And yet another 6-level decision

[hrothgar]

I really like 6N at MP

 

I have a double stop in Spades and Diamonds so there's no risk that the opponents can clear an off suit before I can establish one of partners.

 

6N looks to be the practical choice. I readily admit, this could work badly if partner needs to ruff a club to establish his second suit. Balanced against, I don't need to worry about multiple trump losers.

[whereagles]

1.

I so dislike your approach to the bidding of strong hands, as evidenced in this thread and many others.

 

2.

If partner has misbid this hand, then he will probably continue to misbid other complex hands in the future.

 

3.

If you, as the 2N bidder, consistently breach discipline, rescuing partner from his errors, two things will happen to him.

- He will not learn to bid the complex hands correctly

- There will inevitably be times when his bidding has been correct and your call will turn the good board into a disaster,

 

4.

and he will lose confidence in how he bid it (even tho it was correct) and in your reliability as a partner

 

5.

If you bid 6♥ and miss a good grand, go over the auction without dumping on him..

 

6.

give him the tools to bid more accurately, and the confidence that, as a partnership, you can get there without either partner masterminding.

 

7.

Being a member of a partnership in which each player treats the other's bidding as if it were correct, without masterminding, is a very enjoyable experience. A strong partnership elevates the game of both partners. But trust and respect for partnership discipline are essential...

 

8.

in this auction, partner knows that you could hold the hand you held: indeed, you could hold an even better one. So to say that partner, bidding 6♣, could not reasonably expect you to hold your actual hand is nonsense.

 

9.

Yet he made no effort to investigate grand... either he made an error or he has a hand opposite which an average-plus hand offers little play for 13 winners.

 

10.

The truth is that your partner bid poorly (on the actual hand), you guessed 'correctly', and you think that that represents an interesting hand, with (I assume) educational value for readers of BBF. I disagree. An interesting hand, or bidding problem, is one that offers reasonable choices based on partner not having made basic errors.

 

11.

I doubt that showing 100 successful examples of masterminding will help any one play the game better... but it sure could hurt a lot of advancing players who begin to think that being superman is the way to win... rather than learning to work within a partnership.

1. Your approach is that the unlimited hand should control the auction. Mine is different: to me, it is the strong hand, regardless of limited or not, that should be in charge. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, but right now I don't think your arguments are compelling enough to make me change my mind.

 

2. Yes, but you know.. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple and let judgement do the rest. That's what happened here.

 

3. Some players don't want to learn how to "bid correctly". If you play one such player, you'll have to live with that and adapt. I stopped lecturing pard a long time ago because it will distract him from concentrating on the next hand. Now I only comment a thing or two and only if he insists on knowing my opinion. As for turning a plus into a minus.. well, that's the price to pay for standing up for your feelings and bidding what you think you can make. I'm willing to pay it, especially since I know I can match the bidding with good play.

 

4. Actually, people queue up to play with me :P It gets annoying at times.. lol.

 

5. Well.. that looks like unlucky expert talk to me :P

 

6. I don't think there's any way to bid this hand with science, especially with pards void (I would bid it differently, though). It's the '2NT slam killer' opener at work again. Sometime you just have to make a guess and I think a 20 hcp hand is qualified to make a guess. You won't see me 'mastermind' with a weak hand, regardless of who pard is.

 

7. Ok, maybe I should have made this clearer, but this isn't that kind of pard.

 

8. This where we very much disagree. There is no way a weakish hand can visualize a 20 hcp balanced hand and it's technically wrong to assume/demand pard can do it. The weakish hand will have to take some "average value" for the 2NT opener and bid accordingly. This is where I say judgement comes in: this particular hand may EASILY produce that extra trick that makes 7 a good gamble. Even two tricks, in case pard streched to bid 6 already. Of course, an ace may be out, but, as you know, bidding isn't an exact science.

 

9. I wouldn't say he make an error. I'd say he had a difficult hand to bid and took a practical shot, playing me for the regular 2NT opener. I just happened to have a much better than than he could possibly expect. As I said, strong hands are very independent, even if limited. Wouldn't you agree on this? C'mon, you're experienced enough to know I'm at least a little bit right :)

 

10. Well, I sure didn't come here looking for support for my actions. I just wanted to present a hand where one could eventually argue judgement might help reaching the top spot despite being in a standard sign-off situation.

