Interesting auction

[MickyB]

I actually use "if it is possible that the bid is non-forcing, it is non-forcing".

 

Non-forcing bids suggest a final contract and there is something appealling about the concept of trying to maximize the number of possible final contracts, especially after an undiscussed sequence.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Roy Hughes makes the point that an undiscussed forcing bid is more likely to lead to ambiguous continuations than an undiscussed non-forcing bid.

[kenrexford]

Great fear and loathing.

 

OK. How about simple parallels, instead of quotable quotes.

 

1NT-P-2♣-P-2M-P-3OM.

 

When one partner has made a call (like 1♦-3♣-X) that usually asks for a 4-card major, and seems to deny five of one and three of the other,

 

And then partner complies with picking one of the majors,

 

Then bidding the other major agrees the selected major and is a slam try.

 

Using the other logic, 1NT-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-3♥ shows some kind of double-major Moysian probe, allowing Opener to select between his 4-3 and partner's 4-3 major.

 

For that matter, any call that seems to ask partner to pick one of two suits, followed by bidding the one partner does not pick, is usually viewed as a strong move, not as cancelling the meaning of the first call.

 

Rules like "if it could be natural" or "if its sounds natural" are not useful tools for the situation if it could not be natural and it does not sound natural.

[Guest Jlall]

Ok, if your partner is Bob Hamman's mentor and thinks exactly the same as you I guess you will have no problems with making undiscussed bids like this.

 

If your partner is someone who merely plays at the level of Fred Gitelman or mikeh or even Bob Hmamman himself then I guess you had better not try this bid because they will not be able to use the trivial logic able to figure out the meaning of this automatic sequence.

 

Dude you're really too much.

 

BTW pass pass 1C 1N 2H shows 4S and 6H??? lol... Partner can't have -- KQJTx Qxxxx xxx? Or 6 hearts and a 5 card minor? or Kx Jxxxxxx Qx Kx? I guess your mentor who is also Bob Hamman's mentor understands why 4S and 6H is the only hand but I doubt many others will.

 

[edited by rain] The moderators may have missed that one but I didn't ;)

[Fluffy]

So my thinking is that partner has a good playing hand with only moderate hcp: and he was afraid to promise a strong hand: say 1=6=5=1 with x KQ10xxx KJxxx x. Had we bid 4♠, he'd happily bid 5♦, expecting to make, and (indeed) he expects to have a play for 5♦ if we reject 4♥.

I didn't even bother to contruct a sensible hand for my point of view and now I read yours it looks it is harder than I suposed. I think 5♥-5♦ is probably enough, maybe bad 6♥ with 4♦ as well.

[inquiry]

Well Ken, the auctions are not at all similar.

 

1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥ is forcing, and most people play this as slam try agreeing spades. The other "major" here is artificial in that sense.

 

After

1♦-(3♣)-X-(P)

3♠-(P)-4♥

 

The situation is very different. First, if responder had real hearts and a good hand, he could bid 3♥ or with hearts and spades, he could bid 4♣. The negative doubel DOES not promise four cards in a major. In fact, here it might have one four card major, two four card major, or no four card major but not a good enough hand to make a free bid but too good to pass.

 

An important point, the negative double can have a longer suit than four cards. This is because a free suit bid is forcing. Second the negative double has to be prepared for partner to 1-PASS, 2-Jump to 4 of either major, 3-rebid his original suit.

 

So after stayman, where if opener had long hearts he would have transferred to hearts and perhaps bid spades, a stayman bid followed by new major over partners major suit is EASILY used as a conventional slam try, the auction you give is quite a different kettle of fish. Let's imagine some potential hands, shall we...

 

 

S-Axx H-AQT9x D-JTxx C-x Too strong for neg dbl, bid 3♥ then raise ♦

 

S-KQxx H-AJ9xx D-xx C-xx Perfect neg dbl, but you would raise 3S to 4S

 

S-Txx H-KQxxx D-Kxx C-xx Not good enough for neg dbl at 3 level.

 

S-xx H-KQ9xx D-Kx C-JTxx You would pass, not sure if you are hoping to pass reopening double or offer 3NT/4♥ as final contracts.

