[mikeh]

Ken, we all know (I hope) that your approach to constructive bidding is idiosyncratic. It matters not whether your approach is, in whole or in part, superior to more common approaches, because posters here are looking for guidance in how they should deal with real life situations, and for better or for worse, very few of us will ever likely sit across the table from you and have to tailor our bidding styles to your ideas.

Whereas all of us (apart maybe from you and whereagles) hope that we can learn enough about more mainstream ideas that we can sit down with an expert (or at least a partner better than we are) and make decisions that, while our partner might disagree with them, are at least more or less what he'd or she'd expect.. in other words, we learn to play 'expert standard', while recognizing that this approach has many variants surrounding a central approach.

I have two main responses to your ideas.

1. With Kxxxxx x xxx Kxx, the idea of never bidding spades seems silly. Now, I am assuming that we have strength and suit quality constraints that require or at least permit 2♦ on this spade holding. If your style requires some suit quality constraints, but 2♠ is the right bid over 2♣ with this holding, then imagine the longest/strongest spade suit with which you would NOT bid 2♠.

For one thing, knowledge of a long but relatively weak spade suit may greatly assist partner in evaluation of his hand... Ax is a great holding if we end up in diamonds, Axx probably means a loser in the suit and so on.

For another, I have never played on a team that can afford to not even enquire about a possible AQx opposite Kxxxxx major as a trump suit, or a source of tricks in a slam auction. Or AKJ opposite Qxxxx or, in a pinch, AKx... I've heard that such suits often break 3-2 against us.

2. Using the pull of 3N to 4♦ to suggest a hand that may afford some advantage if played in diamonds rather than notrump, with 4N reserved for invitational hands that, in themselves, appear to afford no such advantage, allows for intelligent decision making. While I would have thought that this distinction was self-evident, let me pose a question. I assume that we'd all agree that partner's bidding is acceptable on x AJx AKQ109x AKx.

Now compare two hands... the one you would bid 4♦ on and the one that I would need: Qxxxx KQx Jx xxx or Qxxxx KQx Jxx xx.

6♦ has virtually no play opposite the actual hand, yet is virtually cold opposite the slightly amended one. It is not a coincidence that the amendment leaves basic shape unchanged, both being 5332, and honour cards in the same position, with the only change being the creation of a RUFFING VALUE!!!!!

I am sure that Ken will now retroactively invent some reverse-empathetic anti-splinter method that he and his partner, without discussion, would both work out at the table that would allow them to stop in 5♦ opposite his 4♦ bid while still arriving at 6♦ opposite my hand (oh... I forgot, Ken never rebids 3Major on a 5 card suit if he has 3♦, even on a 5332 hand).

[jdonn]

4NT. Wtp? It's amazing that hands like these can spur debates and long posts!

[han]

I'm also a 4NT bidder. I must say I'm happy also quite happy with the 2C-2S= 8-10 balanced gadget.

[dburn]

mikeh, on Sep 10 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

He KNOWS you don't have AQ or AK or KQ...

How does he know this? The original post stated only that 2♣ was strong and 2♦ was forcing to game. Perhaps, as is played in many Scandinavian countries, the sequence 2♣-2♠ can be passed. I don't know whether the original poster was playing such a method, nor what other responses to 2♣ would have shown in his system, since he did not trouble to tell anyone.

If I were going to bid over 3NT (and whether or not I would bid over 3NT depends on the system, which I do not know) then it is at least clear, if not CLEAR, to bid 4♦. If partner's diamonds are not headed by the ace, but the rest of the hand is solid facing my impressive holding in hearts, then it is imperative that I show the support I have. Even if partner's diamonds are such as AQ10xxxx, it is critical that I show genuine support and not an insistence on playing in notrump (for which my black-suit holdings are far too weak in any case).

I have read the interchange between krexford and mikeh with interest bordering at times on incredulity. When I was young, I believed that if two people violently disagreed with one another about what should be done, then one of them must be wrong and the other right. Now, however, I am beginning to have doubts about the principle of the excluded middle. For well it was said by the bard:

For many system-shoppers, it's
a good-for-nothing system
that classifies as opposites
stupidity and wisdom,

because by logic-choppers it's
accepted with avidity:
stupidity's true opposite's
the opposite stupidity.

