[straube]

OleBerg, on May 23 2010, 05:45 AM, said:

No standard as such. A good general agreement on "choice of games vs good raise" principles will be handy in any partnership.

In my partnership 4♦ is automatic.

I think this is the best answer. Probably most people play that the cue agrees hearts and is slamming, but Mansfield recommended in Bridgeworld that the cue be COG. Your action on this hand is clear cut depending on which treatment you and partner have agreed.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on May 24 2010, 07:52 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 23 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

What is this thread lol, 4♣ agrees hearts and thus 4♦ shows extras.

That might be how it is, but I don't think it's how it should be. Over 3♥, we have two bids (4♣ and 4♦) to cover these hand-types:

- A slam try in hearts
- A game-going 4342 without a club stop
- A flexible hand without five spades or primary hearts (4351, 3361, etc)
- A less flexible one-suiter in diamonds

I would have thought that the slam try in hearts would be the least likely of any of them. so reserving half of our available bids for this type seems excessive.

Except a 4342 no club stop hand can bid 4H and be in the right contract very much of the time of the time (how often will we want to play 5D? would you bid 3H or 3S with 4-4?), and a less flexible one suiter in diamonds A might not have doubled, and B might be able to bid 5D now, or C might survive 4D (depends on how much less flexible).

I just don't see very much gain in having 4C available for some of these hands.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on May 24 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

Except a 4342 no club stop hand can bid 4H and be in the right contract very much of the time of the time (how often will we want to play 5D? would you bid 3H or 3S with 4-4?), and a less flexible one suiter in diamonds A might not have doubled, and B might be able to bid 5D now, or C might survive 4D (depends on how much less flexible).

As advancer, I'd bid 3♠ with 4-4 in the majors (though the arguments for bidding hearts are stronger than when responding to a double at the one level).

I would, however, like to be playing the same methods after 3♣ dbl pass 3♥ as after 3♣ dbl pass 3♠. In the latter sequence, we will need a way to find a fit with 3442 opposite 4423; that way is presumably for the doubler to bid 4♣.

Quote

I just don't see very much gain in having 4C available for some of these hands.

There isn't much gain in having 4♣ available for any of these hands - they're all such low frequency that it won't matter much. How often have you had a slam try with primary hearts in this sequence?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on May 24 2010, 07:52 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 23 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

What is this thread lol, 4♣ agrees hearts and thus 4♦ shows extras.

That might be how it is, but I don't think it's how it should be.

You may or may not be right (I think not) but I wish you wouldn't change the subject from the issue of what "is" in this particular case since so many seem to be unaware of it, astonishingly enough.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on May 24 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

There isn't much gain in having 4♣ available for any of these hands - they're all such low frequency that it won't matter much.  How often have you had a slam try with primary hearts in this sequence?

I won't claim to know how often I have had a slam try, but I'm sure I've made this bid more than once (as a slam try, I wouldn't have considered it possibly having another meaning).

I do think that we can have a slam more often than you're suggesting though, 3H is a wide range of like 0-8 (sometimes 9), and doubler is unlimited, and the opps haven't shown any values. I also think on those hands opener cannot just drive to the 5 level that often because responder has such a wide range and can be very weak, so a slam try is quite useful (esp here since 4D last train is available so we can have intelligent auctions despite the wide ranges involved).

I concede your point about 4-4 majors and symmetry though, I would take 3S-4C as a slam try in spades also, and in that situation a choice of games can be much more useful.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on May 25 2010, 03:42 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 24 2010, 07:52 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 23 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

What is this thread lol, 4♣ agrees hearts and thus 4♦ shows extras.

That might be how it is, but I don't think it's how it should be.

You may or may not be right (I think not) but I wish you wouldn't change the subject from the issue of what "is" in this particular case since so many seem to be unaware of it, astonishingly enough.

If you ask Nietzche, nothing "is".

(Philosofers are figthing the never-ending battle, of whether he was right, or not.)

[MFA]

I have always played such high-level cuebids as a slam try in partner's suit and the bid certainly does come up now and then. I don't want to switch to playing it as a choice-of-games. In most sequences the slam try meaning would be clearly superior in my opinion and trying to single out the good choice-of-games sequences would be very hard.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on May 25 2010, 02:42 AM, said:

You may or may not be right (I think not) but I wish you wouldn't change the subject from the issue of what "is" in this particular case since so many seem to be unaware of it, astonishingly enough.

So there is a standard meaning, but lots of people believe that there isn't? How many of these people do there have to be before there ceases to be a standard meaning?

[gnasher]

Jlall, on May 25 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

I won't claim to know how often I have had a slam try, but I'm sure I've made this bid more than once (as a slam try, I wouldn't have considered it possibly having another meaning).

