Bidding Philosophy

[kenrexford]

OK.

 

The example hand from a different post was 1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠-P-2♥-P-3♦-P-???, with the issue being, as I see it, how Responder should raise diamonds in such a way as to bring 3NT into the picture. There is a problem in this specific auction because the fourth suit cannot be nid below 3NT, unlike an auction where Opener's minor is clubs.

 

The apparent CW was for Responder to bid 4♦ with extras, or 3NT with a club stopper. This fails to solve the problem of when Opener has the club stopper. The alternative of bidding 3NT with merely a positive diamond card and extras was deemed a bad alternative because it might wrong-side the contract from a club lead perspective and because it does not clarify whether Responder does or does not have a club stop.

 

One solution was posed that perhaps 3♠ should be an artificial bid agreeing diamonds below 3NT without a stopper, a decent idea. Another alternative that I proposed is to adopt the Washington Standard idea that 1minor, followed by a major, followed by a rebid of the major, shows a 6-4 hand, thereby saving space and avoiding the bypass of any ability to cue the fourth suit below 3NT.

 

These two ideas seem to have been poo-poo'ed by some, who apparently see such artificiality as unnecessarily esoteric. To that specific comment, I'm rather amazed, but I think that the logic of the problem and the logic of the proposed solutions to the problem should be apparent.

 

The reason for this specific post, however, was to mention, in case anyone cares, a general reasoning difference that permeated this discussion. IMO, there are two basic schools of logic and theory that conflict. One school looks at calls as descriptive and one as need-based.

 

A simple example is Last Train to Clarksville. If hearts are agreed, the describer views 4♦ as clearly showing something in diamonds, such that anything else would be esoteric unless specifically agreed to as a convention. The need-based bidder views 4♦ LTTC as somewhat more logical than the simplistic meaning of showing something in diamonds, because the need of the auction overrides the "natural" meaning of the denomination.

 

More complexities arise when the "need" of an auction is more subtle. The describer, for instance, might struggle with 1♥-P-1NT-P-2♣-P-2♠ as a power club raise, saying nothing about spades. For the need-based bidder, 2♠ would obviously agree clubs and, as the only forcing call to do that, would not be expected to say anything at all about spades.

 

The example from the other post carries extreme need-based problems. At IMP's, some view 3♦ as a very strong bid, not simply a conversion to a better partscore. Assuming that the reason for such a bid is to keep game in the picture, the next Q is as to "what game?" If 3NT is much more plausible than 5♦ (as it would be with the 1NT-P-3♦ invitational sequence; hence the parallel), then 3♦ would "show" notrump suitability (or ability and just cause for converting to 4♦ if required).

 

Assuming this, the next question concerns the reasonably expectable strength of the 1♥...2♥ bidding, as to notrump viability. Not as to strength, but as to viability, as this is the issue of the auction. If there are two or more suitability fits of different, incompatible types (e.g., diamond card plus heart Ace but no club OR diamond card plus club control), but not two calls to separate these, then the most likely should be elected for the one call, to maximize opportunities for bidding the goal game. If alternatives earlier were available that would help, they might be sought.

 

Further, it might make sense, seeing this problem for the first time, to incorporate a system fix. One is to use the same theory as for why Opener did not pass 2♥ -- bidding on shows notrump viability. Thus, 3♠ is perhaps better used to show a great diamond fit without a stop in clubs, sacrificing ability to convert to a Moysian for better game approaches. Another fix might be to amend the minor-major opening structure such that 1♦...1♠...2♠ shows 6-4 (and notrump viability perhaps, althought he space gain may mitigate the need for strict meanings now).

 

The describer seems to lose here. Sure, bidding 4♦ describes the hand well when Responder has no stopper. But, if Opener's purpose for the 3♦ call was to indicate notrump viability, and if Opener has clubs under control, the descriptive call only served to let Opener know that he could have made 3NT but no longer can bid it. Better to pass, keep the secret, and hedge against ten tricks not being available.