 

S-xx H-KQT9xxx D-Qxx C-x, Ok, here I bid 3♥ and then rebid 4♥. Hand not strong enough for this auction, but they held a gun to my head.

[MickyB]

Oh, I forgot to give partner's hand -

[hv=s=saxhkqj9dkt9xc9xx]133|100|[/hv]

[Fluffy]

S-xx H-KQT9xxx D-Qxx C-x, Ok, here I bid 3♥ and then rebid 4♥. Hand not strong enough for this auction, but they held a gun to my head.

If you play 3♥ as forcing then this is better bid with direct 4♥ IMO, rest of hands I fully agree with you Ben. Just tell me what you bid with 5-5 with 8 usefull HCP ;)

[kenrexford]

Now I'm just trying to learn from the Masters.

 

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner?

 

I just do not get this issue or the logic of some of y'all, vehement though it may be.

 

This seems so incredibly simple to me; explain my error if you will, to the below:

 

With at least 4-4 in the majors, you double and live with partner's choice. You do not use this tight of an auction to find the best contract with 5-4's and 6-4's.

 

With 4♠/3♥, you double. If partner bids spades, great. If not, you bid spades.

 

With 4♥/3♠, you double. If partner was 4-4, he'd bid 3♥, to allow you to bid spades. That would be great. If he bids spades, you could raise if you like the MOysian, or bid diamonds (or 3NT).

 

With only one four-card major, you double as above, ignoring the 3-card.

 

With a five-card major and not 4+ in the other, you bid the one you have.

 

 

 

BTW, Justin, I'm not sure why "Good For You Justin" is a matter of concern to the moderators. B)

[Fluffy]

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner?

The hands that say: ok partner I will strech to game because pass is too risky, but please please, I don't wanna play any higher

[inquiry]

Now I'm just trying to learn from the Masters.

 

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner? 

 

I just do not get this issue or the logic of some of y'all, vehement though it may be. 

 

This seems so incredibly simple to me; explain my error if you will, to the below:

 

With at least 4-4 in the majors, you double and live with partner's choice.  You do not use this tight of an auction to find the best contract with 5-4's and 6-4's.

 

With 4♠/3♥, you double.  If partner bids spades, great.  If not, you bid spades.

 

With 4♥/3♠, you double.  If partner was 4-4, he'd bid 3♥, to allow you to bid spades.  That would be great.  If he bids spades, you could raise if you like the MOysian, or bid diamonds (or 3NT).

 

With only one four-card major, you double as above, ignoring the 3-card.

 

With a five-card major and not 4+ in the other, you bid the one you have.

 

 

 

BTW, Justin, I'm not sure why "Good For You Justin" is a matter of concern to the moderators. B)

two ways to do this...

 

First way if your hand is STRONG and 4-4 in the majors, is to ... cue-bid 4♣ rather than double = but requires ability to play in 4 or 5 ♦. This loses out on some chances to double 3♣ for penalty if RHO stepped out of bounds and bypasses 3NT on others. So use only with appropriate hands.

 

Method number two... double then either,

1. raise to 4♠ with enough for game opposite 4 in partners hand, or
   
2. cue-bid 4♣ now, NOT showing a control, but rather a hand too good for an immediate raise to 4♠
   

You will notice after the DBL then cue-bid, you are likely to get a chance to cue-bid that HEART ACE any way, since your partner will probalby cooperate with a ♦ cue-bid unless he is DEAD minimum. He has already limited his hand a fair bit with his 3♠ bid.

 

A final nitpik, 3♠ is not always a four card suit. Sometimes partner will be pressed into bidding a 3 card suit. This is more often after 1C-(3D)-DBL rather than 1D-(3C)-DBL. Also, I thought FRED's hand with spades and hearts was a nice example where hearts are held. I have to admit, I wuold be much more likely to have diamonds and hearts than spades and hearts, but partenr who can't stand hearts can bid 4♠ to find out.

 

To fluffy, with 5-5 in the reds, I would rebid 4♦ or 4♥ depending on how I felt about my hand. If I felt like I wanted to force game, 4♥, if not 4♦. But then, if it was a yucky 5-5 I might have just bid 3♦ over 3♣. An important feature if the quality of the spot cards in my two long suits.