 

11. Masterminding is part of the game. Just look at preemptive bidding.. eheh: "a unilateral shot at taking opps single-handedly", as Robson/Segal would say. Knowing about it helps understanding more about the game and human nature. Discipline is fine but you have to criticize stuff and think of other aspects of the game, so as to evolve. If nothing else, it will help you understand what OPPONENTS sometimes do. By the way.. being superman is the way to win with some partners. I don't recommend people to do it just like that because it takes a lot of experience to do it properly. Clumsiness is too telling an irritates pard. You have to do it with style :)

 

Cheers mikeh. I appreciate your comments, but it's just that we have a different philosophy.

[luke warm]

i think a couple of your comments help explain some things... for example, you say:

 

"Masterminding is part of the game. Just look at preemptive bidding..."

 

imo, the very fact that you don't seem to know the difference between the two is at the root of many of the opinions you post... and this quote,

 

"As for turning a plus into a minus.. well, that's the price to pay for standing up for your feelings and bidding what you think you can make. I'm willing to pay it, especially since I know I can match the bidding with good play."

 

... shows (again, imo) an attitude seen time and again in some of your posts - you give the impression that there is only you involved... the fact that *you're* willing to pay a certain price completely ignores whether or not your partner is... but i don't sense that you particularly care about pard's opinion

 

maybe your bridge skills and accomplishments warrant some of your opinions, i don't know you or them... but i do think that most people can see the difference between dogmaticism from a hamman or lawrence and you (or me)... in their cases, their skill and accomplishments add weight to their words.. their results, in some of the toughest events imaginable against some of the very best players, are there for the whole world to see... the same can't be said of you (or me)...

 

egocentric dogmaticism is rarely convincing

[whereagles]

Luke, with all due respect, I think you and others misinterpret what I say. I know exactly what I'm doing and what I say. My ideas sound strange because I disagree with some dogmas of mainstream bidding. I have a different way to look at things. Quite frankly, and not wanting to sound pretentious, I get more and more the feeling that I'm ahead of my time.

 

One day I'll have enough time to play. Then I'll prove that I'm right at the table.

[bid_em_up]

Aye yai yai.

[Free]

Luke, with all due respect, I think you and others misinterpret what I say. I know exactly what I'm doing and what I say. My ideas sound strange because I disagree with some dogmas of mainstream bidding. I have a different way to look at things. Quite frankly, and not wanting to sound pretentious, I get more and more the feeling that I'm ahead of my time.

 

One day I'll have enough time to play. Then I'll prove that I'm right at the table.

I really doubt if you really don't want to sound pretentious. We've all read your words from time to time, and you know what you write apparently. However, we haven't seen ANY accomplishment of you, not on BBO, not in the real world, nowhere. And yet you get a feeling you're ahead of your time. I sometimes think "wow, if I had these tools but lived in the past, I'd probably be rich tnx to bridge". If you're sooo ahead of your time, you should already be there! Unless it's all your partner's fault ofcourse... :(

 

When will we ever see your futuristic bidding approach online?

[whereagles]

Look, through my experience I found that some mainstream principles of bidding need a rewriting. I wanted to share my ideas with the forum, so as to discuss the stuff.

 

Obviously people are not interested in what I have to say, so rest assured I won't bother you more with them. But I must say find it rather bad manners to try and refute my ideas by doing cheap psychology about my personality.

 

I had more to say, but I think I stop here.

[Blofeld]

Look, through my experience I found that some mainstream principles of bidding need a rewriting. I wanted to share my ideas with the forum, so as to discuss the stuff.

I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions (well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very successful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well).

 

For example, you claim that you find it better for the strong hand to captain rather than the unlimited one. There is a very obvious reason why the unlimited hand might make a better captain: it has a better idea of the partnership's combined assets. But perhaps there are reasons why the strong hand is better placed to take control? The only one that springs to mind is that it may be slightly easier for the weaker hand to describe all of its assets, but this must be a pretty small affair especially when the strong hand is fairly constrained. So could you explain what advantages you see, and why these outweigh the perspective of the weaker hand knowing the combined strength of the hands?

 

Counter-intuitive viewpoints always need to be explained fairly fully before they are accepted. You aren't explaining statements, so little wonder if they aren't taken seriously. Even if you don't sway everyone to your side, you'll get people to think more about the issues involved.

 

Obviously people are not interested in what I have to say, so rest assured I won't bother you more with them.

Please don't sink into this narcissistic grandstanding. If you have arguments to make, people will certainly be interested. You haven't been making arguments, you've been making controversial statements. If that's all you have to offer, I'll be quite happy if you don't mention them again ; on the other hand if you have a case to make I'd love to hear it.

