[luis]

inquiry, on Feb 6 2004, 04:39 PM, said:

Well, I totally disagree with the Steveism on this hand. Luis was never at risk of missing 6♠ had that been the best contract.

I will defer to luis to fully explain his auction (should he desire)... after all, it was his, but the description of 3♠ as noise and/or 4SF is wrong. This bid, followed by a higher bid (in this case 4NT) promises 5♠ I think (although i might in general think 6-5 instead of 5-5.. .not all bids are perfect). That is when Luis rebids 4NT, he is not showing some weak 4 card ♠ suit with his 3♠ bid. He is showing a juicy hand, with strong slam interest with good ♠ and good ♦. He could have also bid 4♠ instead of 4NT, again showing strong slam interest and the two suited nature of his hand. Both these bids would work out just fine. And remember the rule I used earlier about when to bid the minor rather than the major... with more than 10+ and with slam interest, this applies in spades (hehehe) when you bypass a five card major to bid a minor. Hence the strong slam interest implication of a 4♠ or 4NT rebid... and if you wanted to force to slam rather than invite, you could bid 5♠ over 3NT.

But again, difference in bidding theory and philosophy is what makes bridge such a great game to discuss (as well as to play).

Ben

Actually I don't have a lot to comment about this hand, I will let you know what I was thinking so you can comment and discuss with me if you want. I'm always open to discussion it's what makes this game so nice, there're options.

This is a transcript of my mind during that hand:

Having AKQJx in a suit and KJxxx in the other I think it's a sin to bid the weaker suit first. After all 6d and even 7d may have a play opposite a doubleton while in spades I need not only support but also honors.
That was my first thought when I got that hand. I also considered what problems can arise with 2d. While the auction can develop in many different ways and I was planning on showing diamonds and spades, maybe distorting the hand as a 6-5 which I think is a pretty good distortion with AKQJx and KJxxx since the diamond Jack is as useful as a sixth trump making the suit solid. I was also thinking that I didn't want pd to correct 6d to 6s if he has xxx in spades (or Axx) and a doubleton in diamonds or other holdings if I bid spades first pd will likely correct 6d to 6s and I think that 6d makes more often than 6s with random 1h hands in pd hand.
And I was also thinking that a grand slam was probable and that I need to tell pd I held the hQ a solid diamond suit and values in spades.
I decided that all these factors asked for a 2d bid.

[bglover]

OK, let me take this one step further (again playing SAYC here):

1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d 3n... 4d...

Four diamonds here tells partner I am 5-5 and he has an entirely accurate picture of both my hand and my point count for this given hand. Partner CANNOT pass 4d here... 3d was a 100 percent game force and 4d is a 100% slam try... but he is now well placed to either initiate cue bidding or place the contract because he has an entirely accurate picture of both my pattern and my strength.

If you agree that 3 spades is just a generally forcing bid in the sequence given (as you did) then you must agree the above paints a CLEARER picture of my strength/pattenr than the original sequence.

Now, in the original sequence given, Luis could have rebid 4s over 3n to show his shape a little better, but now it appears he is 6-5 instead of 5-5. In the sequence I gave the jump to 3d could be made on 4 cards certainly and the 4 diamond rebid clarifies it is 5. Again, I think my sequence is just clearer.

[inquiry]

Let's muddy up your clear picture a little bit.... instead of your nice, and neat

1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d 3n... 4d..., imagine a messy...

1♥-1♠
2♣-3♦
3♠-4♦

Hello, now what is 4♦? what would 4♣ be instead of 4♦? Can you ever get out of ♠ if partner has ♠Axx and doubleton small ♦. I think luis's auction, treating his hand as 6-5 and his explaination of as to why (see above) are right on target. Dislike his auction if you prefer, but I think it was spot on correct. And note, luis and I seldom agree on auctions.... Check the record on this site. But when he is right (which means when I would bid the same way ), I give him full credit. And this time, he was right as rain.

Ben

[luis]

bglover, on Feb 6 2004, 05:02 PM, said:

OK, let me take this one step further (again playing SAYC here):

1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d 3n... 4d...

Four diamonds here tells partner I am 5-5 and he has an entirely accurate picture of both my hand and my point count for this given hand. Partner CANNOT pass 4d here... 3d was a 100 percent game force and 4d is a 100% slam try... but he is now well placed to either initiate cue bidding or place the contract because he has an entirely accurate picture of both my pattern and my strength.

If you agree that 3 spades is just a generally forcing bid in the sequence given (as you did) then you must agree the above paints a CLEARER picture of my strength/pattenr than the original sequence.

Now, in the original sequence given, Luis could have rebid 4s over 3n to show his shape a little better, but now it appears he is 6-5 instead of 5-5. In the sequence I gave the jump to 3d could be made on 4 cards certainly and the 4 diamond rebid clarifies it is 5. Again, I think my sequence is just clearer.

As I posted I think that the problem with your idea bg is that pd will think that pd will just bid 4s and now you have a huge problem. If you bid 4N you will be in trouble when pd has the two aces and denies the sQ because you now need the heart JACK for a grand slam.

I think your sequence shows 5-5 in spades and diamonds or 6-5 with 6 spades and 5 diamonds. It's not clear if you have a powerful hand since with 6-5 you may be just removing 3NT as a contract that you don't want to play. So first of all pd has to decide if he is being asked to pick a game between 4s and 5d or if he is asked to cuebid and if so what suit is the trump suit? Sometimes you have to think not only in your hand but in what pd will do with your description unless your pd is a genius. I accept that for some partnerships this can be a road to success but I have a lot of reservations about this auction in average.

