Worthy of the MSC?

[mikeh]

At the risk of repeating myself, and fully cognizant that you may be unpersuadable (see the thread on overcalling 5♦), let me make one last attempt.

 

Using 3♠ as some kind of mixed raise (which is the term I would use for your description) makes a limited sort of sense, if you ignore the problems created by having to lump invitational spade raises in with all other gf hands on which responder wishes to involve opener.

 

But, what are we guarding against? Both opps passed initially, we have a delayed non-preemptive entry into the auction, and the advantages that would flow from having a mixed raise available in what is almost always a 4-4 fit are going to be very limited. And I speak as someone who, in one partnership, probably has as many ways to raise partner's major as anyone....

 

 

And in exchange for this marginal improvement in one area of bidding, we are over-loading the cue-bid. I note that your response did not deal with my first objection to your use of the cue-bid: if the family of hands underlying the cue-bid includes a limit raise, opener HAS to be able to indicate acceptance or rejection. Thus opener CANNOT rebid a quiet 3♠ on hands that would accept a limit raise.

 

This means that either you allow opener to jump to 4♠ on hands that would accept a limit raise and lack slam suitability, or you have to import a significant degree of artificiality to opener's rebid... to use an otherwise natural bid (say, 3♦ over 3♣ is no longer 5+♦s, but is a waiting bid) or you are totally screwed when responder's gf was based on the hope of showing a good ♥ hand or a ♦ fit. You get into delightful scenarios such as opener bidding 4♠ and responder having to bid 5♦... is that a cue, slamming in ♠s or an attempt to find 5♦ or an attempt to set the suit en route to some slam or grand in ♦s or....

 

It is possible to contrive artificial responses to the 3♣ cue, at a significant cost, but why?

 

I appreciate your point about my reference to a fundamental lack of understanding about bidding theory.. it could be misconstrued as ad hominem, but your advocacy of your singular usage of the cue-bid (well, one other poster seems to agree with you, so singular is probably unfair) does tend to reinforce my sense that you do not understand bidding theory very well. Instead, you seem to fall into the common trap of seeing how useful your treatment would be on the hand in question, without adequately examining the costs of the treatment on other hand-types. Point in question: your failure to address a major issue I raised while persisting with your preferred view.

[foo]

I note that your response did not deal with my first objection to your use of the cue-bid: if the family of hands underlying the cue-bid includes a limit raise, opener HAS to be able to indicate acceptance or rejection. Thus opener CANNOT rebid a quiet 3♠ on hands that would accept a limit raise.

 

This means that either you allow opener to jump to 4♠ on hands that would accept a limit raise and lack slam suitability, or you have to import a significant degree of artificiality to opener's rebid... to use an otherwise natural bid (say, 3♦ over 3♣ is no longer 5+♦s, but is a waiting bid) or you are totally screwed when responder's gf was based on the hope of showing a good ♥ hand or a ♦ fit. You get into delightful scenarios such as opener bidding 4♠ and responder having to bid 5♦... is that a cue, slamming in ♠s or an attempt to find 5♦ or an attempt to set the suit en route to some slam or grand in ♦s or....

 

It is possible to contrive artificial responses to the 3♣ cue, at a significant cost, but why?

It didn't seem like there was much point in discussing possible uses for all the other sequences if you didn't believe we had adequately discussed the direct raise.

 

Now that we have that out of the way (whether you agree or disagree, I now sense that you feel I have fully described the rational, yes?)...

Now let's deal with the more general issue of all the other hand types.

 

As I noted before, the sequences we have available are:

start= 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-??

 

a= start-2S, 3S, or 4S

b= start-3C! followed by stuff showing S's

c= start-4C!

d= start-new strain

e= start-3C! followed by stuff showing a GF hand w/o S support

f= start-X followed by a S raise, a new suit, or a cue bid

 

Let's get the simpler ones out of the way first.

"d" is GF. Thus GF hands with ?54? or ?55? are covered and so are hands where we want to ask GOP to further describe their hand w/o saying much about ours ("FSFish").

 

"a" and "c" have been discussed previously.

 

That leaves defining

b= start-3C! followed by stuff showing S's

e= start-3C! followed by stuff showing a GF hand w/o S support

f= start-X followed by a S raise, a new suit, or a cue bid

 

What does "f"= 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-X show? Neither Penalty nor Takeout makes sense here.