[kenrexford]

I mean, Mike, with the hand that you proposed for when 6♦ fails, Opener's continuation after 4♦ will be 4♥, right?

Responder, both times, will then bid 4NT with either hand, as expected, denying any top diamond and denying the spade Ace or King. After hearing 4NT, Opener might make one last stab at slam, with a 5♣ cue. If Responder has the hand with three trumps and a doubleton ruffing value, he accepts. With the same hand but only two trumps and no ruffing value, he declines.

My way, our contract will be 5♦ when 6♦ probably does not make (J8 doubleton, a 3-2 trump split, and a 4-3 spade split would work). Your way, that same hand plays 4NT, which could fail on a spade lead.

In contrast, give Responder something like 5413 or 5314 shape with tweener values (maybe the same honors, with the club Jack or Queen instead), and Opener with a lesser diamond contribution internally than AKQ109x. How about ♠x ♥AJxx ♦AKQxxx ♣AK? Same hand, tweaked ever-so-slightly. Now, the key is in knowing whether the diamonds are likely to play for no loser, and opposite a stiff or void, not so much.

Agreeing diamonds at a lower level does not commit us to diamonds, but it is wildly interesting and relieving to most partners who are looking at six-card suits. Being able to deny a fit is equally powerful information.

Backing up to your first question, namely what spade suit could I possibly have but want to conceal. Hxxxxx or HHxxx is usually yielding a positive, assuredly if I will have the strength to bid either 4NT or 4♦ at this point. So, the best conceivable would be AJ1098, and even that's probably a bit rich. If I held ♠AJ1098 ♥x ♦xxx ♣Kxx, a hand with three controls, three-card support for diamonds, and a stiff, I'm sure as Hell splintering. We are way closer to a grand slam now than to any desire to play 4♠.

I agree that it would be nice for partner to know that we have diamonds, short hearts, and a trick source in spades. This would work out tremendously if the auction was something like this:

2♣-P-2♦-P-
3♦-P-3♠-P-
3♦-P-4♥.

Unfortunately, however, the opponents rarely accept insufficient bids when we are in a slam sequence. The reality is that strain selection is incredibly difficult after a 2♣ opening, especially when Opener has a long minor. If we have a strong dummy with great support for the diamond suit, and friggin' shortness as a kicker, this should be cause for celebration and immediate relay of that news, not muddied nonsense about major suits scoring better than minor suits or hoping to somehow send the full message in the limited space remaining. It ends up being like watching football, with 2:00 to play and our team down by 12. Sure, it could work out, maybe. But, had we just made the practical call earlier, this would be nothing.

What you end up with, as does Mike, apparently, is 4♦ showing anything from perhaps ♠Axxxxx ♥x ♦Qxx ♣Kxx to that sickly ♠Qxxxx ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣xx. Wow. I'm the idiosyncratic one as to constructive bidding?

Sure, if you want to discuss theory and bidding from the standpoint of what most experts who do not think about theory as much as you have learned from most other experts who also do not think about theory as much as you and have perhaps adopted out of fear of being (labeled) idiosyncratic, then by all means have at it. Personally, I think the CW is often absurdly simplistic and unmanageable. I'd rather think through how to actually bid hands effectively than to bids hands traditionally but then make wild guesses as to which of many possible and diverse hands partner actually has.

[Impact]

Reluctant as I am to stick my head into the boxing-ring with Mikeh and Ken,
my initial reaction was 4NT wtp - but maybe closer to 5NT as this is a good hand with awful methods.

Then I thought about it in terms of my problem with 2C opener's handtype. I confess that lacking a system which allows convenient exposition of main suit D strong hands (or even worse minor 2 -suiters) my tendency will be to open 1D on anything less than overwhelming strength (and all the more so if I have to explore other strains).

Hence, a GF bid in D and then retreat to NT (as opposed to opening 1D or showing the appropriate NT strength) should be the real deal.

Then I think that since I would raise to 4NT on hands with a singleton D, my Jx is huge.

Let the strong hand retain control and ask about any holes via asking bids or cues: hence I bid 4D too.

