[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jun 10 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

After 1♠-2♦ (not GF); 2♥-3♣, I'd bid 4♣, showing the values for 4NT with this precise shape.

That is great for this hand but it won't happen that often. Although I guess there is not many other uses for the bid. We actually play it shows extra values but denies the ability to make a more descriptive bid - so no club stopper and no extra length.

Whatever it shows 4♥ would be strong so I agree a jump to 5♥ would be forcing. This is exactly the sort of thing that most partnerships have not discussed and make these auctions murky.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jun 10 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 9 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

I would respond 2♣ 10000% of the time, I just saw no point in saying so since it wasn't relevant to the points I was making and always sidetracks the discussion.

Do you make this psyche against beginners?

Trying to be clever? Back to the drawing board I hope...

Bidding your third best suit at your first opportunity seems like a gross misstatement of your suit length to me.

How do you know what suit length I have promised?
Are you saying opening 1♣ with 4423 is a psych?
How is the smallest possible difference 'gross'?
Are you just trying to win a bet with someone over how many threads you can destroy?

[skjaeran]

Strongly prefer a 2♣ response here (I think it's best even with 3442). It leaves the most space for opener to show his hand, you're much better placed after a 2♦ response showing 5 (or a good 4-card if you prefer). Of course you put this on your system card and alert.

[Free]

1♠ - 2♣ (nat 5+♠ ; GF relay except rebid)
2♥ - 2NT (nat 4+♥ any strength ; GF relay with ♥ fit)
3♦ - 3♥ (16+ with shortness ; relay)
3NT - 4♣ (short ♦ ; cue, the ♥ fit was already confirmed)
4♦ - 7NT (1st round control ; we already know enough)

After knowing about the ♦ void and 16+HCP there's at most a Jack missing. It could be ♠J obviously, but you can't find out. And even then grand has chances...

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jun 11 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 10 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 9 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

I would respond 2♣ 10000% of the time, I just saw no point in saying so since it wasn't relevant to the points I was making and always sidetracks the discussion.

Do you make this psyche against beginners?

Trying to be clever? Back to the drawing board I hope...

Bidding your third best suit at your first opportunity seems like a gross misstatement of your suit length to me.

How do you know what suit length I have promised?
Are you saying opening 1♣ with 4423 is a psych?
How is the smallest possible difference 'gross'?
Are you just trying to win a bet with someone over how many threads you can destroy?

There was no suggestion from any of the early posters who suggested 2♣ that this was anything but normal.

For example Ken explained all of his bids after 2♥ but none of those before - 1♠ 2♣ and 2♥. You yourself used the ridiculous hyperbole "10000%" as if this was a normal action.

As far as I can recall I have never seen a player alert this sort of treatment when I have been playing online or offline nor when I have been watching a vugraph presentation. I have observed occasional times when players have responded in non-standard suits. It seems clear there is a disclosure issue with these non-standard methods.

If you don't disclose it then the assumption is that it is a deviation from you agreed methods and therefore maybe a psyche.

If I opened 1♣ on 4=4=2=3 then it would be a deviation from my announced system. In some circumstances this could be a psyche yes.

If by smallest possible deviation you mean one card then it can easily be a psyche:

1♠ 4♣ Splinter on

♠ A765
♥ K976
♦ K32
♣ 74

minimal one card deviation - psyche?

1NT on

♠ 2
♥ 432
♦ AKQJT
♣ AJ54

one card deviation - psyche?

1♠ on

♠ 5432
♥ AKQJT
♦ K4
♣ Q2

one card deviation - psyche?

The example in the other thread that you laughed at was a 1=2=4=6 hand. For many 2=2=4=5 would be a normal 1NT shape. So even that example could be considered as a one-card deviation. Would it have been more acceptable to you if it was 1=3=3=6 which is merely a one-card deviation.

It seems to me to be very convenient to complain about others minor system deviations and label them as psyches and argue some moral high ground that one should not perpetrate these actions against beginners etc but be dismissive of your own non-standard deviations.

Perhaps you alert and disclose this deviation appropriately I do not know. If you write about it as if it is standard when it is not then there is at least a suggestion that you might not. Others - Phil and Skaeran - have properly said that this method would be disclosed.