Further what does

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-X;blah-2D or 2H or 2H or 2S or 2N or 3C! show?

(Not to mention jump bids?)

 

Traditionally Opener's rebids after a sequence like 1S-(2C)-3C! are

new strain= Game try or slam try

S raises= "I want to play here" (of course 5S says bid 6 w/ 2/3 of top S honors.)

4C! cuebid= some sort of descriptive big hand.

 

Taking into account the above should shed sufficient light as to what hands are best described by "b".

 

I submit your concern is a non concern because We have plenty of ways of describing the hands in question other than the way you propose and therefore can stay out of the trouble you hypothesize.

[Apollo81]

I would bid 4♣, and I don't see why 5♦ can't be natural here.

[pclayton]

Right or wrong, I'm assuming pard has a 5-6.

 

My 3♣ just established a force. It said nothing about a club control.

 

I need to know the quality of pard's trump and 5♠ at my next turn will ask.

If 3♣ did not promise a control (a proposition with which I entirely agree), isn't there a risk that 5♠ over 3♠ asks for a club control? Or am I missing a round of your intended auction? I would have thought that 4♣ over 3♠ would be a control and unambiguously agreeing ♠s and then 5♠ would ask for trump quality.

Yeah; I'm a 4♣ / 5♠ bidder.

 

I was trying to differentiate the immediate 5♠ with the delated 5♠.

[mikeh]

 

Now that we have that out of the way (whether you agree or disagree, I now sense that you feel I have fully described the rational, yes?)...

Now let's deal with the more general issue of all the other hand types.

 

As I noted before, the sequences we have available are:

start= 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-??

 

a= start-2S, 3S, or 4S

b= start-3C! followed by stuff showing S's

c= start-4C!

d= start-new strain

e= start-3C! followed by stuff showing a GF hand w/o S support

f= start-X followed by a S raise, a new suit, or a cue bid

 

Let's get the simpler ones out of the way first. 

"d" is GF.  Thus GF hands with ?54? or ?55? are covered and so are hands where we want to ask GOP to further describe their hand w/o saying much about ours ("FSFish").

 

"a" and "c" have been discussed previously.

 

That leaves defining

b= start-3C! followed by stuff showing S's

e= start-3C! followed by stuff showing a GF hand w/o S support

f= start-X followed by a S raise, a new suit, or a cue bid

 

What does "f"= 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-X show?  Neither Penalty nor Takeout makes sense here.

Further what does

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-X;blah-2D or 2H or 2H or 2S or 2N or 3C! show?

(Not to mention jump bids?)

 

Traditionally Opener's rebids after a sequence like 1S-(2C)-3C! are

new strain= Game try or slam try

S raises= "I want to play here" (of course 5S says bid 6 w/ 2/3 of top S honors.)

4C! cuebid= some sort of descriptive big hand.

 

Taking into account the above should shed sufficient light as to what hands are best described by "b".

 

I submit your concern is a non concern because We have plenty of ways of describing the hands in question other than the way you propose and therefore can stay out of the trouble you hypothesize.

You still haven't explained your solution to opener's need to bid 4♠ or make an artificial game acceptance bid IF 3♣ includes a limit raise: obviously, he cannot bid 3♠ since that denies accepatance of a limit raise.

 

Until and unless you answer this question, your posts in support of your meaning for 3♣ are meaningless.

 

But I am an inveterate riser to bait, so I wil rise to another juicy tidbit in your latest post. You state (you do not reason, you merely state) that there is no need for double of the delayed 2♣ overcall to be penalty.

 

In my view, that statement summarizes the flaws in your reasoning.

 

You have decided that you can fix some of the flaws in your treatment of the cuebid by utilizing the double as something other than penalty... and you leap from that need to the bald assertion that 'neither penalty nor takeout make sense here'.

 

I venture to guess that many experts, in a partnership with no specified agreements in place (say, two WC players playing together for the first time) would see the double as penalty. Frankly, to me, nothing else makes as much sense, altho I can see a case for a 'do something intelligent' double... an 'action' double makes some sense.

 

Another tidbit: you say that 'a new strain = gf'. Precisely which strain are you discussing, given that all of the suits have been bid already, and 2N can hardly be a gf? Are you seriously suggesting that 2♦ (or 3♦) be gf? What if we have, respectively, a competitive or limit raise in ♦s? Are we lumping those in with the cue-bid?

