[kenrexford]

cherdanno, on Apr 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 20 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

OK, just to make sure:

P-P-1♦-1♠-X-?
1. 2♥ = support of spades (I cannot have a heart suit that I could not open 2♥ but now want to bid in the face of a four-card showing to my right)
2. XX = probably snapdragon
3. 2♦ = snapdragon-ish (I cannot have a diamond suit that I could not open but want to bid unilaterally in the face of a three+ showing to my right)
4. 1NT = covers a world of general junk hands

How can any of this be controversial?

LOL

I'll bite.

How would you interpret these calls differently? I mean, I could understand Rosenkranz for the XX, which is a viable option, but would you seriously consider 2♦ to be the cue rather than 2♥? If anything, I could imagine either to be snapdragon-like and only XX for a power raise, but 2♥ as natural and 2♦ as the cue seems impossibly bizarre.

[helene_t]

Ken, 2♥ would be natural because
1) sometimes RHO may dbl without four hearts
2) for simplicity, we play the same system regardless of whether we are a passed hand or not

I am sure your methods are superior but when you ask "how can any of this be controversial?", expect to be LOL'ed at.

[jdonn]

Yes when you define four bids, but
- One of them says "probably"
- One of them ends in "ish"
- Two of them are the same convention
- One "covers a world of general junk hands"
- You don't believe any of this is controversial
Then a LOL seems a very light sentence.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

"for simplicity, we play the same system regardless of whether we are a passed hand or not"

That's not true. That's not even remotely true. Need I mention fit-jumps and fit non-jumps again, and the like?

Besides, not all bids have to be discussed. Some bids are just "defined" by what they have to mean logically.

Using your logic, P-P-P-1♠-1NT means "15-17, balanced" because we play the same system whether we are a passed hand or not, for simplicity sake. Of course, this cannot be so. Thus, 1NT means something different. The usual default, without discussion, would be "minors," even if the partnership had not discussed this before.

I could buy that 2♥ could be snapdragon-like (hearts with a spade doubleton), but, if that's true, then 2♦ should mean the same thing, IMO. It CLEARLY means diamonds plus two spades if you pass first and then bid 2♦ after 1NT, though.

[xcurt]

Ken, even if your methods are theoretically superior against "standard" methods played by the bad guys, you aren't considering robustness in your method design.

In other words, say you play that (1m)-1H-(Dble)-1S isn't natural with spades (because they "bid" the suit). Then you run into a pair that plays Dble denies 4 spades in this sequence. OK, so now 1♠ by advancer is natural. Fine, the third pair plays some weird precision variant (for argument's sake) where Dble usually denies 4 spades, but sometimes shows 4 spades and specific pathological shapes. What now?

You also aren't thinking about how the play is going to go, during the auction. Playing in spades we can lead plain suit losers through opener (who is more likely to have length and strength in trumps), compressing their side suit and trump winners to our advantage. We have the perfect cards for this tactic -- fast tricks and dummy entries. Playing in diamonds their trumps are over ours, and we would be eloping with the long diamond in our hand (which is a winner on power because we have T9875) and we would be ruffing partner's 3rd spade and possibly 4th spade, which might be winners in their own right. Worse for us.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

Yes when you define four bids, but
- One of them says "probably"
- One of them ends in "ish"
- Two of them are the same convention
- One "covers a world of general junk hands"
- You don't believe any of this is controversial
Then a LOL seems a very light sentence.

Using words of others to argue a point only makes sense if you understand the words.

"Probably" referred to the XX as "probably" snapdragon. By "probably." I mean that this is what partner will expect unless the partnership uses Rosenkranz redoubles. Hence, "probably" acknowledges that Rosenkranz, or Reverse Rosenkranz, is also an option.

"Ish" refers to the the fact that this call cannot be snapdragon because snapdragon refers to a double. Hence, a call is "snapdragonish" if it shows what you would expect for a snapdragon double but without a double.

Two of the calls are not the same convention. I think you mean the reference to snapdragon. The XX would show clubs and spade tolerance, whereas 2♦ shows diamonds and spade tolerance. 2♣, in contrast, is just clubs.

As to the 1NT call, what's the problem with that definition? 1NT shows a lot of different hand types that are generally balanced within the appropriate range. Do you mean something different by 1NT? The point was that some hands that might be qualified for the other calls but flawed internally, compensated externally, would be handled by way of a 1NT call (like the actual hand).

[kenrexford]

xcurt, on Apr 20 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

Ken, even if your methods are theoretically superior against "standard" methods played by the bad guys, you aren't considering robustness in your method design.

In other words, say you play that (1m)-1H-(Dble)-1S isn't natural with spades (because they "bid" the suit). Then you run into a pair that plays Dble denies 4 spades in this sequence. OK, so now 1♠ by advancer is natural. Fine, the third pair plays some weird precision variant (for argument's sake) where Dble usually denies 4 spades, but sometimes shows 4 spades and specific pathological shapes. What now?

