[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 12 2007, 01:18 AM, said:

[analysis]

These examples must be cuebid, opposite an unlimited partner, unless your style is different from mine.

The first you acknowledge to be "barely worth" the cuebid. So, you must cuebid that one as well.

The second is less obviously mandatory for me -- I'm allowed generally to sign off in this type of auction if my answer to RKCB would be less than two with the Queen, all other factors leaning toward signoff. However, that void makes an immediate signoff impossible because the "asnwer" to RKCB would be "higher" in the sense of "two with a void" being an answer above 5♥.

The third is a classic two plus the Ace, such that I cannot immediately sign off.

Of course, Serious 3NT and LTTC helps with these rules, and some might not use those conventons...

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2007, 05:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 12 2007, 01:18 AM, said:

[analysis]

These examples must be cuebid, opposite an unlimited partner, unless your style is different from mine.

From "your style"? Mandatory cuebids in this auction (without playing serious 3N etc.) with subminimal opening bids are a very weird style, if you play that I am sorry for you but please don't assume it in BBF in the same way as you don't assume that the OP is playing blue club unless he specifies so.

[jdonn]

All these examples of minimum hands with weak trumps are not worth 4♦. At some point a minimum just has to sign off!

[foo]

jtfanclub, on Jun 11 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Jun 11 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

This depends entirely on the system you are playing. Playing a 2/1 or SA with *normal* openers, this isn't an opener.

Playing a light opening system, it is.

Peter

It's awful close....

♠AJT♥QJT98♦Q ♣JT98
I'd open that any seat except 4th, any vul.

♠AJ9♥QJ982♦Q ♣JT52
I'd be seriously tempted.

♠AJ2♥QJ432♦Q ♣J432
I wouldn't be interested.

Do you disagree?

Yes. None of these are Openings playing a mainstream SA or 2/1 GF system

They are all control poor, 8 loser hands, w/o 2 defensive tricks.

Even playing something like Precision, you still need the same amount of assets between the two hands to belong in game; and these hands are basically soft 10 counts (9 working HCP + good or nice intermediates), not good 11 or even good 10 counts.

3 things can go wrong if you open this stuff
a= GOP can take you seriously and We end up in a hopeless contract.
b= GOP can take you seriously and X for penalties when They can score it up.
c= The opponents are more likely to have hands that say "Double the final contract".

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 12 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

All these examples of minimum hands with weak trumps are not worth 4♦. At some point a minimum just has to sign off!

What he said. Emphatically. In fact, some of them should not have cooperated as long as they did...

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Jun 12 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

All these examples of minimum hands with weak trumps are not worth 4♦. At some point a minimum just has to sign off!

I think this dpends on your minimum for jumping to 3♠ instead of bidding 2, probably I shouldn't count my HCP on tis auction, but I do.

When I have 15 but could have 11 I won't sing off.

[mhais]

i will bid 3h & leave 2 pd even 4h may go dn informing pd by bidding 3h if slm is pd will make enquiry.

[han]

Didn't we all agree to start with 2C on hands like this?

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Jun 13 2007, 09:06 AM, said:

Didn't we all agree to start with 2C on hands like this?

No: and I am glad we don't. Consider how well the auction has gone to the point at which we cue 4♣. I am delighted to be able to bid this way. Compare what happens if we bid 2♣ instead. Firstly, there is the issue of what kind of hand he needs in order to raise clubs... but assume that he does, as seems probable. Now we have to bid 3♥, and we lack any inference about ♦ shortness, and partner is in the dark as to how well our hands mesh. While I am beginning to like responding 2♣ with 4=4 hands, I think doing so with this shape is carrying a good idea too far.

[kenrexford]

I do not understand the thinking here, frankly.

You open 1♥. Partner bids 1♠ (a bid I loath with the actual hand, but OK). You bid 2♣. Partner bids 2♦, forcing of some variety. You bid 2♠, which shows something in spades (we cannot agree whether 3 or 2, but OK). Partner then bids 3♥, clearly indicating slam interest, as he otherwise would have simply bid 4♥ after 2♣, or perhaps after 2♠ (I doubt you play 4♥ as a splinter here, but maybe so...).