 

This might seem like an esoteric concept to some, but I have found it to be quite effective as a general philosophy when discussed. It recently resulted in my partner and I agreeing to use 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-3♣-P-3♦ as a bid to show a sub-reverse 3451 hand rather than a game check-back or a cue in case of slam aspirations. The "needs" that lead to this conclusion are fairly easy to work out, but to state them might be beneficial. Bidding 3♥ instead of 3♦ might be the better descriptive call. However, bidding 3♦ allows an escape at one more location when needed -- a pass. Only the need of the auction, allowing a pass of 3♦, would explain why 3♦, a call that would seem to show diamonds, should instead carry a specific message about hearts.

 

The other "need based" aspect of this example is that this call is only made when Opener had a reverse problem. Meaning, 1min-1♠-2♠ or 1♣-1♥-2♥, if Opener can rebid his minor after the game try.

 

BTW, the first time this came up, my partner pulled it on me without discussion, assuming that I would figure it out.

[kenrexford]

I just remembered one of the Mack Daddy of all need-based auctions I've seen in a while.

 

You are white, the opponents red.

 

You pass, LHO opens 1♥. Partner bids 2NT (minors). RHO bids 3♦, alerted as heart support, limit+. You bid 4♦. Opener bids 4♥.

 

Now, partner bids 4♠. What the Heck is 4♠?

 

IMO, the "need" of this auction is what to lead against 5♥, if they bid it. 4♦ described the best fit but not necessarily the best lead. So, partner, by bidding 4♠, is taking the sacrifice in such a way as to hopefully allow you to help him with the lead against 5♥.

 

As a related idea, if your RHO passes, 4NT should be the call to suggest a spade lead, as there is no way to bid spades for the lead and 4NT is the only method available for that message to be sent.

 

Notably, on the actual hand, 6♦ would be a good sacrifice against 5♥, but for the fact that a non-obvious club lead (away from Qxxxx) was the only route to setting 5♥. The field action was to make 5♥ or to sacrifice at 5♦/6♦.

 

Note also that 4NT could not be used instead of 4♠, because that preempts partner's ability to suggest a spade lead.

[mike777]

I am a bit lost...opener has shown a huge(16=17 hcp) hand with 4 spades and 6D and nothing else? The opp are silent?

[awm]

In general I think a good rule is:

 

If at all reasonable, 3NT is to play

 

Certainly there are auctions where you might want to "make up a bid" in order to encourage partner to cuebid or bid 3NT if acceptable. But bidding 3NT should generally be a contract. It shouldn't be "well, if you have a stopper in the fourth suit I think we can make." Of course there are exceptions when it's obvious that we're not considering playing 3NT (like serious/nonserious situations).

 

In the auction in question, it makes a lot of sense for 3♠ to be the checkback bid. After all we can't have 8 spades on this auction, and it's hard to imagine really wanting to play exactly 3♠.

 

As for Washington Standard, this is all fine and good if you accept never opening 1m with a five-card major. However, that approach is pretty non-mainstream.

[hrothgar]

I just remembered one of the Mack Daddy of all need-based auctions I've seen in a while.

 

You are white, the opponents red.

 

You pass, LHO opens 1♥. Partner bids 2NT (minors). RHO bids 3♦, alerted as heart support, limit+. You bid 4♦. Opener bids 4♥.

 

Now, partner bids 4♠. What the Heck is 4♠?

 

IMO, the "need" of this auction is what to lead against 5♥, if they bid it. 4♦ described the best fit but not necessarily the best lead. So, partner, by bidding 4♠, is taking the sacrifice in such a way as to hopefully allow you to help him with the lead against 5♥.

Silly question

 

The auction has started

 

P - (1♥) - 2N - (3♦)

4♦ - (4♥) - 4♠

 

Won't partner be on lead against a any heart contract?

 

If 4♠ is going to suggest pumping a Spade through declarer, then the mesaage needs to be a lot more complicated. In theory, partner should be asking whether you have an entry Clubs or Diamonds so you can gain the lead and pump a Spade through. Regretfully, I don't think that there is nearly enough bididng space below the safety level to sort this all out.

 

As a related idea, if your RHO passes, 4NT should be the call to suggest a spade lead, as there is no way to bid spades for the lead and 4NT is the only method available for that message to be sent.

