[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 19 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Quote

But I take it back, because it's also a problem to force responder to bid a natural 2♠ on any four card spade holding he might want to play in, since some of those can be fairly bad and hurt opener's evaluation.

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

I agree if you remove the word "equally". The situations are not equivalent because you have located a fit in one but not the other.

[H_KARLUK]

kgr, on Mar 19 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ T9 ♥ QJ764 ♦ A9 ♣ AT63 ♠ AK42 ♥ KT9 ♦ QT652 ♣ 7

1♦-1♥
1♠-2NT
All Pass
 
Should North have bid 2♣ (4th suit GF) iso 2NT or should South have bid 3♥ iso Pass. ...Or is this unlucky (not able to find the fit without forcing to high if there would be no fit).

Just curiosity. For one moment please forget abt given layout.

Can anyone give a fine sample "if" there's a room for 3♣?
1♦-1♥
1♠-

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Mar 19 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 19 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

I agree if you remove the word "equally". The situations are not equivalent because you have located a fit in one but not the other.

When responder is 4-4 in the majors and opener has four hearts, my responder has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 4-4 heart fit.

When opener is 4-3 in the majors and responder has five hearts, your opener has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 5-3 heart fit.

What's unequal about that?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 19 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 19 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 19 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

I agree if you remove the word "equally". The situations are not equivalent because you have located a fit in one but not the other.

When responder is 4-4 in the majors and opener has four hearts, my responder has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 4-4 heart fit.

When opener is 4-3 in the majors and responder has five hearts, your opener has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 5-3 heart fit.

What's unequal about that?

In one case a suit has been raised. In one case a suit has not been raised. Further, 1♠ on the second auction is already bid on essentially any four card spade holding since opener may be many shapes like 4153, so not much would change.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Mar 20 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

In one case a suit has been raised. In one case a suit has not been raised. Further, 1♠ on the second auction is already bid on essentially any four card spade holding since opener may be many shapes like 4153, so not much would change.

We have two auctions where a player knows of a heart fit which might be either seven or eight cards, and knows that there might be a 4-4 spade fit. In each case he is obliged by his methods to show his spade suit, regardless of quality.

In my methods, opener knows that responder's hand-type is exactly 4-4 in the majors with exactly invitational values, and that this was the only way to show that hand-type. If opener is considering bidding game in hearts or notrumps, the spade bid may cause opener to misvalue his spade holding.

In your methods, responder will, in due course, learn that opener is exactly 4-3 in the majors, and will know that this was the only way to show that hand-type. He may also know how strong opener is. If responder is considering bidding game in hearts or notrumps, the spade bid may cause responder to misvalue his spade holding.

The fact that responder might also misvalue his spade holding when opener has some other shape seems to me completely irrelevant.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't see why you think that this is less of a problem in your methods than in mine. If you were to change from rebidding 1♠ with a 43xx minimum to rebidding 2♥, you would lose a little accuracy in evaluation when responder is 4-4 in the majors, and gain a little accuracy in evaluation when opener is 4-3 in the majors. I haven't done any sums, it seems to me that the two situations are similar in frequency, and the sizes of the gain and loss are equivalent.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-March-20, 03:17

[Fluffy]

if 2♣ is game forcing then 2NT is the only possible bid by north, and then south has an easy pass as well wich a minimum.

[whereagles]

Fluffy, on Mar 20 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

if 2♣ is game forcing then 2NT is the only possible bid by north, and then south has an easy pass as well wich a minimum.

That seems plausible... IF you don't have 3 hearts.

With a shapely and elegant hand like ours, I think you are obliged to overbid, to cater for the case pard has 5 hearts (the case here).

Otherwise you run a serious risk of missing out a cold game and be left wondering "what went wrong".

[mikestar]

With my usual opening standards, this hand is worth 2♣ forcing to game and wouldn't be a huge overbid with lighter standards.

The three card raise works well on this construction, as does 2♣ invitational+ or XYZ.

2NT can't be right here--to likely to miss a 5-3 heart fit, but also may get us to NT with ♣ inadequately stopped. Imagine the club ace opposite a stiff ...

[Free]

I don't like to support immediately with 3♥ if I have 4♠. However, whatever turn the auction takes, my next bid is ♥. So here after 2NT I'd bid 3♥ with the South hand.

[rbforster]

Put me down for another endorsement of XYZ on this sequence. In fact I definitely like XYZ over 1♦ auctions (among other reasons, you can stop in 2♦). I'm less convinced of the merits of XYZ over 1♣ auctions.

[hanp]

Yes it really has very little (no?) downside after a 1D opener.

[JLOL]

lol at no downside. Losing the ability to bid 2D in your gf auctions is completely brutal.

[hanp]

What, not worth capital letters? DIRECTOR!

[Vilgan]

hanp, on Mar 19 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Good hand for XYZ as well.

This.

Fairly trivial to bid with XYZ.

I think 2♣ and 2NT both have merit. I don't see a problem with 2NT, although its unfortunate we caught partner with a dead min as now they can't bid 3♥ on the way to 3NT.

[FrancesHinden]

This isn't a matter of "we should play XYZ" or "fourth suit should be game forcing" or "opener should have raised hearts on the first round", it's the interaction between these that matters.

If you are going to
(i) play FSF as game forcing, and
(ii) rebid 1S on a 4351 minimum after 1D - 1H

then

(iii) you are sometimes going to play in the wrong contract when opener has 3-card heart support.

If opener bids 3H on all minimum 4351s, then he is left guessing over the 2NT rebid from partner. 3H works beautifully when responder has five hearts and not too much wasted in clubs, but it would look very stupid if partner bid 2NT on Qxx Qxxx Kx KQxx. So you really need to play 3H here as forcing.

Therefore you have three alternatives:

i) Play FSF as not game forcing, or play some other responder's rebid method with all the consequential other problems
ii) Raise 1H to 2H on the South hand
iii) Play in the wrong contract sometimes.

Note that this example is fairly extreme, because responder had a very pure (suit suitable) club holding as well as five hearts.
(iii) Is not necessarily a 'stupid' option, because most methods end up in the wrong contract sometimes. I like to go with option (ii) - raising 1H to 2H - but this may also end up in the wrong contract.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 24 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

i) Play FSF as not game forcing, or play some other responder's rebid method with all the consequential other problems
ii) Raise 1H to 2H on the South hand
iii) Play in the wrong contract sometimes.

Even though you sort of go on to say this, it bears clarification that i ii and iii will all play in the wrong contract sometimes. It's just a matter of which times.

[Fluffy]

and I'll add that you will only play wrong partscores, and only miss a small amount of thin playable games.

[cyc0002002]

I would double 1H to show my 3 cards support
hahaha