Miss Fit

[mikeh]

Almost miss-ed this post... but: I am a lot closer to jdonn and adam's constructions than to justin's. It is a matter of philosophy: once a true misfit has surfaced, as it has from partner's point of view, do we stop bidding as soon as possible or do we try to improve the contract? Bitter experience has persuaded me that the long-term winning approach is to quit. After all, the opps at the other table are having the same problem, and 2♥ -2 may be a minus, but it may win imps.

 

While partner, with QJxx void AKJ10xxx xx will 'know' that 3♦ is better than 2♥, he should also 'know' that he would bid 3♦ on AKxx x AKJxxx Qx. So how can he expect partner to make an intelligent decision if he makes the same bid on such completely different hands? He can't.

 

So he has to accept that, on the relatively weak hands, he has to pass in order that we can bid intelligently on those hands where game remains possible despite the misfit.

 

For me, this auction is akin to 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2N in terms of degree of invitation, except we are showing at least 6-4 in our suits rather than a prototypical. We improve the partscore not to play 3♦ instead of 2♥ but to play 3N or 5♦ when partner can cooperate.

 

Given my view, I bid 4♦.

 

BTW, commenting on a couple of posts: the reference to playing nmf was, I think, intended to refer to the xyz convention, not to nmf as such... hey, I know I am nitpicking, but I am a lawyer, after all, and picking nits is what we do :P

 

And as for Ken's suggestion that 3N shows this hand: well, this idiosyncratic approach is at least consistent with other posts he has made, in which he suggests bizarre treatments for everyday bids... not to say that his suggestions completely lack logic for the hands he suggests they hold. But they are especially silly in the B/I forum: tell a beginner that 3N here 'obviously' shows this hand and they will quit the game :P

 

And no money could persuade me that 3N artificial makes ANY sense here whatsoever.

[Guest Jlall]

Given my view, I bid 4♦.

Then bidding 3D with the hand I constructed has worked. 4D is way better than 2H. That's my point. Describing your hand accurately is only used as a means to get to the best contract, but sometimes as here you can only pass a silly contract or take your chances. If you are willing to gamble that bidding 3D will get you to a better contract than passing you should bid it no matter what you think 3D should show. I DID say I agree that 3D shows the equivalent of a 3D rebid here.

[HeartA]

pass, wtp?

[kenrexford]

I keep getting caught here. Why are these incredibly complicated problems always popping up in the B/I section??? Your analysis is right for B/I -- who would assume 3NT as simply a fit-raise, let alone an artificial 3♥/3♠, without some fairly advanced discussions?

[jdonn]

I keep getting caught here. Why are these incredibly complicated problems always popping up in the B/I section??? Your analysis is right for B/I -- who would assume 3NT as simply a fit-raise, let alone an artificial 3♥/3♠, without some fairly advanced discussions?

Until I read your posts I wouldn't have thought anyone in the world would assume such a thing...

 

Imagine 3NT showing a stopper in the only unbid suit and a hand good enough to bid, with raises being shown by actually raising. This is not B/I bridge, it is simply bridge.

[kenrexford]

I keep getting caught here.  Why are these incredibly complicated problems always popping up in the B/I section???  Your analysis is right for B/I -- who would assume 3NT as simply a fit-raise, let alone an artificial 3♥/3♠, without some fairly advanced discussions?

Until I read your posts I wouldn't have thought anyone in the world would assume such a thing...

 

Imagine 3NT showing a stopper in the only unbid suit and a hand good enough to bid, with raises being shown by actually raising. This is not B/I bridge, it is simply bridge.

Ah, but you think so narrowly.

 

When one assumes purpose to bidding, then normal expectations may often change. For instance, if you assume that a 3♦ bid in this auction is only made when "seeking" 3NT, needing a filler card in diamonds for instance, then 3NT shows the diamond filler, not the club card.

 

Similarly, raises are occasionally not shown by raising, in a sense. A simple example occurs quite frequently when one partner makes a demand bid, setting trumps without ability to question that decision. In many such auctions, "raising" that suit by bidding that suit "denies" a fit, whereas bidding anything else implies a "fit." Consider also Jacoby Transfers, where bidding partner's suit is the option without a fit, while bidding anything but partner's suit shows a great fit for partner.

 

Consider 1NT-P-3♦, if played as invitational. This usually shows a 6-card suit headed by two top honors, right? Opener is expected to bid 3NT if he has the missing honor and is otherwise suitable for 3NT, right? So, in a sense, 3NT shows support for that suit, plus notrump viability.