 

I have no idea what auction you're discussing. it sounds like

 

P - (1♥) - 2N - (P)

4♦ - (4♥) - 4NT

[kenrexford]

Hrothgar, you are missing the auction:

 

East South West North

P . . . 1♥ . . . 2NT . . . 3♦

4♦ . . . 4♥ . . . 4♠

 

At this point, the person bidding 4♠ will be on lead. He bids 4♠ to allow room (if granted) for Advancer to indicate his lead-preference.

 

Part two continues:

 

... ... ... Pass

4NT???

 

As 4♠ for a lead-director in spades is not possible, 4NT would replace that bid.

[kenrexford]

I am a bit lost...opener has shown a huge(16=17 hcp) hand with 4 spades and 6D and nothing else? The opp are silent?

By "huge," I mean that 1♦...1♠...2♠ shows a 6-4 hand with the same playing strength as 1♦...3♦. And, yes, the opponents are (allowed to be) silent.

 

As to the "nothing else," the availability of the lower method of showing this hand, below even 2NT, means that there is a lot of room for stopper discussion, such that Opener does not promise anything on the side but may well have something (e.g., a club stopper).

 

Without the WS approach, 1♦...1♠...3♦ is more preemptive on use and thus should be more tightly defined, IMO. The 3♠ "impossible" bid would allow 3♦ to have more room.

[mikeh]

Hrothgar, you are missing the auction:

 

East        South        West        North

P .  .  .  1♥ .  .  .  2NT .  .  .    3♦

4♦ .  .  .  4♥ .  .  .  4♠

 

At this point, the person bidding 4♠ will be on lead.  He bids 4♠ to allow room (if granted) for Advancer to indicate his lead-preference.

 

Part two continues:

 

...            ...            ...          Pass

4NT???

 

As 4♠ for a lead-director in spades is not possible, 4NT would replace that bid.

I suspect that the simplistic, non-esoteric, logical and correct way to interprete this 4♠ call is that it shows a powerful 3=0=5=5, intending to bid 5♦ but catering to partner holding long ♠s.

 

Why on earth would we be inventing a contorted meaning for this auction when it can logically be natural, and be showing a hand that, altho rare, is best shown this way...

 

This whole thread is yet another of many examples of complexity for the sake of demonstrating the ability to be complex, ignoring the practical realities of the game.

[jdonn]

Am I reading this right? The meaning of 4♠ is "any hand that is bidding 5 minor, but wants partner to tell me if a spade lead is right along the way, if the opponents let me"???

 

And this is the "Mack Daddy" of all auctions of the style you advocate??

 

I think that says it all right there.

 

Out of curiosity, how will you feel when over 4♠ the next player now bids blackwood which you left him room to do? How will you feel when he doubles 4♠ and his partner now correctly bids 5♥ based on a known spade fit? How many brain cells did it take to memorize these bids relative to the amount of times they will not only occur, but gain?

 

These posts didn't belong in the B/I section because they are complicated. They don't belong in the Adv/Exp section either because they are ridiculous.

 

And what makes this all so sad is it makes your useful or viable points (such as the style of always opening a 5 card major so 1♦, 1♠, 2♠ can imply an extra value 4-6, which is truly the big-gaining type of auction of that style) get lost in the shuffle, since people are so busy laughing at and mocking the absurd.

[pclayton]

Ken:

 

If you are trying to innovate on this sequence, here's an idea:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♥

?

Take 2N. When was the last time you really wanted to bid 2N here? With any semblance of a balanced hand or tolerance for responder, Opener passes 2♥ (or raises). I would say that it is used as Lebensohl, and a puppet to 3♣, as long as responder has at least 3 clubs. even with a 4=1=5=3, Opener still wants to pass 2♥, unless very strong, and 3♣ is an acceptable move.

 

Responder can also take a diamond preference directly over 2N, or rebid hearts to show a really long suit.

 

Opener can make strong or weak rebids in this matter.

