[han]

skaeran, on Jun 28 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jun 28 2007, 08:26 PM, said:

Btw, there is a well known Dutch song about a guy named Piet Hein that lived much earlier than the Dane. (won a major sea batte during the war against Spain, I would guess early 17th century)

"Piet Hein, Piet Hein, Piet Hein his name is small
But his deeds are large, his deeds are large he has won the Silverfleet
He has won, has won, the silverfleet."

(possibly not as good a translation as Roland's)

The war against Spain was in 1628-29.

If only that was true...

The war with Spain was from 1568 to 1648 (it is called the 80-year war over here), with a twelve year pause from 1609-1621.

Piet Hein captured the spanish treasure fleet in 1628 (had to look this up) so you are right about that.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

[Codo]

4 ♣ was surely a joke. No sane player will bid this.
They just forgot their or the or maybe the or

[cherdano]

Codo, on Jun 29 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

4 ♣ was surely a joke. No sane player will bid this.
They just forgot their or the or maybe the or

Read again who supported it. I suspect both of them were absolutely serious.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 29 2007, 07:22 AM, said:

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

4♣ unambiguously shows a fifth heart. This could be good. This facilitates the most intelligent auctions when a heart fit exists.

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically. I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer. If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

And, no -- not kidding.

[bhall]

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jun 28 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

How about I put it bluntly then:

The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest).

There, does that help?

"The 9th will not be invited back.  "  tends to indicate something said in jest.  If he were serious, there would be no    on the end of it.

At least thats my interpretation of it.

Not only did you interpret it correctly, you also seem to have a sense of humour. Some don't; that's life, albeit a sad life as I see it.

Roland

Actually, one can read the poem as saying that remarks made "in fun" often contain a serious message, while those made "in earnest" often contain an element of dry wit, and that for someone to think otherwise is foolish.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 10:14 AM, said:

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.

For anyone else, 4♣ shows clubs. It might be worth discussion whether it shows 4+ or 5+, I would expect 5+. I have never heard of new minor forcing at the 4-level, not even "technically" (whatever that means).

Quote

I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

7♦ might be understood as a contract suggestion, but any "correction" below that is unambiguously a cue for clubs.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.  I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

And, no -- not kidding.

Okay, I think I understand (NOT!!!!!)

I hold Qxx xx AQxx KJxx.

I open 1♦ and LHO preempts my partner's 1♥ bid via 3♠....Pass Pass 4♣.

Not a problem.

Is 4♣ forcing?

If it isn't, well we've found a (bad) home.

If it is, then I have to raise... surely I don't bid 4 red suit here?

No problem... if partner has Ax AKQ10x 832 Axx, he can always safely correct to our ♦ fit.... oh... we don't really have a great ♦ fit.

Oh well, maybe opening leader, with x Jxxx KJ109x Qxx won't double

Either you have a great, dry sense of humour, or you are serious about this 4♣ call being New Minor Forcing. In the former, may I suggest the use of an emoticon, at least until we get used to reading your more outrageous posts knowing of your sense of the absurd.... or, in the latter instance, you are off flying in some form of bridge twilight zone . I doubt that any expert would ever even imagine that 4♣ was a possibility on the hand in question.

[bhall]

mikeh, on Jun 29 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.  I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

And, no -- not kidding.

Okay, I think I understand (NOT!!!!!)

I hold Qxx xx AQxx KJxx.

I open 1♦ and LHO preempts my partner's 1♥ bid via 3♠....Pass Pass 4♣.

Not a problem.

Is 4♣ forcing?

If it isn't, well we've found a (bad) home.

If it is, then I have to raise... surely I don't bid 4 red suit here?

No problem... if partner has Ax AKQ10x 832 Axx, he can always safely correct to our ♦ fit.... oh... we don't really have a great ♦ fit.

Oh well, maybe opening leader, with x Jxxx KJ109x Qxx won't double

Either you have a great, dry sense of humour, or you are serious about this 4♣ call being New Minor Forcing. In the former, may I suggest the use of an emoticon, at least until we get used to reading your more outrageous posts knowing of your sense of the absurd.... or, in the latter instance, you are off flying in some form of bridge twilight zone . I doubt that any expert would ever even imagine that 4♣ was a possibility on the hand in question.

I may not be an expert, but I seriously considered 4♣. A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing in most circles, and a new minor is always suspect. Opener is likely to give a heart preference, even holding 5♣, when he holds 3♥. I wonder if this is how the expert who held this hand got into trouble: 4♣, ending in a failing 6♦.

The double risks a pass when we have a slam, although that outcome is unlikely. My main gripe is that double has a very wide range (starting around 10 HCP), and partner will play us for the bottom end. Even so, double is most likely to get us useful shape information from partner when he bids.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 29 2007, 12:10 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 10:14 AM, said:

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically.

For anyone else, 4♣ shows clubs. It might be worth discussion whether it shows 4+ or 5+, I would expect 5+. I have never heard of new minor forcing at the 4-level, not even "technically" (whatever that means).

Quote

I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer.  If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

7♦ might be understood as a contract suggestion, but any "correction" below that is unambiguously a cue for clubs.

I'm not so sure I agree with this analysis.

First of all, where in your agreements is a level cut-off given for NMF? The two-level? If the two-level, what is 1♦-P-1♠-P-2NT-P-3♣? That one may be discussed, and something special, but what about 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♦-P-3♣? Surely that is NMF, no?

If the three-level can be a NMF call, then why not a 4♣ call when the auction is something like this? How about a simple 1♥-P-1♠-P-3♦-P-4♣?

Although a NMF call may feature that suit, it does not have to feature that suit.

