What After Game Raise?

[Stephen Tu]

First Stephen Tu Question Line:  Examples of Shortness Asks?

 

The "shortness ask" applies whenever partner has just made a call that promises or very highly advertises shortness.  Examples:

So to support your position that these treatments are "standard" you pull out a bunch of treatments that are practically unheard of and nobody except you and a few others play? Surely you don't play these sequences with any partners after 5 minutes of discussion the first time you ever play with them???

 

1NT-P-3♦(both majors, GF)-P-3M(agrees major, shortness ask)

Non-standard. 3d is inv in SAYC, and in "Walsh" responses to 1nt. For systems involving 4-way xfers, I've seen 3d played as both minors GF, and as 3-suited. Your post is the first time ever that I've seen anyone play it as majors GF.

 

Much more common to play 3H/3S as both majors, inv/gf, and in response to 3H, 3S is to play, and 3nt over 3S is also to play.

 

Now certainly opposite a GF 5-5 majors it makes sense to relay for the rest of the shape, but I'm not going to yank out 1nt-3d undiscussed and think anyone on the planet will think I have majors.

 

And even over 1nt-3S GF, I'm not going to assume 4c is a shortness relay either.

 

1NT-P-2♣-P-2♦/♥-P-2♠(5-card unbalanced invite)-P-2NT(shortness ask)

(1) A lot play that 1nt-2c-2h-2s is a *4* card invite, and 2nt is to play

(2) I would never assume shortness ask is standard even over the 5 cd

unbal invite without discussion.

 

1M-P-3♣(limit raise or splinter)-P-3♦ (shortness ask -- technically a convention)

Another non-std treatment. Of course if you are playing some sort of spl in any suit convention you have some way to unwind which suit it is in.

 

1minor-P-2minor (lots of shortness asks here)

E.g., 1♦-P-2♦-P-3♣-P-3♦ (shortness ask)

No one but you assumes this is shortness ask without discussion.

 

Many others.  Often, in the context of a "strange" convention, where a series of bids reaches a level and then a shortness ask kicks in.  An example from this year is 2♦(strong, 4+ spades, unbalanced)-P-3♥(GF spade raise)-P-3♠(6+ spades)-P-3NT(shortness ask).  We had not discussed this 3NT call because it was obvious.

 

Again, non-std, you are playing in an established partnership with artificial openings and have presumably discussed a structure over these or explicitly set up shortness asks in parallel meaning auctions. You expect to sit down with random expert, agree SA / 2/1, and think 2d opening is anything other than weak 2?

 

I have not recorded it.  However, the specific reference could be Google'd through terms I used, like shortness, asking, 4M, jump, stuff like that.  I found a write-up with exactly what I was describing

Finding a writeup of someone's system notes, presumably developing an advanced partnership with lots of special sequences fleshed out, is not the same as finding a description of "standard". An appearance of something in Meckwell system notes doesn't make it a standard treatment! If anything that makes it more probable as *non-std*, as if were just bog std and a no-brainer to play something as a shortness ask, people often wouldn't bother writing it down!

 

How about something in a book or web site purporting to teach advanced/expert standard to a general audience, that presents a particular shortness ask as something that can be just assumed as a given without agreement? *Other than responses to Jacoby 2nt*. I am fairly sure you won't be able to find any!

[kenrexford]

How about this, Stephen. There is nothing "standard" here. I'll challenge you to find a single reference to any "expert standard," any "non-expert standard," or even a single note in any single published or unpublished system notes where anyone has ever put down to writing what the Heck 4♠ means in this sequence. I doubt you will find this, because no one ever discusses what Opener, with a massive hand, does when his partner, as a passed hand,leaps to game as his first call, with no competition.

 

You will not find anything where anyone calls this a shortness ask, anything where anyone calls this a cuebid, or anything where anyone calls this natural. In fact, this is the funny thing -- why not natural? Why not simply 5♥ as a quantitative invite and 4♠, 5♣, and 5♦ as natural calls, showing a second suit and a distributional two-suiter? Why assume (apparently) that 4♠ shows a spade control?

 

The question is not so much what 4♠ means. The question is what Responder should show.

 

Now, it seems wildly inconsistent for the majority to imply that 5♦ (in the underlying example) is somehow the right call because Responder has a diamond control. Why not 4NT to show the spade control, the cheaper call? Then, after 5♣, show the diamond "control?" If you are supposed to cuebid, why not cuebid the spade control?

 

What I found was that a general trend exists for treating the relay as a call that enables a bid of the shortness, whether Mathe or the Meckwell (it seems) 4♠ rebid after a 4♦ one-under heart "super limit" Swiss-type bid. If memory is eased by consistency, it seems to me that 4♠ in this auction should be enabling of shortness bids, for all the reasons that Mathe makes sense and that 4♠ (hearts agreed) after a 4♦ super-limit make sense PLUS consistency.