[luke warm]

Look, through my experience I found that some mainstream principles of bidding need a rewriting. I wanted to share my ideas with the forum, so as to discuss the stuff.

I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions (well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very successful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well).

that's all i was trying to get across, that dogmaticism is acceptable (tho not necessarily adored) from someone who has the authority to be dogmatic, by virtue of known accomplishments... it's just like the flannery debate, imo... if i say "flannery sucks" then everyone would have a perfect right to know who i think i am to make such a statement

[pclayton]

My partners occasionally break discipline or take a view. Sometimes they are right, othertimes they aren't. But if they consistently override my judgement, hog the bids, or exclude me from the decision making, they join my list of ex-pards.

 

On this hand, you have boxed your hand rather tightly with a 2N opener. Pard has asked you to choose a small slam. If you aren't comfortable relinquishing captaincy, open these hands with one of a suit.

 

7H or 6N might be right but they are total stabs. Stabs sometimes work, but to characterize this thinking as 'being ahead of ones time' shows a lot of verve.

[Finch]

Back to the actual hand, and the bidding problem presented.

 

The fact that partner has offered me a choice of slams but shown no interest in looking for a grand, or asked my opinion, makes it very likely, in my view, that he has a void in at least one of the side suits. Those are the hardest types of hand to bid opposite a strong opener for two reasons. First, you tend to be short of room to show partner a 6-5 or 5-5 in two suits _and_ a void and still offer a choice of contracts, and secondly because if you are slightly light for your slam drive, the last thing you want to do is tell the opponents which suit to lead.

 

Also, I have AK AK in the side suits opposite a hand which forced to slam. That makes a void extremely likely in one of them, or else where did the slam force come from?

 

So I don't think this is actually that good a hand. I might be able to construct a hand on which I'd bid 7 (Axx AK Axx AQxxx for example), but it would a very rare hand with lots of honours in partner's suits, not one where I know some of the honours will be wasted.

 

As for the choice between 6H and 6NT: I would choose 6H. First is that (again) partner's 'guessing' auction indicates he has a difficult hand to bid, so we should get a fair score for simply playing in the best spot - perhaps some of the field will be in game, or in a grand. Secondly, when we have a doubleton club 6H is likely a safer slam as there is the possibility of ruffing a club in our hand. The possible club ruff also makes 6H much more likely to make an overtrick than 6NT, and 1460 beats 1440. If 6NT is making an overtrick, partner has seriously misbid. If I think my cardplay is better than the average, so that (say) I will make 13 tricks when much of the field will not, my expected matchpoints are rather higher playing in 6H than 7H.

 

Give me a third club (to go with my third heart) and 6NT is much more tempting.

[whereagles]

1.

I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions

 

2.

(well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very people will certainly be interested. You haven't been making arguments, you've been making controversial statements. If that's all you have to offer, I'll be quite happy if you don't mention them again ; on thesuccessful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well).

 

3.

For example, you claim that you find it better for the strong hand to captain rather than the unlimited one. There is a very obvious reason why the unlimited hand might make a better captain: it has a better idea of the partnership's combined assets.

 

4.

But perhaps there are reasons why the strong hand is better placed to take control?

 

5.

The only one that springs to mind is that it may be slightly easier for the weaker hand to describe all of its assets, but this must be a pretty small affair especially when the strong hand is fairly constrained.

 

6.

So could you explain what advantages you see, and why these outweigh the perspective of the weaker hand knowing the combined strength of the hands?

 

7.

Please don't sink into this narcissistic grandstanding. If you have arguments to make....

1.

False. I have presented a principle (strong hand leads the bidding, not the unlimited one) and I have backed it up on grounds that the strong hand is more independent. This is not a "blindly asserted opinion": it is a clear statement with argumentation.

 

I'm not going to give 100 examples for the obvious reason, but I'll leave you a nice one: relay precision. The strong hand asks questions, the unlimited hand answers them. A prefect application of the above principle, whose results are widely known to be outstanding.

 

 

2.

Sounds like following a religion to me.. Well, I'm not like that.

 

 

3.

This is true when the limited hand is relatively weak, like in 0-15 hcp or so. It stops being so clear when the limited hand grows in strength, especially if it's unbalanced. For instance, not all 16 hcp balanced hands are the same. There are good 16s and bad 16s. Now think of a 16 hcp 1- or 2-suited hand, whose playing strength can range from garbage to huge.

 

 

4.