I have a point that I want to make it seemed to me an appropriate place to make the point. You can feel free to get nasty if my point of view doesn't fully agree with yours.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jun 10 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Perhaps you alert and disclose this deviation appropriately I do not know.  If you write about it as if it is standard when it is not then there is at least a suggestion that you might not.

Have I done that? Please show me where. I seem to remember careful use of the word "I" in my ridiculous hyperbole.

Do you not find it the least bit personally gratifying that I mentioned I didn't bring it up to begin with so the thread wouldn't get sidetracked, and you immediately took it upon yourself to sidetrack the thread? Was two other long threads about psychs that are currently ongoing not enough for you?

[mikeh]

I almost posted early in this thread, and, had I done so, no doubt I would be the one whose ideas were criticized by Cascade.

This truly is a wtp 2♣ response, and I strongly reject any other response.

Firstly, 2♣ is always suspect... while I would agree with Harald about doing this, sometimes, on 3=4=4=2 shape, it is completely normal to do it on 3=4=3=3, as one example... I know of no standard method in which one responds 2♥ with that shape. And before anyone says: what about notrump? ... maybe we hold xxx in a minor.

So opener won't commit to clubs merely because I bid the suit.

Secondly, we have slam interest from the outset... and a red suit slam is certainly something we can anticipate.. but our hearts are too short to bid, and our diamonds are too short/weak to bid comfortably in any sequence that suggests a diamond slam... put another way: if diamonds are to be trump we want and maybe need him to have a hand on which he will bid diamonds himself! The same is true for hearts... and the way to maximize the chances of his showing a 4+ red suit is to begin with 2♣.

To call 2♣ a psyche is a misuse of the word.

As for the initial problem: I think that it is a real stretch to get to 7N, altho I agree with much of what josh argued.

If opener does the decision making, it is tough for him to know about the spade Queen, without which 7N is silly.

If responder is doing the decision making, it is tough to know about the spade texture and the club honours/length.

Also, if N keycards in hearts... does everyone have an agreement as to how to respond with opener's hand?

I once played with an expert who, in response to my keycard, showed two with a working void, via 5N. Unfortunately, the void wasn't really working, in the sense that I held AK of the suit... and what I was interested in was the QUEEN of trump.... so there I was, having to guess whether he held that card.

I actually did not, previously, ever have an agreement with any partner (in my most detailed partnership, we rarely used keycard, because we had relay) about this, but now, since that experience, I discuss with partners that the '2 with a void' response denies the trump Queen.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jun 11 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 10 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Perhaps you alert and disclose this deviation appropriately I do not know.  If you write about it as if it is standard when it is not then there is at least a suggestion that you might not.

Have I done that? Please show me where. I seem to remember careful use of the word "I" in my ridiculous hyperbole.

Do you not find it the least bit personally gratifying that I mentioned I didn't bring it up to begin with so the thread wouldn't get sidetracked, and you immediately took it upon yourself to sidetrack the thread? Was two other long threads about psychs that are currently ongoing not enough for you?

So the "10000%" hyperbole was intended to emphasize that this was part of your special system.

Sorry my mistake.

[jdonn]

No the "I would" was intended to emphasize that this was part of my special system. But I appreciate you admitting that you were mistaken.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

To call 2♣ a psyche is a misuse of the word.

Why so?

I have heard players say "I made a psychic response of 2♣ to avoid a club lead" etc. I appreciate that that is not the reason for the 2♣ here.

Nevertheless it is a deviation from standard and therefore if that is what you are playing it is arguably a psyche. One would have to determine a where the boundary for gross is.

For me ♦ xxxx ♣ AKQ would not be a psyche but ♦ AKQJ ♣ xxx would be. It is complicated since different players play different styles but I think the boundary lies somewhere between these two extremes.

Note this assumes that your methods are standard and that there is no disclosure to the contrary.

[mikeh]

Wayne, what would you bid, as responder, with Kxx AQxx xxx AKx?

Would you bid 2♣, absent any special agreements? If not, would you concede that many experts, playing standard, would do so?

If so, then we are most of the way there.... responding 2♣ to 1♠ on AKx is NOT a distortion of the club suit.

