[Poky]

By standard, what would you think 2♥ in the sequence:
1♣ 1♦
1♠ 2♣
2♥
does mean?

* 2♣ is natural 6-9, no xyz

[mike777]

I think it shows h values and extras.

Something like:

Axxx...Axx...x...AKQxx

with 4=2=2=5 and 17 I would just rebid 2nt over 1d.( for me promises exactly 17)

[gnasher]

Fourth Suit Forcing, typically a 4225 17-count without a heart stop. With heart values you would bid 2NT; with three diamonds you would bid 2♦; with six clubs you would bid 3♣. 2♥ is what's left.

[mtvesuvius]

Patterning out - 4315 with extras, maybe 4225 if really stuck

[MrAce]

% 100 patterning as Adam said. With or without ♥ stopper for me.

[kenrexford]

Bid where you live. If you need a heart stopper, bid 2♦, 2♠, or 3♣, depending on what you have.

[ashdown4]

A while back partner and I messed up this auction. I then asked Bjorn Fallenius what this sequence should mean.

He said it should show about 17 hcp unsuitable for 2NT, likely due to the lack of heart stopper.

Regards,
Alex

[kenrexford]

ashdown4, on 2011-February-24, 23:09, said:

A while back partner and I messed up this auction. I then asked Bjorn Fallenius what this sequence should mean.

He said it should show about 17 hcp unsuitable for 2NT, likely due to the lack of heart stopper.

Regards,
Alex

This seems weird to me.

Bidding 2♦ implies a heart hole as a result of basic logic.
Bidding 3♣ implies a heart hole as a result of inferential logic.

So, why have a THIRD way to "show" a problem in hearts, but no way to show a fragment in hearts and thereby unwind the hand?

[gwnn]

welcome back Ken!!

[JLOGIC]

I don't think 3C here would imply a heart hole, there are hands with a heart stopper where I want to make sure to play clubs instead of 2N, for instance all 4216 hands. I think partner being sure about the 6th club helps him evaluate too, he knows we need less HCP to make our bid, and that 5C is in the game etc, not to mention we never play 2N instead of 3C.

Likewise I don't think 2D shows a heart hole, it shows heart shortness. Again I think partner always knowing that we are 4135 when we bid 2D is a huge help to him.

That leaves 2H as our default bid with 4315 and 4225 no heart stopper.

[OleBerg]

If you play 1♠ as forcing for a round, you may still be quite strong. So you need a bid that is forcing (for a round), for hands where you are still not certain about the final denomination.

You also need a bid for the hands Jlogic described. So I'd expect one of those two, if partner bid it. And in either case, I simply describe my hand.

Patterning out? Thats taking a good thing way to far.

[kenrexford]

JLOGIC, on 2011-February-25, 16:17, said:

I don't think 3C here would imply a heart hole, there are hands with a heart stopper where I want to make sure to play clubs instead of 2N, for instance all 4216 hands. I think partner being sure about the 6th club helps him evaluate too, he knows we need less HCP to make our bid, and that 5C is in the game etc, not to mention we never play 2N instead of 3C.

Likewise I don't think 2D shows a heart hole, it shows heart shortness. Again I think partner always knowing that we are 4135 when we bid 2D is a huge help to him.

That leaves 2H as our default bid with 4315 and 4225 no heart stopper.

The second part makes sense (and is not inconsistent with what I said earlier), but the first part seems odd to me. If I have 4-2-1-6, I can pattern out by bidding 2♥. Now, I have not committed to playing 2NT, because I can correct 2NT to 3♣. If my doubleton heart is not a stopper, then I don't bid 2♥ to pattern out, and thus 3♣ implies a heart hole.

I just don't understand why so many talented players are using artificiality to accomplish that which natural bidding accomplishes perfectly fine, at the cost of losing the ability to handle the hand where you want to focus the diamond shortness. Just weird, IMO.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2011-February-25, 19:17, said:

I just don't understand why so many talented players are using artificiality to accomplish that which natural bidding accomplishes perfectly fine, at the cost of losing the ability to handle the hand where you want to focus the diamond shortness.

