[Edmunte1]

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

I like methods where you can bid 2♠ here as an artificial game force, with 3 minor promising 5-5. That involves playing 1♥ 2♠ as about 6-9 with six spades.

I agree with that

[Halo]

I can't see anything better than 3D and then 3S over 3H.

Do we know that we don't belong in 6H from this auction? Would partner jump somewhere with AKQxxxx of hearts and an outside queen or so?

[benlessard]

Just to make sure we are on the same wavelength.

1H---1S
2H---2S is INVitationnal not a pure pull-out. You dont pull partner out of 2H if you have no interest for game. + i you have a really long S with game unlikely you can bid a direct 2S over 1H (2-8) with H shortness

1H---1S
2H---3S become a relly serious INV (my prefererence is forcing but its a least a very serious INV)

1H---1S
2H---3m followed by 3S is 100% GF that is basic bridge 101
you dont pull partner 2H if you have no interest for game. + i you have a really long S with game unlikely you can bid a direct 2S over 1H

[the hog]

I think 4S is poor for the reasons espoused by previous posters.
Having said this, I really dislike 3D as it is bidding a non existent suit. This appears to be a tendency that a number of 2/1 players have and I guess that unless you have discussed other methods that bid is really forced on you here. Excuse the unintentional pun.

Josh mentions that 1H 1S 2H 2S makes sense as a forcing bid, and indeed it does. The Poles play that 2NT is forcing in a sequence like this. This also makes a lot of sense. Why play in a 2NT contract when pd has advertised a 6 card suit? If you bring the suit in, you are likely to make 9 tricks; if not you are likely to go off.

My bids would be 2NT or 2S if those were agreed as forcing. 3D otherwise.

[foo]

So I, like The Hog, do not like distorting my 73's by bidding them as if they were 54's.

I also do not think slam is so odds on here that we should be jumping through all sorts of hoops or greatly distorting our hand type to cater to possible slam chances.

I also do not like the idea of 1H-1S;2H-2S forcing. *shudder*.
1/2 of the hands We bid on will be partscores. I'll sacrifice some partscore accuracy to improve game and slam bidding, but there is a limit.
For me, playing 1H-1S;2H-2S as forcing is past that limit.

Here's my take on what hands with 6+S use which sequences:

1= 1H-4S.
This a bid to make 4S as close to exactly as possible based on Opener's most common minimum opening hands.
Say 11-15 HCP and ~3-5 controls
(and 3 is more likely than 5 in terms of hard values. eg A's & K's).
Another way to look at it is that a minimum opener is likely to have 3 cards that are A's or K's.

We need a decent trump suit, ~14 losers, and 7+ controls between the two hands to rate to make 4S.
That means a direct 4S response has to show a hand that rates to give Us as close as possible to exactly those assets.

So Responder's hand should look like either
1ra= Dead minimum opening bid with 7 losers, or
1rb= 6- loser subminimum opening bid with little tolerance for any other likely strain.
pclayton's example of AQJTxxxx.x.xx.xx
fits, but you are going to wait a long time for that hand to come up.

More common and mundane IMHO is something like
AKhxxxx.x.(xxx.xx) or AJTxxxx.x.(AQx.xx) or AKhxxx.x.(Axx.xxx)

Now the important point. If these are the hands that go through 1H-4S, then
=any hand that gets to 4S via a slower route must be better=.

Which brings us to
2= 1H-1S;2H-4S.

Since 1H-4S shows 1ra or 1rb above, 1H-1S;2H-4S must show
2ra= A minimum opening bid with 6 losers, or
2rb= A 5 loser subminimum opening bid
(In this case, we are basically hoping for the "30 HCP deck effect" because of our shape to make 4S.)

Similar exercises can establish the hand types for the other sequences.

In my judgement, based on the above definitions
♠AT87543 ♥7 ♦AJ5 ♣AQ
fits 1H-1S;2H-4S marginally better than it fits any longer forcing sequence.
We have a decent chance (~50/50) at having the 10+ controls between the hands needed for a slam, but the rest of the hand is simply not that good (crappy long suit, 11/14 of our HCP are in our short suits, we have a stiff in pard's twice bid suit, etc)

All the invective being tossed around isn't going to sound like a logical counter argument to me, and neither are opposing hands that require low probability assumptions.

I would be very interested to see what a well written simulation would say about the odds of there being a slam are on boards that fit the auction thus far.