 

If 3♦ in an auction like this shows notrump viability and a suit that is HHxxxx strong, this is an identical auction in function. The key is the diamond honor. So, with that diamond honor, and a trick, bid 3NT.

 

How else do you bid a hand like Axxx-x-HHxxxx-Ax? I suppose one could play that 1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠-P-2♥-P-3♣ shows a hand like Axxx-x-HHxxxx-Ax. But, this creates a problem for the 4054 hands.

 

Washington Standard, at least how I knew it years ago, solves this problem. Opener can rebid the major to show extra length in the minor, thereby saving critical space for the NT exploration. This has some cost on 6-5 hands, but it may be well worth that sacrifice. Unfortunately, too few people seem to have bought into that idea. I mean, how nice would it be if the auction was 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠, Opener showing a six-four hand? All kinds of space for exploring 3NT. All sorts of distinctions between this auction and 3♦ instead.

 

Without that option, the difficulties arise of seemingly paradox acceptances.

[jdonn]

Lol, you are difficult to argue with because most of the points you are making are intelligent or logical so they can't really be disputed, but then you misapply them to absurd extremes to reach a totally nonsensical conclusion that no one either much better or worse at bridge than you could ever reach. (sorry run-on sentence)

 

Can you not see the differences between 1NT p 3♦, and this auction?

 

That auction does not point to a lead in any suit. This one screams for a club lead from the opponents, and a club lead you will get, so you would be well advised to prepare for that lead.

 

That auction has already rightsided notrump, this one has not.

 

In that auction you are already known to have a fit, in this auction you are not.

 

In Jacoby transfers, all the rebids to show super-accepts are ARTIFICIAL! 3NT on the given auction is TO PLAY. What kind of analogies are these?

 

You will wish you knew whether partner had clubs stopped on this auction the next time you are dealt Axxx x AKJxxxx x, a lot more than you will care whether he holds Qx or xx of diamonds.

 

If by telling me I think narrowly you are saying I am not nearly as creative as you, you win by a mile.

[kenrexford]

As you probably have suspected by your lead-in paragraph, I often take wild theory positions in the forums that can be defended well but are actually somewhat Devil's Advocate for a position that should probably be accurate but is implausible in practice. (Rin-on response, LOL)

 

That being said,

 

Let's assume the Axxx-x-AKJxxxx-x hand you proposed. You need a ninth trick that is fast enough, probably the Ace of hearts. You also need a club stop from partner, at minimum Q10x. Unless you are willing to stake the game on diamonds coming in without issue, you also need the diamond Queen. So, the suitable hand for 3NT is something like xx-Axxxxx-Qx-Q10x. Possible.

 

However, now compare this with a more mundane Axxx-x-AKxxxx-Ax. Same auction, but now you need the lesser xx-Axxxxx-Qx-xxx.

 

If the 3♦ call has no neat little gadgets for Responder to distinguish the perfect first hand from the mundane nice-holding second hand, there is a problem of inability to show both holdings. So, it seems that you want to cater to the more common. The more common seems to be for Opener's 3♦ call to show a club stop, such that Responder can accept with the key card in diamonds (or perhaps a second club stop, or perhaps a second stop in clubs and the diamond card but not the heart Ace), maximizing the number of games you can bid. You get to bid 3NT with any two of three cards, whereas the other approach leaves you only able to bid 3NT with all three.

 

The argument that 1NT-P-3♦ is not a parallel is missing one point. In the actual auction, I'm suggesting that Opener knows about the club lead problem and should have that issue covered when bidding 3♦.

 

I also believe the protection-of-the-King issue is a red herring. If Opener has the Kx(x) in clubs, he will usually need that King as a trick. So, it must be on finesse anyway. Further, that is a bad holding, as it is a very slow trick, requiring an entry to lead toward the King eventually anyway, clearing thereby some suit for defensive tricks.

 

If Opener has something like Axxx-void-AKJxxxx-Kx, for instance, a spade lead will result in setting up spades for the opponents before we have set up the club King. Sure, if partner has the diamond Queen and the heart Ace, we have nine tricks without touching clubs. But, placing the contract on a club finesse at trick one for this rare hand loses on this hand but gains on all the hands where pener has the club Ace, or KQ, and can make 3NT when partner has the simple heart Ace and diamond Queen. Everyone else plays those in 4♦/5♦.