Indeed. If you think about it, even textbooks say that a strong hand is allowed to do some occasional masterminding. Example:

 

2NT 3♥ (transfer)

4♠ (super accept)

 

This is a very simple case of what I'm saying: opener's hand has risen in playing strength knowing of the spade fit, and took immediate action. It is obviously masterminding, but we all accept it as "normal". My claim is, very simply, that you can extend this reasoning to other sequences. (So yeah, perhaps I'm not ahead of my time after all.) The reason the strong hand should lead is because it is more independent, meaning: it needs only a card or two to make its contract.

 

 

5.

Basically, the reason is that one, but seen the other way around: the strong hand would like to ask the weak one whether it has this card or that one, because those are the cards that it needs to close its suits. It is not a "pretty small affair" because the weak hand cannot possibly imagine what the strong one has. A weak hand has only a few combinations of high cards, whereas a strong one has zillions. An application of this:

 

2NT 3♥ (spades)

3♠ 4♣ (nat, 54 slam try)

 

now OPENER should be in charge, not responder. This auction can produce anything from 9 tricks in NT (oops) to 13 tricks in clubs or spades. The outcome will depend more on OPENER's hand, despite being a limited one!, than on what responder showed, and this is why opener should take charge now.

 

 

6.

The advantages are clear: the strong hand is more independent, so it knows better which high cards are needed. It should be given the chance to take charge whenever possible. Knowing the combined strength is fine, but it cannot be restricted to hcps. Fitting patterns also count and a strong hand can easily rise enough in value so as to take some unilateral action.

 

 

7. The first sentence doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph. You don't need excuses to express disdain. If you have something to say, say it.

[whereagles]

that dogmaticism is acceptable (tho not necessarily adored) from someone who has the authority to be dogmatic, by virtue of known accomplishments...

No form of dogmatism is acceptable. Dogmatism is the opposite of criticism and critical thinking. Following dogmas has led to some of the greatest tragedies in human history.

[whereagles]

On this hand, you have boxed your hand rather tightly with a 2N opener.

That is a misconception, which I hope I have dispelled two posts above. The point is 2NT is only a statement about hand pattern and hcp strength. There is still a lot to be said about the hand, especially since it's such a strong one.

 

On the original occasion I felt I had the right to bid 7 because pard didn't let me tell what was left to say about my hand.

[hrothgar]

I'm not going to give 100 examples for the obvious reason,

but I'll leave you a nice one: relay precision. The strong hand

asks questions, the unlimited hand answers them. A prefect application of the above principle, whose results are widely

known to be outstanding.

Comment 1: I'd be hard pressed to make a definitive statement regarding standard practice when designing relay systems. I'd certainly steer away from anything as absolute as you seem to be claiming...

 

Comment 2: Many relay systems are deliberately designed to limit strength as quickly as possible. Case in point, consider the relay structure that MOSCITO uses following the auction 1♣ - 1♦ (where 1♣ = strong artificial and forcing and 1♦ = artificial game force) The strong club opener has the option of bidding 1♥ as a relay asking bid or 1♠+ and describe his hand. The structure is designed such that the decision to "show" rather than ask limits the strength of the strong club opener. In short: having the limited hand show rather than ask is a core principle in many relay structures.

 

Comment 3: If I had to identify a second core principle in designing relay structures it sure as hell wouldn't be "strong hand asks". I suspect that the most likely candidate would be "balanced hand asks", with "zoom to identify a misfit" following closely behind...

[hrothgar]

That is a misconception, which I hope I have dispelled two posts above. The point is 2NT is only a statement about hand pattern and hcp strength. There is still a lot to be said about the hand, especially since it's such a strong one.

I'd like to focus in on the example of the 2NT opener since this provides a very nice illustration regarding some of the problems with your core approach.

 

Lets consider 3 different NT ranges:

 

1. A mini NT showing ~10-12 HCP

2. A "standard" NT showing ~15-17 HCP

3. A standard 2NT opening showing ~20-22 HCP

 

I'd argue that each of these hands types is opened on (approximately) the same hand patterns. Each of these hand types shows the same 3 HCP range. Most people would argue that the NT opener has (approximately) the same number of bits of information to convey regardless of the range of his opening.

 

Please note: I readily admit that the people play very different response structures over mini-NTs than they do over strong NTs. However, this is (essentially) related to wanting to avoid transfers during part score auctions.

[whereagles]

hrothgar: I mentioned relay precision as in the Truscott Symmetric Relays variation. I played that particular scheme for a while, which had "strong hand asks" the principle, and was quite pleased with the results.