[fred]

Now I'm just trying to learn from the Masters.

 

What hand, precisely, is not good enough to bid 3♥ directly after 3♣, presumably because that would force game, but is good enough to bid 4♥ (bypassing even 4♦) after a double and 3♠ from partner?

 

I just do not get this issue or the logic of some of y'all, vehement though it may be.

 

This seems so incredibly simple to me; explain my error if you will, to the below:

 

With at least 4-4 in the majors, you double and live with partner's choice. You do not use this tight of an auction to find the best contract with 5-4's and 6-4's.

 

With 4♠/3♥, you double. If partner bids spades, great. If not, you bid spades.

 

With 4♥/3♠, you double. If partner was 4-4, he'd bid 3♥, to allow you to bid spades. That would be great. If he bids spades, you could raise if you like the MOysian, or bid diamonds (or 3NT).

 

With only one four-card major, you double as above, ignoring the 3-card.

 

With a five-card major and not 4+ in the other, you bid the one you have.

 

 

 

BTW, Justin, I'm not sure why "Good For You Justin" is a matter of concern to the moderators. B)

Ken,

 

I am not sure if your post is meant as a pure discussion of bidding theory or if it is meant to represent the sort of thought process you think you would use at the table to decide on the meaning of undiscussed 4H in this auction.

 

If the later, I don't think this is a practical approach to bridge, but I suppose that is something that you and your partner have to decide for yourselves. My experience suggests that the path you are taking will lead you to a lot of bidding misunderstandings, heated arguments, and poor results. If you disagree and want to ignore this advice, I will be the first to offer you sincere congratulations when your partnership is successful.

 

In you are trying to engage in a discussion of pure bidding theory, however, I think you are being naive about the complexity of this problem. I have no doubt that your approach will gain some of the time. But there are several other ways that you could define 4H (some of which are "natural and non-forcing") that will also show a gain some of the time. I think it would take a pretty serious simulation (as well as serious thought about other bids that took place, might have taken place, or might take place later in the auction) in order to "solve" this problem.

 

There is a large class of bidding theory questions that cannot be solved using only the type of "logic" that you are engaging in. The problem of what 4H *should* mean falls into this class.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

I would just take this as natural weakish (and pass if the hand is suitable). If pard intended this as some sort of advanced cue or whatever.. well, tough luck for him.

[kenrexford]

I am not sure if your post is meant as a pure discussion of bidding theory or if it is meant to represent the sort of thought process you think you would use at the table to decide on the meaning of undiscussed 4H in this auction.

Fred,

 

The point that I was trying to make is perhaps a blend of theory and practice.

 

Justin's initial observation was that his "theory" interpretation was too esoteric for partner to field at the table, and so he would not do it. I called him out for being, IMO, too afraid of "esoteric" bids.

 

In all honesty, I'll concede that different people can have different ideas or foci for their theory. Different defaults. Such that, in a pickup/new partnership, trying the esoteric would be dangerous.

 

However, working through these things, to enable use of the "esoteric" as no longer strange, is the goal, I would hope, of any partnership.

 

I mean, consider this actual problem. If you had this 4♥ call come up at the table with some random person, you would scratch your head.

 

However, I'll bet that both you and Justin, if actually playing across the table from me, would take a large bet if offered that my 4♥ was a slam try, right? Just from simple forum posts, this is so obviously my bent that this could be worked out.

 

Now, sit up at night with me drinking beer until 4:00 talking stupid bridge hands, smoke 10,000 packs of cigarettes with me between rounds, and work through round-after-round of tossing "esoteric" bids out one-after-another. Unless one of us is schizophrenic, I bet we'd start to understand each other and reach similarity of mindset when partnering up, all sufficient for fielding the undiscussed.

 

1♦-3♣-? should not be the start of mass confusion in an established partnership, with complimentary understanding of theory and agreed defaults.