 

In the end, this sequence is never discussed. I'm rather glad that my mentor, however, would apply consistency principles from theory that is understood to reach this same conclusion. If that is not the "standard" understanding, fine. The standard interpretation that "it is not described anywhere so it must be a cuebid" seems to conflict with the standard interpretation that "if it sounds natural it is," and sounds inferior to that which I learned that "if it sounds like a situation that parallels such-and-such then it does."

[kenrexford]

A quick note reporting back.

 

Out of curiosity, I contacted Eric Kokish to gain some insights into this specific sequence. I'll assume that his status as an authority as to "expert" bidding is sufficient for BBF purposes?

 

He noted, first, as some of us have suggested, that the nature of the double jump raise to game by a passed hand is itself not standardized, the specific definition of which for the specific partnership may be critical to determination of precisely what to do after this move.

 

As to what 4♠ means. I asked Eric whether using 4♠ as a Mathe-like bid was obscure, standard, or a minority position. His opinion was that 4♠ as a Mathe-type bid is "not a common treatment but far better than random control-showing." He noted that a common corollary or variant for those who do use this treatment in this sequence is that Opener's other rebids (apparently 5♣, 5♦, and either 4NT or 5♥ for spades, I am assuming, if this is a corollary) are shortness bids by Opener himself, to help Responder know if his honors are "working."

 

Thus, the majority position, per Kokish, does seem to be the inferior random control bidding. He noted in this respect that "Experts, alas, are as likely as honest pluggers to leave certain important stones unturned." However, he noted that two minority positions, that he described as "far better" than this majority position, include the Mathe group (with what I learned for alternatives to the relay) and the Mathe variant group who also have Opener make what Eric calls "short suit slam tries" above the Mathe relay.

 

I guess I learned it the standard Mathe way. I suppose that I was wildly errant in assuming that everyone here either played the far better Mathe approach or the new fangled and perhaps even better Mathe variant. Sorry. Thank God I bid 3NT with those hands, avoiding the problem altogether.

 

LOL

[Stephen Tu]

where anyone has ever put down to writing what the Heck 4♠ means in this sequence.  I doubt you will find this, because no one ever discusses what Opener, with a massive hand, does when his partner, as a passed hand,leaps to game as his first call, with no competition.

 

It's a rare sequence, and indeed it will be almost impossible to find any reference to specifically 1h-4h-4s in any standard bidding book. But it is standard, in all commonly available books about bidding, that after a trump suit has been agreed, bids in new suits are control-showing bids of some kind without making other special agreements. Nowhere are shortness asking bids assumed to be standard. Experts would routinely agree that "well with discussion there is probably something better, but default is cue bidding, so 4s must show control in spades and ask for responder to cue".

 

You will not find anything where anyone calls this a shortness ask, anything where anyone calls this a cuebid, or anything where anyone calls this natural.

 

You won't find this sequence specifically, but you will find plenty of statements where after trumps agreed, new suits beyond 3 of trump suit are assumed to be control-showing sans other agreements. Unlike next-step = shortness asks which are never presented as a standard assumption; these are always mentioned in the context of a convention explicitly agreed to.

 

Why assume (apparently) that 4♠ shows a spade control?

Because that's what the vast majority of other people assume is the case. You are alone in your current assumptions.

 

Now, it seems wildly inconsistent for the majority to imply that 5♦ (in the underlying example) is somehow the right call because Responder has a diamond control.  Why not 4NT to show the spade control, the cheaper call?  Then, after 5♣, show the diamond "control?"  If you are supposed to cuebid, why not cuebid the spade control?

Because many people do not have strictly defined cue bidding methods such as yours where you prioritize showing 2nd round control in a suit where one partner has already shown a control over showing a control in an unbid suit. Some people prioritize control of unbid suits first. This is arguably wrong on a useful space principle basis, but it is an error to assume that everyone thinks exactly the way you do thus whatever you think ought to be some way is actually standard. People are illogical, strange things sometimes become standard.

 

Also, 4nt undiscussed is highly dangerous because for some people 4nt is always blackwood/RKC even though it's stupid for responder's 4nt to be so in this sequence. So for an expert in a undiscussed situation with a new partner, 4nt here by responder is essentially an unused bid. Yes this is not optimal. But it is standard. Standard is not equal to optimal.

 

I have no problem with you presenting your ideas as possibly making more sense in an established partnership after discussion. I have a big problem with you presenting your ideas as "standard", that they should be assumed by beginners/intermediates, pickup adv/expert partnerships to be in effect and evaluating bids with all your unwarranted assumptions in effect.

 

The standard interpretation that "it is not described anywhere so it must be a cuebid" seems to conflict with the standard interpretation that "if it sounds natural it is,"

Agreement on a trump suit cancels the assumption of natural and changes it to cue-bid, above 3 level.

[Guest Jlall]

How about this, Stephen. There is nothing "standard" here. I'll challenge you to find a single reference to any "expert standard," any "non-expert standard," or even a single note in any single published or unpublished system notes where anyone has ever put down to writing what the Heck 4♠ means in this sequence.

HOW ABOUT THIS:

 

SINCE EVERYONE WOULD TAKE IT AS A CUEBID IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, STANDARD AND EXPERT STANDARD IS THAT IT IS A CUEBID.