I take it that you agree that responding 2♥ on Qx AKJx xxxx AKx would be non-standard. I suggest that very, very few good players would even consider responding 2♦ on that hand....who in their right mind wants to suggest that suit as trump?

If you agree, then we are almost all the way there... responding 2♣ with 2=4=4=3 shape, with weak diamonds, is NOT a distortion of the club suit or the diamond length.

To then claim that it is ok to bid 2♣ with SOME 2=4=4=3 hands, but that this one is a GROSS distortion strikes me as bizarre.

An analogy: I pick up 5432 KJx KJx Qxx and partner opens 1♣: is anyone really going to report me for psyching if I choose to respond 1N? Yet, don't I 'deny' a 4 card major by doing so? If you really think that this is a gross distortion, then we play different games, and I sure hope I never get you as a director or on a committee when this is an issue, because such a position, if held by you, would tell me you 'just don't get it' (of course, maybe it's me that doesn't)

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Wayne, what would you bid, as responder, with Kxx AQxx xxx AKx?

I might respond 2♦ and if I did I would consider it a psyche.

Quote

Would you bid 2♣, absent any special agreements? If not, would you concede that many experts, playing standard, would do so?

Yes that is standard.

Quote

If so, then we are most of the way there.... responding 2♣ to 1♠ on AKx is NOT a distortion of the club suit.

I take it that you agree that responding 2♥ on Qx AKJx xxxx AKx would be non-standard. I suggest that very, very few good players would even consider responding 2♦ on that hand....who in their right mind wants to suggest that suit as trump?

I am not sure. The response of 2♦ is not just about determining trumps.

Quote

If you agree, then we are almost all the way there... responding 2♣ with 2=4=4=3 shape, with weak diamonds, is NOT a distortion of the club suit or the diamond length.

To then claim that it is ok to bid 2♣ with SOME 2=4=4=3 hands, but that this one is a GROSS distortion strikes me as bizarre.

Why?

♠ AKQJ
♥ 65432
♦ Kx
♣ xx

Would you concede that someone might open 1♠ with this?

But swapping the spade and heart texture would be a GROSS distortion.

Why then is 2=4=4=3 where some three card club suits are GROSS distortions bizarre but 4=5=2=2 where some four-card spades are GROSS distortions not bizarre.

Quote

An analogy: I pick up 5432 KJx KJx Qxx and partner opens 1♣: is anyone really going to report me for psyching if I choose to respond 1N? Yet, don't I 'deny' a 4 card major by doing so? If you really think that this is a gross distortion, then we play different games, and I sure hope I never get you as a director or on a committee when this is an issue, because such a position, if held by you, would tell me you 'just don't get it' (of course, maybe it's me that doesn't)

I don't believe that is a GROSS distortion that is an exceptional hand that you are exercising judgement on.

I don't see what is exceptional about the Qx Axxx AJxx AKx hand that needs to distort with 2C. That is not to say that I cannot see that there is some merit in the 2C response. The distortion then is either a misstatement of suit length or inadequate disclosure.

If it is a misstatement of suit length then it is a matter of opinion whether or not it is GROSS.

I have indicated above that for some suit qualities I would consider this distortion not GROSS but for others I would consider it GROSS.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Jun 10 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

I also don't get why the same stupid discussions keeps getting run through again.

2♣ is an obvious, non-copntrived response for many of us.  As proof, read the bridge base forums.

Because you keep making the same stupid bids. (Unless you play 2C as a relay or some sort of artificial and alertable response). Whatever, 2C IS contrived.

[eyhung]

I'm generally not a fan of Ken's answers, but I don't think 2♣ deserves the adjective "stupid". I think there's enough good reasons (suit quality for slam, conservation of bidding space, prepatory bid to show a big balanced hand) to respond 2♣ rather than 2♦ that I wouldn't call it "stupid", unless you are deliberately violating a partnership agreement that you must respond in your longest minor.

Let's try to get along and save the harsh words for bids that are truly stupid, shall we?

[cherdanno]

Someone should buy a The Bridge World gift subscription for Wayne.

