[kenrexford]

The next auction:

1♦ -P- 3NT(Presumably 14-15 or so) -P- 4♦?

This one really shocked me. Again, a poll of professional players, high caliber, yielded several strange results, IMO.

First, 4♦ was deemed to be an unbalanced slam try. No methods were known to locate the source of the unbalance (the shortness). This seems odd, as I though that any new suit by Opener would be understood as a shortness bid, such that 4♦ showed 5-6 diamonds and no shortness. No one had ever heard of this.

Second, 4NT was not universally recognized as a sign-off "negative." One person viewed 4NT this way; the consensus was for 5♦ to be the sign-off.

This seems strange and illogical. Any thoughts on this?

[pclayton]

4♦ is definitely forward going and 4N is st*u.

5♦ is probably impossible in this context, since a cue is foisted on the 3N bidder.

[Apollo81]

I don't think you will find (m)any good players who think that 1♦-3NT-4M showing a singleton is Standard.

[kenrexford]

Interesting point, Justin.

The one person who noted 4NT as a signoff suggested that 4♣ might best be used as an unbalanced slam try, with 4♦ asking (whether 1♦-P-3NT or 1♣-P-3NT). If never discussed, this would be quite amazing to pull on someone, but this works rather well. The strange part would be for 1♣-P-3NT-P-4♦ to show a balanced (no stiffs) slam try.

On a side note, it seems that Responder, after a balanced slam try, should probably bid a potentially useful major-suit doubleton (2344/3244 or so) as a trick source. This suggests that 4♦ should show at least one 3-card major. 1min-P-3NT-P-4NT would then suggest 2263/2236 pattern, or 2245/2254, which may be useful information for Responder.

BTW -- the hands:

Opener: ♠Q10 ♥Axx ♦AJxxx ♣AKx
Responder: ♠J9xx ♥QJ ♦KQxx ♣Qxx.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Apr 17 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

Interesting point, Justin.

The one person who noted 4NT as a signoff suggested that 4♣ might best be used as an unbalanced slam try, with 4♦ asking (whether 1♦-P-3NT or 1♣-P-3NT). If never discussed, this would be quite amazing to pull on someone, but this works rather well. The strange part would be for 1♣-P-3NT-P-4♦ to show a balanced (no stiffs) slam try.

On a side note, it seems that Responder, after a balanced slam try, should probably bid a potentially useful major-suit doubleton (2344/3244 or so) as a trick source. This suggests that 4♦ should show at least one 3-card major. 1min-P-3NT-P-4NT would then suggest 2263/2236 pattern, or 2245/2254, which may be useful information for Responder.

BTW -- the hands:

Opener: ♠Q10 ♥Axx ♦AJxxx ♣AKx
Responder: ♠J9xx ♥QJ ♦KQxx ♣Qxx.

I think Opener has a 4N call and responder has an auto pass. 4♦ definitely shows more shape.

We've discussed the 4 major = shortness idea here, but how could Opener show a 5-6? 4♣ as a slam try with shortness is cute, but how would opener handle a 2 suited minor?

By the way, 3N is a hand hog bid.

[goobers]

I don't get it, why not 4N quant? Opener has basically no shape.

[SoTired]

Wait a minute... wait a minute.... The bidding was 1D 3N 4D?
Opener: ♠Q10 ♥Axx ♦AJxxx ♣AKx
Responder: ♠J9xx ♥QJ ♦KQxx ♣Qxx

Responder has 4♠ and 11 HCP and bid 3N?
Opener has a balanced 18 and bid 4D?
Gosh! I hate these types of questions. Neither player bid anywhere close to correctly, so how can we discuss this. This belongs in the "whose bid was worse" category.

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, the actual hands held seem to bear no relation to the auction....

However, I would assume 4D is a natural slam try, doesn't have to be unbalanced (could be 6322, for example) but will focus responder's attention on his diamond holding.

