[wclass___]

IMO bidding a good slam should be the title.

Stereotyped people and wretched mathematicians(or psychologists) are welcome

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Apr 27 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 27 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 27 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

...

...

Valid points, but:

1. Your arguments are really arguments in favour of 2♣ as an artificial bid, whether promising gf values or not. I like the approach and have used it with some success as the beginning of a relay mathod... and one of the non-trivial advantages is that we would have found out that partner lacked any high spade in plenty of time

2. But there is NO need to invoke artificialty here. One could, quite plausibly, suggest that S should not open.... however, I concede that opening is relatively normal... I don't know whether I would open or not at this point in the discussion.

Having opened, and independent of whether one plays some form of serious or non-serious 3N, it should be easy to stop... and one should always play spades on these auctions... I forget the name of the rule, but it is usually, rather than always, best to play in the weaker of two otherwise equivalent trump suits. It may be purely coincidental here that spades makes while hearts fail on a spade ruff.

Frankly, I do not think it to be masterminding to construct an auction that stops at the level of game. I do play, on a regular basis, with someone who would consider the S hand an automatic opener, and have learned to respect the screeching of brakes that a 4♠ over 3♠ would engender.

And that S has a hideous hand is obvious: he has 2, count them, 2 hcp in the double fit... if partner can make slam, he sure as heck isn't passing 4♠... he needs, at a minimum, AKx AKxxx and the club Ace, and even then we are not safe against a 4-1 trump break break. So I cannot imagine ever cuebidding below game as South no matter what form of 3N we play.

As for your observation about expert slam bidding, i respectfully disagree with you. I commend to you a regular read of the BW.. i don't recall seeing many matches, over the past 20 years, in which expert pairs had the problems you speak of.. it seems to me that this type of problem arises far more often with non-experts... who tend to get far too enthusiastic about slam whenever they hold a good hand and partner opens.

As to #1: True. I think 2♣ should be deemed articial, in a sense. When I open 1♦ as unbalanced, a 1♣ opening shows 2+ clubs and either (1) real clubs and unbalanced, or (2) any balanced. So also I like 2♣ in this sequence as either (1) real clubs, or (2) completely convenient and very possibly doubleton. We seem to agree that this solves a world of hurt, regardless of whether 2♣ grabs a lot of possibilities or a few less. I don't think a "pure" relay is necessary, but it might be good. I think just as 2♣ as "sort of artificial" is workable, so also 2♦ as "sort of artificial," meaning either (1) real diamonds, or (2) roughly balanced is workable.

As to #2: This part sort of went into multiple issues. Most of it I agree with entirely. I agree, as well, that a quick signoff has some merits, especially after a 2♣ start. (1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠-4♠ is imminently reasonable, and it might even be "right.") I think the hand is harder to evaluate, though, when Opener knows of the heart fit but does not know of the likelihood of a club mis-match (1♠-2♥ as a start looks really interesting.)

On the issue of "Expert CW." I don't think we disagree here. The Bridge World analyzes what I would call "Super Experts," and none of them are bidding according to CW rules anyway, instead using their own specific gadgets and understandings fine-tuned for the level of play that merits reporting. When you take run-of-the-mill "experts" and ask them what the conventional wisdom is to certain bids, you end up with something different than they play with each other and certainly different from the all-stars. That said, I think the higher-level Binsky problem is possession of insufficient info to warrant leaving the safety of the four-level rather than departing painfully.

[JLOL]

Why would you ever bid 3N non serious after partner bids 3S lol.

[benlessard]

Unless you play keycard at a low level its near impossible to stop at the 4 level. QJx is enough to cue-bid and south hand isnt minimum after the 2H response.

[MarkDean]

I do not play the non-serious 3NT convention. Does it mean "for the love of God partner do not bid past the four level because my hand is absolutely terrible for slam in the context of the auction so far"? If that is not what 3NT means, is that what 4♠ means?

I know Han will call me an old man, but I would not have opened the hand.

[MarkDean]

benlessard, on Apr 27 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

Unless you play keycard at a low level its near impossible to stop at the 4 level. QJx is enough to cue-bid and south hand isnt minimum after the 2H response.

OK, I will bite, can you give me an example of a hand which opens 1♠, raises to 3♥ and is a minimum?

[mike777]

Fasteddy, on Apr 27 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> SOUTH </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> NONVUL </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QJx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AKJxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Jx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AKx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> T9xxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> QTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AKQx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

Assuming you choose to open 1♠ with the South hand, is there a sensible way to stay out of slam? After 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥, can you make a case for North not bidding 3♠? If he does, even if South tries to sign off in 4♥ how does the auction not continue 5♣ - 5♦ - 6♥?

It looks like the slam might be avoided if North doesn't bid 3♠, but is that really the right way to bid the hand?

As an interesting footnote, 6♥ is cold if the opps don't lead a spade. Unfortunately, West held a stiff spade which she led, and then even 5♥ goes down.

nonexpert response:


1s=2h
3h=3s
4d=5c
5h=p

[Fasteddy]

JLOL, on Apr 27 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Why would you ever bid 3N non serious after partner bids 3S lol.

