[P_Marlowe]

Cascade, on May 5 2008, 01:57 AM, said:

effervesce, on May 5 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

4♥. I don't think any bidding system plays 1♥ - 4♥ as showing much strength other than a large heart fit.

I would guess most learners are taught that 1Maj 4Maj is game values with support. I have certainly seen it in many complete beginner texts.

Yes, ... I have done it myself, and would do so again.

And I believe, that it is a whole lot better, than the alternative
... throwing another convention at them before they even have
a firm grip on Stayman / Transfer.

Forcing raises are only important for slam bidding.
... and this can wait, but I remember darkly, that there was some
controversy regarding this view.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[effervesce]

P_Marlowe, on May 5 2008, 02:41 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 5 2008, 01:57 AM, said:

effervesce, on May 5 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

4♥. I don't think any bidding system plays 1♥ - 4♥ as showing much strength other than a large heart fit.

I would guess most learners are taught that 1Maj 4Maj is game values with support. I have certainly seen it in many complete beginner texts.

Yes, ... I have done it myself, and would do so again.

And I believe, that it is a whole lot better, than the alternative
... throwing another convention at them before they even have
a firm grip on Stayman / Transfer.

Forcing raises are only important for slam bidding.
... and this can wait, but I remember darkly, that there was some
controversy regarding this view.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I've never liked being patronized when being taught. I don't know about others, but I'd prefer to be taught properly from the start then be taught wrongly. I guess it depends on the person. For people who play just for fun, sure. But I've always preferred the intellectual challenge as being a major part.

Then again, I am a person who finds it easy to learn stuff just by reading. I learnt to play bridge just by reading and then playing online >_>

[P_Marlowe]

effervesce, on May 5 2008, 03:29 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on May 5 2008, 02:41 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 5 2008, 01:57 AM, said:

effervesce, on May 5 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

4♥. I don't think any bidding system plays 1♥ - 4♥ as showing much strength other than a large heart fit.

I would guess most learners are taught that 1Maj 4Maj is game values with support. I have certainly seen it in many complete beginner texts.

Yes, ... I have done it myself, and would do so again.

And I believe, that it is a whole lot better, than the alternative
... throwing another convention at them before they even have
a firm grip on Stayman / Transfer.

Forcing raises are only important for slam bidding.
... and this can wait, but I remember darkly, that there was some
controversy regarding this view.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I've never liked being patronized when being taught. I don't know about others, but I'd prefer to be taught properly from the start then be taught wrongly. I guess it depends on the person. For people who play just for fun, sure. But I've always preferred the intellectual challenge as being a major part.

Then again, I am a person who finds it easy to learn stuff just by reading. I learnt to play bridge just by reading and then playing online >_>

.... I try not to paronize, in fact I try to encourage
to make concious decision.

But I also firmly believe that it is important to have
a firm understanding of what you are playing / doing.

Playing 1H - 4H as a strong raise is not wrong, you
can explain it fairly simple:
4H shows a hand, which is strong enough to give the
partnership a fair chance of making 10 tricks.
And it will also enable you bid slams which are on
because of enough HCP power.

Of course there is room to improve.

Now imagine, how would you explaing the logic behind
a preemptive raise?
It involves two-way shot, and you may even need to bring
in the Law of Total Tricks to explain the Logic.

If you start learning to read, you dont start with the original
version of Shakespeares texts (or in German with
Walter von der Vogelweide ... 400 years older than
Shakespeare), you start with?

It is a steady path, starting with class 1, but if you dont
understand the stuff, which got taught in class 1, you
will fail.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[elwood913]

Hi,

Why do most people think hand #2 is a limit raise? It looks like a forcing raise to me.
Isn't it 11 good HCP? (Ok it has no aces, but the other honors are reasonable to good.) Can't I add 1 point for my nice 5-card ♣ suit and another for the ♠ dblton? Looks to me like I have 13 points with nice 3-card support and will make a forcing raise. What's wrong with my analysis?

Thanks,
Bill

[han]

It would be extremele rare for me to force to game with an aceless 2335 11-count. Throw in 4 10's and I still wouldn't.

[pclayton]

1. 4♥. I'm really not that dissuaded by ♠QT9x, but maybe I should be. I keep looking at 5 trump, a stiff and an outside ace. I'd bid 3N with Gnome.

2. Oh to be playing SAYC. I really can't tell how valuable my clubs are here, so I'll just treat this as a 3 card LR.

[jtfanclub]

elwood913, on May 6 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Hi,

Why do most people think hand #2 is a limit raise? It looks like a forcing raise to me.
Isn't it 11 good HCP? (Ok it has no aces, but the other honors are reasonable to good.) Can't I add 1 point for my nice 5-card ♣ suit and another for the ♠ dblton? Looks to me like I have 13 points with nice 3-card support and will make a forcing raise.

That's cheating.

You can count length points, or you can count shortness points. Can't count both. You end up massively overbidding with that.

I'm not really impressed by the hcp. KQTxx is worth considerably more than KQ9xx, and almost half the time your Qxx will be worthless. Frankly, I'd rather have the club jack than the diamond queen. Having points in the trump suit is usually an advantage, but here it can be a problem. Let's say partner has two or three clubs to the jack. He draws trumps, plays a couple of clubs, opponents duck. Now what? You don't have any side entries to the clubs.

Not only is this a limit raise, it isn't even a maximum limit raise.

[brianshark]

1st hand is a direct 4♥ bid.

2nd hand is a 2♣ response followed by a 3♥ bid after a minimum rebid (showing a 3 card limit raise).

On the 2nd I may bid 4♥ instead of 3♥ if we play particularly sound openings, partner is a particularly good declarer, or the opps are weak.

[neilkaz]

pclayton, on May 6 2008, 10:58 AM, said:

1. 4♥. I'm really not that dissuaded by ♠QT9x, but maybe I should be. I keep looking at 5 trump, a stiff and an outside ace. I'd bid 3N with Gnome.

2. Oh to be playing SAYC. I really can't tell how valuable my clubs are here, so I'll just treat this as a 3 card LR.

Mbodell brings up a good point about hand 1. With that holding in ♠ what are we really preempting against ? 5♦ ? 3NT with a 10 card ♥ fit ? We have an ace, PD opened, the opps won't often make 5m even if they can bid it.

However, I still bid 4♥, but would like to see a sim here, to "prove" it's best.

I have no problem treating this like a 4 card limit raise. It's light in HCP but not in playing strength, IMHO. If PD is dead min and passes, are we still fav's to make 4♥ ? I doubt it, and also doubt the the opps are getting into the auction and finding anything to make. If PD has a moose and wants to go slamming, I won't cooperate very much.

So hand 1) 4♥ with lotsa doubts and wanting to see a sim.

Hand 2) Clearly a 3 card limit raise. I can't GF with this and hang PD for having a min opener.

[han]

What kind of simulation do you have in mind?

[neilkaz]

han, on May 6 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

What kind of simulation do you have in mind?

1) Sim..give opener a min hand that would pass a limit raise and see how often 4♥ makes, and see that if the opps can make something above 3♥, can they reasonably be expected to bid it ?

Another interesting sim might be to just give opener any reasonable 1♥ opening and see what makes. If slam makes, would opener get there after 4♥ and if not would a limit raise have gotten him there ?