Perhaps I can aid your understanding.

Consider these hands:

1. AQJx x Kxx AQJxx
2. AQxx x Qx AQJxxx
3. AKJx Kx xx AQJxx
4. AKJx Kxx x AQJxx
5. AKJx xx Kx AQJxx
6. AKJx xxx K AQJxx

I assume that on 1, 2 and 3 we each make the natural, descriptive bids of 2♦, 3♣ and 2NT respectively.

I treat 4 as being like 3. That allows me to make an artificial but descriptive bid on 5 and 6. The downside is that my 2NT bid is less well-defined than yours.

You distinguish between 3 and 4, but that leaves you having to find a bid on 5 and 6. I assume that with these hands you rebid a 5-card suit, show secondary support with a doubleton, bid notrumps without a heart stop, or show a three-card heart fragment when you have three small.

Suppose that you decide to bid 2♦ with 5 and 3♣ with 6. The consequence of this is that your 2♦ and 3♣ bids are less well defined than mine. I would say that treating a 4225 18-count the same way as a 4126 15-count (if that's what you do) makes your methods some way from being "perfectly fine".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-February-26, 03:22

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2011-February-26, 03:17, said:

Perhaps I can aid your understanding.

Consider these hands:

1. AQJx x Kxx AQJxx
2. AQxx x Qx AQJxxx
3. AKJx Kx xx AQJxx
4. AKJx Kxx x AQJxx
5. AKJx xx Kx AQJxx
6. AKJx xxx K AQJxx

I assume that on 1, 2 and 3 we each make the natural, descriptive bids of 2♦, 3♣ and 2NT respectively.

I treat 4 as being like 3. That allows me to make an artificial but descriptive bid on 5 and 6. The downside is that my 2NT bid is less well-defined than yours.

You distinguish between 3 and 4, but that leaves you having to find a bid on 5 and 6. I assume that with these hands you rebid a 5-card suit, show secondary support with a doubleton, bid notrumps without a heart stop, or show a three-card heart fragment when you have three small.

Suppose that you decide to bid 2♦ with 5 and 3♣ with 6. The consequence of this is that your 2♦ and 3♣ bids are less well defined than mine. I would say that treating a 4225 18-count the same way as a 4126 15-count (if that's what you do) makes your methods some way from being "perfectly fine".

Here's the problem, though. Your analysis seems to me to be assuming that the auction ends after Opener's third call. "Ends" ion the sense that Opener cannot make another call to further clarify his holdings.

If we have an auction that starts as described, and if I as Opener make a call after this 2♣ bid from Opener, I hope we can agree that the auction is propelled to at least 2NT or 3♣, right? If I, then, as Opener make a fourth call, that should unwind things, eh?

so, let's suppose, first, that Opener rebids 2♦ to show a diamond card. This allows Responder to bid 2♥ to allow a further unwind. If I had the hand with 4-2-2-5, K-x in diamonds, I could now bid 2NT. If I have 4-1-3-5, I can rebid 2♠ (unbalanced). If I have the 4-1-2-6 hand, I repeat clubs.

How about the hand with a heart card of note? Well, first of all, I would only bid 2NT with a strong holding in hearts, not one stop and 4225. With any hand that has a desire to play in clubs, shape, or a hesitant heart card, I can bid 2♥. Partner can now bid 2♠ to unwind, and I would be able to bid 2NT or 3♣ to again further clarify the position (generally balanced or generally shapely).

Of course, partner can also bid 2NT after either call, or 2♠ after 2♦. The point, though, is that I need not have the cheapest calls handle a very specific holding. The more that 2♦ and 2♥ calls cover, the more precise 3♣ becomes and 2NT for that matter).