 

The final tidbit to which I will refer here is your use of the auction 1♠ [2♣] as an analogy. This is silly. There is no theoretical justification for drawing that analogy. I earlier criticized you for substituting assertion for argument, so let me explain a few of the more obvious differences between this simple sequence and the unusual one at hand:

 

1♠ [2♣] gives us the negative double... we do not have that after the delayed entry, especially since all 4 suits have been bid.

 

1♠ promises 5+ cards (for most of us)

 

Pass of 2♣ is a strong invitation to reopen after a direct overcall... we could be lying in wait with a penalty double. After we have responded 1♥ and passed 2♣, opener will not be straining to reopen: after all, we could have raised either of his 2 suits and he has already failed to raise ours.

 

This will be my last post in response to your ongoing refusal to admit to (or, if you have an answer ,to post an answer to) the basic flaws I have articulated in your 'solution'. I had felt that you were perhaps harshly dealt with in your persistent (altho apparently flawed) efforts to demonstrate that your view was the better in the 5♦ overcall thread, but I am beginning to recognize a pattern to your posts: you do not approach criticism or opposition from the point of seeing whether you can learn something..instead, you construct ever-more elaborate but still flawed rationales for your original p.o.v. That is not the way to improve at the game.... If you read the posts of players such as jlall or jdonn or Frances (to name just 3 of the many similar posters..to list all those to whom this applies would take far too long), you will see that they often express their opinions with vigour (Well, Frances is usually the most diplomatic :) )yet they also readily concede, on occasion, that points made by others have persuaded them to change their views.

[foo]

mikeh, I am truly sorry you feel I'm being evasive or obstinate. Neither is or was intended.

 

My POV was to point out all the sequences available w/o taking the IMO arrogant step of stating what the optimal use of each of them were.

 

I have a client and a game to go to. I try and clarify stuff when I can after I get back.

[foo]

You still haven't explained your solution to opener's need to bid 4♠ or make an artificial game acceptance bid IF 3♣ includes a limit raise: obviously, he cannot bid 3♠ since that denies accepatance of a limit raise.

 

Until and unless you answer this question, your posts in support of your meaning for 3♣ are meaningless.

Ok, nth try at answering this to mikeh's satisfaction

 

♠8752♥AKT943♦♣AQ7

 

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-??

 

My answer here is 3C!= LR+ in Spades.

mikeh takes strong objection to this, stating that a GF hand is required for bidding 3C!

 

One reasonable schedule for Opener's rebids after 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-3C!;

3d or 3h= Game Try (with concerns about value placement) or

Delayed Slam Try (with a maximum)

3s= minimum w/o game interest.

3n= Choice of Games

4c!= Splinter, maximum

4d= another maximum w/ slam interest. Pick a reasonable meaning.

4h= Choice of Games (ie medium =4432 =4441 etc)

4s= medium

 

Since Resp has shown LR+ values, all minimums and mediums for the auction know =exactly= what message they want to send. ...and all the maximums with slam interest have plenty of bids available IMHO.

 

QED: Resp does not need a GF hand to cuebid 3C!

 

 

As for me not liking the use of 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-X as a penalty of 2C's...

1= One problem with overcalls is that they rob us of bidding space.

Using X for something other than pure penalty gets us some of it back. Yes, I'm a firm believer that most doubles should not be pure penalty unless explicitly agreed to be so.

 

2= IME, and in most of the modern literature I've read, directly X'ing 2 level contracts for penalty doesn't pay as well as X'ing to show something else and having GOP penalty pass. YMMV.

 

3= Playing with another player w/o discussion, I have to play the most conservative system I can safely assume. The classic view on X's is that all undiscussed X's when We Open are penalty.

 

 

Finally, please note that I publicly retracted my flawed position in another thread.

Therefore mikeh's accusation that I am incapable of seeing other's POV or changing my mind is demonstratively incorrect.

[mikeh]

You still haven't explained your solution to opener's need to bid 4♠ or make an artificial game acceptance bid IF 3♣ includes a limit raise: obviously, he cannot bid 3♠ since that denies accepatance of a limit raise.

 

Until and unless you answer this question, your posts in support of your meaning for 3♣ are meaningless.