As an aside, with plenty of extra strength opposite a 2C opening, I agree (with Ken) that it is better to show it immediately via a splinter or raise with real support than to look for alternative games when it is likely SLAM/grandslam is relevant.

IMHO the time to introduce your own suit when you have real support for 2C opener's suit and positive is when that suit may provide an unexpected source of tricks...

Trying to keep the discourse friendly but discursive and edifying between educated people.....you never know we all may end up not only better informed but perhaps wiser (to abuse the well-known line of F.E. Smith).
regards

[655321]

Agree with jdonn

[dburn]

Impact, on Sep 10 2008, 10:59 PM, said:

you never know we all may end up not only better informed but perhaps wiser (to abuse the well-known line of F.E. Smith).

Judge: Are you trying to show contempt for this court?
Smith: No, my Lord. I am trying to conceal it.

[ochinko]

Transfering the responsibility with 4NT is wimpy. Partner is an expressed hand that was prepared to play 5♦ alone.

I blast off to 6NT now. If those 2♣ were real opps aren't going to take the first 4 or 5 spade tricks.

And 4♦ is, of course, madly distorting our shape.

[ArtK78]

ochinko, on Sep 11 2008, 03:56 AM, said:

Transfering the responsibility with 4NT is wimpy. Partner is an expressed hand that was prepared to play 5♦ alone.

I blast off to 6NT now. If those 2♣ were real opps aren't going to take the first 4 or 5 spade tricks.

And 4♦ is, of course, madly distorting our shape.

They don't need 4 or 5 - only 2.

Just for argument's sake, suppose partner had the following hand:

Jx AJ AKQTxx AKQ

Is this hand not consistent with the auction?

[fred]

Perhaps because I recently read his book, I find myself strangely empathetic (haha) toward several of Ken's post during the past few weeks. I say this is strange because this rarely used to happen.

I certainly agree with him here. IMO 4D is far superior to 4NT. One reason is this:

Suppose you had to guess the best final contract at this point. Don't you think there is a very good chance that the answer would be 6D? If so, letting partner in on this news might be a good idea.

I emphatically and empathetically disagree with those posters who suggest that 4D "promises" 3-card support or that bidding 4D "distorts" your distribution. 4D doesn't promise anything except for a hand that has promise when diamonds are trump (you have that). 4D doesn't "distort" anything - this is not even close to being an auction in which you are trying to describe your shape.

One important point that Ken makes which some of his critics seem not to appreciate is that 3D shows a really big hand. The reason is that 3D will sometimes get raised with a hand that turns out to be essentially useless. When that happens it would be nice to be able to put on the brakes in 5D and to usually have a reasonable play for that contract. In other words, 2C then 3D tends to deliver a hand that is worth at least 10 tricks with diamonds as trump.

Given that partner is all but certain to have the Ace of hearts, you are all but certain to have at least 2 tricks for him. On top of that, your Jack of diamonds is a great card opposite most of the possible diamond holdings for partner - perhaps the one and only reason he bid *only* 3NT with some truly massive hand is that he is lacking that card. Even your Queen of spades may prove to be valuable.

I do believe that it is going to be hard to have a highly accurate auction from this point forward. Opposite a partner who is not a great bidder (ie most people) it could be argued that bidding 4D now is the same as bidding 6D. If so then so be it. 6D will be a good spot much more often than not in my view.

Disclaimer: The previous opinion is based on what I would normally expect from my partners for 2C then 3D. I believe our views in this area are fairly close to mainstream in America, but how likely it is that your partner will have a hand for which 6D is a good spot will of course depend to a large degree on your partnership's style in this area.

And yes, I know that you can still get to 6D if you bid the "obvious" 4NT, but I think that bid sends the wrong message. 4NT is a high card invitation to slam but nobody really knows how many points it is supposed to show or when opener, who has not defined his range in any meaningful way, is supposed to accept such an invitation. Meanwhile 4D has the advantage over 4NT of saying not only that you might belong in slam, but that you have reason to believe that maybe diamonds should be trump. It turns out you really do have reason to believe just that!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

For me 4♦ has to be a better bid than 4N. At this stage I can't rule out the possibility that partner has a singleton spade - maybe 1363 shape. That being the case, 6N would have no chance, but 6♦ may have reasonable play. Therefore to suggest 6N via a 4N invite while not announcing some sort of belated support for diamonds has to be a mistake in my opinion.