 

On the other hand, if I were to claim that such-and-such auction called for an empathetic splinter, that the two unknowns from the E.S. matrix were the ace-only side and the 5-3 side, and that clearly my call was indicating either the lower of two equally-catering possibilities or that just the lower was catered to the agreed default, that I had to cue their suit as a flag for that lower cater position, and that next-up by you would have been LTTC, inquiring if I have a double-cater position, all of which is not made up by the way and is theoretically supportable, you would be quite right to tell me that I was out of my mind and to just bid a GD 4♠ like a normal person.

[fred]

However, I'll bet that both you and Justin, if actually playing across the table from me, would take a large bet if offered that my 4♥ was a slam try, right?  Just from simple forum posts, this is so obviously my bent that this could be worked out.

No that is not correct. Here is what I would think:

 

"Ken knows that I don't like trying to figure out what particular estoric meaning of a particular esoteric bid he has in mind. Surely he won't try this playing with me".

 

It is not about being "afraid" - it is about trying to win. I think the approach that I (and Justin) have is more conducive to winning than your approach. For me it also happens to be more conducive to enjoying the game, but of course that is a personal matter.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

No that is not correct. Here is what I would think:

 

"Ken knows that I don't like trying to figure out what particular estoric meaning of a particular esoteric bid he has in mind. Surely he won't try this playing with me".

 

It is not about being "afraid" - it is about trying to win. I think the approach that I (and Justin) have is more conducive to winning than your approach. For me it also happens to be more conducive to enjoying the game, but of course that is a personal matter.

Actually, in all fairness, you are right. If somehow I had you across the table from me, I would be playing your game. That is true.

 

But, I think you may understand my larger point. That is that the difference between esoteric and obvious may be a fine line, but partnership practice and experience should make more and more obvious then esoteric.

 

As to what is the ideal approach.

 

If you actually agree with the useful space principle, then ideally you should be able to use as many bids as possible. If, say, you and partner have no idea in a given auction what anything after a specific 3♠ call is, except 4♠, then you have one way to describe all hands on route to 4♠. If your partnership theory adopts an inferior concept of priority, but this enables you to at least have a meaning for all other four-bids, you are better off than having no alternatives.

 

As to the enjoyment of the game.

 

This is the part that really boggles me most, from my personal perspective. Winning is nice, of course. But, one major appeal to bridge for me is in the ability of the game to enable amazing discourse between two partners, at bidding and defense. If I end a game in second place, I might be disappointed at the result. But, if my partner and I were on the same page in extremely interesting ways throughout the game, reaching amazing contracts or making excellent stops with confidence because of a developed partnership, or finding incredible defense for the same reasons, then I enjoyed the game. In the end, the performance of the act is much better than the reward of the result.

 

I happen to believe that mastering what I enjoy about the game leads to success in the win-loss category. But, if I had to choose one as my motivation, it would be theory.

[fred]

As to the enjoyment of the game.

 

This is the part that really boggles me most, from my personal perspective. Winning is nice, of course. But, one major appeal to bridge for me is in the ability of the game to enable amazing discourse between two partners, at bidding and defense. If I end a game in second place, I might be disappointed at the result. But, if my partner and I were on the same page in extremely interesting ways throughout the game, reaching amazing contracts or making excellent stops with confidence because of a developed partnership, or finding incredible defense for the same reasons, then I enjoyed the game. In the end, the performance of the act is much better than the reward of the result.

For me winning is not just "nice" - it is a substantial part of my income.

 

It also means that I am under a lot of pressure when I play. If my partner and I get to an absurd contract due to a bidding misunderstanding, I can't just write it off as "that was interesting" - such incidents are professionally embarassing.

 

Of course I understand the satisfaction you get when you and your partner are on the same wavelength and get to a wonderful contract as a result. But I can assure you that you can experience at least as much satisfaction after a well-judged natural auction.

 

For me the key is not maximizing the fun that comes from getting a hand right. It is minimizing the pain that comes from disasters that could have been avoided.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

My first thought was something like Han's interpretation but then Justin convinced me and reading on further, Fred convinced me. Seeing the actual hand I'm back to Hannie's interpretation, I think that's a hand that comes up frequently and has a serious bidding problem.

 

But maybe it could be argued that 4♦ or 5♦ is technically just as good, so you might as well adopt Fred's interpretation or maybe Justin's. At the table, I would bid 5♦ which I consider a reasonable and at least non-ambigous bid.

