[ArtK78]

Rob F, on Jun 13 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

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 .

I am late to this thread.

My initial reaction to this problem was, yes, North was wrong to act over 4♥. The North hand is not slam-suitable opposite all but the strongest passed hands. But I don't like the 4♥ bid by South. I am surprised that no one even mentioned that the 4♥ bid was questionable until the third page of this thread.

What is the rush? Both opponents have passed. Why do you have to jump to 4♥ to show a reasonable hand with 5 hearts? Surely there are alternatives. A passed hand mini-splinter in spades would not be unreasonable. Maybe that would slow North down. Drury is not unreasonable, although it does overstate South's high-card strength and that might excite North.

I just do not see the need to use up so much bidding room just to show a fair hand with 5 card support. Game is not necessarily there, and 4♥ could turn a plus into a minus. 4♥ did, in fact, turn a plus into a minus, when North got too excited by the 4♥ bid.

[jillybean]

3 pages to read now..

*(&(*JKDHKJ D(*&*^&*^*&*(*()*()*()_)O_)

edited

[mikeh]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Ken, you just don't seem to 'get it'.

Your reference to some unidentified guy who was at some point Rodwell's roommate is typical... you write as if being Rodwell's ex-roommate, and someone who still speaks to Rodwell, makes this guy a genius bridge theorist whose ideas ARE expert standard, and that therefore any idea of yours of which he approves is expert standard. That is nonsense. It is made even sillier by your habit of never actually naming names for these gurus of yours... if they really are well known, successful players.. then some of the posters who travel a lot will know them and can verify your assertions.

And then you describe a bizarre sequence for which there is NO expert standard treatment, and write at length about how this was 'resolved'. That example has nothing...NOTHING.. to do with the point of the OP and the points that your critics are trying to make.

And I note that you have made zero effort to defend your assertion that 4♠ is clearly best played as a shortness ask... when there is a powerful argument for high card cue bidding instead. You criticize Justin for failing to discuss pros and cons of the bidding.. I post a fairly detailed explanation of why shortness asking may be an inferior method, and you ignore it...why? On second thoughts, ignore my question, because I don't think you are capable of recognizing error.

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the more you post, the clearer it is that Justin was bang-on... you have no interest in advancing any player's understanding of expert standard.. maybe because you actually have no idea what it is or maybe because you are so full of your own brilliance that you feel that the rest of us should just bow in awe before you. You should have your own section of the forum: Ken's brilliant theories.... restricted to you and you alone. You'd get the appreciation you deserve while not cluttering up the real bridge sections with your idiosyncratic posts...

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Jun 13 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

I just do not see the need to use up so much bidding room just to show a fair hand with 5 card support. Game is not necessarily there, and 4♥ could turn a plus into a minus. 4♥ did, in fact, turn a plus into a minus, when North got too excited by the 4♥ bid.

Well, you could always play another system...

Seriously, this hand is shown by 4♥. Any other auction you use will not show this hand. Bids like 2NT and 2♦ will cause partner to seriously overestimate his hand, and bids like 2♥ or 3♥ won't get you to game.

Could partner have, what was it, some perfect 13 where we might go down in theory? Sure. If partner has 4 good hearts and 13 hcp, are we likely to go down? Nah.

4♥ should show a hand with the shape but not the strength to Splinter. If North had remembered that, he wouldn't bid 4♠. If South doesn't have the strength to Splinter, then North shouldn't have the strength to bid beyond game.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jun 13 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 13 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

I just do not see the need to use up so much bidding room just to show a fair hand with 5 card support.  Game is not necessarily there, and 4♥ could turn a plus into a minus.  4♥ did, in fact, turn a plus into a minus, when North got too excited by the 4♥ bid.

Well, you could always play another system...

Seriously, this hand is shown by 4♥. Any other auction you use will not show this hand. Bids like 2NT and 2♦ will cause partner to seriously overestimate his hand, and bids like 2♥ or 3♥ won't get you to game.

Could partner have, what was it, some perfect 13 where we might go down in theory? Sure. If partner has 4 good hearts and 13 hcp, are we likely to go down? Nah.

4♥ should show a hand with the shape but not the strength to Splinter. If North had remembered that, he wouldn't bid 4♠. If South doesn't have the strength to Splinter, then North shouldn't have the strength to bid beyond game.

I also don't understand the problem with 4♥.. it looks like the normal call to me in standard bidding.

A large number of players have another way to raise to game on weak shapely hands. In some partnerships we use 3N as a hand too good for 4♥ but too weak for a splinter.. the splinter delivering about 11+ hcp.

