Interesting auction

[cherdano]

Ken, maybe you should have realized by now that most treat double, then 4♦, as non-forcing, about invitational values. Of course you can bid 3♦ with that, but that bid has a much lower end, and you are making it very wide-ranging. There are also many hands where you are really close to game if you find a major fit (or if partner has a club stopper), but 5♦ needs substantial extras from partner.

 

When you claim a lot of stuff is nonsense based on an assumption that you still not realize isn't standard makes your reasoning a little....esoteric.

 

Arend

[inquiry]

Hmmmm....

 

Seems justin and jdonn have agreed to play it the way you suggest (I could be wrong, I am not going back to read all the post), so justin is just disagring with your statement that 4♥ is unambigious (if undefinced). Clearly if YOU and YOUR partner have an agreement, then it is not unambigious.

 

To the next point. Are you being esoteric? Well, let's at least say non standard. Lets examine a few of your statements in light of typical negative double dogma.

 

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.

 

With four card major and four diamond, and not enough to force to game (say 10 to 11 points), most people would make a negative double. Add to that, the 3♦ raise over a preempt is often considered under pressure and might be just viewed as competitive. I think at least some of your suggested 3♦ bid hands would be considered non-standard.

 

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

 

This lumps negative free bids in with forcing bids in the major. This makes no sense whatso ever. Especially given you obviously can not DOUBLE with a good hand and then rebid hearts (as if playing negative free bid), because you asign a different meaning to heart rebids, and if you have a five card major you "bid it".

 

One thing you get right is...

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.

 

Here when you "bid spades" over his ♥ bid, presumably you have five (or more of them). This is of course correct (a hand not good enough for a forcing 3♠ initially).. but how does this fit into your other statement that if you had a five card major you would bid it?

 

As for this auction,

 

. 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.

 

Not sure if I understand, but lets assume the auction was 1D-3C-X-P-4D, now 4♥ is clearly an invitation to play 4♥ or 5♦, and 4♥ is still non-forcing. On this auction, hearts are pretty good, and diamonds (bid and rebid with a jump) is always a possible strain. And you do need a 4♦ rebid by responder. If he is 2-4-4-3 for instance, after 3♠, he rebid 4♦ as a possible final contract. Opener with undisclosed 4♥'s or reasonable hand for moysein can bid 4♥, or he can pass or take a shot at 5♦ (lwhich is unlikely given the 3♠ response).

 

Would I call your treatment esoteric? No. Would I call it non-standard? Certainly.

[mikeh]

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.

The problem is not so much with your suggested interpretation of the meaning of 4♥ (altho I certainly don't agree with it), and not even with your proposition that your interpetation is 'simple'.

 

It is the stunning illogic of the proposition that if your approach is 'a' simple way of bidding, then it is 'the' simple way of bidding, and those of us who fail to appreciate that point must be morons... our moronic inability to see the 'true path' of your bridge logic drives you to frustration!

 

I happen to think that my idea of 4♥ (long ♥s, with long ♦s and moderate hcp but lots of playing strength) is very simple and logical. 'Partner, let's play a red suit game, but don't play me for opening hand values'.

 

I actually do think that my regular partners would at least consider this as my intended meaning were I to perpetrate the bid, but I am not so arrogant as to imagine that my 'simple' idea is the only logical suggestion. I certainly recognize the logic behind the other uses put forward so far.

 

I do not mean to denigrate you: I have no idea of how strong a player you actually are. But I am morally certain that you lack the experience and insight of players such as Fred. That is by no means to say that your bridge logic is thus inherently worse than his: but surely you should at least consider that it may be.... and get rid of the frustration act. To be blunt, the idea that you are frustrated because players such as Fred and Justin disagree with you is risible. It's akin to a high school physics teacher in the 1920s being frustrated because Einstein wouldn't agree with his approach to relativity.

 

Try to learn from the thought processes described by Fred... recognize that other points of view have validity and your appreciation of the game will expand, as will your abilities. Less certainty and more willingness to understand are both good bases for improvement in many aspects of life... bridge being one of them.

[jikl]

As an example of two expert players having major disasters in esoteric sequences, this is my favourite one in print (The Big Game). This is rubber bridge and you are playing £100 Chicago. North is Micheal Courtney, South is Zia.