I would assume 4 of some other suit by opener is natural. But then my default meaning for bids that aren't part of a defined piece of system is 'natural'.

But then I would only respond 3NT on a very specific type of hand, and certainly not on the hand at the table. That means that opener already knows what he has opposite: 13-15 HCP, almost certainly exactly 3334, soft values.

4NT by responder seems obviously a signoff over 4D to me.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Unless this was a high paying client, you should not play with people that bid
1D-3NT with an aceless 11HCP hand including a doubleton QJ of hearts.

Bidding 4D with a 5332 shape is not too useful 'without' specific agreements.

A normal 4NT raise might be decent if partner is not known to make weird jumps from 1D-3NT with this hand type.

Regards,
Robert

[mikeh]

Absent specific agreement, using even 4♣ as artificial makes little sense.

Ask this question: if I had to guess responder's longest suit after 1♦ - 3N, surely it would usually be ♣s? Isn't opener allowed to show a slam-interest minor two-suiter? Or is he barred from holding that hand?

In fact, on normal distributional frequencies, he is far more likely to be 5=5 in the minors (or 6=5) than he is to be 5=6 in ♥s or ♠s, so it makes more (but little) sense to use 4Major as shortness than it does to abandon the natural 4♣ call.

This entire idea that new suits over 3N should be shortness is in keeping with Ken's tendencies to invent artificial meanings for bids that serve a useful (probably more useful and certainly easier to play) purpose. The idea will certainly work on the 'right' hand, but it destroys one's ability to bid descriptively on other, at-least-as-common hands.

Of course, if you play in a partnership in which 3N is viewed as an appropriate response on the posted hand, why bother trying to play normal bridge?

[000002]

it's certain slam probe to pull 3nt,even if 5♦ leap to signoff.

which message is need to show when we detect a slam?
1)major side suit
2)shortness
3)control on each suit
4)key card
5)strength

the only inessential is 5)strength in this case.the most important is 3)control and 1)side suit.

so the new suit on 4level is cuebid,and 4♦ is a button to switch it;
4nt is keycard seeking;5♦ allow pd to raise 6♦ with his perfect 15(3Aces and trump King)

i am interesting to hear how to switch 4♦/4♥/4♠/5♣,it's neccesary to arrange renewedly.


regards
000002

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Apr 17 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

This entire idea that new suits over 3N should be shortness is in keeping with Ken's tendencies to invent artificial meanings for bids that serve a useful (probably more useful and certainly easier to play) purpose. The idea will certainly work on the 'right' hand, but it destroys one's ability to bid descriptively on other, at-least-as-common hands.

Actually, I did not come up with this idea on my own. I thought I had seen this described in several textbooks on "expert bidding," and it seemed consistent with some of Eric Kokish's ideas.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 18 2007, 07:21 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 17 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

This entire idea that new suits over 3N should be shortness is in keeping with Ken's tendencies to invent artificial meanings for bids that serve a useful (probably more useful and certainly easier to play) purpose. The idea will certainly work on the 'right' hand, but it destroys one's ability to bid descriptively on other, at-least-as-common hands.

Actually, I did not come up with this idea on my own. I thought I had seen this described in several textbooks on "expert bidding," and it seemed consistent with some of Eric Kokish's ideas.

I have always agreed with you Mike when you make these posts about Ken's ideas. In this case however I think you are being too hard on him. He is right that he didn't make up this shortness idea, like him I think I remember it somehow tying back to Kokish. And frankly, I think it's also easier to play, and more common than a 5-6 hand. If rebidding a major is natural showing 5-6 for example, it's going to be very tough to have a way to strongly agree the major and the minor and neither. Of course you need the agreement to play anything artificial, but it seems like a reasonable one to me.

[kenrexford]

Now, see? I actually make what I believe to be the practical call (4♦ as a natural slam try seems rather practical) and I catch grief for even thinking esoteric!