How about Ax AKJxxx Jx xxx?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 27 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

My final point, though, is that this same theme comes up over and over and over again on the BBF, as you and others have noted.  The common theme is a Responder with three-card support and 4-5 cards in the other major, with GF values.  Over and over again, bidding 2♣ with these hands makes the auction easy, whereas a traditional approach causes someone to post the problem and all sorts of strained nonsense and poor results.  Does that ever make you wonder?

It is not surprising that when responder has a fit for opener's major, and you create a virtually automatic 2♣ response and a virtually automatic 2♦ rebid, responder will always be able to agree the major on the 2 level and thus have a very good auction (since essentially you have bid 1♠ p 2♠ game forcing). It's like playing inverted minors, but you eliminate the invitational hands and don't particularly have to worry about 3NT. You would have good auctions that way! I think what one is forced to wonder is how much the 2♣ response costs when responder has clubs and how much the 2♦ rebid costs when opener has diamonds. I find these auctions difficult enough when the bids promise suits. We don't have a 5-3 fit in the major suit that is opened on every hand.

I actually don't think you will have terrible disasters like reaching non-fits or anything. I think it will simply hamper the evaluation of both players in the general sense on auctions that require a longer search for a fit and on quantitative auctions. It's all well and good to say both players know what hands are possible for the other player as I'm sure you will, but that is merely a necessary condition to such auctions working well, not a sufficient condition.

That is really my major qualm with your methods. I would be perfectly willing to accept you have better methods when responder has a known major suit fit with opener (I can truly not be bothered to consider it deeply but let's take your word for it), but that is hardly the greatest weakness in my bidding. In fact I'd say I do pretty darn well on such hands just as long as the partnership is fairly practiced. You have taken an area of bidding that is generally pretty easy and accurate, potentially made it extremely accurate, and in the process (almost by definition I would argue) made the more difficult auctions even harder and worse. There are just so many areas of my bidding that need a good kick in the pants before game forcing major suit auctions.

There is also a psychological downside to hear you explain it. I have never heard anyone but you vouch for these methods, or even mention them at all. That creates a lasting impression that Ken Rexford playing with Ken Rexford might be a brilliant bidder, but Ken Rexford playing with almost any expert I can think of would have serious negative synergy problems. While that is not an argument that the methods are inferior, it's a mental impression about what would happen in practice that is pretty difficult to erase. It further makes one wonder how much of the superiority of your methods is due to the methods, and how much is due to the fact they are clearly thought out in great detail and thus similar results could be achieved by applying similar thought to more standard methods.

Of course others may have different qualms, such as I know Fred has argued they are too informative on certain auctions where the information is of more use to the opponents (I largely agree with him there as well), but that is all just my take.

[JLOL]

Here we go!

[jdonn]

JLOL, on Apr 27 2009, 11:48 PM, said:

Here we go!

Lol I'm so dumb. Oh well let's see what happens...

[Codo]

What about:

1♠ 2 ♥
2♠ 3♠ (limiting, -14 HCPS/ SI)
4♣ 4♥ (non serious/ Serious w/o a diamond control)
4 NT 5♠ (RKC/ 2+queen)
pass 2 KCS missing

Seems quite easy to avoid this slam. What did I miss?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

JLOL, on Apr 27 2009, 11:48 PM, said:

Here we go!

Lol I'm so dumb. Oh well let's see what happens...

Couple of things, of course.

1. Handling when Responder really has clubs, but not major fit yet. That part is easy. If responder's next call is to raise Opener's first major, he has a fit for the major. If he also has real clubs, he might make a picture jump of some variety. If Responder's next call is anything else, he had real clubs. This part if never difficult.

2. Handling when Opener has real diamonds. If Opener bids 2♦ over 2♣, he might have a balanced hand or he might have real diamonds. The proof of this not causing problems might be harder to explain, it is also perhaps easier to gut understand. But, it just doesn't cause problems.

3. Rexford with Rexford? This is the part that frustrates me the most. First of all, I have a well-respected partner who plays this stuff also. Second, many people in our circle play the same thing, or some variety of it. I don't know other circles well enough to say who plays what. But...

a. 2♣ as some sort of quasi-artificial bid is fairly common
b. 2♦ as also quasi-artificial is less common but has some fairly strong players doing this, or doing this undiscussed. I've seen it whipped out in vugraphs of WBF events, for example.
c. 2NT as a weak "denial" cue has been around for years as part of the original italian cue structure, which we in the U.S. have borrowed incompletely; my version is just purer as to honors and not so much as to strength
d. 2-level cues are also part of the original Italian structure
e. Serious (of non-serious) and LTTC are almost standard now
f. picture jumps are fairly standard, if not understood or used as much as one should, with my tweaks uncommon because most don't discuss parameters or want parameters as much as I do, perhaps because they don't use true old-school italian cues.

Because of all of this, "my" methods are really no more than a blend of others' sometimes inconsistent ideas put together in a consistent manner (IMO) with definitional tweaks that make sense when looking at the entire structure and not just at a single bid (avoidance of redundancies and complicated redundancies). A modernization of the old school version, modified by modern conventions and treatments both by the addition of the latter and tighter definitions of the former because of the latter.