[655321]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

I think you are completely out of your mind with this analysis.

1. Responder cannot have xxx-KQJxxx-x-xxx.  That's a 2♥ opening.  Because he cannot have a 2♥ opening he must have five hearts only.  With only five hearts, even with a stiff, he needs more opposite a third-seat opening.  Therefore, he has Hxxxx in hearts with an outside stiff and an outside card or two.  If the stiff is in diamonds, he must have an outside Queen.  With an outside Queen(s), Qxxxx in hearts is not enough, so he needs the heart King.  Thus, slam is a good slam if the stiff is diamonds.

Picking only your first point:

You have made a chain of assumptions, and deduced that your conclusion applied with 100% certainty. None of your separate assumptions apply with 100% certainty, so your conclusion is faulty. Here is my (top of the head) guess at the probabilities. Of course, you may reasonably differ on my percentages, they are just guesses.

• Responder cannot have xxx-KQJxxx-x-xxx. That's a 2♥ opening.
  • 95% People bid differently. Perhaps OP wasn't playing weak 2s. Anyway, Mikeh just picked this as an example to show that slam needs a perfecto.
  
  
• Because he cannot have a 2♥ opening he must have five hearts only.
  • 70% Jack to 6 and a four count, for example.
  
  
• With only five hearts, even with a stiff, he needs more opposite a third-seat opening.
  • 50% In fact it was a 4th seat opening, but I don't understand the logic of needing more HCP to preempt opposite a 3rd seat opening anyway.
  
  
• Therefore, he has Hxxxx in hearts with an outside stiff and an outside card or two.
  • 80% I agree this is likely
  
  
• If the stiff is in diamonds, he must have an outside Queen.
  • 80% I agree this is likely
  
  
• With an outside Queen(s), Qxxxx in hearts is not enough, so he needs the heart King.
  • 80% I agree this is likely

Leading to your conclusion:

• Thus, slam is a good slam if the stiff is diamonds.
  • 17%

Now, I am not seriously claiming that if South has a singleton diamond then slam is 17%, but trying to show that you cannot follow a long chain of reasoning where each link is uncertain, and have faith in the end of the chain.

[kenrexford]

655321, on Jun 12 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

[Interesting analysis missing something.]

I can make the percentages skyrocket here.

Percentage of time that partner bids 5♦ rather than 5♥ (declining to show the stiff, sort of) but is not appropriate for the call = 0%

If Responder has a stiff spade, he can show it by bidding 4NT and then decline any further noise from partner if ugly.

If Responder has a stiff club, he can bid 5♣ and reject a 5♦ call from Opener if ugly.

If Responder has a stiff diamond and a piece of s#!+, he bid 5♥ over 4♠ and says thereby, "ain't got 'er."

So, if he has any of these junk hands, he won't bid 5♦. That's why I agree with North's ultimate decision. I think 4♠ was a bit aggressive, but he thought for good reason that he got lucky.

[gwnn]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

[mikeh]

Ken:

It is certainly playable to require that responder cue shortness in response to opener's cue. But 'playable' does not equate with 'standard'.

Further more, there will often be hands on which opener wants to hear about high card controls.

Thus with AKx AQxxx xxx AK, opener wants a short diamond. Note that even this won't assure slam on a bad day, but we'd probably want to be there opposite a stiff diamond since partner may have a stray black Queen. Make the spades AKJ, and the case is even more powerful. However, this hand lacks 5 level safety. Make it AK AQxxxx Axxx x and we want a stiff, but, again, we lack 5-level safety. You can, I am sure, come up with a hand on which the right stiff leads to a good slam, while having 5-level safety if responder disappoints.

But, and this is a huge 'but', with Ax AKxxxx AQJx x, I really, really want to hear about the diamond King, because I need to pitch dummy's spades on my diamonds.. yes, if he has a stiff, I may be able to ruff out the King, but now he may have too many spades to pitch. And we can construct many other hands on which it is critical to know if partner is bidding strength or shortness and ABSENT and agreement, it is simply wrong to suggest, as you have, that the cue MUST be shortness. Indeed, imo, we will FAR more often have 5-level safety on hands on which we are looking for a high card control than a shortness control, and this factor, alone, makes asking for a high card cue far more appropriate.

It is common, in standard methods, to have a side high card control. Heck, it may include an Ace: especially with weak trump: xxx Qxxxx Axxx x looks like a 4♥ call to me.

Justin could and probably should have been less vehement in his criticisms of you, but others, including myself, have criticized you in the past for posting you more esoteric thoughts in the B/I forum, for example. You have a habit of writing lengthy posts (believe me, I am not saying THAT is wrong, given my propensities) but you rarely seem to acknowledge that your ideas are often (way) out of the mainstream. And you have posted here as if you ideas are standard, in a forum in which advancing players are entitled to have the posts explicate standard methods... if you want to add some alternate ideas, at least explain that they are your own pet theories.

