[pclayton]

gnasher, on Mar 14 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

It's a raise to 4NT (or more) with ♥Hx, and it's forcing.

This I agree with. Normally a quant 4N shows the 17+-19 hand, but if 2♠ shows extras, it seems we can ratchet this sequence down to 15-17 or so.

[jdonn]

My comment was clearly misunderstood about strength. When I said "expected strength" I meant invitational like a 4NT bid, just that it is also weak in diamonds. It's not just randomly a min that bid notrump but now doesn't like it.

mikeh, on Mar 14 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

How do we reach 6♥?

---

1♥ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
3NT 4NT
6♥ P

wtp?

[foo]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 14 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

foo, on Mar 14 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

Responder has a minimum of an exceptional 16 (control rich and shapely. etc).  Could easily have 18.  With 3 card ♥ support.

So if responder has a good 16+ with 3-card heart support, why did he not bid 3H over 2S?

All of our doubleton heart constructions are premised on the idea that with a known 8-card major suit fit responder would have announced it the previous round.

If 4H shows something like
Qx_Kx_KJx_AKJxxx

then when responder raises 3NT to 4NT opener knows that responder doesn't have that sort of hand...

As Ken the Gollum says, Responder has pulled out a $2 sequence w/o discussion. Now we have to use GP to prove we are not a $.50 partner.

First principle. All Strange Bids Are Forcing.

Second principle. The More You Bid, The More You Have.
The longer the sequence you use to get to the same spot, the better the hand you have.

Third principle. The use of a given sequence denies a hand type appropriate for a different sequence.

So. What hand types are shown by
1H-2C;2S-4H
=> usual definition is Fast Arrival min GF w/ 3+H
1H-2C;2S-3H
=> usual definition is Strong GF in support of H's BUT not right for a splinter or J2N 1H-2C;2S-3N
=> usual definition is min GF w/o H support
1H-2C;2S-4N
=> usual definition is Quantitative 4N w/o H support

Side note: for your example of Qx_Kx_KJx_AKJxxx
a= if play 2/1 absolute GF then 1H-2C;2foo-3C
b= if the above is an invite sequence then 1H-2C;2foo-2N;blah-4C
This hand has to expect that We are safe at 4N or the 5suit level.
I'd also like to play in ♣'s whenever it is right. Hard to do if we do not show 6+C.

mikeh's example ♠xx ♥Kx ♦AKxx ♣AKxxx
1H-2C;2S-3D;3N-4N
Catering System to getting at slams in our 52's seems a bit esoteric.
Also, I want to play 5m or 6m when it is right. Hard to do if we do not bid our suits.

So now we get back to 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H
I think we all agree Responder can not have 4+H or 4 ♠'s.
IMHO, Responder does not rate to have 6+C either.
IMHO, most hands with 2-H will go another route as my examples above.
Ditto most shapely hands with 3 card ♥ support. Responder suggested NT for a reason.

So we are left with something like a 16-18 =2335, =3325 or a 18+ HCP =2344

At least, that's probably the train of thought that would run through my head ATT.

[foo]

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Foo you are not an advanced or expert at bridge, please don't derail my thead. I posted this auction to get the views of advanced and/or expert posters.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant.

In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players.

FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence.

Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

[han]

I'm going to make a case for the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx hand that Arend gave, not because I think that hand is clearly right or that I would picture partner with that hand at the table (I'm really not sure how I would take it) but because I think it deserves more credit than people have given it so far.

What are the alternatives:

- bid 3D: To me this shows diamonds.
- bid 3H: partner will expect 3 hearts. I know Justin and Kevin were playing precision but that was not the question in the OP so partner may have a very strong hand. I would hate to lie about my heart length right now.
- bid 4H: I play that this is a picture jump. If it is a sign off then that would be fine.
- bid 2NT and pass 3NT: I think this will be the wrong spot too often.

So with these agreements I think that the 2NT, 4H route is best, well, of course only if we are confident that partner will interpret it as such. If we are then it is actually quite a good description. And if partner bids 3C, 3D or 3H instead of 3NT then we have an easy next call.

I think that the xx Kx AKxx AKxxx hand also makes perfect sense. I don't think that 4H should be forcing, partner could bid 5H to force (well, if you think that that is not forcing, clearly it should show a better hand than 4H so that would make 4H NF for sure).