So, you are looking to decide whether the following hands are "submininum" or otherwise bock beer, such that you will not cooperate at all with a partner who has suggested strongly to start cuebidding:

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx

What is the value of this hand? By Milton's count, you have 14, a King higher than minimum (when 5-4). You have seven losers (average opening). You have four controls and the Queen of trumps. You have the right pattern, with a happy surprise in spades. This is a sub-minimum? Make the diamond King a deuce, and it is simply a normal minimum, not sub-minimum.

♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx

Now, you have a 12-count. By Rule-of-Twenty, you have 22 (remove the two Jacks, and this is a minimum). You have four controls, with the spade Jack kicker again. Seven losers again. This is also a "sub-minimum?"

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx

This time, your count is low (11), admittedly. You still have a 21 on a Rule-of-Twenty count, with the extra point in the right spot. You have four controls, plus the trump Queen. This time, you have a mere six-loser hand.

If these three hands are your "sub-minimums," such that cooperation with a slammish partner is out, your minimum openers are much different than mine.

My parallel (sub-)minimums look more like these:

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦x ♣KJxx
♠Axx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx
♠Kxx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

I do not understand the thinking here, frankly.

You open 1♥.  Partner bids 1♠ (a bid I loath with the actual hand, but OK).  You bid 2♣.  Partner bids 2♦, forcing of some variety.  You bid 2♠, which shows something in spades (we cannot agree whether 3 or 2, but OK).  Partner then bids 3♥, clearly indicating slam interest, as he otherwise would have simply bid 4♥ after 2♣, or perhaps after 2♠ (I doubt you play 4♥ as a splinter here, but maybe so...).

Totally false, 3♥ does NOT show slam interest. It is virtually automatic on all but the very worst hands for slam.

Quote

So, you are looking to decide whether the following hands are "submininum" or otherwise bock beer, such that you will not cooperate at all with a partner who has suggested strongly to start cuebidding:

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx

What is the value of this hand?  By Milton's count, you have 14, a King higher than minimum (when 5-4).  You have seven losers (average opening).  You have four controls and the Queen of trumps.  You have the right pattern, with a happy surprise in spades.  This is a sub-minimum?  Make the diamond King a deuce, and it is simply a normal minimum, not sub-minimum.

You have terrible trumps and a likely useless singleton king, highlighted by a couple jacks.

Quote

♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx

Now, you have a 12-count.  By Rule-of-Twenty, you have 22 (remove the two Jacks, and this is a minimum).  You have four controls, with the spade Jack kicker again.  Seven losers again.  This is also a "sub-minimum?"

12? Try again slugger.

Quote

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx

This time, your count is low (11), admittedly.  You still have a 21 on a Rule-of-Twenty count, with the extra point in the right spot.  You have four controls, plus the trump Queen.  This time, you have a mere six-loser hand.

You have 11 with a sidesuit of xxxxx!

I never called any of your hands a subminimum, I called them a minimum. If you want to see a subminimum, look at your last three examples of 'opening bids'.

[kenrexford]

OK, so my analysis of one of these was a tad off.

That being said, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "slammish" and "not the very worst hands for slam."

"It's not that I want to have sex with you, dear. I just am not currently opposed to the offer of having sex with you."

"We are not taking part of your pay as taxes. Rather, we are allowing you to keep a portion of your pay as not taxes."

"I'm not saying that you were wrong. I'm just saying that you were not right."

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

OK, so my analysis of one of these was a tad off. 

That being said, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "slammish" and "not the very worst hands for slam."

"It's not that I want to have sex with you, dear.  I just am not currently opposed to the offer of having sex with you."

"We are not taking part of your pay as taxes.  Rather, we are allowing you to keep a portion of your pay as not taxes."

