foo

So I, like The Hog, do not like distorting my 73's by bidding them as if they were 54's. I also do not think slam is so odds on here that we should be jumping through all sorts of hoops or greatly distorting our hand type to cater to possible slam chances. I also do not like the idea of 1H-1S;2H-2S forcing. *shudder*. 1/2 of the hands We bid on will be partscores. I'll sacrifice some partscore accuracy to improve game and slam bidding, but there is a limit. For me, playing 1H-1S;2H-2S as forcing is past that limit. Here's my take on what hands with 6+S use which sequences: 1= 1H-4S. This a bid to make 4S as close to exactly as possible based on Opener's most common minimum opening hands. Say 11-15 HCP and ~3-5 controls (and 3 is more likely than 5 in terms of hard values. eg A's & K's). Another way to look at it is that a minimum opener is likely to have 3 cards that are A's or K's. We need a decent trump suit, ~14 losers, and 7+ controls between the two hands to rate to make 4S. That means a direct 4S response has to show a hand that rates to give Us as close as possible to exactly those assets. So Responder's hand should look like either 1ra= Dead minimum opening bid with 7 losers, or 1rb= 6- loser subminimum opening bid with little tolerance for any other likely strain. pclayton's example of AQJTxxxx.x.xx.xx fits, but you are going to wait a long time for that hand to come up. More common and mundane IMHO is something like AKhxxxx.x.(xxx.xx) or AJTxxxx.x.(AQx.xx) or AKhxxx.x.(Axx.xxx) Now the important point. If these are the hands that go through 1H-4S, then =any hand that gets to 4S via a slower route must be better=. Which brings us to 2= 1H-1S;2H-4S. Since 1H-4S shows 1ra or 1rb above, 1H-1S;2H-4S must show 2ra= A minimum opening bid with 6 losers, or 2rb= A 5 loser subminimum opening bid (In this case, we are basically hoping for the "30 HCP deck effect" because of our shape to make 4S.) Similar exercises can establish the hand types for the other sequences. In my judgement, based on the above definitions ♠AT87543 ♥7 ♦AJ5 ♣AQ fits 1H-1S;2H-4S marginally better than it fits any longer forcing sequence. We have a decent chance (~50/50) at having the 10+ controls between the hands needed for a slam, but the rest of the hand is simply not that good (crappy long suit, 11/14 of our HCP are in our short suits, we have a stiff in pard's twice bid suit, etc) All the invective being tossed around isn't going to sound like a logical counter argument to me, and neither are opposing hands that require low probability assumptions. I would be very interested to see what a well written simulation would say about the odds of there being a slam are on boards that fit the auction thus far.

Ah. The "all strange or unclear bids are Forcing" rule. :(

I don't feel "picked on" by any means. My skin is plenty thick. ...and I don't care to waste time on the personal here. The important thing is the bridge. I try to back up every opinion I post with bridge logic and examples. I go into more detail the more controversial the issue is. If some choose to label that "pontification", that's their misinterpretation of an honest attempt to bring logic and evidence to a discussion. EDIT: And Bridge is a game of skill, not a popularity contest. The "right" answer is not detemined by how popular it is, but rather by how well it works ITRW. If Bridge was a game where the majority opinion defined what the correct answer was, it would be a very different game. (...and if you have never seen me say "that's a good idea", or have never seen me apologize for being wrong, or have never seen me change my mind, then you have not been paying attention.) So instead of giving me some personal sass, perhaps we can try answering the important question. What hand types are best assigned to each of these sequences? a= 1H-4S b= 1H-1S;2H-4S c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

*shrug* as long as it's kept civil and about the bridge, it's fine. No one learns anything if everyone agrees all the time. Polite debate is one major way new knowledge is found.

Out of curiousity, what hand types would people assign to each of these sequences? a= 1H-4S b= 1H-1S;2H-4S c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

IMHO the best answer to what 1S-(2D)-X-pa;3S shows depends on what 1S-(2D)-X-pa;2S shows and what the requirements are for GOP's Negative X. Clearly we want to be able to rebid 2S on any minimum with 6+S. Equally clearly, we do not want to force the auction to the 3+ level unless We rate to have the values for it. However, as the requirements for the Neg X go up, the range of hands that would want to jump rebid 3S nf shrinks. At some point, it no longer makes sense to reserve the sequence for such a small possible set of hand types and it becomes better to make the 3S jump rebid Forcing. Let's say the Neg X promises 8+ HCP. We need a ~15 point hand for Us to expect safety at the 3 level. We need a ~17 point hand for Us to belong in game. Thus a 3S jump rebid that is nf has to show ~15-16 points. A nice tight invitational range. Now let's say a Neg X promises 9+ HCP We need a ~14 point hand to for Us to expect safety at the 3 level. We need a ~16 point hand for Us to belong in game. Clearly 3S nf no longer makes much sense and the 3S jump rebid should be Forcing under this system. Pick your poison.