 

[hv=n=sakt5432ha9863dca&s=sqhkq2dajt8764cqj]133|200|[/hv]

 

North - South

2♠(1) - 3♦

3♥ - 4♦

4♠ - 4NT(2)

5♠(3) - 5NT

6♦(4) - 7♣(5)

Pass!!

 

(Alerts mostly paraphrased from book)

 

1: An Acol Two. His suits are rather straggly; however, if he had opened 1♠ and been passed out, he could have been missing as high a contract as 7♥ opposite say:

 

[hv=s=s6hkj742dt876c932]133|100|[/hv]

 

2: Zia admitted that when he was recounting the hand that because it was MC he sould have bid 6♠ at this point.

 

3: Three Aces

 

4: One King

 

5: This is the master bid. Zia meant it to say'pick the right major-suit grand slam'. The point of 7♣ is to make North bid 7♠ with:

 

[hv=s=s6hkj742dt876c932]133|100|[/hv]

 

when delcarer may be able to cater for a bad heart break by establising the diamonds, or to bid 7♥ with:

 

[hv=s=s6hkj742dt876c932]133|100|[/hv]

 

when he can ruff a spade in dummy to cater for a bad spade break.

 

Apart from this the bid was unwise, because it can lead to a majordisaster. Remember Zia had not supported either of Courtney's suitsat any stage. Courtney convinced himself Zia must have something like:

 

[hv=s=s6hkj742dt876c932]133|100|[/hv]

 

when 7♣ would be the best spot. With that hand Zia would have bid 4♣ over 3♥, but when you adopt these confusing sequences, bad things can happen.

 

-------

 

Outcome:

 

When Zia went seven down in 7♣ Courtney was unabashed; he pointed out his pass had cost only 300 - the spades were 4-1 and 7♠ and 7♥ were failing also.

 

(From author) I stress that Zia and Courtney are two of the best players in the game, which is why it is instructive to see that even they occasionally have a disaster.

 

-------

 

Back to me:

 

I thought this might illustrate the points Justin, Fred and Mike were trying to make. Whilst many might not know who Michael Courtney is, it is still illustrative.

 

Sean

[SoTired]

I don't want to find the exact quotes..

 

BUT I HAVE IT NOW. EVERYBODY IS RIGHT! It was Einstein that had it right! Everything is relative.

 

Fred/Justin/Mikeh point of view: It is professionally (or financially) embarrassing to have a disaster, so disasters are to be avoided. Therefore, since 4H having any surprise unnatural meaning is a terrible bid undiscussed, it must be natural and non-forcing. My partners would not spring this on me otherwise.

 

Ken's point of view: I will risk a disaster for a bid I see as clear. Since 4H is unlikely to be a natural bid, it must be a heart q-bid in support of spades and lacking a club q-bid. If partner sees this another way, too bad, next hand.

[kenrexford]

Still missing glaring points over and over and over.

 

If Opener has 4342/4351/4360/4333, will he not open 1♦, reply 3♠ to the negative double, and then pattern out with 4♥ after 4♦, in an attempt to find the right contract, when 4♥ makes sense?

 

E.g., opener has 4342 pattern, the one you seek when bidding 4♥ as responder. So, instead, watch the auction:

 

1♦-3♣-X-P

3♠-P-4♦-P

4♥ (4342 expected)

 

If this is true, Responder does not need to bid the four-card heart suit.

 

Had I been told that this idea was non-standard, I would agree. Not that this non-standard thinking is therefore errant. Not that my lack of credentials or believed lack of experience refutes the position. (I've actually played this game for 27 years, a decent amount of experience, for what it is worth.)

 

However, the other side argued that I was being esoteric. The word esoteric is often used to refute a concept that one disagrees with or does not get, often unfairly. The "attack" on the field of "could be natural" people is not a specific attack on one person. It is an attack on the principle. For, if the principle has been applied by many people to lead to many possible conclusions, a fact no one can deny, then that principle itself is not all that useful.