I also understand that many fine players, people of real talent and insight into the game, simply don't have the time (or, in some cases, the financial ability) to play in high level events.... but that deprives the player of an opportunity to test his pet ideas against experts... and ideas that are both unorthodox and advanced by a player lacking in any high level success are bound to meet with a lot of resistance.

Your ideas are far more likely to be met with the respect you seek if anyone playing them (it needn't be you) was a high profile winner. Bridge theory is not simply an academic exercise... tournament play is a harsh, darwinian environment. Expert standard has evolved because it and its close cousins WIN. You want to supplant expert standard with your ideas...some of which even I see as having merit... you need to have someone WIN with them... and not a side game or a sectional.

[kenrexford]

gwnn, on Jun 12 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 12 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void Axxxxx xx AKQxx

I'd like to be in slam opposite diamond shortness.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 12 2008, 11:33 PM, said:

Your ideas are far more likely to be met with the respect you seek if anyone playing them (it needn't be you) was a high profile winner. Bridge theory is not simply an academic exercise... tournament play is a harsh, darwinian environment. Expert standard has evolved because it and its close cousins WIN. You want to supplant expert standard with your ideas...some of which even I see as having merit... you need to have someone WIN with them... and not a side game or a sectional.

Some of my ideas are unique.

Some, however, are ones that I have learned from a partner and friend of mine who plays professionally, who was a roommate of Jeff Meckstroth for years, and who regularly communicates with Jeff and Eric and many other similar players about bidding issues.

A very similar sequence was recently a topic of discussion with that player.

Your assumption seems to be that I sit around in my home office thinking up wild hypotheticals and then propounding them as standard. Rather, I regularly discuss bridge theory and practice it in play with people who know way more about "expert standard" than I could possibly know.

As an example. I recently faced a unique sequence.

P-P-1♣-1♠
2♥-P-P-2♠
P-3♣???

This is obviously a strange call. At the table, I asusmed a strange beast, a 2-card fit bid. Something like Kx in spades with values and clubs secondary (an early 3♣ would have clearly been a true-fit-bid with three-card support and clubs, per well-established partnership understanding). Partner held 6-6 in the minors.

We had a bit of a debate about this. My partner's first inquiry was to a fairly well known pro player who felt that anything after 2♠ was a game try supporting spades. My partner thought that was idiotic and went to Jeff to ask him. Jeff said the other guy was an idiot and that 3♣ was either natural or both minors. The debate was whether 2NT should show some weird pass or both minors.

I was convinced, as often I am, by Jeff's assessment, but it took a while. I was stubborn for about two months. But, I know that my partner would get Eric to agree, and then this guy, that guy, the other guy. I'd be dead. Plus, I thought it through on my own and realized why they were right.

That's a little obscure a situation, but it was not me sitting in my room thinking through hypos. In a real game, a real situation occurred, my partner was way advanced beyond me and knew what was right, and he backed it up by asking his old roomie.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 12 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 12 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void AKxxxx xx AKQxx

Was it really that hard?

So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid.

The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids.

Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works.

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 12 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 12 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void AKxxxx xx AKQxx

Was it really that hard?

So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid.

The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids.

Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works.

I actually changed the hand to one much weaker to prove the point.

I don't want ♦Kx, I want shortness.

I think I'm misunderstanding something. What is the structure that you propose is totally normal?

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 12 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 12 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 12 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.

void AKxxxx xx AKQxx

Was it really that hard?

So, with that hand Opener bids 5♦ as a control-asking bid.

The general default as I understand it is that the relay is a shortness asking bid and the higher bids are control asking bids.

Or, if that's not your style, 5♣ natural works.

I actually changed the hand to one much weaker to prove the point.

I don't want ♦Kx, I want shortness.

Maybe I am reading this argument out of context. Feel free to let me know if I am.

I'm really confused.

If you don't want Kx, but you do want shortness, then you make the shortness ask. So, are you agreeing with the merits of the shortness ask? Whether it is what should be expected or not is a different question.

[pclayton]

WTF is with some of these examples of overcalls?

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

quote pyramid

I think you were arguing that responder should not show shortness unless he has good outside values too. I think this is ridiculous, he has no idea what outside values are useful to opener. I agree that if he bid 4♥ on xxxx xxxxx x xxx, then yes, he shouldn't bid 5♦, because odds are opener will play him for more than this. But not showing shortness on xxxx Kxxxx x xxx is ridiculous.

We are not debating the merits of a 4♠ shortness ask. To me, this is a fine agreement. I am just saying the ideas in your original posts were ridiculous because

1) You think ascribing far-fetched meanings to partner's bids is okay.
2) You argued that responder should only show shortness if his hand is "good." This is silly.

[rbforster]

Sure 4♠ was bad. I'm going to go one step earlier and fault 4♥ by South.