[kenrexford]

I'm more and more convinced, despite the claims of absurdity from the describers, that there is a serious chasm of difference between the two schools I have identified and that I prefer my thinking.

 

Sure, using 4♠ to show a 3055 might, as a rare descriptive tool, have some possible benefit. On some rare occasion, I might have a hand worthy of competing to the five-level because of my minor two-suiter, partner might have an undisclosed long spade suit that he could not open white on red with a weak two-bid but that now offers a better contract suddenly, and the opponents might be bidding game vulnerable versus not on established power but with limited values in all suits except hearts. I can see how that would come in handy, besides the roadmap I lay out for defending 5♦ or for Declaring 5♥, if the opponents decide to bid 5♥ after I disclosed the X-0 split they will receive.

 

I can see how that idea is much more intelligent that my psychotic idea of saving space for partner to help me with the lead when I need that help, rather than simply blasting to 5♦ and guessing what to lead.

 

Now, I can see how 4♠ allows the opponents some additional space for slam tries, such that 4♠ should be a call reserved for times when slam seems unlikely and defense at 5♥ to set the contract plausible. That's the judgment aspect of using a tool.

 

This is not a matter of being complex for the sake of being complex. It is a matter of a different way of thinking entirely. When I and many partners of mine think about an auction like this, the process of thought is relatively simple. First, I want to sacrifice at 5♦. Second, that may not win the day, forcing me to lead against 5♥. Third, I'll be on lead, and the 4♦ call as not a reliable lead-director. Fourth, the cheapest call above 4♥ should be taken as intent to sacrifice and asking for a lead-director (were partner on lead, it would be a lead-director). Finally, if partner for some reason does not understand, we are not vulnerable and no-harm-no-foul; he might correct back to diamonds and still bid clubs on the way (for the same reasons).

 

There is nothing "complex" about this. It is simply a different way of thinking about bidding, and not that difficult to employ.

 

And, I really do not understand why it is considered ridiculous.

 

Here's another example, to gett he brain thinking. Partner makes a sandwich 1NT call, showing a weak takeout with diamonds and spades. Opener doubles, explained as a support double. 1♣-P-1♠-1NT-X-?

 

The meanings of 2♦ and 2♠ are fairly obvious. What should 2♣ and 2♥ be? One idea is for these calls to be natural, because natural is possible. One idea is for these calls to be cues for the respective suits, showing game interest, perhaps, and defining fit. To me, those meanings are less practical and are governed by describer thinking.

 

The meaning I would want for these calls is based upon need-based thinking. As the opponents have a fairly good chance of declaring in their major, my partner will likely be on lead. His normal lead will be in the suit I bid, but that might not be good. Maybe the other suit is a better lead. Lead issues seem more important than remote game tries and natural calls in their suits, and pass/redouble solves some of those well enough. So, 2♣ should show a diamond preference for fit but a spade preference for lead; 2♥ a spade preference for fit but a diamond preference for lead.

 

Is this also unnecessary complexity, or complexity for complexity's sake, or is this fairly easy a concept if your thinking is different?

[kenrexford]

Ken:

 

If you are trying to innovate on this sequence, here's an idea:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♥

?

Take 2N. When was the last time you really wanted to bid 2N here? With any semblance of a balanced hand or tolerance for responder, Opener passes 2♥ (or raises). I would say that it is used as Lebensohl, and a puppet to 3♣, as long as responder has at least 3 clubs. even with a 4=1=5=3, Opener still wants to pass 2♥, unless very strong, and 3♣ is an acceptable move.

 

Responder can also take a diamond preference directly over 2N, or rebid hearts to show a really long suit.

 

Opener can make strong or weak rebids in this matter.

This is a very interesting idea, and it seems to be somewhat workable. This would allow Opener to distinguish tha 4-7 wild but notrump unsuitable 3♦ from the notrump-oriented more mundane 6-4.

 

There is a small problem that can be somewhat easily addressed. If Opener bids 3♦ directly with the stronger hand, there is still no lead protection of his club stopper unless something like the 3♠ artificial transfer to 3NT (if Opener has a stopper) is used. Even if 3♦ promises a stopper, you still need the transfer to protect Kx.