 

When "natural" can be 6♥/4♠ or 4♥/3♠, how useful is this "could be natural" as an analysis tool? Obviously, something more than a simple "could be natural" is guiding people in their achieving different interpretations, and that something else is not identified.

 

So, when Fred implicitly infers that my interpretation of this auction is unnecessarily difficult by noting how simple his idea is, namely that 4♥ offers hearts as a contract, not admitting that there is a vast difference between the "could be natural" theories leading to 4-card, 5-card, and 6-card heart suit, and 3-card, 4-card, or even 2-card spade suit possibilities, this sounds and is absurd.

 

Any theory of bidding that results in a pen-ultimate 4♥ call where logic and rules adopted by the partnership lead to a conclusion that Responder has 4-6 hearts and 2-4 spades, and we are at game, is silliness; I'm sorry, but it is.

 

Quote all the results you have in high-level competition, all the great teams you have been on, and how long you have played the game, and 4-6/2-4 still is silliness.

 

My way, Opener shows his pattern and is known to be 4342/4351/4360 (with 4333, he'd open 1♣). Great pattern description, as compared to a Responder holding 4-6 hearts, 2-4 spades, and some unknown number of diamonds.

 

If that is non-standard, then perhaps standard needs to change?

[kenrexford]

I don't want to find the exact quotes..

 

BUT I HAVE IT NOW. EVERYBODY IS RIGHT! It was Einstein that had it right! Everything is relative.

 

Fred/Justin/Mikeh point of view: It is professionally (or financially) embarrassing to have a disaster, so disasters are to be avoided. Therefore, since 4H having any surprise unnatural meaning is a terrible bid undiscussed, it must be natural and non-forcing. My partners would not spring this on me otherwise.

 

Ken's point of view: I will risk a disaster for a bid I see as clear. Since 4H is unlikely to be a natural bid, it must be a heart q-bid in support of spades and lacking a club q-bid. If partner sees this another way, too bad, next hand.

The arrogance and simple election to attack here and praise the idols is why I am so frustrated, and frankly livid.

 

Contrary to the repeated assertions, I am not risking a disaster by bidding this way. Far from it, I discuss these matters with partners. So, they will understand it, and we will only use it if we agree on the merits.

 

How rude and idiotic is this kind of comment.

 

I mean, suppose you open 1NT, partner bids 3♦ (5-5 in majors, invitational or better). If you think about 4♣ as a super-acceptance of hearts and make that call, are you being esoteric and expecting partner to field something that has multiple possible meanings?

 

Of course not, if you and partner have agreed to use flag bids after any two-suited bid.

 

Get real. I am not risking any disaster by pulling this stuff with a partner who gets it. I would only be risking this with a new partner, after no discussion. I would not pull this or almost anything on a new partner.

 

For that matter, see above. If Fred and Justin are so much more partnership-oriented by using 4♥ as natural, why are there definitions of natural that include 2-4 spades, 4-6 hearts and an unknown number of diamonds?

 

If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that some of my ideas as to auctions like this are embodied in a text that one of my favorite partners helped to create. Obviously, we are on the same page if we wrote the page together.

[SoTired]

How rude and idiotic is this kind of comment.

And to think I was trying to be nice to you.... Amazing... You have started a flame war and stated the same position over and over again. Each time with more vitriol. You have refused to acknowledge that there is any other possible opinion but yours. Over and over again.

 

Amazingly, when a third-party tries to show how your stubbornness actually makes some sense, you attack them.

 

No doubt you will attack this post also. I will let you have the last word.

[Guest Jlall]

Contrary to the repeated assertions, I am not risking a disaster by bidding this way. Far from it, I discuss these matters with partners. So, they will understand it, and we will only use it if we agree on the merits.

huh? Wait a minute, let's go back to where this started shall we?

 

Maybe it should in theory be a slam try in spades with no club control with 4C showing a club control but that seems a little esoteric and no one would try that at the table without discussion.

Uhhhhhhhhh... [ :) ]

 

Why not? How is that esoteric?

 

Your initial disagreement was with my statements that A) no one should try this undiscussed and :P an artificial call for this bid (which I thought was the best use at the time, remember?) was esoteric (later clarified as ambiguous).