South's hand looks like a fairly typical 1♥-4♥ bid. What is less clear to me is that when both the opponents passed already, how important is it to jump to 4♥ opposite partner's 4th seat opener? After all, when everyone else passes, partner rates to have a stronger than average hand which means you'll just be preempting him with 4♥. Couldn't partner open a 4 card suit in 4th too, maybe Kxx AQJx xxxx Ax, opposite which you don't really want to jump to game.

A direct 4♥ seems like aiming for the very narrow target that the opponents have a profitable 4♠ sac or game and will find it after both passing initially and East then failing to overcall partner's 1♥ opening as well.

The only question in my mind is what should you do instead of bidding 4♥? I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have South bid Drury on this hand (as well as 10-12 counts with support) without misleading partner about his strength in the subsequent auction. Maybe P-1♥-3♥ would be more appropriate? I've just got to think you want a better alternative than just blasting 4♥ opposite a 4th seat opener. Perhaps Ken will enlighten me as to the obvious bid which shows this type of hand .

[rogerclee]

Rob F, on Jun 13 2008, 12:37 AM, said:

The only question in my mind is what should you do instead of bidding 4♥? I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have South bid Drury on this hand (as well as 10-12 counts with support) without misleading partner about his strength in the subsequent auction.

I agree. This is why you bid 4♥ with this hand.

[gnasher]

After:

  1♥-4♥
  4♠ (shortage ask)

As the discussion between Ken and Roger has shown, when responder has short diamonds there isn't room for him to both show the shortage and limit his hand. The obvious solution is this:
  4NT = short spades or no shortage
  5♣ = short clubs
  5♦ = short diamonds, minimum
  5♥ = short diamonds, maximum

Over 4NT, 5C says "Bid slam with any spade shortage", and 5D says "Bid slam with spade shortage and a maximum".

This is plainly more efficient than natural responses to the shortage enquiry. It's also an extrapolation from what some people play after a weak 2♥ and a 2♠ shortage ask.

Only a non-expert would fail to appreciate the advantages of this method. Therefore it's standard amongst experts.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 13 2008, 12:03 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

quote pyramid

I think you were arguing that responder should not show shortness unless he has good outside values too. I think this is ridiculous, he has no idea what outside values are useful to opener. I agree that if he bid 4♥ on xxxx xxxxx x xxx, then yes, he shouldn't bid 5♦, because odds are opener will play him for more than this. But not showing shortness on xxxx Kxxxx x xxx is ridiculous.

We are not debating the merits of a 4♠ shortness ask. To me, this is a fine agreement. I am just saying the ideas in your original posts were ridiculous because

1) You think ascribing far-fetched meanings to partner's bids is okay.
2) You argued that responder should only show shortness if his hand is "good." This is silly.

If you read through this carefully, you will see that this is not what happens.

With extras and a spade stiff, 4NT and then accept further noise.
With minimum and a spade stiff, bid 4NT and decline noise.

With extras and a club stiff, 5♣ and then accept 5♦ LTTC.
With minimum and a club stiff, 5♣ and then decline 5♦ LTTC.

With extras and a diamond stiff, 5♦.
With minimum and a diamond stiff, 5♥.

I like gnasher's idea of bidding 4NT with the rare no shortage, but I don't think there is a no shortage situation. Maybe as an unpassed hand with 6322.

Personally, in response to Rob F's question (what to do third/fourth seat with this hand type), I agree with most partners on 3NT as the call for this situation. 4♣ then shortness ask. E.g., P-P-P-1♥-P-3NT-P-4♣-P-4♥ (stiff spade; minors naturally)-P-...

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 04:03 AM, said:

With extras and a diamond stiff, 5♦.
With minimum and a diamond stiff, 5♥.

Okay, so I read it exactly correctly?

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 13 2008, 06:07 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 04:03 AM, said:

With extras and a diamond stiff, 5♦.
With minimum and a diamond stiff, 5♥.

Okay, so I read it exactly correctly?

I suppose. Process of elimination.

[han]

gnasher, on Jun 13 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Only a non-expert would fail to appreciate the advantages of this method. Therefore it's standard amongst experts.

Nice one!

[Codo]

gnasher, on Jun 13 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

After:

  1♥-4♥
  4♠ (shortage ask)

As the discussion between Ken and Roger has shown, when responder has short diamonds there isn't room for him to both show the shortage and limit his hand. The obvious solution is this:
  4NT = short spades or no shortage
  5♣ = short clubs
  5♦ = short diamonds, minimum
  5♥ = short diamonds, maximum

Over 4NT, 5C says "Bid slam with any spade shortage", and 5D says "Bid slam with spade shortage and a maximum".

This is plainly more efficient than natural responses to the shortage enquiry. It's also an extrapolation from what some people play after a weak 2♥ and a 2♠ shortage ask.

Only a non-expert would fail to appreciate the advantages of this method. Therefore it's standard amongst experts.

So I still have to meet an expert.
Up to now they had been all too weak to know this mandatory approach.

They are so stupid to play this as control showing, ace asking or some other weird and non-expert stuff.

Good luck that at least you know them.