I mean, I suppose there is a degree to which a lot of this is nuanced but similar, as my 2♥ call could be inducing 2NT also. My point, though, is that I am simply showing stuff in hearts, whether unbalanced pattern completion or semi-balanced cards-location completion. Because there is room, I can handle both the "do you have help in hearts" purpose and the "I have unbalanced with short diamonds" purpose. So, why set an artificial restriction when none is needed? Why do this when the artificial restriction is counter-intuitive and leads to interpretation of the call as an asking bid rather than a more natural showing bid? It seems dumb to artificialize the sequence and LOSE definition when a more complete analysis of the natural nuances convinces me that the natural meaning ADDS definition, in a COMPLETE auction.

[kenrexford]

Here's another way of explaining what I mean. If 2♥ shows, it facilitates Opener completing his picture. If 2♥ asks, it facilitates Responder completing his picture. Of the two, however, which partner has the head start? It seems like Opener has the head start. If that's true, then it seems that Opener should make "bid where I live" calls to complete the maximum amount of picture possible.

2♥ as "natural" seems, therefore, more efficient and more partnership-oriented.
2♥ as asking seems less efficient and more Opener-control-the-auction oriented.

[cherdano]

I play 2♦ as a puppet to 2♥, and 2♥ as a puppet to 2♠.
After 2♦->2♥:
- 2♠ shows 4225 without a heart stopper
- 2NT shows 4135 (very unlikely that we want to play 3NT with this shape after responder preferred 2♣ to 1NT opposite 4324)
- 3♣ shows 4126
And after 2♥->2♠:
2NT shows 4315 with a heart stopper
3♣ shows 4315 without a heart stopper

A direct 3♣ shows 4216.

Doesn't everyone play this? Since we always have a safe place in 3♣, responder should just make the cheapest call to let opener finish describing his hand, and the rest is pure bridge logic.

[gnasher]

Sorry Ken, but I'm having trouble keeping up. Of the hands that have "a strong holding in hearts" which would bid 2♥, and which would bid 2NT?

[gnasher]

And while we're at it, is the Ken Rexford who yestereday disapproved of "using artificiality" the same Ken Rexford as the one who apparently plays

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
2♦-2♥

and

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
2♥-2♠

as artificial and asking for clarification?

[kenrexford]

Let's try this again. Perhaps excrutiating detail will explain how this is not deferred artificiality but rather BOTH SIDES bidding naturally.

The start:

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣

So far, we know that Opener ostensibly have 4♠/5+♣ (but perhaps you are in my minority where 3♠/5♣ is possible). Responder has diamonds with club support. We have at most 6 combined hearts. Opener seems somewhat more defined to date.

If Opener next bids 2♦, he has a diamond card. Maybe he has 4-2-2-5 with H-x in diamonds but no heart card. Maybe he has 4-1-3-5 (less likely, as the opponents might have bid hearts at some point). Maybe he has 4-1-2-6 (again, why no heart calls?). But, THAT auction is, to date:

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
2♦

Responder might want to continue the exploration that Opener has started.

If Responder has a heart card, he might bid that naturally, as well (2♥), in which case Opener will make calls that cater to that new information. Maybe Opener was 4225 and thinking notrump, in which case the heart call helped the cause. In that event, 2NT stands out. Maybe Opener was 4135 and continuing the club exploration, in which case the heart call is bad news -- Opener gets out low (2♠) in case Responder has three spades and wants to play 2♠, or perhaps bid 2NT (the heart card was actually heart cards), or 3♣. Maybe Opener was 4-1-2-6 and wants to end the sequence in clubs based on this presumably bad information, bidding 3♣. So far, all calls are either natural suits, natural cards (honor-stoppers), or natural pattern development, including Responder's 2♥.

If Responder has no heart card, he might bid 2♠ to show a spade card (again, natural). If this was bad information for notrump purposes (Opener needed a heart card), then that mystery is solved. All calls by Opener seem fairly normal, except that 2NT should be a "game last train" call. Notrump is not in focus now.

If Responder has neither a heart card nor a spade card, he might just go back to 3♣, but he might make a higher call with a maximum.

Responder might also conceivably have the right hand for a 2NT call. All of this, from both sides, is natural.