So with x Kxxxx KQxx xxx, we'd bid 3N. Add a few hcp and we'd splinter, subtract the ♦Q and we'd bid 4♥. In other partnerships we use 4♦ to show this hand (using 3♠ over 1♥ as a splinter in any suit, opener bids 3N if interested).

These are non-standard treatments, altho I think the 3N treatment is pretty close to expert standard in my neck of the woods.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 13 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

Ken, you just don't seem to 'get it'.

...

Your reference to some unidentified guy who was at some point Rodwell's roommate is typical... you write as if being Rodwell's ex-roommate, and someone who still speaks to Rodwell, makes this guy a genius bridge theorist whose ideas ARE expert standard, and that therefore any idea of yours of which he approves is expert standard. That is nonsense. It is made even sillier by your habit of never actually naming names for these gurus of yours... if they really are well known, successful players.. then some of the posters who travel a lot will know them and can verify your assertions.

Ken Eichenbaum. Ask around if you want. I'm not sure why this is necessary. My point was in reaction to the claims that I make this ***** up on my own. I do not. I learn most of these things from Ken, who learned or learns them directly from Eric and Jeff, if not his own specific ideas. Jeff and Eric use some of his ideas, like Suit/Lead Support Doubles and other things.

And then you describe a bizarre sequence for which there is NO expert standard treatment, and write at length about how this was 'resolved'. That example has nothing...NOTHING.. to do with the point of the OP and the points that your critics are trying to make.

The point was in response to the theory that I sit aroun\d thinking up what I think should be. Rather, in real play, in real events, issues come up where I don't know expert standard and I learn this. Very obscure issues also get discussed, mainly because the basic ***** is already known now. Keep in mind that I was called out as a rogue lunatic with insane ideas that were my own. Much of what I assume to be "expert standard" is what I hear to be "expert standard" from people who would be rather standardly called experts.

And I note that you have made zero effort to defend your assertion that 4♠ is clearly best played as a shortness ask... when there is a powerful argument for high card cue bidding instead. You criticize Justin for failing to discuss pros and cons of the bidding.. I post a fairly detailed explanation of why shortness asking may be an inferior method, and you ignore it...why?

I provided and will again provide the reason. It is rather simple, actually. If you want to know the shortness, you relay. If you want to know the control, you skip the relay. Thus, for instance, consider after 4♥. 4♠ is a shortness ask, with space for follow-up logic-based values inquiries. If you need a specific control, you then use 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ for that purpose.

Your way, 4♠ shows a control and, in essence, asks for a minor control. 5♣ would isolate a need for a spade control, presumably. 5♦ would be weird. No shortness asks possible.

My way, 4♠ asks for shortness and enables min/MAX inquiry also. 4NT shows a spade control and asks for a minor card. 5♣ isolates a spade problem, and 5♦ makes little sense, again.

If you want RKCB, then 5♣ isolates a diamond problem, 5♦ isolates a club problem, and 5♥ isolates a spade problem.

So, I can do what you do, and I can also do what I do. That seems better.

----

As to your last general point. I just don't get what your objection is. A definition of "expert standard" is rather obscure, as experts operate with completely different schools to start with. In fact, many experts have a toned down game that they play to avoid any possibility of taking a charge, as a result of which they might lose money. However, all that said, when I take positions, the positions might be articulated as my idea or suggestion, in which case anyone, if viewing the idea or suggestion as insane, is free to disregard. If anyone likes the idea or suggestion, then great! Other times, I express what has been described to me by an expert as "expert standard" for the circle of experts he hangs with. If that's not your group's expert standard, fine. I bet Lawrence and Hardy call each other idiots too.

[cherdano]

Ken, if you have no idea what the word "expert standard" means, why do you keep making posts using the word?

[kenrexford]

I got a response from Eric Kokish. In short, he described the majority expert position as "random cuebidding." He noted that the minority position includes this Mathe-type shortness asking relay. He described this approach as "far better" than the random cuebidding approach. He also described a variant where Opener can either relay to ask for shortness or can instead show his own shortness with the other calls, depending on what serves the goals for the hand best.

So, it turns out that I learned a "far better" minority expert approach from my mentor and was mistaken in believing that this was the majority opinion. My bad. I humbly offer my great apologies to the Kokish-scorned majority.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

...

Your analysis misses a few very important facts, facts that I doubt could really be disputed.

First, though, as an aside, I would note that I opined that North was too aggressive. That part was not left out, as you claim.

