[han]

gwnn, on Sep 3 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

No I would bid 2D. 2D still allows for finding a heart fit but 2H makes it very hard to find a diamond fit.

[pclayton]

han, on Sep 3 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 3 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

No I would bid 2D. 2D still allows for finding a heart fit but 2H makes it very hard to find a diamond fit.

I would bid 2♦ also with a 5=4=4=0.

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

I don't think anyone is actually trying to find a heart fit after this sequence.

The questions, IMO, are these:

If Opener has five spades and four diamonds, and if Responder has three spades with four clubs (all four "or more"), how often will a heart fit exist?

Is it worthwhile to cater to those rare occurrences in order to find that 4-4 fit in hearts, or is it more worthwhile to focus spades with a clear and unambiguous auction and thereby have a better auction on the hands when we simply have a spade fit?

The major-neurotic approach of bidding 2♥ as Opener is fairly common. However, that type of call caters to the same situation of finding that major fit alternative to what will be in many instances a spade fit (when the decision matters), at the cost of not discovering as easily a possible diamond fit and possible diamond slam.

Plus, a big unknown, maybe the 4-4 fit would actually gain nothing on some of these occasions.

Thus, it seems like cost-benefit. You sacrifice an occasional inferior 5-3 spade fit instead of a superior 4-4 heart fit (maybe inferior and superior) to gain better spade agreement auctions and better diamond-strain exploration.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

han, on Sep 3 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 3 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

No I would bid 2D. 2D still allows for finding a heart fit but 2H makes it very hard to find a diamond fit.

I would bid 2♦ also with a 5=4=4=0.

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

I would bid 2♥ with that shape, very surprised you wouldn't. What is the downside, that when you have a heart fit you will have shown diamonds on the way? I can live with that. On any auction where partner doesn't raise, you save more room bidding hearts since you can make your third bid more cheaply.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Sep 4 2008, 07:19 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

I don't think anyone is actually trying to find a heart fit after this sequence.

The questions, IMO, are these:

If Opener has five spades and four diamonds, and if Responder has three spades with four clubs (all four "or more"), how often will a heart fit exist?

Is it worthwhile to cater to those rare occurrences in order to find that 4-4 fit in hearts, or is it more worthwhile to focus spades with a clear and unambiguous auction and thereby have a better auction on the hands when we simply have a spade fit?

The major-neurotic approach of bidding 2♥ as Opener is fairly common. However, that type of call caters to the same situation of finding that major fit alternative to what will be in many instances a spade fit (when the decision matters), at the cost of not discovering as easily a possible diamond fit and possible diamond slam.

Plus, a big unknown, maybe the 4-4 fit would actually gain nothing on some of these occasions.

Thus, it seems like cost-benefit. You sacrifice an occasional inferior 5-3 spade fit instead of a superior 4-4 heart fit (maybe inferior and superior) to gain better spade agreement auctions and better diamond-strain exploration.

What are we worried about missing after 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥?

When owner has six spades, we'll find out about it right now. Same with 4 hearts. We'll never miss a 6-2 spade fit.

Instead if we choose to raise to 2♠, then opener will pattern (even though I know that's not your style Ken), although we may be marooned in spades which you don't think is a big deal (I disagree).

I am acutely aware of the implications of showing primarily spade support on the 3rd round instead of the 2nd, and I want to probe this matter more.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, my complete take (since this seems quite involved):

After the start (1♠-2♣), Opener might have a possible problemn with precisely 5-4-4-0 shape. If so, there are merits, in theory, to bidding either red suit first. If, ultimately, Responder will elect to raise spades, then the choice of red suit will be of lesser consequence directly but actually of great consequence as to a predicted sequence. Thus, I would tend to want to bid that red suit that greater enables cuebidding. A recent example from a friend featured Axxx in one suit and KJxx in the other. I would want to have bid two of the KJxx suit because I want queen cues in that suit, which are done for many of us, and I would want shortness cues allowed (or splinters) for the other suit.

However, the concern is not just in facilitating spade suit exploration, as we do not necessarily have spade suit agreement. If I bid diamonds first, diamond suit exploration is enhanced, as partner can easily raise to 3♦, and life is good. If I bid hearts first, we may find diamonds, but at an expensive level.

What about heart exploration? If I bid hearts immediately, a heart raise is unambiguous, and we will be in a great sequence. If I bid diamonds first, 2♥ from partner is not assuredly natural. Although I would raise to 3♥, we still have not assured fit establishment and it will take one more call, at least, to agree hearts. So, when hearts will be agreed, bidding them immediately makes that better, at the cost of diamond sequences being worse.

So, what about when I do bid 2♦, whether because I want ALL suits on the table or because I want to maximize diamond exploration at the slight cost of heart exploration space, and partner has the troubling holding of precisely 3415 (or perhaps 3424, 3433, etc.)? If I bid 2♥, this is not a natural call PROMISING four hearts. So, we end up at the four-level before hearts are agreed. If I bid 2♠, however, spades are assuredly agreed, and we have a lot of space for cues. With my preferred cue style, this is extremely powerful, saving this space.

I don't think that any of this has a right or wrong answer. In fact, I actually believe that Opener should elect between 2♦ and 2♥ for tactical reasons, depending on his suit strengths and strength types and the like. Good arguments favor any number of different approaches, perhaps because the predicted auctions will be different, because of stylistic differences, making the pros/cons of the choices weigh differently.