 

Added: Couldn't Fred's and Han's interpretations work together? Both essentially mean "pass with three hearts, otherwise bid 4♠". Fred's hand will then pass 4♠ while Han's will correct 4♠ to 5♦.

[fred]

My first thought was something like Han's interpretation but then Justin convinced me and reading on further, Fred convinced me. Seeing the actual hand I'm back to Hannie's interpretation, I think that's a hand that comes up frequently and has a serious bidding problem.

 

But maybe it could be argued that 4♦ or 5♦ is technically just as good, so you might as well adopt Fred's interpretation or maybe Justin's. At the table, I would bid 5♦ which I consider a reasonable and at least non-ambigous bid.

 

Added: Couldn't Fred's and Han's interpretations work together? Both essentially mean "pass with three hearts, otherwise bid 4♠". Fred's hand will then pass 4♠ while Han's will correct 4♠ to 5♦.

I was not very proud of my example hand with 4-6 in the majors since there are obviously other reasonable ways to bid this hand. At the time I wasn't really trying to solve the problem - I was mostly trying to show a different type of example hand where partner might want to make a natural non-forcing 4H bid.

 

I prefer the example hands with 4 strong hearts including the one that existed when this deal was actually played. If my partner bid that way with the hand in question I would definitely offer him a "well bid partner".

 

But the main point here is that your first thought should be "Is it possible that this undiscussed 4H bid in natural?". If you answer "yes" then you will at least know that partner is offering 4H as a final contract. Even if you don't know exactly what his hand looks like you have a reasonable chance of making the winning decision.

 

Probably most people would interpret 4D over 3S as non-forcing (I would). If that is the case then the only alternative for bidding a 2443, 3442, or 3433 (maybe other shapes too) hand with lots of points, 4 strong hearts, and no club stopper is to bid 3H instead of making a negative double. In real life I suspect very few experts would bid 3H on such a hand - DBL is very normal.

 

So now I am thinking that it makes a lot of sense to bid hands in this family by starting with a negative DBL and then bidding 4H over 3S.

 

For those of you who:

 

- Can't buy that 4H is a useful natural bid and

- Agree that 4D would be non-forcing and

- Don't mind having numerous obscure agreements about numerous obscure auctions

 

I suggest you use 4H as an artificial slam try in diamonds (as opposed to a cuebid in support of spades with no club control).

 

For those of you who buy that neither of these agreements about the (artificial) meaning of 4H are ridiculous from a pure bidding theory point of view, perhaps the very fact that (at least) 2 such agreements exist will convince you that inventing conventions at the table is a bad idea (but I doubt it).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I hear what you are saying, Fred, but you still keep missing a major point here.

 

You have provided several examples of what 4♥ could mean without discussion. Thus, as 4♥ could mean any number of non-natural things, and any number of natural things (forcing or non-forcing, etc.), then any bid of 4♥ without discussion or parameters is wrong.

 

Bidding 4♥ as "natural" without more definition is just as wrong as bidding 4♥ as "artificial" without more.

 

Making up a meaning at the table with one rule ("if it could be natural, it is") is not necessarily better than making up a meaning with a different rule (maybe "if it sounds artificial, it is a slam cuebid for the last bid suit"). Actually, the latter is more usable, as (1) I know what a cuebid shows, but (2) I have no idea what merely "natural" means if I cannot know whether it is natural and forcing, natural and passable, natural implying choice between diamonds and hearts, natural implying choice between hearts and spades, natural implying good diamonds, natural implying bad diamonds, or whatever.

 

This problem really, then, boils down to an impossible issue. One cannot define 4♥ at all unless one has agreed defaults. Your agreed default seems to be "if it could be natural then it is." That rule seems too simplistic and unusable for me, best illustrated by the number of different and conflicting nuances offered by all of the "it could be natural" folks.

 

My default in this situation is clear to me and usable. If I make a call that essentially asks partner to pick a four-card major at the three-level, and he shows spades, then my immediate bid of hearts at the four-level agrees spades and is a slam move. In other words, I cannot immediately offer an alternative Moysian.