You are right. We are not playing the same game. KTxxxx_x_xxx_xxx looks like 1m-2S! WJS to me.

Ah, but we =didn't= just bid 1H-4S. Therefore we have a hand that is better than that. What we do have is a 6 loser hand with a stiff in opener's single suited hand (not a good thing), and an indifferent suit of ATxxxxx. If opener has 2+S and 6- losers, far more likely than the examples I've been rebutting so far, they know we rate to have 5 level safety opposite our guaranteed to be 7- loser hand and can make a slam move after 1H-1S;2H-4S. If Opener does not know that his 2+S are valuable, I submit We are even more likely to miss a slam.

No. Partner doesnt need much more than Kxxx xxx KQxxx x, or Kxxx xx xx KJxxx for 6S to be cold, now does he? And both of these hands would be almost subminimum for the 2H call. You apparently fail to appreciate that all 2H does is ask you to further describe your hand. 4S does nothing of the sort, it gives partner no clue as to your control rich hand. And...if you think partner is acting over 4S on either of the above hands, I will share a secret with you. He wont. I will bid 3D as well, followed by 4C (over 3S) or 5C over 4S. Now We are supposing =11= card ♠ fits between the two hands to justify our fear of missing slam? Also, where are the 6+H suits to justify opener's 2H rebid in your examples?

4S is about the worst bid you can make here. Sorry. This hand as huge potential for slam, and yet you are signing off. By bidding 3D, you are not describing a 5-4 hand, partner asked you to further describe your hand (via 2♥) and all 3D does is show a non-minimum with some diamond cards. It does not promise a 4 card suit. And btw, it cannot be a misfit auction. Its impossible for partner not to have a spade fit and still be able to bid 2♥. Opener can not have a void in ♠'s and 6+H? Hmmm. 06(34), 07(24), 07(33). Looks possible to me. But let's give opener =1633 or 17??. Is x opposite ATxxxxx such a great trump suit that you really want to consider slamming with it? Even K opposite ATxxxxx rates to have a trump loser. (Our stiff ♥ x is not that great a trump holding opposite most 7 card ♥ suits either.) ...and of course, We still have the problem that a 3m rebid will not tell an opener with 2 card ♠ support that We have a 9 card ♠ fit. If Responder had a 5 loser hand, I be much more worried about 4S costing Us a slam. ATxxxxx_x_AJx_AQ is good, but it isn't =that= good.

I'm bidding 3C before I bid 4S. 4S is an out-of-the-park ridiculous bid. What are you going to do when partner puts down Kxx Axxxxx Kx xx? A 10-count, and slam is a wild favorite, with the grand just on a hook. It costs nothing to force another bid out of partner before making a signoff. That "10 count" is all controls and has 3 card support for our 7 card suit; giving Us a 10 card ♠ fit and 10 controls between Us. And no wastage in any suit either. Doesn't that seem just a tad like "playing partner for the perfect hand"? Opener is far more likely to have a mundane =1633 12-15 count for this auction. OTOH, if opener has 2 card ♠ support, giving Us the all important 9 card fit, and a decent 6 loser hand, far more likely than your example, then 4S should get a slam probe out of partner. Bidding our hand as if we have only 5 S's is not going to excite an opener holding 2 card ♠ support.

Since you seem to have actual experience ATT playing the OP posted methods, what do you do with the OP advancing hand of ♠KJT2 ♥KQ32 ♦AJ4 ♣76 after (3D)-5C-pa-?? (I note that helene_t, another person I presume to have RW experience with the OP methods said "pass, but it's close")

To all the 3D bidders: You really believe ATxxxxx is such a bad suit and AJx is such a good suit that you want to bid your hand as if you were 54 in S+D rather than 73?

1H-1S;2H-4S With only 6 ♠'s, with such a bad ♠ suit I might bid 3N instead. But with 7 ♠'s, 4S feels like the better game. (...and no, I am not going slamming in a misfit auction with such a bad long suit. If We belong in a slam, Opener has enough extras to take another bid over game.)

No one can never ask me why I respond with crappy hands ever again. You guys would be surprised how many people think this way. Marlowe bridge is a changing game, I cannot believe you assume that partner has overcalled vulnerable in sandwich seat with a weak 2 and that the opponents opening and response shows 20 points. Maybe in 1920 this was close to true, but people can open now with 11 points (!) and respond with three points! How about the fact that partner stuck his neck out and showed at least an opening hand with a good suit and we should trust him. Partnerships that make a habit of opening indifferent 11 counts and responding with 3 counts are partnerships that are bucking the odds and gambling on not getting bad scores. Also, this sort of habit puts pressure on the partnership on every board. There is always that worry regarding "Just how good is partner for his bid =this= time"? The old "a club", vs "one club", vs "I'll start with a club" 'convention' and other sorts of UI can help field the huge variance in hand types behind the calls, but that's not the way Bridge should be played...