You also aren't thinking about how the play is going to go, during the auction. Playing in spades we can lead plain suit losers through opener (who is more likely to have length and strength in trumps), compressing their side suit and trump winners to our advantage. We have the perfect cards for this tactic -- fast tricks and dummy entries. Playing in diamonds their trumps are over ours, and we would be eloping with the long diamond in our hand (which is a winner on power because we have T9875) and we would be ruffing partner's 3rd spade and possibly 4th spade, which might be winners in their own right. Worse for us.

Your example is wildly flawed.

First, I would absolutely consider a 2♠ call in your sequence to be natural, because I am not a passed hand.

Second, I would absolutely view a spade call as natural if the double denied spades, because the auction is different. Even if I passed initially.

This is not a "methods" issue. This is an analysis of what you get when you combine natural, logical bidding with not being insane.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 20 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

Yes when you define four bids, but
- One of them says "probably"
- One of them ends in "ish"
- Two of them are the same convention
- One "covers a world of general junk hands"
- You don't believe any of this is controversial
Then a LOL seems a very light sentence.

Using words of others to argue a point only makes sense if you understand the words.

"Probably" referred to the XX as "probably" snapdragon. By "probably." I mean that this is what partner will expect unless the partnership uses Rosenkranz redoubles. Hence, "probably" acknowledges that Rosenkranz, or Reverse Rosenkranz, is also an option.

"Ish" refers to the the fact that this call cannot be snapdragon because snapdragon refers to a double. Hence, a call is "snapdragonish" if it shows what you would expect for a snapdragon double but without a double.

Two of the calls are not the same convention. I think you mean the reference to snapdragon. The XX would show clubs and spade tolerance, whereas 2♦ shows diamonds and spade tolerance. 2♣, in contrast, is just clubs.

As to the 1NT call, what's the problem with that definition? 1NT shows a lot of different hand types that are generally balanced within the appropriate range. Do you mean something different by 1NT? The point was that some hands that might be qualified for the other calls but flawed internally, compensated externally, would be handled by way of a 1NT call (like the actual hand).

Yup, totally uncontroversial.

It does always amuse me how calling someone out gets them to change what they say for the better without realizing it. I think "generally balanced within the appropriate range" is a big improvement on "a world of general junk hands".

[mikeh]

I didn't find much of interest in this hand, even allowing for Ken's typically idiosyncratic ramblings

I don't hate an immediate 1N, but I would have passed...

As it is, having passed, I think bidding is idiotic. The whole world knows I have only a doubleton spade if I bid 2♠ now... and while getting doubled may be low-risk, it will guarantee a zero... and don't tell me it can't happen... catch rho with a maximum pass and some spade length.

As it is, I like my defensive chances against 1N: if partner has good spades, I will get in early enough to push my second one through declarer, I may be able to control declarer's entry to dummy, and my diamond cards argue that declarer may not be able to score many tricks there.

Finally, it is not a sin at mps to go -90 instead of -100.

I know that a lot of players think that we have to be in every auction. I don't. Of course, I am so far over the hill that maybe this is the conservatism of advanced age kicking in. I don't score as many tops as I used to, but I score significantly fewer zeros as well

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

It does always amuse me how calling someone out gets them to change what they say for the better without realizing it. I think "generally balanced within the appropriate range" is a big improvement on "a world of general junk hands".

That's so true.

Similar to how many people ignore the 90% of their shot-down argument when there is nothing to say about that 90%. What? Nothing to say about the "ish" and the "probably" errors in your analysis? LOL

As to the "general junk" becoming "generally balanced within the appropriate range," I'm not sure I get your point. You are correct that a choice of wording that someone does not understand and misinterprets might later in response be clarified to more precise wording. For me, "general junk" had and has a meaning. "Junk" means "stuff" means "a reason to bid with nothing suit-oriented to show" means "roughly balanced with maybe 8-10 HCP." "General" further clarifies that. "A world" of this general junk would not be expected to mean stuff like xxxxxx in clubs and 0436 pattern, however.

Thus, is it very true that clarifying terminology might sound better, if you do not understand the meaning of the original phrase.

I could even be more precise, providing examples of hands appropriate for 1NT but not for any of the other calls or for a simple pass. That would be an even more precise "definition" and hence subject to scorn as implicit backtracking, of course, using your theory.

[jdonn]

Ok now I understand. When I don't feel like carrying on every argument about every little point into a novella in every post then I must have realized how wrong I was about all of them. But when you use a completely vague phrase that probably doesn't mean even close to what you wanted it to mean then I was also wrong for failing to understand what was in your brain.

That's some fine lawyer work!

By the way, I am taking notes on all this vocabulary!

A bid "probably" means something: The bid means that something unless it means something else.
Junk: Roughly balanced.
General: A word that clarifies (generally balanced is more clear than balanced?)
A world of: Including only the hands I think the bid includes and no others.

[kenrexford]

Very good, my student. You are now learning English!