 

There are, of course, more modern relay schemes. But the principle that the strong hand can take charge if it wants, is, as far as I know, always there.

 

About the similarities between miniNT, 1NT and 2NT. It is true that the information conveyed by the opening is roughly the same. But you seem to be missing my point: the 2NT opener is much more independent. A 20-22 hcp hand can withstand the 4-level with moderate fit, whereas a 1NT opener can't. In other words, it would be a huge overbid to superaccept

 

1NT 2♥

4♠

 

whereas superaccepting

 

2NT 3♥

4♠

 

is much more normal.

[Finch]

On this hand, you have boxed your hand rather tightly with a 2N opener.

That is a misconception, which I hope I have dispelled two posts above. The point is 2NT is only a statement about hand pattern and hcp strength. There is still a lot to be said about the hand, especially since it's such a strong one.

 

On the original occasion I felt I had the right to bid 7 because pard didn't let me tell what was left to say about my hand.

The thing is, you can interpret -and act on - partner's jump to slam in two different ways. Either

 

"I'm going to bid 7 because partner didn't let me describe my hand properly and I feel I have extra values"

 

or

 

"I'm going to do what I'm asked to do - chose between 6C and 6H - because I trust partner, and if a grand is making opposite this (good, but not exceptionally so) hand then partner would have gone more slowly"

 

The first of these feels like you are saying "I can evaluate your hand better than you can. You thought there was no serious chance of a grand making but even though I can't see your hand, and my hand is not particularly unusual for a 2NT opening opposite hearts and clubs, you are wrong."

 

The transfer super-accept is different: partner doesn't have room over 2NT to let you describe your hand's suitability for spades; if you bid 3S he can pass so you break to 4S to say "I think we'll have play for game opposite a hand that was going to pass 3S". Here, partner had plenty of room but didn't utilise it.

 

The fact that grand turned out to be the right contract indicates that possibly bidding grand is correct opposite a random partner who can't evaluate their hand very well and doesn't dare do anything slow such as transfer to hearts and bid clubs in case you think 4C is Gerber... but not in a regular partnership.

[hrothgar]

About the similarities between miniNT, 1NT and 2NT. It is true that the information conveyed by the opening is roughly the same. But you seem to be missing my point: the 2NT opener is much more independent. A 20-22 hcp hand can withstand the 4-level with moderate fit, whereas a 1NT opener can't. In other words, it would be a huge overbid to superaccept

 

1NT 2♥

4♠

 

whereas superaccepting

 

2NT 3♥

4♠

 

is much more normal.

From my perspective, the major difference between the auction

 

1N - 2♥ - 4♠

 

and

 

2N - 3♥ - 4♠

 

is the amount of bidding that is being consumed. In the first case, the jump to 4 Spades burns 10 steps of bidding space. In the second, the super accept burns 5 steps of bidding space. There's no point in comparing the two sequences unless you can demonstrate that the difference in frequency is a function of the hand strength rather than the marginal value of the extra 5 steps of bidding strength (throwing examples like this out raises some doubts about your credibility)

 

What might be interesting is comparing super accept sequences over different strength 1NT openings. You claim that strong hands are better positioned to take control of the auction. If so, we would expect to see systemic differences in the frequency of super accept sequences when comparing 10-12 HCP 1NT openings with 15-17 HCP 1NT openings.

 

I've never seen any kind of analysis supporting this.

You might be able to point to something...

[mikestar]

I have some sympathy for 7♥ in the context of an erratic partner whose bidding may not be reliable. You are on a guess anyway, but the cards you hold seem to indicate that the aggressive guess is more likely to win than the conservative guess.

 

This is practical bidding if you are playing with a partner who isn't as good as you are and is never going to be. It's quite wrong with someone whose bidding you can trust. It's not good with someone whose bidding you can't trust yet but whose game is evolving--you can set them back, winning the battle but losing the war.

 

 

Perhaps if the problem were presented as "partner really has little idea of how to bid slam hands, but he isn't a wild overbidder", I would be advocating 7♥ in context.

 

 

In an established partnership, this type of sequence should be defined. There are two rationally defesible ways to play this that I can see:

• I'm pretty sure of the small slam but my value are such that I have nothing else to show and the wrong hand to ask. Feel free to bid the grand with a perfecto. (Picture Bidding/Slow Arrival)
  
• Taking a shot at slam, feel free to bid the grand if you're insane. (Fast Arrival)
  

[whereagles]

Frances, you have gotten into a contradiction: first you argue one should always respect pard's judgement, and then you give an example of a hand where you'd bid 7. Where do you stand after all?