 

If you instead go through 2NT with the stopper, at least you already have it right-sided, but then Responder must apparently bid an immediate 3NT with the golden hand. This would make a direct 3♦ show extras without a club stop (removing the need for the transfer). 2NT would be used with wild 7-4's or with club-stopper mundanes.

 

Seems workable.

[Guest Jlall]

Serious question, do you actually believe the things you write? Sometimes I feel like tomorrow you're gonna be like GOTCHA SUCKAZ APRIL F00LZ. I feel like I am in the twilight zone. It used to be annoying but now it's kind of funny. Actually I've always thought of saying some ridiculous things completely seriously and writing 5000 word posts defending them with a bunch of noise and seeing the results, so sometimes I think thats what you're doing lol.

[pbleighton]

"I'm more and more convinced, despite the claims of absurdity from the describers, that there is a serious chasm of difference between the two schools I have identified and that I prefer my thinking."

 

Ken, you have a couple of world-class players saying your theories are too complicated to be practical.

 

I'm curious, what are your three or four most impressive tournament results, so that I can get some idea of how well your theories have worked in practice?

 

BTW, being a club level player who took up the game four years ago and who can't defend to save his life, I'd be embarrassed to list my *triumphs*, so I completely understand if you don't want to list yours :)

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Justin,

 

Yes, I actually do, most of the time (at least on paper). The example of the 4♠ call (above) was from a real auction, pulled off at the table without prior discussion. The idea to advancing sandwich was systemically discussed and agreed with a prior partner (not yet discussed with my current partner). I personally have somewhat of an insane ability to remember minute details of agreements, even wildly divergent ones, such that the idea of "complexity" has never been an issue for me. Not many partners can handle this much, but I always can cater to their level of complexity preference.

 

If you want a full-blown laugh, try getting a copy of "Sandwiches with Condiments," an article in the Bridge World magazine from August of 2003. The article discusses a four-way method for distinguishing hand types for support doubles, always different based upon the four vulnerability types (rvw, wvr, rvr, wvw). We were drunk at 6:00 AM when this idea was born, admittedly.

 

I must admit, however, that my current regular partner describes my thinking as often in the twilight zone and often too complex for anyone to follow. LOL. He puts it this way: "You might very well be right. But, no one could possibly follow all of that at the table." A fair assessment.

 

In the reality of actual play, I tone down quite a bit from my theory side. Even so, my partner says that a session with me is one of the most difficult mental challenges he ever faces. Perhaps somewhat to retaliate, he has started tossing wild undiscussed bids at me, maybe in a morbid desire to catch me missing something. The funny thing is that I usually field them.

 

In the end, however, both of our views have changed a lot (he might never admit it), we have developed a great partnership (four A pairs wins in a row), and Tylenol sales are up.

[dake50]

I've thought of this chasm as between the

'bid to describe my hand' = tell all and

'bid to get to the preferred contract' = tell little.

They usually diverge quite quickly even on 1st response.

I hate blabbing, so grabbit NT often (even winning against no H-stop, eg.) as NT is a highly desired contract. This often leaves the 4SF cases easier since most 'by guess, by golly' NT were already in NT.

Preferred M contracts leads me to 4cM, avoiding blab

1C <let oppts in> 1H <let oppts in> 1S exchanged for

1S <oppts at 2-level> 2S

[cherdano]

Hrothgar, you are missing the auction:

 

East South West North

P . . . 1♥ . . . 2NT . . . 3♦

4♦ . . . 4♥ . . . 4♠

 

At this point, the person bidding 4♠ will be on lead. He bids 4♠ to allow room (if granted) for Advancer to indicate his lead-preference.

 

Part two continues:

 

... ... ... Pass

4NT???

 

As 4♠ for a lead-director in spades is not possible, 4NT would replace that bid.

So you are catering to the case that opener passes and responder re-raises to 5♥? And when you did this in a real life auction, your partner replied by showing his lead preference?

 

I would think it's a lot more likely that you have a slam try, or a 3055 that wants to offer spades.