MFA said:

I have always played such high-level cuebids as a slam try in partner's suit and the bid certainly does come up now and then

Sorry, I asked the wrong question. How often have you bid a slam from this start?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on May 25 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 25 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

I won't claim to know how often I have had a slam try, but I'm sure I've made this bid more than once (as a slam try, I wouldn't have considered it possibly having another meaning).

MFA said:

I have always played such high-level cuebids as a slam try in partner's suit and the bid certainly does come up now and then

Sorry, I asked the wrong question. How often have you bid a slam from this start?

That's the wrong question too, maybe they avoided having to guess and bidding a bad slam.

[kfay]

So what does this auction mean then?

(P)-1♥-(3♦)-3♠
(P)-4♦

[Jlall]

kfay, on May 27 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

So what does this auction mean then?

(P)-1♥-(3♦)-3♠
(P)-4♦

It's a slam try in spades lol

[gnasher]

kfay, on May 27 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

So what does this auction mean then?

(P)-1♥-(3♦)-3♠
(P)-4♦

There's a much stronger case for playing that as a spade raise: we've already announced that we have the values for game, and both hands are unlimited.

Personally I prefer to play this one as choice-of-games too, but without specific agreement I'd assume it was a raise.

[kfay]

That's the conclusion I reached based on the prior postings.

But this is a hypothetical scenario from this month's (June 2010) Bridge World.

Eric Kokish, among others, thinks that 4♦ here would show, for example, 2=6=2=3. So clearly this isn't BW standard, nor would I be inclined to believe it's universally standard at this point. There are many panelists who fail to even address the issue of 4♦ in this auction (the actual bid being 4♠), which leads me to at least suspect that some of them are unsure.

L'Ecuyer, Berkowitz, Casen et al., however, agree with Justin & co.


For me the jury is still out on this, even though I would have assumed a strong ♠ raise, personally.

[Jlall]

MSC is like the forums, you post a tough 2-6 hand and they think 4D shows that. If you gave them AQxx AJxxx x Qxx you can be sure most of the people who bid 4D on 2-6 would bid 4D with this.

Also, why would you think an Eric Kokish comment is the equivalent of BWS? The guy is the leading bidding theorist in the world who has a lot of strange/non standard views, and gets them out through outlets like...MSC.

[Jlall]

kfay, on May 27 2010, 04:35 PM, said:

There are many panelists who fail to even address the issue of 4♦ in this auction (the actual bid being 4♠), which leads me to at least suspect that some of them are unsure.

It's so blindingly obvious/normal to most people that they would not even consider addressing it.

Out of curiosity who other than kokish said that this should be 2-6? And again please remember, Kokish is often on an island of his own. I would be shocked if more than 2 panelists said that they think it's 2-6 unless the hand they were looking at was 2-6.

[kfay]

No great reason other than MSC is staged within the confines of BWS. Kokish directs the panelists from time to time and moderates CTC every month, so I assume he's familiar. It's my experience reading his replies that if something is or isn't addressed in BWS he will say so. I know the system notes are extremely limited and are an overwhelming favorite not to address this cuebid, but they don't address many auctions and he still sees fit to comment on those.

Not sure if your posts are meant to be yelling at me or something, I suspect not, I just read this problem this morning so I figured I'd post on it. Like I said, I would have thought that 4♦ here would be a strong spade raise also.

I realize Kokish is often on another level. I know from personal experience that he treats (2X)-2Y-(P)-2NT as natural and forcing, which probably has its merits but most people don't play it that way. But it's his job to think about a lot of these things and coach the best team in the world. I don't know whether he advises his natural bidders on these aspects but certainly he must have some influence on them. Tiger Woods has a swing coach (well not at the moment), so g0ds can and do listen to other people. Anyway... I was just bringing it up for discussion, no big deal.

[Jlall]

As I said I view Kokish as the worlds leading theorist/a genius etc and he was my first bidding influence and I am still very influenced by some of the things he says/advises (for instance I think a lot of his forcing 2N ideas are sound). I view him as a bidding theory god.

I didn't mean he was crazy at all, I just meant that he advises a lot of non standard treatments. In fact he will go out of his way to point out a non standard idea that he thinks is correct in MSC because thats a great time for it.

My only point was that it seems like there was an MSC problem involving this auction, Kokish and only kokish said he thought it should be 2-6, and everyone else who commented said it's a slam try in spades, with most non commenting. I didn't know if you knew that it would be an incorrect leap from this info to view the meaning of 4D to almost everybody including experts as "the jury is still out."

If there were others who said 4D should be 2-6, then I am sceptical but I understand more why you would make the jump to the jury is still out, I'm curious who they are, and what the problem was (aka if the problem in front of them was a 2-6 hand).

Wasn't yelling at you or getting mad. And Kokish does have enormous influence and great ideas, and he is usually 20 years ahead of his time with them