 

Obviously if you have discussed this bid or have a meta agreement that covers this bid with your partner you can play it how you want. Do you really think I would disagree with you for this when we agreed on the best theoretical meaning for the bid? No your initial argument was

 

I have no earthly idea how this 4♥ call is ambiguous,

 

Hmm, now your argument seems to be that 4H is completely unambiguous, a position you retain for quite some time. You even say that if you were playing with me, someone you've never played with, you could bid 4H with me as I would understand what you mean (a position you later retract)

 

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?

 

Then you move to your new position that if partner understands your entire thought processes and you have good meta agreements you can overcome this type of issue without discussion of this actual discussion.

 

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.

 

Well obviously! If you have discussed agreements and logic that cover all auctions including this one then you can play whatever you want. If this means 4H is defined as slam interest with no club control great! Remember the first person who suggested the interpretation (out of 2)? At this point you have completely left the original point I made which is that you should not try this bid without discussion. Discussion of meta agreements that include this type of auction counts as discussion. And you disagreed with that original point on the basis that 4H is unambiguous so you can bid it at the table. A bid that is unambiguous means you can bid it in a pickup partnership.

 

Then you go back to 4H cannot be ambiguous...unless of course you don't understand simple bridge logic!

 

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.

 

sure...

 

And now you say

I am not risking any disaster by pulling this stuff with a partner who gets it. I would only be risking this with a new partner, after no discussion. I would not pull this or almost anything on a new partner.

 

Then why did you agree with my first quote of this thread? That is the only point I made, you should not try this with no discussion. You disagreed but now you seem to finally agree?

 

For that matter, see above. If Fred and Justin are so much more partnership-oriented by using 4♥ as natural, why are there definitions of natural that include 2-4 spades, 4-6 hearts and an unknown number of diamonds?

 

When did I say this? My preferred definition for 4H is the same as yours, remember? Without any discussion I would simply not bid 4H ever, no matter what my hand was. I believe this is the practical approach, and I would discuss this auction with my partner afterwards so that we did have some discussion.

 

Oh and lol...

 

The arrogance and simple election to attack here and praise the idols is why I am so frustrated, and frankly livid.

 

You are the most arrogant poster I have ever seen in my life. You say things directly like...

 

If you knew what you were talking about

Still missing glaring points over and over and over.

 

You say things indirectly like if you understand simple bridge logic the meaning of 4H is obvious thus implying that everyone else but you (and me) who has posted on this thread does not understand simple bridge logic.

 

You seem very sensitive to "praise of the idols," well maybe the "idols" made better and more logical points than you. In fact you seem to agree with what the "idols" were saying earlier now, you should not make an artificial 4H bid without any discussion.

 

I know you know all there is to know about bridge so if nobody else on the entire forums agrees with you and instead choose to agree with Fred they must be idol worshipping, but that's not really the case.

[cherdano]

Still missing glaring points over and over and over.

 

If Opener has 4342/4351/4360/4333, will he not open 1♦, reply 3♠ to the negative double, and then pattern out with 4♥ after 4♦, in an attempt to find the right contract, when 4♥ makes sense?

 

E.g., opener has 4342 pattern, the one you seek when bidding 4♥ as responder. So, instead, watch the auction:

 

1♦-3♣-X-P

3♠-P-4♦-P

4♥ (4342 expected)

 

If this is true, Responder does not need to bid the four-card heart suit.

 

Had I been told that this idea was non-standard, I would agree. Not that this non-standard thinking is therefore errant. Not that my lack of credentials or believed lack of experience refutes the position. (I've actually played this game for 27 years, a decent amount of experience, for what it is worth.)

Uhm. I think I told you about 5 times that in my opinion, 4♦ is non-forcing in standard. Hence a weak NT with 4342 will pass 4♦, not bid 4♥.

 

Your sequence shows a 4351 or 4441 hand with mild extras.

[hrothgar]

You are the most arrogant poster I have ever seen in my life. You say things directly like...

Damn... I'm really losing my touch.

[Guest Jlall]

You are the most arrogant poster I have ever seen in my life. You say things directly like...

Damn... I'm really losing my touch.

lol, I expected some "pot...kettle...black" for that one.