[kenrexford]

Part of this bidding problem for me is in recognizing when the partnership can focus concerns on limited goals.

 

An example faced comonly is a P-P-3♥(white on red)-X-? auction. Sure, it might be possible to construct a hand where the Opening side can make slam. However, it seems more reasonable to simple assume that the hand is theirs, or at least to resolve to using zooming on the rare hands. Once you make that assumption, you then think toward three goals/issues. Sacrificing, preemption, lead-direction, and not helping their declaring/defense too much. As Responder will likely be on lead, that possible concern is obviously much more relevant than it would be after a 3♠ overcall instead.

 

The parallel auction of P-1♥-2NT-3♦-4♦ seems to be one where "ownership" is fairly reliably established. If so, patterning out seems to help the opps too much, and slam tries are deemed not an issue. Making those two assumptions leads rather easily to calls being used to assist partner in lead assistance.

 

BTW, if you do have slam interest, for some reason, you could bid 4NT, which is not the cheapest call, or 5♣. Only the 4♠ wild-ass-slam-try or pattern-for-patterns-sake call is necessary for enabling advancer lead-assistance bidding.

[glen]

Perhaps the delineation articulated between descriptive and need-based bidding does not distinguish the philosophy. Most players uses these:

 

Fourth Suit Forcing – generally not descriptive – needs to know further information

Blackwood – generally not descriptive – needs to number of aces/keycards

 

So the idea that some bids are asking and some are descriptive is well accepted.

 

Is there a difference between an asking bid, and a "need-based" bid? In the "Mack Daddy" example 4♠ was rebid by the Unusual-2NT overcaller as needs-to-know best lead to make against the opponents' potential 5♥ contract. As it was further described later, we could specify this approach as "if the preempt bidder later makes the cheapest new strain bid or cuebid available, it asks partner to describe hand for partnership leading/defending purposes".

 

What seems to be the difference between conventional asking and need-based asking bidding is this:

Conventional Ask – a prearranged agreement that the bid will ask

Need-based Ask – an asking bid that was not prearranged, but that partner is expected to somehow deduce.

 

So we have asking bids, and asking-if-you-work-it-out bids. By default for partnerships, any bid that is not a pre-arranged asking bid, is descriptive (even a denying-values Bluhmer is descriptive). Need-based asks seem to replace this default with "a bid may be descriptive, or it may be spur-of-the-moment asking bid". There are three clear problems here:

 

- How does one know when a bid is descriptive, and when it is need-based asking?

- If it is need-based asking, how does one know the question which is being asked?

- If it is need-based asking, how does one know the proper set of responses to reply?

 

Say it was the early days of bridge, and it goes 1♣-Pass-4NT-Pass-?. Opener thinks, this can’t be natural and descriptive the way we play, so it must be need-based asking. Perhaps he needs to know the number of aces I have! What would a good reply scheme be? Likely graded! So 5♣ would be zero aces, 5♦ one etc. So we can see how need-based bidding can develop asking bid conventions on-the-fly.

 

As we see this requires the partnership to be on the same wavelength.

 

From the reading of the postings, it seems that the default will be:

 

"By default a bid is descriptive, except if a bid is peculiar in the context of the bidding so far, and that the bidder is quite likely to need to know something. In this latter case, partner should make a descriptive bid that helps give partner the information they need."

 

So, using this, the invent-Blackwood on-the-fly does not apply, since an artificial response scheme would not be invented right on the spot. However, an invent-Fourth-Suit-Forcing-on-the-fly example might have worked, since opener’s replies would all be descriptive, not coded.

 

One could see a partnership landing in somewhat of an ethical tarpit, if peculiar bids, if descriptive, are bid immediately, and peculiar bids, if asking, are slower, and if responding to a strange bid, if the bid is assumed to be descriptive, it gets an immediate reply, while bids assumed-to-be-asking are given a careful, slower reply.

my partner says that a session with me is one of the most difficult mental challenges he ever faces.

So these "difficult mental challenges", when presented, have to met in some reasonable tempo. Thus a partnership would need to have some meta-agreements to be able to make descriptive bids and need-based asks in about the same tempo.