What Justin said. This one is not even close to a 4S bid.

=1444 is often a bidding problem. Strong 4441s are enough of a bidding problem that the Mexican 2D was invented to handle them. Without that gadget, IMHO one needs all the bidding space one can get for a careful exporatory auction. Opening 2C with ♠K ♥KQT9 ♦AKQx ♣KQxx robs Us of a whole level of bidding space we might desperately need. I certainly agree that at some level of strength you are going to be more or less forced to open 2C with =1444, but IMHO this one is below that floor since we should be straining to not open 2C with =1444.

I've certainly seen openers make the best of a bad situation and bid 1C-(1H)-X-pa;1S with =3145 not strong enough to reverse; but I've never considered that systemic. More like "Responder forced me to make a decision and I'm doing the best I can under pressure." (after all, what else are you going to do in this situation?) Other than these sort of pressure situations, and admittedly this is a commone enough problem that there exist gadgets to later differentiate between opener having 3 card vs 4 card ♠ support, I'd say that systemically 1S should show a 4 card suit.

0. ♠K ♥KQT9 ♦AKQx ♣KQxx I open 1D. Much as I hate it, I reverse into 2H if 1D-1S. 1. p -p -p -? ♠AKxx ♥AK ♦KJTxx ♣x a= 1D. WTP? (opps silent) pard holds ♠QJx ♥T8xxx ♦Ax ♣Axx Please bid these. b= OK. 1D-1H;2S-3C!; 3D (since opener does not have 3card ♥ support nor ♣ stopped) 3S (which must show 3 ♠'s); 4H (which must show 2 ♥'s) and now responder has some thinking and choices to make. 2. Favorable - opps silent. Please bid these: ♠AJ8x ♥A9x ♦AKJxx ♣Q responder holds: ♠xxxx ♥Q9xx ♦98 ♣AKx 1D-1H;1S-2S; and off to the races you go. Note that here Opener's hand is not good enough for a jump shift to 2S. 3. Unfavorable - opps silent. Please bid this: ♠Ax ♥Tx ♦xx ♣AKQT9xx a= I open 1C like any human. responder bids 1♥, your 2nd bid? b= Long strong minor of moderate HCP strength with at least 1 of the two unbid suits stopped and about 7-8 expected tricks. 3N rebid as many textbooks would advocate. Responders hand below ♠xxx ♥KQxxx ♦AKx ♣xx c= OK. 3N+2 looks likely. 6C is not fun if They lead ♠'s as They are likely to.

My understanding is that your given sequence promises 4 ♠'s. Choice A. My understanding of the SAYC response structure here: 1C - (1H) - Dbl - (p);?? 1s= minimum with 4 ♠'s EDIT: Opener may have no choice but to bid 1S under pressure with =3145 not strong enough to reverse. That doesn't make having 3 ♠'s systemic! 1n= minimum with ♥'s stopped. Denies 4 ♠'s 2c= minimum with 6+C or an exceptional 5+C 2d= A Reverse, perhaps just a _tad_ weaker than an uncontested reverse. 2h= Darn good hand. 2s= Good hand but not as good as the cuebid. This one promises 4 ♠'s. 2n= 18-19 flat with ♥'s stopped. Denies 4 ♠'s 3c= Your typical medium strength hand with 6+C 3d= Splinter in support of ♠'s 3h= Splinter in support of ♠'s

"X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct overcall." Do you think this accurately represents my discussion of a JUMP? Or must I tell you that when you say direct overcall, that means an overcall at the lowest level unless you say otherwise? You'll do better in the future to not quote me or try to state my opinions at all, as you seem to be incapable of doing this without totally misrepresenting them. Much as I'm sure you do with those of the experts you speak of. "direct game overcall" josh. You stated that X'ing then bidding a new suit was not any stronger than a direct game overcall (X then 4C vs a direct 5C in this case). You stated it was simply "a more flexible hand" and "merely a different hand type". See the post of yours I cut and paste for verification. My entire disagreement with you here is on this point. By running through the sequences and matching them to hand types, I've tried to show that in actuality X'ing then bidding a suit is considerably stronger than simply bidding game. Even if holding something like a 64 for the sequence (since Reversing is pretty strong in and of itself and since X'er must be able, to paraphrase ArtK, "be able to handle any bid by Advancer".) If we have reached agreement that X'ing then bidding a new suit is stronger than simply overcalling game directly, then we have reached consensus and there is no more need for debate.