[jdonn]

Let's assume the Axxx-x-AKJxxxx-x hand you proposed.  You need a ninth trick that is fast enough, probably the Ace of hearts.  You also need a club stop from partner, at minimum Q10x.  Unless you are willing to stake the game on diamonds coming in without issue, you also need the diamond Queen.  So, the suitable hand for 3NT is something like xx-Axxxxx-Qx-Q10x.  Possible.

I am easily willing to stake a game on diamonds coming in, which you will note is slighty > 50%. You are also ignorring that the club stopper might/will be a trick as well. So instead of your example, which would be a foolproof 3NT bid for sure, how about xx Jxxxxx xx Axx? Oh I'm not reaching game opposite that since partner will pass 3♦, it simply shows that the likelihood of partner having a hand with which I want him to bid 3NT based on a club stopper is much, much higher than you are leading on.

 

However, now compare this with a more mundane Axxx-x-AKxxxx-Ax.  Same auction, but now you need the lesser xx-Axxxxx-Qx-xxx.

This is true. However you forget that partner doesn't have to bid 3NT for you to reach it.

 

With some 4162 hands including clubs stopped opener can rebid 2NT instead of 3♦ (I admit not this one as it seems particularly useful for suit play.)

 

Responder has bids of 3♥ and 3♠ available below 3NT which can allow opener to bid 3NT with a club stopper. I would be much more open to the suggestion that 3♠ be a somewhat artificial 3NT probe than that 3NT itself be such a thing.

 

The argument that 1NT-P-3♦ is not a parallel is missing one point.  In the actual auction, I'm suggesting that Opener knows about the club lead problem and should have that issue covered when bidding 3♦.

Great so now we can't even bid our suits to show our shape to partner without randomly holding a stopper in some unbid suit. I assume you will come up with some logic that if opener were to bid notrump himself that would deny a club stopper?

 

I also believe the protection-of-the-King issue is a red herring.  If Opener has the Kx(x) in clubs, he will usually need that King as a trick.  So, it must be on finesse anyway.  Further, that is a bad holding, as it is a very slow trick, requiring an entry to lead toward the King eventually anyway, clearing thereby some suit for defensive tricks.

Oh NOW we need the club stopper as a trick, but we didn't when we were constructing hands for responder!

 

So to repeat, when we speak about responder's hand his club stopper is not our 9th trick, but when we speak about opener's hand his club stopper is our 9th trick. It's all making sense to me now.

[mikeh]

As you probably have suspected by your lead-in paragraph, I often take wild theory positions in the forums that can be defended well but are actually somewhat Devil's Advocate for a position that should probably be accurate but is implausible in practice.  (Rin-on response, LOL)

Then what the heck are you doing, posting these 'wild theories' in the B/I thread?

 

It is very difficult to accept your protestation that these are 'devil's advocate' postings when you only reveal this after others have pointed out the ridiculous nature of your ideas. Suggesting that 3N, in the given auction, shows a fit for ♦s and is silent on the ♣ stopper issue is absurd. Your analogies, as josh has demonstrated, are nonsensical.

 

If you knew that, and were merely having fun, why not state that in your posts before the silliness of your ideas is driven home by others?

 

Maybe the solution is for there to be another section of the forum devoted to silly bidding ideas: quite a few of your posts (and maybe some of mine) would fit nicely there, and there would be no danger of confusing less knowledgable players.

[cherdano]

As you probably have suspected by your lead-in paragraph, I often take wild theory positions in the forums that can be defended well but are actually somewhat Devil's Advocate for a position that should probably be accurate but is implausible in practice. (Rin-on response, LOL)

This may often be true, but in my holy opinion in this case you have overstepped the line to a theory that's both impossible to defend and absurd in theory as well as in practice.

[inquiry]

Maybe the solution is for there to be another section of the forum devoted to silly bidding ideas: quite a few of your posts (and maybe some of mine) would fit nicely there, and there would be no danger of confusing less knowledgable players.

Hey, a silly bidding idea forum might not be a bad idea.... I have a lot of them myself... (Misiry, new minor forcing by opener -- cole like bid, Weak minor jump shift by opener, splinter bids denying stoppers in certain side suit, 1x-p-4m showing namyats type hands, reverse josephine, to name just a few). We wouldn't have to call it "silly bidding ideas", we could name it something that wasn't quite so negative to those wanting to take a shot at something new.. .maybe "novel bidding concepts" or the like. So good thinks like some of kantars RKCB could get discussed in there too.

 

I could even move existing odd little threads into that forum. Maybe we might do this. and we could come up with an abbreviation to use when post that should be moved there are made. Something like IBTM for "in before the move" or IBMTST = "in before the move to Silly Thread."

