestions about opener being able/willing to cue 4♣, agreeing ♥s. I think the idea is absurd for two reasons.

The first is that the 3♠ bid is ambiguous: certainly as to ♠ length. It will usually (and properly) be a probe for notrump, such that opener's first responsibility is to own up to or deny a ♣ stopper. 3♠ is IN NO WAY shows 5+♥s. Why? The simple answer is that we actually have an obvious bid by way of which to show a decent 5+♥ suit. It may strike Ken as novel, since it does not require any of the inferences that he likes to use to justify his often novel 'solutions' The answer...... drum roll, please..... is ......3♥!

Wow, now that we've recovered from the shock of this way of bidding ♥s to show length, we can return to 3♠.

Since it in essence DENIES 5+ decent ♥s, opener should most definitely not cue 4♣ with Jxx of ♥s: he bids 3N.

In fairness to Ken, I agree with his argument that the popular 4♣ call is not a good solution. I canvassed this in my first post. Where we part company is in our method of moving forward. He wants to 'seize control'.... always a temptation. I want to maximize partner's ability to give me more information, which is a similar but not identical concept. His way of doing it is to conceal ALL information about his hand while taking up some extra bidding space and preventing partner from showing ♥ support (about the only time opener will bid 4♥ over 3♠ is on 3=3=6=1 or 2=3=6=2 with no ♣A...)

My way (3♥) allows him to deny both ♥s and the ♣A (via 3♠) or to voluntarily show ♥s...via that revolutionary concept of a raise.

Ken, quit beating up on the 4♣ call, quit arguing for esoteric inferences that few, if any, casual partners would even think of, let alone actually draw... and ask yourself how 3♠ is better than 3♥.

[pclayton]

I'm kind of talked out here, but a few points:

I think 3♠ can be a multitude of hands:

1. A probe for 3N (yes, Ken I think we have to bid 3N with a hand with a club stop (without spades), but have the luxury of a 3♠ to be able to show a spade stop without clubs. Its not symmetrical, but it avoids 3N when its poor at least 1/2 the time).

2. An advance cue for ♦'s. This is handled easily enough. Responder simply takes a diamond preference later which confirms 3♠ is a cue.

3. A hand with 5♠ and 6♥. Mike, I don't think that 3♠ is as rigid as you imply. How can we reach our 5-3 ♠ fit otherwise?

Note that I don't include some kind of inquisitive amorphous probe in the definition, especially when I have a nice 5 card club suit to show.

[kenrexford]

If 3♥ shows five hearts, what does one do with six hearts? It seems to me that the better mechanism, the one I assumed, is for 3♥ to show a sixth heart and 3♠ to be the method for inferring a fifth heart (spades being questionable and perhaps tactical). This 5-or-6 issue seems more important than a method to essentially ask for a club stopper.

If you do make that assumption, the entire house of my cards falls. If you do make that assumption, then I hope what I put forward now makes sense.