1.06 pm dec 21 you posted, and this is an exact quote: 'X followed by a new suit has !never! shown a flexible hand. It has always shown a strong single suited hand' It is very difficult to hold a rational discussion with you when you deny stating something that remains posted on the thread. I obviously missed an edit. My apologies. That was =supposed= to say that a single suited hand that can't easily tolerate another strain has !never! shown anything less than a =very= strong hand. EDIT: actually, it orginally read "X'ing then bidding a new suit with a single suited hand has !never! shown anything less than a =very= strong hand." (I found the original). Again, my apologies for missing the bad post in the heat of all this typing. Now that we have that out of the way, can we deal with the actual issue? This: X'ing then bidding a new suit is a stronger sequence than simply bidding game. vs Josh's statement (as I presently understand it. Please correct me Josh If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your POV here). X'ing then bidding a new suit is no more or no less strong then simply bidding game. My POV here is that X'ing then bidding a new strain is stronger than directly bidding game, stronger than overcalling and then reversing, stronger than just about anything except X'ing then cuebidding Their suit.

That doesn't show a better hand than this, it is just more flexible, which is another way of saying less oriented toward clubs. If I had to pick, the direct jump shows a better hand since this 4♣ bid is not even forcing. <snip> So the attempted comparisons are moot, except with A which shows about the same strength as this (a direct bid of 5C) but a different hand type. And yes I disagree that they (direct game bids) remove partner from the bidding. They bring him into it by telling him to a very close degree what you have. There's your post saying that X, then bidding ♣'s is no stronger than simply bidding 5C.

let's take these one at a time and hopefully remove a few evident misunderstandings. 1= I don't claim to know every expert. I do know quite a few of them. My experience with the POV of the ones I know is a reasonable large sample. Not a unanimous sample, and not even a majority sample of all world experts. So I've never claimed to know unanimous expert opinion. Heck, I doubt such a thing exists for any but the most simple things in Bridge. Maybe not even there. Bridge players are usually a fractious bunch when discussing Theory. (This thread is a case in point :) ) 2= I stated that X followed a new suit shows a strong hand. Stronger than an ordinary overcall. I also stated that if it was a single suited hand it was a very strong hand. I never made any statement about it not being a flexible hand. To use ArtK's example again, had his hand been of the same shape but a little weaker, I'd suggest that overcalling his long suit and then reversing would have been a better way to bid it rather than by starting with a X. There are two ways to bid ArtK's 64. Starting with X is the stronger of the two. 3= My sole argument with you and Josh re: X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct game overcall. I strongly disagree with this. I have not said that it can't be a flexible hand. I have only said it must be a stronger hand than a direct game overcall and that the less flexible it is the stronger it should be. This is to my understanding standard expert practice on this matter. 4= Your examples re: jump overcalls to show a new suit seem to have ignored the basic bridge tenet "any non game jump overcall". I believe I explicitly mentioned that when I first stated the use of 2 suited jump overcalls, but if I did not it was because we =are= in the Expert/Advanced forum where such things should be safely understood rather than in the Beginner forum. To be as clear as I would if talking to a novice: Jump overcalls of a preempt show 2 suits when they are not jumps into game. (3D)-X Everything we ever taught about T/O X's, adjusted for the auction level. (3D)-3M Natural (3D)-3N To Play (3D)-4C Natural (*I'm assuming we are teaching Standard here, not the system OP*) (3D)-4D GF S+H (the rarer hand types I will ignore for now) (3D)-4M To Play (3D)-4N GF C+M or C+H, I'm not sure there is overwhelming consensus here. (3D)-5C To Play. Now what the OP's partnership seems to have decided is that being able to show C+M one level lower is worth sacrificing the natural meaning of the 4C bid for. It may well be, but like anything else making it easier to bid some hands makes it harder to bid others. In this case, the relatively common ones that you would like to be able to start with a 4C bid with. (For instance if ArtK's hand had been a 46 M+C two-suiter not usually considered strong enough to X in this auction, what does ArtK do? The loss of 4C natural has made it impossible for ArtK to construct a reverse auction starting with 4C.) Hopefully this will clear up all the mistaken inferences some have taken of my posts in this thread and remove the vitriol from the discussion.

Dave's jokes and puns are notoriously bad. Often very bad. He is "one of the good guys" in bridge though. And for that, I'll even put up with his (often painful to hear) sense of humor. Thanks for letting me know how he is doing. His health was good, but delicate "even" when he was 90. Nice to see him still hanging in there. ...and I have =never= let him drive me anywhere. I was warned by friends before that possibility came up. NA bridge will definitely lose something when he passes. Now I'll go back into the fray...