The issue arose because 4♦ was argued by many as somehow promising an unbalanced hand, with no recourse, such that Responder's 5♦ was defended as somehow practical.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 18 2007, 12:12 PM, said:

Now, see? I actually make what I believe to be the practical call (4♦ as a natural slam try seems rather practical) and I catch grief for even thinking esoteric!

The issue arose because 4♦ was argued by many as somehow promising an unbalanced hand, with no recourse, such that Responder's 5♦ was defended as somehow practical.

Well like people have said, 4♦ is wrong since you are too balanced and not oriented enough toward diamonds. It depends what you mean by unbalanced hand, I don't believe 4♦ promises shortness but it does promise 6 of them. If partner is bidding slam over 4NT he is welcome to try 6♦ on the way, having not supported you earlier.

Agree that if partner bids 3NT on what he did, normal bridge is out the window anyway.

[kenrexford]

This actually brings up an interesting issue, as far as how long a 4♦ call should be in diamonds.

I am of the opinion that a fifth diamond is a better holding than a sixth diamond.

Responder rates to be somewhat balanced. Typically, this may feature a doubleton. If he holds four trumps, that doubleton might be useful.

If I hold 5332 pattern, I have two sources for doubleton-enhancement. In other words, if I am specifically 3352, for instance, and partner has a major doubleton, then I have an assured place for a 12th trick by way of a ruff.

If, instead, I am 6322, I only have one location where a doubleton from partner might produce a 12th trick.

Sure, the sixth trick in my diamond suit might also provide a 12th trick, without the need for a ruff. But, then I already know that, right? Had I held, on the actual deal, ♠Q10 ♥Ax ♦AJxxxx ♣AKx, I could probably simply bid 6NT, assuming that partner did not have the ridiculous hand that he actually held. Or, I could even rebid 5♦ if partner declined by bidding 4NT.

In other words, it seems that the fifth diamond is a holding much more in need of cooperation than the sixth-diamond holding.

[jdonn]

Lol that has a certain degree of deceptive logic to it, but no. Why not have a singleton diamond, then think of all the long side suits partner can ruff!

Like I said, 4NT does not preclude you from playing slam in a suit if that is best. Say partner has a hand like Kxx Ax KQx Qxxxx, he can see this might play better in a suit and is welcome to bid 5NT over 4NT so you can offer one (6♦ wouldn't need clubs to break). If he had the same hand but 4-4 in the minors he would just bid 6♦. He knows when he holds a doubleton that a suit may play better.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Apr 18 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

This actually brings up an interesting issue, as far as how long a 4♦ call should be in diamonds.

I am of the opinion that a fifth diamond is a better holding than a sixth diamond.

It doesn't matter so much which is better, you can take that into your own valuation into account. The point is that a hand with long diamonds needs different cards opposite (controls) than a balanced hands (holdings such as KQx in side suits welcome). As Josh said, 4N doesn't preclude playing 6♦, and 4♦ doesn't preclude playing 6N. But showing what hand-type you have on the way has rarely hurt when you have a decent partner.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 18 2007, 09:28 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 18 2007, 12:12 PM, said:

Now, see?  I actually make what I believe to be the practical call (4♦ as a natural slam try seems rather practical) and I catch grief for even thinking esoteric!

The issue arose because 4♦ was argued by many as somehow promising an unbalanced hand, with no recourse, such that Responder's 5♦ was defended as somehow practical.

Well like people have said, 4♦ is wrong since you are too balanced and not oriented enough toward diamonds. It depends what you mean by unbalanced hand, I don't believe 4♦ promises shortness but it does promise 6 of them. If partner is bidding slam over 4NT he is welcome to try 6♦ on the way, having not supported you earlier.

Agree that if partner bids 3NT on what he did, normal bridge is out the window anyway.

I wouldn't categorically say that 4♦ promises 6. Might you do it on a slammish 5422 or 5431?

Further (I think I'm responding to Ken); I don't think 4♦ promises shortness either.