 

Why would my default be worse than your default? Mine at least is clear, as opposed to the ambiguous "natural." Admittedly, in the problem presented, no defaults were mentioned at all, such that the "could be natural" default might be an inferior but generally accepted default.

 

The idea that 4♥ could be a slam move in diamonds does appeal to me, admittedly. I usually play that four of the out-of-focus major is RKCB for the agreed (or inferred) minor. However, that rule only kicks in and trumps the rule I actually applied if the minor has been agreed already (it has not yet) or if inferring the minor is contextually necessary. This would be contextually necessary if 4♦ would be non-forcing and if 3♦ also would be non-forcing, and if there is no way in this auction to show diamond support, four hearts, and GF values.

 

To me, X...4♦ would be not be passable. I am not all that interested in a tight stop at 4♦ after this preemption. In the long run, I'll sacrifice an occasional small set in 5♦ when 4♦ would make, or will give the Moysian 4M a go, to allow better auctions for slam purposes and better auctions to game in a major. After 4♦ forcing, now we can discuss Moysian fits, or I might raise 3♠ immediately to 4♠ on occasion.

[inquiry]

You have provided several examples of what 4♥ could mean without discussion. Thus, as 4♥ could mean any number of non-natural things, and any number of natural things (forcing or non-forcing, etc.), then any bid of 4♥ without discussion or parameters is wrong.

If natural, 4♥ CAN NOT BE FORCING.

[jdonn]

I was not very proud of my example hand with 4-6 in the majors since there are obviously other reasonable ways to bid this hand. At the time I wasn't really trying to solve the problem - I was mostly trying to show a different type of example hand where partner might want to make a natural non-forcing 4H bid.

Let me preface by saying Justin asked me what I think 4♥ should mean and I immediately said cuebid, basing that on my own version of bridge logic rather than a blanket rule. However I would still never bid it at the table (except maybe now with Justin) since I have no idea how any other partner would interpret it.

 

I actually think your first example of Qxxx AKT9xx xx x was pretty good and a very convincing example to make an argument that the bid should be natural. It's true you could bid 3♥ instead of starting with a negative double, but if you knew that on the given auction partner would interpret 4♥ as natural then wouldn't you certainly bid it that way? It would avoid partner with say 4144 having to guess between 3♠ and 3NT over 3♥ (and if he happened to guess 3NT you would miss spades). It might also reach the best contract if partner has hands with 3 spades where he was stuck for a bid

 

AKx Qx QJTx xxxx

 

or 4 lousy spades where playing in that suit might create an extra loser that you have a chance to pitch if playing in hearts

 

Kxxx Qx KQJTx Kx

xxxx Jxx AKQx Ax

 

Those may not be perfect examples since they were hastily constructed, but they make the point anyway. Even though I still believe that bid should be a cuebid, a partner could make a perfectly logical argument the other way with hands like these, and who would I be to say partner is wrong?

 

And Inquiry is right of course. It is beyond ludicrous to suggest 4♥ could possibly be forcing, IF it is natural.

[fred]

Why would my default be worse than your default?  Mine at least is clear, as opposed to the ambiguous "natural."  .

You are assuming clearly defined=necessarily good.

 

A natural 4H does not have to be clearly defined in terms of expected hand type(s) in order for this bid to be highly effective.

 

It is not important that 4H is ambiguous as to what it *shows*

 

All that matters is the (natural) message that a natural 4H carries:

 

If 4H is natural it means "I think we might be able to win 10 tricks with hearts as trump. What do you think?".

 

If the partner of the natural 4H bidder wants to waste some time and energy he can sit there and think about what hand type his partner might have.

 

Or he could look at his hand. If he has Axx of hearts he will know what to do.

 

Isn't that an appealling way to bid?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I shied away from this problem cause I thought it was a bitch...

 

I'd like to backtrack from rather involved discussion about the 4♥ and look at the original double. A number of the folks who are discussing this thread seem to be assuming that the initial double unambiguously absolutely promises 4+ cards in both majors. However, I've (occasionally) seen double that look quite different: For example, what should one bid with the following:

 

♠ KQT

♥ 65432

♦ AQJ9

♣ 2

 

I think that double is (probably) the most reasonable call. I certainly prefer double to 3♦ or 3♥. Furthermore, if you allow a double with this hand type, you need a rebid over 3♠.