[fred]

Last night I had a chance to ask my regular partner (Brad Moss) about what he thought about this sequence. He said:

 

1) About 4D (immediate response): DEFINITELY (capitals his) non-forcing.

 

2) About 4H (10 second delay): Strange bid, would not expect you to make this bid, but it is obviously non-forcing. I would Pass if I had a good hand in context for hearts.

 

3) About the concept of using 4H as an some artificial bid: Might be useful as an artificial slam try in diamonds, but we are NOT (capitals his) making this agreement.

 

Not that this proves anything other than that I have found myself an appropriate partner (which I knew already).

 

Note to Ken: it is NOT (capitals mine) absurd or foolish to think you one can bid successfully without having definitions of what a bid *shows*. You can also have a successful auction by considering what a bid *means*. In other words, you can (or at least I can) define somes bids in terms of *intention* instead of *description* and do just fine.

 

Anyways, I have had just about enough of this. If you can't accept the argument put forth by another poster that "since a bunch of really good players thinks x then x is probably right" argument, I can understand that. If you don't agree with the arguments that these players make to justify x, that is also your right.

 

But in my view it is most impolite to call these arguments foolish or absurd. It is not that hard to respectfully disagree with people who should have earned your respect, especially when such people have gone out of their way to try to help you become a more successful player.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

This thread is getting a little too hot. Please stick to bridge issues rather than name calling, or I will be force to lock it. And for justin, there are a lot of arrogant posters here... it would be very difficult to name one as the most arrogant. And to Ken, I have always seen Justin agreeing with your use of 4♥ as cue-bid for ♠, slam try and no club control is the best treatment, so your battle with him has never made sense to me.

[Guest Jlall]

This thread is getting a little too hot. Please stick to bridge issues rather than name calling, or I will be force to lock it. And for justin, there are a lot of arrogant posters here... it would be very difficult to name one as the most arrogant.  And to Ken, I have always seen Justin agreeing with  your use of 4♥ as cue-bid for ♠, slam try and no club control is the best treatment, so your battle with him has never made sense to me.

ok sorry, yes there are a lot of arrogant posters, I'm sure I'm one of them, but I would never say "I'm frustrated by all the arrogance." I'm also done with this thread, I really have made my case for

 

A) What 4H should mean theoretically.

B ) Why you shouldnt bid 4H this way if undiscussed.

 

It was a good post though I now have agreements with all my pards on this auction.

[Apollo81]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

 

:)

[mikeh]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

 

:)

You're a dangerous thinker, Appollo :P :) :D

[cherdano]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

 

:)

Can I vote for myself?

[hrothgar]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

 

:)

Can I vote for myself?

You could, but you'd be wrong

[Free]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

 

:)

=> watercooler

[inquiry]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

 

:)

=> watercooler

personal attacks on members are not allowed, even in the watercooler.

[kenrexford]

OK. Fair enough. It does sound arrogant.

 

That was not my intention. It was, rather, a reaction to what I perceived as arrogance directed at me. When some people articulate things like attackiong my idea with claims as to how all these other people are much better players than I am (see Justin's comments) rather than addressing the argument, especially when I have never played with or against Justin, then I'm being attacked from an arrogant person, and demeaned.

 

When I try to articulate how my thinking makes sense to me, and the reaction is to call my thinking nonstandard, esoteric, or poor bridge, frought with potential for disaster and not good partnership bidding, rather than addressing the merits, then, again, I am being attacked from an arrogant point of view.

 

I was probably disrespectful, in reaction to extreme belittling of me. I admit that and apologize for my part, especially to the innocent bystanders dragged into this.

 

From the perspective of the interest of this issue. Whether you agree or not, does it not seem logical for a general approach to bidding to allow the person who has defined their hands most to complete the picture? The cost of X...4♦ being nonforcing is that Responder cannot use 4♦ as a waiting bid. (Perhaps the better course might be for 4♦ to be non-forcing and for 4♣ to be simply waiting, which is what I have never written but secretly thought, namely that 4♥ may be the only slam move agreeing spades, but that is another issue.)