 

Anyway, it is a thought,,,

[Guest Jlall]

Hey, a silly bidding idea forum might not be a bad idea....

Can't non natural system discussion be used for this purpose? I agree there are distinctions between your idea and that forum but on the other hand having forums that are too narrowly defined is never a good thing and leads to too many forums.

[kenrexford]

As you probably have suspected by your lead-in paragraph, I often take wild theory positions in the forums that can be defended well but are actually somewhat Devil's Advocate for a position that should probably be accurate but is implausible in practice.  (Rin-on response, LOL)

Then what the heck are you doing, posting these 'wild theories' in the B/I thread?

 

It is very difficult to accept your protestation that these are 'devil's advocate' postings when you only reveal this after others have pointed out the ridiculous nature of your ideas. Suggesting that 3N, in the given auction, shows a fit for ♦s and is silent on the ♣ stopper issue is absurd. Your analogies, as josh has demonstrated, are nonsensical.

 

If you knew that, and were merely having fun, why not state that in your posts before the silliness of your ideas is driven home by others?

 

Maybe the solution is for there to be another section of the forum devoted to silly bidding ideas: quite a few of your posts (and maybe some of mine) would fit nicely there, and there would be no danger of confusing less knowledgable players.

I'll accept the idea that posting these concepts in B/I is a bad idea, but I never read where the post is placed. I read the post and answer. I keep getting caught posting in B/I because the recent trend seems to be to put initial postings on complicated matters in B/I.

 

However, the idea is to put out the idea without complete practicality, to see how it stands up. Sometimes the theories, or the applications, are admittedly insane. Those get struck down and hard. I might defend them for a while, especially if I think there is some merit to it, like a personal Socratic method.

 

This example is actually a good one. Here's why:

 

First, someone back a few posts ago suggested that perhaps 3♠ in this auction should be used as a power raise of diamonds without a club stopper. This solves a problem not there for club-based auctions, where 3♦ is available. I had not thought of this, and now I think that 3♠ is the right solution in the end.

 

Second, I now personally have a better appreciation for what I generally liked before, namely the Robinson theory of 1min...1maj...2maj showing 6-4, because of the space gain. However, this seems more important when diamonds are opened, and more so when Opener has 4♠/6♦.

 

Others may agree. That's what debate is about. Clearly 4♦ is a bad option, because it bypasses 3NT when that might be right. Clearly 3NT is not the ideal solution either. 3♠ gets closer and is worthy of consideration. Maybe best is that the Robinson approach to minor-major hands be adopted in the case of a diamond-spade 6-4.

 

Now, all foolishness aside, what are the natsayers' thoughts on this conclusion that I have reached? Because diamond-spade hands with 3NT viability are difficult to bid, perhaps 1♦...1♠...2♠ is better used to show a sixth diamond and extra values than for this same auction to show a 6-5 hand. Adopt the Robinson "Washington Standard" minor-major treatment and move on. Next, think about auctions when the suits are club-spade, or minor-heart, for similar problems. OR, if that does not fit, treat what appears to be a delayed raise/preference of the shorter suit (the major) as an "impossible" bid, a 3NT try without the fourth suit stopped.

 

Ain't either better than bidding 4♦?

[mikeh]

However, the idea is to put out the idea without complete practicality, to see how it stands up.  Sometimes the theories, or the applications, are admittedly insane.  Those get struck down and hard.  I might defend them for a while, especially if I think there is some merit to it, like a personal Socratic method.

 

This example is actually a good one.  Here's why:

 

First, someone back a few posts ago suggested that perhaps 3♠ in this auction should be used as a power raise of diamonds without a club stopper.  This solves a problem not there for club-based auctions, where 3♦ is available.  I had not thought of this, and now I think that 3♠ is the right solution in the end.

 

Second, I now personally have a better appreciation for what I generally liked before, namely the Robinson theory of 1min...1maj...2maj showing 6-4, because of the space gain.  However, this seems more important when diamonds are opened, and more so when Opener has 4♠/6♦.

 

Others may agree.  That's what debate is about.  Clearly 4♦ is a bad option, because it bypasses 3NT when that might be right.  Clearly 3NT is not the ideal solution either.  3♠ gets closer and is worthy of consideration.  Maybe best is that the Robinson approach to minor-major hands be adopted in the case of a diamond-spade 6-4.