The question for this auction seems to be, as suggested by your response, whether a 5♦ cuebid after a 5♣ bid is more useful as a cuebid in support of clubs, quite a bid, or whether using 4♣ as a convenience bid with 5♥/3+♦ makes more sense and has more utility.

I'm very willing to forfeit the cuebid-for-slam 5♦ after 5♣, thank you.

The fruitiest thing is that, by only allowing 7♦ as a cue, you also want to save 6♦ as a cue in support of clubs after a 6♣ call by Opener. All I have to say as to that is, "ROTFLOL."

[goobers]

Um, I believe NMF is defined to be in the following sequence...

1m - 1M
1N - *NMF*

In your other auction, I would call it a FSF...

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 29 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

I hold Qxx xx AQxx KJxx.

I open 1♦ and LHO preempts my partner's 1♥ bid via 3♠....Pass Pass 4♣.

Not a problem.

Is 4♣ forcing?

If it isn't, well we've found a (bad) home.

If it is, then I have to raise... surely I don't bid 4 red suit here?

No problem... if partner has Ax AKQ10x 832 Axx, he can always safely correct to our ♦ fit.... oh... we don't really have a great ♦ fit.

Oh well, maybe opening leader, with x Jxxx KJ109x Qxx won't double

If Opener, after a fourth-suit forcing 4♣ call, cannot bid 4♥ (a call he might logically make on Hx in hearts), then he either has the same number in each minor or he has longer diamonds (duh, I suppose, but stay with me). If Responder has 3-3 in the minors (like on this hand) or even longer diamonds, what is the problem? He converts to diamonds.

Your creation of 3244 is a tad strained, as many would open 1♣ with that hand (I would). But, even if we go with that, where is the harm here? The problem is the by-pass of 3NT, but Responder should have appropriate strength to justify that. If we play 5♦ on a 4-3 because we have no spade stopper, at least we have a chance. Had Opener been xxx-Qx in the majors (what he will more often have), we will play 4♥ this way. With the actual hand, 4NT works -- "spade stopper here" -- but again a strained auction for me as I woudl open 1♣ with your hand.

[kenrexford]

goobers, on Jun 29 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

Um, I believe NMF is defined to be in the following sequence...

1m - 1M
1N - *NMF*

In your other auction, I would call it a FSF...

"New Minor Forcing" means that a bid of a "new minor" is "forcing" and artificial.

"Fourth Suit Forcing" usually means that the bid of the "fourth suit" is forcing and artificial, but that implies that we bid three suits, not that we bid two and the opponents bid a third.

I doubt, for instance, that most people would take:

1♦-P-1♠-2♣
P-P-2♥

as a "Fourth Suit Forcing" auction. The hearts are expected to be real.

[cherdano]

bhall, on Jun 29 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

I may not be an expert, but I seriously considered 4♣. A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing in most circles, and a new minor is always suspect. Opener is likely to give a heart preference, even holding 5♣, when he holds 3♥.

A new minor bid as a free bid is never suspect, it always shows a suit.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 29 2007, 05:45 PM, said:

bhall, on Jun 29 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

I may not be an expert, but I seriously considered 4♣. A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing in most circles, and a new minor is always suspect. Opener is likely to give a heart preference, even holding 5♣, when he holds 3♥.

A new minor bid as a free bid is never suspect, it always shows a suit.

Yeah -- I saw that on the third tablet.

Or, maybe it was something about not being a suspect who freed a minor from her suit. I cannot remember.

Actually, the more I think about it, I fairly certain that I've never heard that 4♣ is definitely natural as a result of the laws of physics and of the state of the universe. I think that 4♣ could be held to such high standards, if you so elected, and that more flexibility to handle diamond-heart hands might also be a theoretically logical approach.

[Apollo81]

55 posts and no deal
*yawn*

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 29 2007, 07:22 AM, said:

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

4♣ unambiguously shows a fifth heart. This could be good. This facilitates the most intelligent auctions when a heart fit exists.

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically. I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer. If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

And, no -- not kidding.

Perhaps when you have to try to start convincing us you aren't kidding before anyone has even said they think you are kidding, it could make you realize the absurdity of your claim

[foo]

So far 2 National Champions have now come up with 4♣ as their preferred alternative in this situation with the given hand when I gave them the problem w/o relating any of this discussion.

The assumption is that Opener will
a= raise ♥'s any time they have 3+♥'s
b= bid NT with ♣'s and ♠'s stopped
c= raise ♣'s with 5
d= rebid ♦'s with 5 or 6

Both of them agreed with josh that slam is way too likely to bid cautiously and both caustically described bidding 3N as "giving up". They were equally contemptuous of X.

Well, I can admit when I'm wrong. Advocating 3N was silly and 4♣ appears to be the master bid.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2007, 12:37 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 29 2007, 07:22 AM, said:

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

4♣ unambiguously shows a fifth heart. This could be good. This facilitates the most intelligent auctions when a heart fit exists.

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically. I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer. If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

And, no -- not kidding.

Perhaps when you have to try to start convincing us you aren't kidding before anyone has even said they think you are kidding, it could make you realize the absurdity of your claim

Perhaps you missed it, but someone did claim that I must have been kidding, so not exactly.

[gwnn]

bhall, on Jun 29 2007, 07:08 PM, said:

Actually, one can read the poem as saying that remarks made "in fun" often contain a serious message, while those made "in earnest" often contain an element of dry wit, and that for someone to think otherwise is foolish.

That was my interpretation too of the text alone. The context made Roland's message clear, though.

And just because it rolls its eyes the smile on the face of the emoticon doesn't turn into "something different". It's still a smiley, only a little cheekier.