[kenrexford]

All of the arguments here against 2♣ being obvious are hopeless. I don't mean the arguments, themselves, although that is included. More precisely, the arguments are so ridiculous that they are either contrived or the gulf between sides of this "debate" is too wide for any possible resolution, unless the one side first spends thousands of hours explaining the purposes and principles of bidding to the other, to establish a rudimentary understanding of the game.

[gnasher]

Can't you all accept that:
- It's playable to agree to bid 2♣ on this hand.
- It's also playable to agree to bid 2♦ on this hand.
- Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
- It's not "hopeless", "stupid" or "a psyche" to make the bid dictated by your agreements.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

Can't you all accept that:
- It's playable to agree to bid 2♣ on this hand.
- It's also playable to agree to bid 2♦ on this hand.
- Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
- It's not "hopeless", "stupid" or "a psyche" to make the bid dictated by your agreements.

Of course I can Gnasher.

My comment, and i have no doubt Wayne's as well, was a reaction to Ken's post - his first, where he bid 2c with no explanation as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and his second, where he called reactions to 2C "stupid". It would probably not surprise you that I would prefer to play an ARTIFICIAL 2C response to 1M. A relay, or esle some sort of enquiry similar to what Bocchi Duboin used to play. However that is quite different to the argument Ken has been pushing. Anyway, enough said.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

All of the arguments here against 2♣ being obvious are hopeless. I don't mean the arguments, themselves, although that is included. More precisely, the arguments are so ridiculous that they are either contrived or the gulf between sides of this "debate" is too wide for any possible resolution, unless the one side first spends thousands of hours explaining the purposes and principles of bidding to the other, to establish a rudimentary understanding of the game.

Ok Ken, I will take up your challenge. When would you like me to start teaching you? I can set aside a couple of hours on Sat afternoon my time. Also, i hav about 7 weeks holiday startng on wed.

[kenrexford]

OK, I'll bite on this a little more.

First of all, the "stupid" comment was not a comment that bidding anything but 2♣ would be stupid. Rather, the "stupid" comment concerned how stupid it is to claim that bidding 2♣ on this hand is a psychic or contrived.

As a further example of how 2♣ should not be expected to show a real suit reliably, I'll pose a question.

Suppose you and partner have agreed that 2/1 is GF but that 1M-P-2NT shows invitational and balanced, or a specific range of GF raise, or a specific hand type of GF raise.

If that is the case, then we need not focus solely on 3433 hands.

What do you bid after a spade opening from partner with GF values and 5422? 6412? 7222? 8401?

As to why 2♣ was provided no explanation, when I menioned it. I actually started to include explanations but then deletaed then as silly. I started with something like:

Opener: 1♠ (duh)
Responder: 2♣ (you know...)
Opener: 2♥ (duh)

I then even typed in, but deleted, that the first three bids are obviously what I would do. However, I retracted all of this in an effort to not stir up the same old idiotic debate. Of course, that failed miserably.

Again, it is not an idiotic debate in the sense that 2♣ is obviously the right bid for everyone. Rather, it is idiotic because people keep getting more insane in defending their positions, when the simple reality is that those of us who trend 2♣ and convinced that trending 2♣ works better and those who trned natural disagree. Of course, the reason why some think trneding 2♣ is better, and probably the reason why others think trending 2♣ is bad, is largely due to the myriad of subsequent auction types and the underlying philosophy to those auction types that factor into decisions as to starts.

When your focus in subsequent auctions trends pattern, then pattern purity early on makes sense. When your focus in subsequent auctions trends control, then starting in the AK suit makes more sense than starting in the AJ suit when the suit lengths are close and the AK suit is clubs (lower ranking, more space, not preempting diamonds, etc.).

Hence, it is not contrived or psychic to make a call that shows a suit of expected minimum length simply because you trend control rather than trend pattern.

This is especially true with a primed-out 18-count. Even if you have a blended approach, where you trend pattern on weaker hands but perhaps trend control with stronger hands, or where you trend pattern with unbalanced hands but trend control with balanced hands, 2♣ works. It is only the trend-pattern purists that would bid 2♦ with this hand.

Now, anyone who knows the game should be able to appreciate this nuance. If you understand bridge, and understand theory, and understand nuance, your response to those who bid 2♣ might be, "Oh, control-trender." Not, "psychic contriver, seeking to manufacture a double-dummy auction."