Ok, nth try at answering this to mikeh's satisfaction

You really don't get it :)

 

When opener bids 4♠ with a hand that would accept a limit raise and responder has some other hand, not a ♠ raise at all, you are screwed...and, despite my pointing this out to you several times, you still have not addressed that sequence....calling it 'medium' is not an answer :)

 

And the use of 3♦/3♥ as game tries is pure idiocy....it makes sense if and only if 3♣ is ALWAYS ♠s...not otherwise. But I am wasting my time....

[foo]

mikeh:

So your problem is !not! that 3C could only be a LR, your problem is that 3C! may conceal some GF w/o S support?

 

Your original post as to your preferred meaning of 3C! seemed to imply that it was GF:

"The opp's overcall has deprived us of 4SF, as an artificial game force, direction unspecified. We get this back by using the cue bid... admittedly a level higher, but what else is there?"

In fact, you later imply in the same post that 3C! should !deny! S support:

"Consider: all bids of either of opener's suits are natural: if I have an invitational raise of spades, why can't I bid 3♠? I cannot imagine a need for 3♠ to be anything other than limit, so using 3♣ as limit is silly."

and

"I do not mean to insult any poster on this thread when I say that using 3♣ to agree on ♠s is absurd.... but it really is absurd."

 

?IIUC?, then the answer to this objection is in my original phrase "...or any GF hand =that can handle any likely subsequent auction=".

In that case, GF hands w/o S support would have to be strong enough to have 5 level safety opposite a medium strength opener.

Another reason for using Action Xs rather than penalty X's is that it gives Us a way to more accurately differentiate all of Responder's hands. Including those without Spade support.

 

 

As for comments about "minimum", "medium", and "maximum" not being clearly enough defined for you, that's both context dependent on everything ATT +and+ Partnership Agreement territory. Clearly they mean hands of minimum, medium, and maximum power + value placement trick taking strength for the preceding auction.

We could equate "minimum" to "12-14", "medium" to "15-17", and "maximum" to "18+"; but we both know that is far from precise enough to realistically describe the situation. In fact, it could be highly misleading.

If you have better terms, I'd be happy to hear them and your definitions for them.

[jdonn]

In fact, you later imply in the same post that 3C! should !deny! S support:

"Consider: all bids of either of opener's suits are natural: if I have an invitational raise of spades, why can't I bid 3♠? I cannot imagine a need for 3♠ to be anything other than limit, so using 3♣ as limit is silly."

and

"I do not mean to insult any poster on this thread when I say that using 3♣ to agree on ♠s is absurd.... but it really is absurd."

You are badly misinterpreting him. In the first quote he was saying 3♣ should not include an invitational spade raise, which is true. In the second he was saying 3♣ should not PROMISE spade support. Nowhere did Mike either say or imply that 3♣ denies spade support with game forcing values.

 

?IIUC?, then the answer to this objection is in my original phrase "...or any GF hand =that can handle any likely subsequent auction=".

In that case, GF hands w/o S support would have to be strong enough to have 5 level safety opposite a medium strength opener.

This is your first actual answer to his question of how screwed GF hands without spade support become. However it's not a good answer. Aside from the fact that opener will never have a clue what to do over responder's 5 level revealing of the trump suit, you ignore the fact that responder might have a game force without clear direction. What does responder do when he doesn't even know what the trump suit should be?

[foo]

Josh:

 

I disagree about not answering the questions. I've been writing a d@mn book here trying to answer the question.

 

Everything systemic I've posted here on this issue hinges on Resp's 2nd round X not being for penalty.

 

Without that, you don't have enough sequences available to describe the pertinent hand types and you have to use the cue bid as a GF, which means you have to use 3S as invitational, which means etc. Everything ripples out.

 

...and you are still not going to be able to describe as many hands compared to if you play the methods I'm describing.

 

Playing "Do Something Intelligent" X's vs. Penalty X's here is not my idea. I took it on because it made sense to me. YMMV. Fair enough.

[inquiry]

It maybe just me, but the discussion between foo and mikeh/jdonn has confused me. I am not sure I understand what is going on (and foo uses too many abbreviations I am not all that familiar with.. YMMV I take it is your milege may vary, but I have no idea why he keeps talking about republicans ... GOP).