[dburn]

Don't mind 3D - would probably bid it at the table. Don't mind 3S either, but in general I need a rather better spade suit - partner is supposed to move towards slam with decent controls and a singleton spade. Of course, here I know he doesn't have decent controls, so if he does move, his spade support should be adequate.

But it's hard to answer these questions without some knowledge of the context in which the partnership operates. How often will Rex or Jay bid 2S as opposed to 2H on hands with three spades and six bad hearts? If the answer to this is "frequently", then I strongly prefer 3NT to 3D. If the answer is "not often" or "never", then I prefer 3D to 3NT.

Over partner's 3S, will bid 4C and pack up if he signs off. Over 4S, will bid Blackwood. Over 3NT, will pass.

[foo]

dburn makes an interesting point.

In the "old days" when 2nd round jump rebids by responder were Forcing rather than invitational, ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ would have been a fine hand to go through
1H-1S;2H-3S

[pclayton]

foo, on Dec 22 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

dburn makes an interesting point.

In the "old days" when 2nd round jump rebids by responder were Forcing rather than invitational, ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ would have been a fine hand to go through
1H-1S;2H-3S

It still is for Matt and I.

[dburn]

Oh, 3S is forcing (because 2S is invitational - if you have J109xxxx None Qx Kxxx you pass 2H and get a minus score instead of a plus, but that's life in the big city, and why they invented weak jump shifts in some big cities).

It's just that to bid a forcing 3S, you ought to have a hand more resembling KQJxxxx x Ax Qxx than your actual hand does. Then, partner with such as x Axxxxx Kxx AKx can do something sensible (such as raising you to six).

Maybe you would bid 2S over 1H with the hand I have just quoted, or maybe you would bid 4S with it. I wouldn't blame you for doing either, but if with the actual hand (A10xxxxx x AJx AQ) you bid 4S at either your first or your second turn, I would... well, I wouldn't blame you for taking up bridge, for many people who are no good at it do that, but I would wonder vaguely why you felt qualified to post in a forum for advanced and expert-class players.

[microcap]

I am really happy at the quantity and depth of the responses---thank you all!


So here's the denouement of WHY REX DRIVES ME BONKERS!

Rex knows the meaning of every book bid ever invented, so he knows that over 2♥ that neither 2♠ or 3♠ is forcing in normal 2/1. So in fact, he bid 3♦ over my 2♥ rebid. However, over my 3♥ bid, he bids 4♥!!!!

But the happy ending is:

Now my RHO doubles 4!♥. I pass, and now Rex bids 4♠ as he is got scared. RHO doubles again, as he is just as confused as I am.

My hand was:

Scoring: IMP

---

. From my perspective over 3♦, I can't support ♠ with 2 cards opposite 4 or 5, and can't bid 3NT, so it was 3♥ by default.

Rex said I have an obvious 3♠ rebid over 3♦, so he bid 4♥ as I cannot have anything in spades, then got scared by the double. Anyone agree with him?

I said that only one bridge player in the world could ignore a 7 card spade suit after the first round--

And the beauty was, we made 4 easily and picked up 5 imps as there was no double in the other room---hats off to Rex for fooling opponents! LOLL

[foo]

dburn, on Dec 22 2007, 08:52 PM, said:

Oh, 3S is forcing (because 2S is invitational - if you have JT9xxxx None Qx Kxxx you pass 2H and get a minus score instead of a plus, but that's life in the big city, and why they invented weak jump shifts in some big cities).

It's just that to bid a forcing 3S, you ought to have a hand more resembling KQJxxxx x Ax Qxx than your actual hand does. Then, partner with such as x Axxxxx Kxx AKx can do something sensible (such as raising you to six).

Maybe you would bid 2S over 1H with the hand I have just quoted, or maybe you would bid 4S with it. I wouldn't blame you for doing either, but if with the actual hand (A10xxxxx x AJx AQ) you bid 4S at either your first or your second turn, I would... well, I wouldn't blame you for taking up bridge, for many people who are no good at it do that, but I would wonder vaguely why you felt qualified to post in a forum for advanced and expert-class players.

Most of the players, and most of the authoritative texts I know of, say that
1H-1S;2H-2S is nf.

For example, Truscott's _The Bidding Dictionary_ lists this as sequence 3434 on p51.

