4th suit forcing after 1C - 1D - 1H

[mikeh]

"Sorry, Mike.... I am enjoying your posts, but I again have to disagree. As I wrote in my post on the thread of 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♥, for me the raise to 2♥ on 3 cards is not just okay (not on the given hand, but in principle) but essential on hands such as xx KQx Axxxx xxx.

 

This type of hand can survive sometimes by bidding, for example, 2♣ but let's give opener Jxx AJ10x x AKQxx... I'd like to be in 4♥, wouldn't you?"

 

 

Difficult Deal:

1C=1D

1H=2C

3C=3H

4H

Mike, your example auction makes me shudder :P

 

1. Responder may have garbage for the preference and bidding 3♣ turns a plus into a minus, or makes a small minus bigger

 

2. Responder may have some values but will play opener for more: I strongly suspect that most would expect something along the lines of the playing strength of xx AKxx x AKQxxx for 3♣.. the type of hand that was worth a jump to 3♣ over 1♦ but had to stop off to show the ♥ suit first. So responder will bid again over 3♣ with hands that offer no hope... he won't always have KQx in ♥ for the preference :D

 

What it boils down to is that you are clinging to the concept that the single raise MUST deliver 4 card support and that it is therefore, by inference, a gf, since responder would not bid 1♦ otherwise.

 

I also suspect that this belief is rooted in Max Hardy's book (which underwent several revisions over time) about 2/1.

 

I read the first edition, back in the 1970's, and became a convert to his bidding approach. The first inkling I had that Max was not a good theoretician was when I met him at a Las Vegas Regional. I had experienced problems, using his method, with a responding hand that was 5-5 invitational. I couldn't bid the second suit in a 3 suit auction because that was artificial and gf. The hand was unsuited for notrump.. what was I to do?

 

I now know that the appropriate answer would have been to acknowledge that this was a problem and to explain that, in his view, the difficulties posed on this hand were offset by the gain of the use of 4sf as gf. I would also suggest, to someone asking me this question now, that responder should decide, based on a number of factors, whether the distortion of forcing to game or bidding a less-than-ideal 2N was the lesser ...or if there were any other alternative...

 

Instead, the answer was glib and immediate: 'Those hands don't come up enough to worry about them'.

 

Obviously that statement was untrue otherwise I would not have asked him the question!

 

Max was a good director and a reasonably good player, but he was NOT a top expert nor was he a good analyst of bidding theory. His book was successful, in my view, because he had very limited competition in setting out a system that was relatively easy and, on the whole, quite effective. But his book, as I recall it, contained only hands that worked with the suggested method and few, if any discussions of problem hands.. of the analysis of cost-benefit that good system designers engage in as they develop their method. Now, in fairness, Hardy never claimed (as far as I recall) that he designed the system... he was setting out a summary of methods pioneered by others... such as Walsh, Smolen and so on.

 

Compare that approach with a classic book explaining the choices of meaning that led to an early form of Acol: A Design for Bidding by S.J. Simon. While the choices made appear unattractive to modern North American eyes, the discussion of the factors underlying the choices is mandatory reading, in my view, for any aspiring system designer.

 

I am sure that anyone so much into the game as you appear to be can see that there are times when we need to question old basic assumptions... indeed, while I think that I have a pretty good knowledge of 'standard' bidding, I am continually learning new ways to look at old auctions.... Frances' suggested use for 2♠ in the subject auction is one excellent instance. I hope that my suggestion that you consider that the 2♥ raise be NOT forcing is one for you :)

[benlessard]

Playing 1c --1d---1h---2h as GF is Throwing away Walsh biggest edge in the garbage

 

 

Why give up the 3 card raise ?

 

If you dont raise with 3 card with that hand you should play play up the line not Walsh

 

 

xx

Axx

Axxxxx

xx