I think you two recovered really well from these two boards Justin, soon after you got some good results. It was a pleasure to watch. At some point it looked like you might still create a comeback but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Very disappointing not to win the match but still a great performance!

[inquiry]

I agree with MikeH on this one... without diamonds stopped, 2NT (waiting, expoloratory, what ever) does not seem reasonable as even if NT is right, it will wrong side it. A 3♦ bid seems in order to me.

[mikeh]

foo, on Mar 14 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Foo you are not an advanced or expert at bridge, please don't derail my thead. I posted this auction to get the views of advanced and/or expert posters.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant.

In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players.

FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence.

Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

Please, please don't quote me as someone who agrees with your posts. I don't disagree with all of them.. but:

there are those with whom I am in frequent agreement and with whose p.ov. I can empathize and understand even when I disagree on the particular argument in question (justin, josh, frances, han, and a lot of others who I hope I don't insult by not listing here) and those with whom I often but not always find myself disagreeing. I wil not name them.. they know who they are and so do other frequent readers.. you are in that group, I am afraid to say. Nothing personal, but, just as Justin asked you not to hijack this thread with your not-mainstream ideas, I ask you not to co-opt me as someone who shares your ideas or even thinks that they are well thought out or represent expert thinking... some of your ideas may, but I often (usually?) feel otherwise.

[awm]

Perhaps this is easier for people like me who play 4th suit artificial even in GF auctions.

In any case, it doesn't make much sense to me that one would bid 2NT, then remove partner's raise to 3NT because of fear that notrump is the wrong spot. If your hand is that poor for notrump, why bid 2NT in the first place? And what does partner do if he really has the diamonds locked up and wanted to play 3NT?

So I vote that removing 3NT to 4♥ must be a slam try. Since any hand with three hearts would not bid 2NT, it should be a slam try with a strong heart doubleton. It sounds non-forcing to me, so I think it's non-forcing. I like the Mikeh example hand, although perhaps a better example would be:

xx
AQ
Axxx
AKxxx

It seems that if the hearts are as good as AQJTx, opener can suggest the 5-2 fit slam himself over 4NT (see jdonn's comment). But if opener's hearts are KJTxx this will probably not occur to him. So I'd say usually TWO heart honors (tight), enough extra for a 4NT call, likely doubleton spade (some ruffing possibility is a good thing) and not enough to force to slam (so like 16-18 or 17-19).

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

I really don't agree that it can be 3235 with no diamond stopper. In my opinion if you rebid 2N with that (fine), you just pass 3N. If you are not willing to pass 3N you have to just bid 3H or 4H to begin with.

If you have to play in 4♥ with the 3235 type, surely it's still useful to differentiate between this and the hands with three-card support?

I'd play 4♥ as a slam try because I don't have a more useful meaning for it. In your methods, you have two commonly occurring hand types that have to bid to 4♥, and two sequences that get you to 4♥. Why not use these two sequences to distinguish between the two hand types, and forget the rather obscure slam-try meaning?

Edit: I've just seen that someone has moved the goalposts - you were playing Precision, where this argument wouldn't apply. It would, however, apply playing standard 2/1, which is what I think everyone assumed when you posted this question.

[kenrexford]

The idea that 4♥ removes the contract from 3NT to a better spot seems, IMO, rather silly. That makes the 2NT call essentially a call made with a wild hope that Opener has 6-4 and can make my 4♥ call less ambiguous or less potentially costly (partner will not move over 3♥-P-4♥). But, the end result was speeding the auction up when trying to slow the auction down. Just bite in deep and bid 4♥ the first time.

Now, I can see a problem with this analysis, however. Responder wants to consider whether perhaps the best end spot is five of his major, perhaps. Getting under 3♣ allows Opener to rebid 3♣, which might be a good thing. 2NT is the more flexible bid from that perspective.

The question, then, seems to boil down to style. For me, 3♦ as a waiting bid makes sense, but I have played where 2NT is a waiting bid. Each is plausible and workable, as long as there is agreement. Barring that, 4♥ was a dangerous call in this sequence and justly rewarded.