 

Using 4♥ as a grope for strain seems reasonable... I'm not claiming that this is necessarily the best treatment, however, I don't believe that 4♥ as a slam try with Spades agreed to is complete unambiguous.

[cherdano]

I'd like to backtrack from rather involved discussion about the 4♥ and look at the original double. A number of the folks who are discussing this thread seem to be assuming that the initial double unambiguously absolutely promises 4+ cards in both majors.

Huh? I didn't see anyone assuming that, and I hope you are wrong.

A negative double with two unbid majors never promises both majors, unless you are doubling 1♦. In this auction 1D (3C), with a 2443 too strong to pass, everybody will double.

 

Arend

[kenrexford]

It is not important that 4H is ambiguous as to what it *shows*

 

All that matters is the (natural) message that a natural 4H carries:

 

If 4H is natural it means "I think we might be able to win 10 tricks with hearts as trump. What do you think?".

 

If the partner of the natural 4H bidder wants to waste some time and energy he can sit there and think about what hand type his partner might have.

 

Or he could look at his hand. If he has Axx of hearts he will know what to do.

 

Isn't that an appealling way to bid?

Not really.

 

If I have no idea whether your 4♥ shows really good hearts (AQJx maybe), I cannot know what to do with Kx, where passing might be right. What about xxx?

 

If 4♥ could be great hearts, or could be the only way to force with diamonds and hearts, perhaps Qxxx is enough, because of great diamonds?

 

For that matter, if natural all the way makes sense, why not have an auction where we keep creeping up toward which Moysian or 4-2 major fit makes sense, at the cost of any constructive slam auctions?

 

This is so insanely simple to me. If I have a hand that cannot force game, with diamonds, I'll bid 3♦ after 3♣. If partner wants to pass, we're probably high enough. If not, he can introduce a major.

 

If I am too strong to have 3♦ passed, I'll probably double with at least one major, but maybe neither. If partner bids either major, I might raise it. If he bids hearts, I might introduce spades. If he bids spades, hearts is now out of the picture. If I don't like his choice, I bid diamonds. OR, I might even bid 3NT.

 

If I had held a five-card major, I'd bid it.

 

Now, how simple is that? How appealing is that? I simply bid what I have, and I don't make weird "which Moysian" calls like 4♥. I game bash, to a degree, and bid naturally initially. If I have 6-4 in the majors, I bid the long one, especially if it is hearts, instead of doubling and then catching up with some weird 4♥ call.

 

I'm the esoteric one???

 

I've seen how these double-first-then-guess auctions work out in practice. Doubling is not the solution for all possible hands.

 

Look at the recent suggested hand problem. With xxxxx in hearts, and KQJ in spades, bid 3♥. How difficult is that? Or, if you prefer, double and then bid 4♦, letting partner bid 4♥. We know, now, that we have a diamond fit, and that Opener has 4342 pattern, probably.

 

All this nonsense wriggling about with a double and then punt 4♥ call seems so absurd in comparison with the simple idea I have as to clear bidding, especially when I'm being described as the esoteric one. I just do not get why Responder must bid 4♥ to offer the Moysian, when 4♦ allows Opener to bid 4♥ to offer the Moysian. Why do we both need to offer the Moysian? Is this to clarify Axxx opposite KQx, as opposed to AQxx opposite Kxx? No one has suggested this yet, and it might make some sense, but apparently all of the "if it sounds natural then it is" people have no real grasp of the reason for this two-way bidding.

 

My tone may be angry, but it simply frustrates the heck out of me to be attacked by Justin and argued with as if I was applying some esoteric nonsense thinking when I genuinely believe that this 4♥ call only is ambiguous if you completely ignore a simple way to bid in this situation. If any of this 4♥ as natural stuff makes any sense, then what the heck would 4♥ be by Opener if you do bid 4♦? If natural, offering a place to play, then we do not need 4♥ by Responder to offer that contract. The only way we need that is if 4♦ is non-forcing. So, this entire nonsense seems to revolve around why you would not bid 3♦ with diamonds (and easily a major) and passable, double then 4♦ forcing.