 

Right now such meta-agreements seem to involve:

- ownership of the hand considerations – in particular are we likely to play the hand or defend it?

- that the strange bid gives partner room for several replies.

 

However besides need-based asks, we also are given an example of a need-based coded description. The bidding goes 1♣-P-1♥-1NT(♠s&♦s)—X(support double)-? and the recommendation is that 2♣ shows a ♦ fit but a ♠ lead preference, while 2♥ shows a ♠ fit but a ♦ lead preference.

 

(note: the auction in Ken’s post should be the one I give above – this note will be removed once Ken’s fix is in place)

 

So we have need-based on-the-fly conventional descriptions. So working on that, we can have:

 

"By default a bid is descriptive, except if the bidder is quite likely to need to know something. In this latter case, partner needs to determine if the bidder is asking about something, or trying to tell something, perhaps in a coded way. If it is asking, make a descriptive reply, while if it is telling something, use the information."

 

This is so vague as to be unworkable in bridge bidding tempo. However the need-based examples so far produced are working on this:

 

"By default a bid is descriptive, except if there is a substantial chance we will not play the contract and we know which opponent is likely to be declarer of the final contract. In this case, there are two situations. First, if it is likely that a bidder will be on lead, a cheap bid is not descriptive but a cry-for-help that asks partner to assist in finding the best lead. If it is likely that the partner of the bidder will be on lead, then the bidder attempts to use the bids available to assist partner with the lead."

 

So we have 1♠-Double-2NT(limit+ ♠ raise)-?, now bids can be lead-based. It is a fairly easily to come up with many lead-based examples.

 

However the cry-for-help examples, where the bidder will be on lead, are harder to come up, to the point where I question the utility of the approach, even if the unusual 2NT example would have perhaps worked. So I would dump the cry-4-help bids, and just keep:

 

"By default a bid is descriptive, except if there is a substantial chance we will not play the contract and the bidder is not likely to be on lead against the opponents’ final contract. In this case, the bidder attempts to use the bids available to assist partner with the lead."

 

For example, many partnerships have after Preempt-Double, the use of transfer bids to show either length, or lead directional values, in the suit transferred to (to reduce complexity, my wife and I, after our preempt and their double, bid a suit below game as forcing, either natural or lead directional with a fit for the preempt). These lead-directional type bids are also used over negative doubles and in other bidding areas.

 

So in summary I believe a need-based showing-the-best-lead approach is quite workable, while a need-based invent-an-ask approach has a whole slew of problems, including frequency, recognition, tempo, and knowing-the-question to answer.

[kenrexford]

Officeglen:

 

Wow! I'm very impressed with your analysis. You have spotted several lines of thinking as to some of the conventional treatments my partner and I use after discussion and the thinking that we use as to undiscussed situations, as well as the potential for problems.

 

Obviously, as you hint at, a constant goal is to recognize theme situations where defaults can be used (as to when one partner is giving room, for example) and to recognize situations where artificiality must be employed to work out the existing problems.

 

I think you may be a little pessimistic as to the workability of on-the-fly fielding. This obviously is difficult at first, but practice with a similarly-minded individual gets the sync on. The necessity for newly established rules is diminished when the partnership includes two people who both understand priorities and theory well and who have generalized understandings as to partnership preferences, especially as more and more situations have history or have been discussed.

 

I also can appreciate the tempo issue. However, somewhat in jest but somewhat legitimately, the tempo issue usually works itself out.

 

An example. The bidding goes blah-blah-blah, and then all of the sudden your partner bids bluck. What the H. is that? What usually happens at this point is that everyone at the table has a double-take zen moment. Everyone is scratching their respective head. After a short moment, you make a bid (or pass or double, whatever).

 

The analysis of tempo here: Everyone pauses together. No one knows immediately what to do. So, in a sense, the moment of collection of thought is "in tempo." A fast bid is implausible and unexpected. Second, there is usually no chance that anyone can take inference from any hesitation, because everyone, including the "weird bid bidder," will expect the hesitation. Granted, a really fast bid might give info, but no one can pull that off in the face of a bluck bid.