Nick

[benlessard]

My feeling is that the J of D make a big difference. I would support with Jx or stiff Q but probably not with xx and no ruffing power.

[cherdano]

Well, I think it is also a very likely possibility that 6N is the right contract, and 6♦ is wrong-sided. Is KJ AJx AKQTxx AQ not good enough for 3♦ (after partner has shown a little something with 2♦)?

[fred]

cherdano, on Sep 11 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

Well, I think it is also a very likely possibility that 6N is the right contract, and 6♦ is wrong-sided. Is KJ AJx AKQTxx AQ not good enough for 3♦ (after partner has shown a little something with 2♦)?

True but 4D doesn't preclude playing in 6NT any more than 4NT precludes playing in 6D. And, while it is not very hard to construct hands where 6NT is better (as you demonstrate), I think it is a lot easier to construct hands where 6D is better.

Obviously none of the bids come with any guarantees (which is why this is a good problem IMO).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

cherdano, on Sep 11 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

Well, I think it is also a very likely possibility that 6N is the right contract, and 6♦ is wrong-sided. Is KJ AJx AKQTxx AQ not good enough for 3♦ (after partner has shown a little something with 2♦)?

A couple of other points regarding your example:

1) If you play Kokish there is a lot to be said for treating this as a big balanced hand (though it is hard to be too critical of a 3D rebid). If you don't play Kokish (or even if you do?), then maybe this is what a 3NT rebid is supposed to look like?

2) If partner does have this hand and if you do end up in 6D, at least that contract still has reasonable play. Most likely you will make 6D unless the defense leads a club and the finesse is wrong. But for many of the hands in which 6D is best, 6NT has no play at all provided that the defense finds the right lead. That right lead is very likely to be a spade and your opponents will have a Lightner double available to sometimes help them find that lead.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I completely agree we will belong in diamonds more often than in notrump, and in fact agree with just about every point made by Fred. And yet I still don't see why that means we should bid 4♦ instead of 4NT. I can't think of the hand on which partner blasts 6NT over that and we belong in diamonds. Even if we belong in diamonds, it seems nice that partner knows (for example) we will have no ruffing values for him.

[pclayton]

I'm with the 4N camp. Their food is better.

I don't think this boils down to the degree of support for opting between 4♣ and 4♦. I am far more concerned with offering up too much encouragement, and I think 4♦ does just that. If we bid 4♦, our hand should be very offensive and not suitable for NT. I keep looking and all I see are a lot of soft cards and a flat hand.

When I raise to 4N, I think I'm either semi balanced; 5332 looks optimal, but some weird 5♠1♦(43)'s and some weak 6♠2♦(32) certainly qualify.

[fred]

pclayton, on Sep 11 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

When I raise to 4N, I think I'm either semi balanced; 5332 looks optimal, but some weird 5♠1♦(43)'s and some weak 6♠2♦(32) certainly qualify.

Agree - 5431 is VERY possible. That is one of the reasons why it is so important IMO to bid 4D. Imagine that partner's diamonds are something like:

KQxxxx
AQxxxx
AKxxxx
AKQxxx
KQxxxxx
AQxxxxx

Where some of the x's may or may not be the 10 and/or 9 in each case.

With some of these holdings the concept of slam facing a singleton diamond will terrify partner. Even if he is not terrified, with some of these holdings it won't even occur to him over 4NT to give you the option of playing in 6D.

Meanwhile, if you mention the word "diamonds", look how his evaluation of these holdings changes. All of a sudden he will know that diamonds really is a viable trump suit and, if his hand looks like notrump, that his long suit really is a source of tricks (as opposed to trick).

Summary: I think if you bid 4NT, partner's lack of the Jack of diamonds will not infrequently cause him to Pass when you have a laydown slam. And, if he happens to bid over 4NT, it is far from unlikely that you will end up in 6NT when 6D is a much better spot.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I wholeheartedly apoligize to the bridge community for perhaps dragging a previously sane and well-respected individual into my PKD world. LOL