Back to Opener. Suppose, instead, that he starts the third round with a 2♥ "card or pattern" bid. The auction up to this point is:

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
2♥

If Responder bids 2♠, this ostensibly shows a spade card (natural), but it surely denies a heart card (with which 2NT stands out). After 2♠ from Responder, notrump is again out of focus (because Opener cannot have hearts wrapped up), such that Opener has two calls (2NT and 3♣) available to further his description of intent, 2NT tending less shapely as that seems consistent with general trends. Opener also, of course, might view this information as great news and bid above 3♣.

If Responder bids 2NT, he presumably has a helping heart card, which will help the Opener interested in that card.

So far, all of this is logical and "natural."

The interpretation of the cheapest call as an artificial asking bid as an objection to what I am saying derives from the continuing obsession, I think, with artificiality.

I will acknowledge, however, that the same principles apply for Responder -- cheapest is suspect. Thus, you may notice that I indicate a few "might's" and "ostensibly's." Responder might make the "relay" call, "ostensibly" showing a card there, with a difficult hand that a higher, more defined call does injustice to, as the cheaper call allows Opener more space to unwind himself. For instance, consider this auction:

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
2♦-2♥
2NT-3♣???

Opener has shown what appears to be a hand interested in 3NT. Had Opener held good hearg cards, he would have bid 2NT directly over 2♣. Responder ostensibly showed a heart card with the 2♥ call. But, when Responder corrects to 3♣, it seems to me that Responder's 2♥ was likely convenient rather than descriptive. Responder probably wanted to know if Opener had a true stiff in hearts and thus likely has three small hearts. Responder likely would have taken a different and more aggressive call had Opener's next call been 2♠ or 2♣ instead.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on 2011-February-26, 08:29, said:

Here's the problem, though. Your analysis seems to me to be assuming that the auction ends after Opener's third call. "Ends" ion the sense that Opener cannot make another call to further clarify his holdings.

If we have an auction that starts as described, and if I as Opener make a call after this 2♣ bid from Opener, I hope we can agree that the auction is propelled to at least 2NT or 3♣, right? If I, then, as Opener make a fourth call, that should unwind things, eh?

so, let's suppose, first, that Opener rebids 2♦ to show a diamond card. This allows Responder to bid 2♥ to allow a further unwind. If I had the hand with 4-2-2-5, K-x in diamonds, I could now bid 2NT. If I have 4-1-3-5, I can rebid 2♠ (unbalanced). If I have the 4-1-2-6 hand, I repeat clubs.

How about the hand with a heart card of note? Well, first of all, I would only bid 2NT with a strong holding in hearts, not one stop and 4225. With any hand that has a desire to play in clubs, shape, or a hesitant heart card, I can bid 2♥. Partner can now bid 2♠ to unwind, and I would be able to bid 2NT or 3♣ to again further clarify the position (generally balanced or generally shapely).

Of course, partner can also bid 2NT after either call, or 2♠ after 2♦. The point, though, is that I need not have the cheapest calls handle a very specific holding. The more that 2♦ and 2♥ calls cover, the more precise 3♣ becomes and 2NT for that matter).

I mean, I suppose there is a degree to which a lot of this is nuanced but similar, as my 2♥ call could be inducing 2NT also. My point, though, is that I am simply showing stuff in hearts, whether unbalanced pattern completion or semi-balanced cards-location completion. Because there is room, I can handle both the "do you have help in hearts" purpose and the "I have unbalanced with short diamonds" purpose. So, why set an artificial restriction when none is needed? Why do this when the artificial restriction is counter-intuitive and leads to interpretation of the call as an asking bid rather than a more natural showing bid? It seems dumb to artificialize the sequence and LOSE definition when a more complete analysis of the natural nuances convinces me that the natural meaning ADDS definition, in a COMPLETE auction.

I think examples 3-6 are too strong to bid a 1s nf bid. Many still play 1s as nf.

In fact to handle some of the issues with these example hands I open them with a Mexican 2d bid. At some point one level bids become too wide.