 

It seems that foo plays something that is removed from standard, where the 3♣ cue-bid is kind of an unassuming cue-bid that promises limit raise or better and always spade support. That is easily explained and understood. The other side (me included) use 3♣ to establish game force, and as such may, but equally maynot have spade support. Again easily understood.

 

Here the logic goes south on me... How does foo issue a game force without spade support. He says a new suit is game force, but partner has bid diamonds and spades, and we have bid hearts. What new suit is he talking about. Is ....

 

1D -  P - 1H - P

1S - 2C - 2D <<--------- is this the new suit, is this really game force?

 

1D -  P - 1H - P

1S - 2C - 2H <<--------- is this the new suit, is this really game force?

 

Foo states that there is no need for a penalty double or a takeout double. We can agree on one thing, there is no need for a takeout double. We have already bid all the others suits. We can "tada" raise partner rather than make a takeout double.

 

So double can be penalty (what it should be here) or an action double (I have a good hand but no direction) which is often converted to penalty. But action doubles are not game force, heck, they are not even forcing. So, we are left with a puzzle. What does responder do with a hand without spade support (can have great diamond support) that has game forcing value but no desire to play 2Cx? Double is out, as that might end it. 3♣ is out as that promises spade support.

 

Another oddity is I guess all spade raises are preemptive on an auction where both opponents have passed at least once. It seems 3♠ as a limit raise would be "normal" as there is little reason to preempt in this situation.

 

So despite writing a d@mn book, I am still confused about the methods foo is advocating. Is the suggestion that all GF hands without spades go through double (and the alleged new suit, which I could not find)? Can that be right? Can you play an action double that partner must pull?

[foo]

Say I have a single suited hand in H's

 

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-??

 

If X here is not penalty,

 

2h= 6+H min

3h= 6+H max (yep that's GF)

X, followed by min H bid= 6+H med

Moreover if Good Old Partner (GOP) doesn't penalty pass we get information we may need in deciding where We belong.

Frankly, I've gotten quite a few lucrative penalties out of this when GOP holding a minimum hand penalty passes...

 

Another point. Immediate raises aren't necessarily "Preemptive", what they are is high ODR hands that have a strong preference that we =declare=, not defend.

[jdonn]

None of what you are suggesting still makes any sense to me, what can I say. Now double is not 'action' or whatever since that implies a lack of clear direction (eg. 3523 11 count), it's totally artificial just showing any invitational hand without spade support? And all so we can make invitational raises in what is virtually always a 4-4 fit that show either highcards or shape, which as far as I can see gains us nothing? I'll give you credit for creativity for even coming up with this stuff.

 

Is it too much to at least have you admit that what you are proposing isn't even remotely standard?

[foo]

None of what you are suggesting still makes any sense to me, what can I say. Now double is not 'action' or whatever since that implies a lack of clear direction (eg. 3523 11 count), it's totally artificial just showing any invitational hand without spade support? And all so we can make invitational raises in what is virtually always a 4-4 fit that show either highcards or shape, which as far as I can see gains us nothing? I'll give you credit for creativity for even coming up with this stuff.

 

Is it too much to at least have you admit that what you are proposing isn't even remotely standard?

The X =is= still "Do Something Intelligent" pard since it =is= still showing a hand unclear as to direction, even if it's a single suited, medium strength response.

 

Not just 5H332's have this problem. So do many medium strength 6H322's and 6H331's w/o self sufficient trump suits.

 

Opener has shown 8, maybe 9, cards in the pointed suits. The assumption of fit has become considerably less likely.

 

If GOP has a minimum, particularly a flat minimum, and =especially= a misfitting minimum, what is Our most likely way to maximize Our score on this board?

Defend. And if that's true when We have ~22-24 HCP, They should be X'd.

 

The reason for "all this" is not just so we can make natural invitational raises.

It's so we have more sequences to better differentiate our hands in terms of support, ODR, and strength.

 

 

As for how "standard" this is; I started seeing stuff like this in the early 1990's as things like "Scanian X's" came under close scrutiny.

 

 

I'll say this much. I hate NFB's and was skeptical of this "Double should not be penalty unless explicitly agreed" approach for related reasons; but this seems to work much better ATT than NFB's ever did.

 

FAIR WARNING: like all things in Bridge, there is no convention, system, or treatment that works all the time or that is "free" or that does not get bad results sometimes.