The description is given as ?6-9? strength, 6+S, 2-H, ? in the minors, Hand Type "Y" and note 312.
Note 312 says nothing useful to our current discussion, but hand type Y is described on pxv of the preface as
"Y: Suggests An End To The Auction. Partner is not barred, but usually passes."

Similarly, the current standard approach is that 1H-1S;2H-3S is Inv
(as can be seen on the same page as sequence 3439. )

Which means ATxxxxx-x-AJX-AQ has become a bidding problem it would not be if
1H-1S;2H-3S was GF.

My analysis of what to do with the OP hand in the context of Standard bidding as defined by texts such as those I'm referencing is in other posts.

I'll be happy to consider refuting arguments. Direct or implied attacks/insults/smarmy personal comments lack either logic or evidence and are therefore content free. Not honest attempts at forwarding the discussion.

Such a refutation would start something along the line of
"Opener's most likely shapes are <mumble list>. Opener's most likely values are <mumble list>. This results in a n% chance that Opener will pass 4S when We belong in slam and n% is too high to be reasonable.
Therefore bidding ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ via 1H-1S;2H-4S is too likely to result in a bad score and thus is a bad way to bid this hand."

*goes and repacks/relights pipe while grabbing a pad of paper to start said calculations for himself*

As I said before, I'd be interested in seeing the results of a well designed simulation of this issue.

[foo]

microcap, on Dec 22 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

My hand was: 
♠QJ  ♥AKTxxx ♦Kx ♣985

Now =that= is about what I expected opener to have on this auction.

[glen]

Edmunte1, on Dec 22 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

I like methods where you can bid 2♠ here as an artificial game force, with 3 minor promising 5-5. That involves playing 1♥ 2♠ as about 6-9 with six spades.

I agree with that

I disagree, as I like methods that start this hand 1♥-2♠

[foo]

officeglen, on Dec 22 2007, 09:58 PM, said:

Edmunte1, on Dec 22 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

I like methods where you can bid 2♠ here as an artificial game force, with 3 minor promising 5-5. That involves playing 1♥ 2♠ as about 6-9 with six spades.

I agree with that

I disagree, as I like methods that start this hand 1♥-2♠

You think ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

[glen]

foo, on Dec 22 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

You think  ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ  is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

No, I call the TD when I have only 12 cards.

As to the correct hand, I think waiting (and waiting and waiting) for 20 points or so for the traditional "Strong Jump Shift" is ineffective. The better method is to use the strong jump shift on hands that have some slam interest due to good shape and extras, but no way to really show this on a slower auction.

[foo]

officeglen, on Dec 22 2007, 10:09 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 22 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

You think  ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ  is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

No, I call the TD when I have only 12 cards

I mistyped an "x" in a hand my fingers are getting cramped from repeating all day.
We all know what the hand is by now ad nauseum

ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ

There. Happy? Jeez.

EDIT- for spelling of obscure Latin phrases I don't use very often in print.

[dburn]

Quote

Happy?

Not particularly - the actual Latin phrase was "ad nauseam", but looking back over the contributions to this forum, it seems that even people who know how to bid do not know Latin. Mind you, the Italians would not have got (or as you might say "gotten", but that is because you speak neither English nor Latin) this auction wrong, and they would not have said "ad nauseum" either.

Memo to microcap: it was fairly clear to bid 3S rather than 3H over 3D. I mean, partner already knows you have six hearts and a minimum. If that was all he needed to know, he would not have bid 3D. When he does, you should not bid that heart suit again - rather, you should look for something else to do, in which context 3S stands out a very long way.

Memo to foo: I will ask someone to give me a copy of "The Bidding Dictionary" for Christmas. It seems that I have much to learn.

[ceeb]

Why does everyone assume we're going to play in spades? A large part of the reason that I choose the 3D call is because if the bidding continues 3H - 3S - 3NT that's probably our spot. Yes, partner could have x, AJ109xx, Kxx, K10x where spades is better, but there's also --,KQJ9xx,K10x,Kxxx.

[jdonn]

microcap, on Dec 22 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

Rex said I have an obvious 3♠ rebid over 3♦, so he bid 4♥ as I cannot have anything in spades, then got scared by the double. Anyone agree with him?

I said that only one bridge player in the world could ignore a 7 card spade suit after the first round--

He is right about the 3♠ part, he is wrong about the 4♥ part, and you are right with your final comment. That seems like everything