(I hope I am not chastised for non-expert hijacking!!! LOL)

[mikeh]

Let's see if we can discern a clear meaning, in case any of us are tempted to inflict this call on partner in the future.... we've had a nice, detailed discussion and a picture emerges..


Yes, 4♥ shows one or more of the following:

3=3=3=4 signoff

3=2=3=5 or 2=2=4=5 13-15

1=2=4=6 good hand, not clear if forcing

Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx or its like

xx AQ Axxx AKxxx or its like, with 2 heart honours, non-forcing but invitational

xx Kx AKxx AKxxx or its like, with 1 heart honour, non-forcing but invitational

Some hand with Hx in hearts and 15-17.. .forcing

Some hand with about 18 and Hx in hearts and forcing

Hmmm.... well, if I can just keep track of who thought which, we'd have some potential partnerships Or not

Note to self: don't bid this way

[kenrexford]

Mike,

I think you left out 4♥ as an empathetic splinter in clubs, with an assumed diamond fit because of an implied but not shown minor canape, which is the obvious stand-out meaning.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Mar 14 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Mike,

I think you left out 4♥ as an empathetic splinter in clubs, with an assumed diamond fit because of an implied but not shown minor canape, which is the obvious stand-out meaning.

Some meanings are so obvious, that it really would insult the expert readers of this forum to point them out... but any non-experts who have crept in by mistake are indebted to you, Ken, for reminding us of this (clear) meaning.

[foo]

mikeh, on Mar 14 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

foo, on Mar 14 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Foo you are not an advanced or expert at bridge, please don't derail my thead. I posted this auction to get the views of advanced and/or expert posters.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant.

In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players.

FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence.

Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

Please, please don't quote me as someone who agrees with your posts. I don't disagree with all of them.. but:

there are those with whom I am in frequent agreement and with whose p.ov. I can empathize and understand even when I disagree on the particular argument in question (justin, josh, frances, han, and a lot of others who I hope I don't insult by not listing here) and those with whom I often but not always find myself disagreeing. I wil not name them.. they know who they are and so do other frequent readers.. you are in that group, I am afraid to say. Nothing personal, but, just as Justin asked you not to hijack this thread with your not-mainstream ideas, I ask you not to co-opt me as someone who shares your ideas or even thinks that they are well thought out or represent expert thinking... some of your ideas may, but I often (usually?) feel otherwise.

No insult was intended or implied to you mikeh. Nor was I claiming you were in agreement with me on this topic or any other.

All I said was that your original comment saying that this is a rare and little analyzed or discussed auction for you is similar to the experience of other experts I've discussed this auction with.

That's it. An affirmation of your original POV about the rarity of this auction. No more. No less.

As for how mainstream or not my viewpoints are, that's a different and orthogonal issue from whether the ideas are any good or not.

Bridge Bidding Theory is not and should not be static. Evolution is an important part of the process. I try to differentiate and classify any ideas I post appropriately; and I have been known to just as publicly change my mind when I think a better argument is presented than my own.

In any event, I'll get off my response to this Ad Hominem sub thread and back on topic now. Han has made a very good and thought provoking post as to what hand types this sequence should show that deserves attention.

[Winstonm]

I glanced through this thread and may have missed something, but it seems to me the consensus is either 3334 or doubleton heart honor/diamonds cards.

In such case, where there is a valid argument for both cases, the choice should come down to frequency. In my mind, there is more chance to hold a doubleton heart slam try hand than precisely 3334 that cannot be shown otherwise.

I would take this as honor x, slam try, non-forcing.

[foo]

Here's my counter argument to the idea that 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H shows Hh in ♥'s

IMHO it should show a hand like Kx_xxx_KQx_AKhxx

This is a hand where We might easily have a slam. Or not be safe even at the 5 level because we have weak trumps.

IMHO, the strong supporting sequence 1M-2m;foo-3M should promise at least hxx in support for that reason.

Which means we need a sequence for NT'y hands with xxx in support.

The OP sequence seems right for that purpose and will come up far more often if it shows xxx in support rather than Hh in support.

That leaves the perfectly valid question as to what to do with those hands with Hh in support and interested in slam.
I freely admit I am not yet sure. But I'm thinking about it.