 

I happen to think the problems and risks of bad results with the "DSI X" approach are worth it; and my understanding is that I'm far from the only one. YMMV.

[han]

What do you do with x KQ10xxxx KJx xx IIMAYS? I assume that this heart suit is good enough to bid UYD, the hand has extras yet it is not strong enough to force to game.

 

If I double with this too then it becomes very hard for partner to do something intelligent. And some partners already have a hard time doing so.

[mikeh]

If I double with this too then it becomes very hard for partner to do something intelligent. And some partners already have a hard time doing so.

Hannie... I didn't know that we played with the same partners! SW! Maybe I should have written 'Small World', because, unlike Foo IHA.BWTF. AWTEW.

 

 

 

Ok..IHA I hate acronyms

[han]

IIMAYS = if I may ask you so.

 

I got BWTF and AWTEW but still working on UYD (and that's my own but I forgot how I intended it!),

[foo]

What do you do with ♠x♥KQTxxxx♦KJx♣xx If I May Ask (IIMA)? I assume that this heart suit is good enough to bid Using Your Double (UYD), the hand has extras yet it is not strong enough to force to game.

 

If I double with this too then it becomes very hard for partner to do something intelligent. And some partners already have a hard time doing so.

Nice example. ;)

 

This hand is a traditional minimum with a long suit.

2 controls, 9 highs, etc etc.

 

Since we should have 7+ controls to be in Game, Opener needs something approximating a 15+ count for Us to legitimately be in game most of the time.

 

OTOH, with only 6 losers, we only need 3 cover cards in Opener's hand to make 4H.

The typical 1level opening usually has 4+.

 

If you want to upgrade it due to the nice suit and it having only 6 losers, I'd have no problems with that either.

 

But if you upgrade, I'd upgrade it to a GF since

a= We have a self-sufficient trump suit (it will play for 1 loser opposite a small x the vast majority of the time.)

b= 6 losers -3 cover cards => 10 tricks and we have a decent chance of making 5 since Opener rates to have 4 cover cards.

c= The bidding hints that Opener's values are likely to be where they will be useful

 

OTOH, this hand is !not! sure it has 5 level safety; and it's not interested in a slam opposite most hands Opener rates to have.

 

If I'm going to upgrade this hand, my bid with your example hand Hannie is

4H To Play.

[han]

Please notice my UYD (unless you disagree). If you think that this is a clear minimum then make the diamond jack the diamond queen (although I wouldn't put it past you to claim that that is a clear max).

 

My point was that if you double on a wide variety of hands (including medium hands with 7-card heart suits) then partner won't know what to do.

 

While the same is true for (for example) some negative doubles, here there is less need to make the double so ambiguous as we have already exchanged quite a bit of information. Another reason not to hide a medium single-suiter is that they might bid 4C or 5C in the next round and you would never get to show your suit.

[foo]

Please notice my UYD (unless you disagree). If you think that this is a clear minimum then make the diamond jack the diamond queen (although I wouldn't put it past you to claim that that is a clear max).

 

My point was that if you double on a wide variety of hands (including medium hands with 7-card heart suits) then partner won't know what to do.

 

While the same is true for (for example) some negative doubles, here there is less need to make the double so ambiguous as we have already exchanged quite a bit of information. Another reason not to hide a medium single-suiter is that they might bid 4C or 5C in the next round and you would never get to show your suit.

As I said, ♠x♥KQTxxxx♦KJx♣xx is a 4♥ To Play bid, !not! a X, after

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-??

 

My reasons are in my previous post on this.

 

I completely agree with your point that X (just like any other descriptive call) should not show too wide a variety of hands. I also stated that the X was reserved for hands that are unclear as to direction. The above example from you knows exactly what contract is its limit in a Contested Auction. It should bid it ASAP and be done.

 

And yes, ♠x♥KQTxxxx♦KQx♣xx bids 3♥ GF in this auction since the chance of slam is much higher than if the ♦Q is exchanged for the ♦J.

 

7 card suits tend to define the direction of a hand fairly clearly :)

It's nigh unto impossible to create a 7??? hand that needs help as to direction.

2♥ min, 3♥ GF, or 4♥ To Play should handle just about any 7H??? hand in this auction.

[han]

You are right, you did say that. I think.