 

Now, all foolishness aside, what are the natsayers' thoughts on this conclusion that I have reached?  Because diamond-spade hands with 3NT viability are difficult to bid, perhaps 1♦...1♠...2♠ is better used to show a sixth diamond and extra values than for this same auction to show a 6-5 hand.  Adopt the Robinson "Washington Standard" minor-major treatment and move on.  Next, think about auctions when the suits are club-spade, or minor-heart, for similar problems.  OR, if that does not fit, treat what appears to be a delayed raise/preference of the shorter suit (the major) as an "impossible" bid, a 3NT try without the fourth suit stopped.

 

Ain't either better than bidding 4♦?

Leaving aside your propensity for floating unorthodox ideas in the B/I section, we really are not having a 'debate' at all. Your posts propound a silly idea. It is being soundly criticized and you respond with more absurdities. I am not entirely sure why I or josh, to name two, keep rising to the bait, but the reality is, I hope, that there are players who scan these posts, often without posting, in the hope of learning something useful about this fascinating game. Many of your posts, including this thread, are written with a superficial logic and an assumption of knowledge that seems, to some of the more experienced amongst us, to be silly.

 

Take your last post: you actually suggest, in all apparent seriousness, that the pragmatic partnership bid of 4♦ is WORSE than an artificial fit bid of 3N. How on earth do you expect to be treated seriously when you propound such nonsense in the face of the earlier criticisms of this notion, in which, I had thought, the need for a ♣ stopper for 3N was so obvious?

 

You have a tendency to think of an esoteric meaning for a perfectly straightforward, if uncommon, auction and then create hands for which your esoteric meaning works well.

 

In the meantime, you completely ignore the hand types for which the normal meaning of the bid is appropriate. This is a tendency that appears in many of your posts, and it makes it very, very difficult to ever take any of your ideas seriously.

 

Here, if we held xx KJ10xxx xx KQx, [edit: when posted, this had a 7 card suit by error, now to the intended 6 card suit]we would be bidding 3N comfortably and would be extremely distressed to learn that we HAD NO BID over 3♦ with this everyday hand. And so on.

 

Oh, of course you are now going to post some reason why 3N should be passed by opener with AKJx x AKQxxx Jx on this hand.....or similar hands with no ♣ stop.

 

It's too bad, because it is clear that you are deeply into the game and the use of some internal discipline might lead to your expressing, and others applauding, some useful ideas...

[pclayton]

Maybe the solution is for there to be another section of the forum devoted to silly bidding ideas: quite a few of your posts (and maybe some of mine) would fit nicely there, and there would be no danger of confusing less knowledgable players.

Hey, a silly bidding idea forum might not be a bad idea.... I have a lot of them myself... (Misiry, new minor forcing by opener -- cole like bid, Weak minor jump shift by opener, splinter bids denying stoppers in certain side suit, 1x-p-4m showing namyats type hands, reverse josephine, to name just a few). We wouldn't have to call it "silly bidding ideas", we could name it something that wasn't quite so negative to those wanting to take a shot at something new.. .maybe "novel bidding concepts" or the like. So good thinks like some of kantars RKCB could get discussed in there too.

 

I could even move existing odd little threads into that forum. Maybe we might do this. and we could come up with an abbreviation to use when post that should be moved there are made. Something like IBTM for "in before the move" or IBMTST = "in before the move to Silly Thread."

 

Anyway, it is a thought,,,

Ben, I think a lot of your ideas are pretty cool. While I don't agree with the practical application of some of the methods (the 2-suited preempts, for instance), they all have their merits, are well thought out, and mesh in your systems. You consider the downside to using a method, as well as how to approach problem hands that are hard to bid. This is how effective systems are created.

 

2007 is a pretty cool year to be alive in system development. Fringe systems like Fantunes are winning, and Moscito is gaining credibility. Its no longer the 5 card majors versus Precision and their respective variants.

 

OTOH, I think Ken frequently espouses ideas 'on the fly'. I'm not sure he's trying to be innovative, or just contrarian at times. Sometimes the ideas contain a kernel of truth that can be carried over into other sequences. But other times (like this thread), I don't think the idea has been well thought out, and the more he loses credibility on other potentially valuable ideas.

[whereagles]

If we're still on topic, I might say it's quite logical to say this is a style question. If you agree to pard that 3♦ is mildly invitation, then you're worth 4♦. Otherwise pass is clear.

 

You can make a case for both playing 3♦ as inv or as correction, so...

[kenrexford]

I'm jumping off of this post to start a different post, in the more advanced section, to avoid any bad influences on beginner/intermediate, if anyone is interested.