"I'm not saying that you were wrong.  I'm just saying that you were not right."

Ken, there is, in the minds of most (all?) experts an obvious difference between hands that, on the auction to the point in question, are:

1) strongly interested in slam, to the point that we are going to try to compell partner to give us the information we need to make the go-no go decision

2) somewhat interested, but only if partner is as well: we are going to make a bid that keeps slam open but which does not compell partner to give us specific information

3) not the least interested: usually partner will, by this time, have so limited his hand that we will be placing the contract, but, on occasion, partner is still relatively unlimited, and our bid will tell him that he needs to be in category 1 and that even then our hand is probably unsuitable.

These distinctions are the foundation of co-operative slam bidding. I am not casting aspersions on you by what I say, since this is a general forum, but the reality is (based on my observations of 30+years of bridge) that the vast majority of real life players don't grasp this.. which is too bad, because one of the most enjoyable experiences one can have at the table is a constructive dialogue on such hands, whether this be to a slam or to stay out.

This approach does not work well with the 'rush to keycard' group nor with those who choose to respond 2♣ to a 1♥ opener with 5=4=2=2... because the interplay between partners relies upon each describing their hands to partner until one can take control, or until both decline the opportunity to take control.

Thus:

1♥ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
2N 3♥
3♠ 4♣
4♦ 4♥

P

Without providing any hands for the auction, the partners have spoken to each other.

I have an opening hand with 5+♥
I have 4+♠s, hand strength unknown
I have a side suit of ♣s, less than gf strength opposite a minimum 1♠
I have a gf hand, nature unknown
I hold a ♦ stopper and am 5-4 in my suits
I like ♥s
I have a spade control: I have a hand on which I do not utterly reject slam ambitions: I have more than a horrible hand in context
I have a club control. I can't force to slam; I can't take control, but I am interested if you are... I may be very interested, but for now assume I have only mild interest
I have a ♦ control: I am not bid out just yet. I still can't force to slam, but I'm not averse to us trying. Note: if we play Last Train, the message about degree of interest is the same, but we haven't promised a control.
I have told you all I have: mild slam interest, decent trump support, and a club control. If all you had was mild interest, we're done.


(As an aside, compare this to the 'dialogue' available after 2♣ as a response. You may well be able to paraphrase opener's descriptions but responder's will not relate to his hand)

You are, I believe, a trial lawyer, or at least do some court work. As such you will be familiar (I suspect... I think this is a principle recognized in the US as it is in the Commonwealth) that, when dealing with the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, Judges are wont to remark that they may not be able to articulate precisely where the line is drawn, but they can say, with confidence, on which side of the line the party's conduct falls. In a similar vein, most experts would have little difficulty deciding whether, on a given auction in the context of a given system, a hand fell into the strong slam interest, the mild slam interest, and the 'you'll have to drag me kicking and screaming' lack of interest categories, and would have no difficulty informing partner of their view in a natural, descriptive auction.

[SoTired]

mikeh, on Jun 13 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

OK, so my analysis of one of these was a tad off.  

That being said, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "slammish" and "not the very worst hands for slam."

"It's not that I want to have sex with you, dear.  I just am not currently opposed to the offer of having sex with you."

"We are not taking part of your pay as taxes.  Rather, we are allowing you to keep a portion of your pay as not taxes."

"I'm not saying that you were wrong.  I'm just saying that you were not right."

Ken, there is, in the minds of most (all?) experts an obvious difference between hands that, on the auction to the point in question, are:
<snip>

You lose this one, Mike. Ken's analogies were so clever and humorous that it does not matter what the bridge logic is....

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

That being said, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "slammish" and "not the very worst hands for slam."

Say you pick 1000 random game forcing hands with heart support that would start with 1♠. Maybe (say) 250 of them will be slammish, or 350, or whatever. But about 985 of them should go through fourth suit forcing. Can you not see that difference, or do you simply start telling jokes when bridge logic fails you? They were funny jokes though.