That being said, let's look at how the auction actually went. North bid 4♠ and then jumped to 6♥ after the 5♦ call was doubled. The reaction of most people was utter chock and amazement, calling North essentially an insane lunatic idiot. Why? Was the shock that North bid 6♥ knowing that a diamond lead would be fatal, and that the contract would likely fail miserably even without a diamond lead? Apparently so. This was pure absurdity to everyone other than me, if I recall correctly.

No one, however, faulted North for assumption of a treatment that I now learn to be the minority view. Guess what? If you assume that North had this minority view, then North's bidding makes perfect sense, albeit aggressive in the initiation.

So, rather odd, is it not? Your means of answering the question (keep in mind that who North and who South was is not mentioned, at least initially) is to simply ridicule North. That's because, my guess, that you never even thought of the shortness ask being in play here. Instead, you assumed North was an idiot, rather than a person who actually believed that this sequence meant what I personally would have assumed (until this series of posts). Your ignorance of this school of thought resulted in a ridiculous chastising of North. By "you" and "your," I mean a lot of people.

Let's then move to South. Why is South's 5♦ not showing an Ace? Why are you assuming Aces first? Wht is the "control" an honor control and not a shortness control? Why is South not declining because of the ill-placed stiff? What is South supposed to be thinking opposite the "I have a spade control" 4♠ bid? Your analysis seems limited to bidding a control if you have one. Why? Why not discuss what South should be thinking?

My point is that it is really easy to take someone's analysis, one that is not your style or one that you do not even understand apparently, and attack it as trolling or as some sort of intentional messing with people. As it turns out, I was honestly providing that which was taught to me. Imagine that! And, I was actually providing that which North seems to have been taught. Wow!

Now that I know that my understanding of how to bid properly is not the mainstream way to bid, I will think through how to respond to posts. Because I trust the person who taught and teaches me way more than the drivel I see from you, like not getting the fit non-jump issue and not understanding intermediate jump overcalls, and many similar things, I'll make sure that people know that my posts are how I was taught if they ask. If they want to disregard what I opine, fine. If you want to STFU, that would be wonderful as well.

[georgeac]

skipping all the arguments, i think 4h is a signoff by south. also they are a passed hand. just my 2 cents.

[jillybean]

Unfortunately I wasn’t playing with either Jeff or Eric , I asked my partner what his 4♠ bid was - just a slam try, a cue.
No surprises

[manudude03]

I'm also going to skip the flaming here. As much as I would LOVE 5D to show shortness, I would have to agree that it only shows the King (not the Ace- I personally never make a pre-emptive raise with an outside Ace).

When 5D got doubled, sheez could it have been any more obvious for North that slam is bad. What was to say he doesn't have a trump loser as well as a diamond loser even if 5D had shown shortage (would you still bid 4H on Qxx JT9xx x QJx? or even worse?)

EDIT: Having said that, you get a lot of players who like to bid 4H over 1H with 13-15. If North is one of those players (I hope not, I hate it when these auctions come up online), then perhaps he saw 5D as first round control at least then a 31-33 CPC slam wouldn't seem too bad. The blame is still with North though.

[neilkaz]

jillybean2, on Jun 14 2008, 01:54 AM, said:

Unfortunately I wasn’t playing with either Jeff or Eric , I asked my partner what his 4♠ bid was - just a slam try, a cue.
No surprises

OK good...and from your 5♦ bid we can assume that your partnership is playing that you cue bid 1st or 2nd round controls, even at the 5 level the first time the suit is bid. Thus, I agree with your decision to cooperate with his slam try and bid 5♦. I assume that you're playing some kind of Drury, or some method to have shown a limit raise to prior to forcing to game with a more HCP oriented hand and therefore, you don't hold true junk for your 4♥ bid that would not cooperate.

Anyhow..while PD's 4♠ is pushy (I still rate it 3 out of 10) I will again stress that his jump to 6♥ after 5♦ is X'd is too bad for polite words to describe with three losers in that suit !!

Looking at 3♦ losers and not being certain whether you cue bid with Ax, in which case you make a grand if you hold Kxxxx in ♥ and they split 2-1 or your given Kxx ,in which case 6♥ may be set on the lead, he should pass 5♦X around to you ! You could then XX with first round control in ♦ or just bid 6♥ yourself with it, and liking your K of ♥.

I see so much unneeded panic from even some self proclaimed BBO experts when PD's Q bids or artificial bids are doubled. For some reason they seem to fear that 5♦X will become the final contract if they pass, and by returning to their suit they so often take away the Q-bidder's chance to show more info or to contribute further to the auction.

So to discuss with PD...did he/she think that 5♦ guaranteed first round control ? With any doubt, telll him/her to pass 5♦X around to you next time for clarification.