 

What you end up with is this. Assume that 4♥ will be bid by one partner, the other deciding where to play. If Opener bids 4♥, and Responder decides what to do, Opener's parameters will be relatively complete, and Responder will be well-placed. If, however, Responder bids 4♥, his parameters are much wider, and Opener will be much less informed for the choice.

 

So, it seems that the best technique would be for Responder to have the cheapest punt bid available (maybe 4♣, maybe 4♦ forcing), to enable the partner who has already described so much to complete the picture.

 

If this is not standard, this may be worth discussing? Although I've never discussed this with any partner, I now think that 1X-3Y-X-P-3Z-P-4Y should not be a slam move, but rather waiting for pattern completion. This happens to allow 4♥ to be LTTC for spades, which I admittedly want to keep, but it also solves many problems for a partner who uses a flexible double and needs more intel before placing the contract.

 

So, again, sorry to those who got blasted by me unnecessarily. Justin is a hopeless cause when it comes to me and my posts. Fred, I respect you immensely and am sorry that we seem to have such friction.

[fred]

So, again, sorry to those who got blasted by me unnecessarily. Justin is a hopeless cause when it comes to me and my posts. Fred, I respect you immensely and am sorry that we seem to have such friction.

Apology accepted - no hard feelings.

 

But you might not realize that Justin is already in the same league as me as a player. By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

 

So even if you don't like his style, I suggest you listen to his bridge insights. If I can learn from reading Justin's post then probably you can too.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

  By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

No offense to justin, but is Joe Grue going to be dead in 20 years? And to Justin, what the heck, Number 2 is probably not that bad. :)

[mikeh]

Ken, your 'apology' reminds me of an apology that one of my clients received in a libel action we brought: 'I am sorry that your conduct made me say things that you don't like'. That apology did not work :)

 

You still don't seem to 'get it'. No one is telling you that your intepretation of the logical meaning of 4♥ is silly or weird. Those of us who disagree do so on the basis that, at the table, we'd default to 'undiscussed bids of this nature are offers to play' rather than 'undiscussed bids of this nature are cues, trying for slam and carrying inferences about other controls or lack thereof'.

 

You seem to feel that your view is the only legitimate view... and that is the arrogance that has attracted the criticisms that drive you to frustration. It is your attitude towards this issue that causes the attacks on you.. and this has been ennunciated time and again: perhaps most clearly in this thread but also in other threads. Justin is somewhat less reticient than others in his criticism (altho I suspect that most see me as not too far behind), but it is a fallacy (and an arrogant fallacy, at that) to claim that the fault lies in others... on this thread, in terms of the criticisms directed at you, the fault lies squarely with you: NOT because you think 4♥ SHOULD mean a cue denying a ♣ control but because you refuse to consider that others may legitimately disagree. None of us would 'attack' you if you had merely said: "personally, I think that 4♥ most logically should mean the following, and I am sufficiently confident of that, that I would expect my partners to work it out... but I recognize that others may legitimately disagree.... I'll do what Fred did (with Moss) and check it out"

 

But you didn't: you said that your meaning is simple and the bid is unambiguous to tbe point that you'd expect Fred (and Justin) to have agreed if they were your partner... it is so clear, from your pov, that you got frustrated with the presumably moronic or wilfully blind majority of posters who saw it as less than 100% clear or...worse... actually contemplated other meanings as more plausible.

 

As one who prefers an alternative meaning for 4♥, but recognizes that this is ambiguous, I find it insulting to be told by you, inferentially, that I must be an idiot for disagreeing with you. You complain about attacks on your ability and experience, but you bring those on, or make the situation worse, by your references to your partner being asked for bidding advice by Hamman and that partner (or another) creating a text with your help... and that if we don't know that, we don't know what we are talking about.

 

I know Justin's accomplishments. I know Fred's accomplishments. I have been a teammate of Fred in two world championships. I know nothing of you... and 27 years of playing does not amount to 'experience' of the sort that Justin and Fred have. As I said earlier, that doesn't mean that your theories are wrong (note that Justin agrees with you as to the preferred meaning of the call), but it does mean that most (me, for one) will need to see some pretty persuasive reasoning on your part to convince us that you are 100% right. And your (many-times-repeated) arguments fall short, in at least my view. Loosen up: recognize that there is more than one logical interpretation.