My bidding can be right or wrong but I think that 4N shows 6-5 with 6 diamonds and 5 spades and a powerful hand (otherwise I can just bid 4s over 3N). Had he bid anything different over 4N my next bid was going to be 6h. And I was very happy with that. Please understand that I'm not saying that my way to bid the hand is the right one or that is better than your idea just that I was very very happy with the way I described the hand.

For the record when I bid 3s I told ben "I think this is either a 5-5 or 6-5 slamish hand or just asking for stopper for 3N" When pd bid 3N and I bid 4N I thought it was clear it was the 5-5 or 6-5 slamish hand because as Ben said if I was looking for 3N then I pass 3N :-)

[bglover]

He he I'm a broken record here I know but...

The sequence you gave never promised anything like 5 spades here... that was and is my only point. You had a sequence available that would show both strength and pattern assuming partner couldn't raise spades after you start with 1 spade.

I fully realize your diamonds were much better than your spades and realized it at the time AND knew why you chose that bid instead of 1 spade. You also know you had enough values for a probable slam once partner opened the bidding. Therefore, no reason NOT to bid out your pattern accurately, as I have advocated throughout this thread. You weren't going to let the bidding die below six probably, so why not inform partner you were 5-5 in the suits?

Four no trump in no way promised a 5 card spade suit but showed significant extras in the given sequence (which, of course, you had). Thats fine. As I said, you know ur driving to slam, so that was your start.

However, give partner 3 5 1 4 pattern for his bidding and you may well have missed your best spot. That is my only real point here.

[Trpltrbl]

inquiry, on Feb 6 2004, 10:58 AM, said:

Luis auction was efficient and got to the top spot....
1♥-2♦
3♣-3♠
3NT-4NT
6NT-Pass

It is clear from the comments most of the viewers thought the natural and forcing 2♦ was an abomination. I thought it was great. When ♠ are subsequently bid the slam interest nature of the hand quickly becomes to clear. Luis's auction keeps 6♦, 6♥, 6♠ and 6NT all in the picture. I for one liked luis's approach.

Ben

I agree with the auction upto the 4 NT bid. I would have bid 4 to show 5-5 or better and slamgoing, pd can now make a better decision I think.

Mike

[the hog]

xx,Jxxx,AKx, KQJxx

Well Luis, playing Polish C I would definitely bid 1H on this hand, so I hope you would not revoke my certificate to play . Mind you I would not teach or recommend this style to anyone until they could competently bid normally.

bglover, Continuations would be

1C 1H
1N 2N - 2N= forcing, inv with 4M 6m OR GF with 4M & 5+C

After 2N Opener bids
3C if he does not accept C
3C if he accepts C but not D
3H/S/N if he accepts both ms, making the most descriptive bid

A 3D bid arther than 2N by responder would show 4M and longer Ds. GF.

You don't have to play Mafia to play Polish Club, it is largely a matter of style, but the top PC players eg Balicki Zsmudzinski etc all seem to use it.

Ron

[bglover]

Well sure, you have ways now to show me your suits and respective lengths.

Works great... but in SAYC or 2/1 absent some special gadgetry you have to drop MAFIA with better hands and bid the longer suit 1st then reverse to show your other suit with a good hand. I don't doubt that many big club-type systems have a more elegant and accurate solution to this, nor do I advocate that 2/1 or SAYC are the "best" systems. But it's what most people play on BBO and probably in the worldl.

I have looked at some systems like Viking Club (as one example) where there is no doubt some abilites to pin down specific shape and size. They seem to me highly accurate but take way more memory power than I could muster, so I stick to natural bidding because of that. Doesn't mean I don't believe there aren't valid alternates out there, just that my aging brain couldn't handle them anymore!

[the hog]

Yes, your comments are certainly correct - by far most don't play this way. My current pd does not like this style either, so I only play it when I am playing Polish C with a few others. As I said, I would not recommend anyone use this style until they are very comfortable with natural bidding.

[AceOfHeart]

The_Hog, on Feb 6 2004, 04:18 PM, said:

xx,Jxxx,AKx, KQJxx

Well Luis, playing Polish C I would definitely bid 1H on this hand, so I hope you would not revoke my certificate to play . Mind you I would not teach or recommend this style to anyone until they could competently bid normally.

bglover, Continuations would be

1C 1H
1N 2N - 2N= forcing, inv with 4M 6m OR GF with 4M & 5+C

After 2N Opener bids
3C if he does not accept C
3C if he accepts C but not D

3H/S/N if he accepts both ms, making the most descriptive bid

A 3D bid arther than 2N by responder would show 4M and longer Ds. GF.

You don't have to play Mafia to play Polish Club, it is largely a matter of style, but the top PC players eg Balicki Zsmudzinski etc all seem to use it.

Ron

A bit confused so you bid 3C when you does not accept C and 3D if he accepts C but not D or the other way round?

[the hog]

A bit confused so you bid 3C when you does not accept C and 3D if he accepts C but not D

Yes this is correct! As responder has a longer minor, you bid the minor you don't like. This is like responding to a multi
Pd opens 2D which shows a weak 2 in some Major
With xx KJxx Axxx Axx you would respond 2S, this would be a mild game try in H or a sign off if pd has S
With KJxx xx Axxx Axx you would respond 2H and if pd bids 2S showing that weak 2, you would raise to 3 invitationally. Ben calls these "Paradox" responses. There is a web site which deals with these things and Ben might post the url if he reads this.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Feb 8 2004, 04:55 PM, said:

Ben calls these "Paradox" responses. There is a web site which deals with these things and Ben might post the url if he reads this.

For paradox advances, see

http://www.cavendish...dge/paradox.htm