[whereagles]

From my perspective, the major difference between the auction

 

1N - 2♥ - 4♠

 

and

 

2N - 3♥ - 4♠

 

is the amount of bidding that is being consumed.

Well, to me there is another, more fundamental difference. In the 1st case you have to make 9 tricks, whereas in the 2nd case it's more like 10 tricks ;)

 

Only a strong hand can try and contract for 10 tricks when pard may be broke. To me that's the main difference.

[whereagles]

I have some sympathy for 7♥ in the context of an erratic partner whose bidding may not be reliable. You are on a guess anyway, but the cards you hold seem to indicate that the aggressive guess is more likely to win than the conservative guess.

 

This is practical bidding if you are playing with a partner who isn't as good as you are and is never going to be. It's quite wrong with someone whose bidding you can trust. It's not good with someone whose bidding you can't trust yet but whose game is evolving--you can set them back, winning the battle but losing the war.

 

 

Perhaps if the problem were presented as "partner really has little idea of how to bid slam hands, but he isn't a wild overbidder", I would be advocating 7♥ in context.

 

 

In an established partnership, this type of sequence should be defined. There are two rationally defesible ways to play this that I can see:

• I'm pretty sure of the small slam but my value are such that I have nothing else to show and the wrong hand to ask. Feel free to bid the grand with a perfecto. (Picture Bidding/Slow Arrival)
  
• Taking a shot at slam, feel free to bid the grand if you're insane. (Fast Arrival)
  

mikestar: indeed, this is also a problem of playing your pard. Obviously, if the leap to 6♣ showed by agreement, say, a void and no more than 1 ace, then 7♥ would be nuts.

 

But I think no one here has detailed agreements as to what an auction as this one shows, so the point was to see how would people evaluate their hand on this particular sequence, as it happened at table.

[mikeh]

Whereagles is way off base when he uses, in support of his methods, reference to 1N 2♥ 4♠. I know of no good partnership that would incorporate that into their agreements.

 

What whereagles misses is that the super-accept of a transfer is a necessity imposed on a partnership by the constraints of bidding space. When one partner picks up a weakish hand with a 5+ card major and hears partner open 1 or 2N, regardless of range, he has to cater to the possibility that partner is minimum with no real support.... he has to cater to getting out cheaply. Opener, on the other hand, may hold an 'in context' great hand with a big fit, and so must cater to partner having a maximum in context, hence the super-accept... protected, in the case of 1N opening bids, by the implications of the LOTT should partner pass the super-accept.

 

All of this changes should responder have slam ambitions after any notrump opener. Whereagles is not far wrong in describing the 2N opening as a slam killer.... it is a space consuming bid over which most casual partnerships have few and usually crude methods. Yet even for unsophisticated partnerships, there is a LOT of bidding space available for the exchange of information.

 

It is this availability of bidding space that is critical.... and 'bidding space' is a concept that many non-expert players seem to under-appreciate.

 

When whereagles says that it is okay for the stronger hand to make unilateral decisions, it is because he does not understand bidding space and its use, or the inferences to be drawn from its non-use.

 

Responder could have involved opener in the decision to an extent far beyond 'choice of small slams'. Responder could have used the available bidding space to collaboratively explore the placement of the final contract. When responder refuses to do so, opener has NO rights to do other than answer the simple choice of small slams question posed by the auction.

 

Now, on the actual hand, it is apparent that responder also lacks an appreciation of the use of bidding space... so if one is playing in a one-shot random partnership, with no intention of playing with that partner again, and one likes to indulge one's sense of power, without regard for partner, then one could take a shot at 7♥. Personally, I would never do it... and my ego is as strong as mosts (many would say less polite things about my ego ;) )

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the major difference between the auction

 

1N - 2♥ - 4♠

 

and

 

2N - 3♥ - 4♠

 

is the amount of bidding that is being consumed.

Well, to me there is another, more fundamental difference. In the 1st case you have to make 9 tricks, whereas in the 2nd case it's more like 10 tricks ;)

 

Only a strong hand can try and contract for 10 tricks when pard may be broke. To me that's the main difference.

In general, when analyzing a problem its useful to hold as many factors as possible constant. I think that its a very big mistake to be comparing superaccept sequences following a 2NT opening with those following a 1NT opening.

 

Do you have any evidence to suggest that frequency of superaccept sequences opposite a micro or weak 1NT open differ in any significant way from super-accept sequences opposite a strong NT opening?