kenrexford, on Apr 27 2009, 04:12 PM, said:
mikeh, on Apr 27 2009, 03:53 PM, said:
FWIW, I would much rather use methods that allow me to find out that we are missing the A-K of trumps below 4
♠ than methods which allow us to check on six keycards and end up at the Binsky Level.
This is more than just a single-situation observation. This is the reality, IMO, with much of the CW expert practice these days. Much of the real work to slam sequences must be deferred until the 5-level, which results in too many 5-level sets and too many protective stops at four for fear of a five-level set.
As for the "partnership game" semi-problem with 2
♣ ("semi-problem" because you are one who does like the approach in some sequences), keep in mind that 2
♣ is not a violation of any partnership rules if the partnership routinely bids 2
♣ with GF hands and the "right hand" for this approach, the "right hand" being three-card (or longer) support for Opener's major and a five-card (or shorter) other major. Hence, Opener should and would expect this possibility. He knows how to handle that possibility in the same way that a person can handle the possibility that his partner might open 1
♣ even though it is his partner's third-longest suit (4423).
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?
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.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