 

 

I will offer you this deal. We pick 20 random people at a bridge tournament who play bridge. We will get a neutral third party to randomly pick them outside the playing area. We ask them "You sit down with a partner for the first time. You have no special agreements. You do not play kickback. What do you think the auction p p p 1H p 4H p 4S means?"

 

I will bet you at even money for $10,000USD that 100 % of them will say something to the effect of "it's a cuebid" or "shows a spade control." We will escrow the money with a neutral third party who will be the judge on whether the spirit of their answer was "cuebid." We cannot lead the people in any way. We cannot speak. If we do, our money is forefitted.

 

I win if all 20 say something to the effect of cuebid. You win if anyone says ANYTHING else.

 

You will not take this bet because you know I will win. You know I will win because you know that is how EVERYBODY would interpret it, and NOBODY would interpret it your way, and you are on an island of one. You know this, but you won't STFU with this "nothing is standard" BS, because you are a useless troll.

[xcurt]

I will bet you at even money for $10,000USD that 100 % of them will say something to the effect of "it's a cuebid" or "shows a spade control." We will escrow the money with a neutral third party who will be the judge on whether the spirit of their answer was "cuebid." We cannot lead the people in any way. We cannot speak. If we do, our money is forefitted.

And I thought prop betting at bridge tournaments was dead.

 

Seriously Ken, if you want to know where to focus your energy on improving your partnerships, look vugraph records from major championships. Even at that level, there are swings in competitive auctions because players don't know which sequence shows a simple raise vs an invitational raise vs a forcing raise in their partnership. And the hand that ended Welland's run at the USITT was 1S-5H-P, 5H was intended as exclusion and 7S, though awful, was cold. Know how to raise partner, and you can play in any field.

[kenrexford]

A few more comments afterwards, missing or ignoring, apparently, what I wrote after discussing this with Mr. Kokish. I'll take his assessment as accurate. When I learned from my mentor what he views as the right way to bid, and the way people I'd want to play with bid, it turns out that this position, at least to Mr. Kokish, is vastly superior to what most experts play, but definitely not what the majority play. An enlightened minority, however, would interpret this auction as I interpreted this auction (and apparently North, it seems, from his call).

 

Hence, I was errant in thinking that this was "expert standard," learning after all that "majority expert standard" is instead the weaker assumption of cuebids rather than the far better Mathe. I will acknowledge that. Apparently, "expert standard" grabs a lot of agreements that are based on a majority of experts apparently honest pluggers with important stones unturned. OK.

 

Apparently, expert standard can feature a partnership that does not have enough partnership understanding to avoid 1♠-5♥-P, which frightens me personally but must be reality. I actually and honestly believed that people who can discuss nuances of whether two-way checkback or X-Y-Z makes more sense in the end could actually follow what I believe to be an obvious Exclusion sequence were I playing with any serious partner.

 

I shudder to think that people can actually dedicate the vast majority of their time in life to one partnership, playing day after day after day, practicing in bidding rooms, but collapse on something like this. I guess I play a completely different game, at least as to bidding. Thankfully for me, so does my partner. I would not enjoy this other game.

 

With this knowledge, I'd never ante up any money for your bet, jlall. This would be rather silly. People who must not discuss theory as much as I would have expected because they all want to play that which the equally uninquiring majority plays would undoubtedly be quite capable of describing consistently the dumbed-down theory of the majority.

[cherdano]

A few more comments afterwards, missing or ignoring, apparently, what I wrote after discussing this with Mr. Kokish. I'll take his assessment as accurate. When I learned from my mentor what he views as the right way to bid, and the way people I'd want to play with bid, it turns out that this position, at least to Mr. Kokish, is vastly superior to what most experts play, but definitely not what the majority play. An enlightened minority, however, would interpret this auction as I interpreted this auction (and apparently North, it seems, from his call).

You still don't get it.

How much do you want to bet that the player who actually held the North hands intended 4♠ as a shortness ask?

[kenrexford]

A few more comments afterwards, missing or ignoring, apparently, what I wrote after discussing this with Mr. Kokish.  I'll take his assessment as accurate.  When I learned from my mentor what he views as the right way to bid, and the way people I'd want to play with bid, it turns out that this position, at least to Mr. Kokish, is vastly superior to what most experts play, but definitely not what the majority play.  An enlightened minority, however, would interpret this auction as I interpreted this auction (and apparently North, it seems, from his call).

You still don't get it.

How much do you want to bet that the player who actually held the North hands intended 4♠ as a shortness ask?

You still don't get it.

 

How much do you want to bet that the North player thought that, whatever the heck 4♠ showed, asked, told, delayed, or suggested, South should show his or her shortness as their next bid? And, hence, that 5♦ showed a stiff diamond?

 

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

[rogerclee]

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

[xcurt]

Apparently, expert standard can feature a partnership that does not have enough partnership understanding to avoid 1♠-5♥-P, which frightens me personally but must be reality.

 

Maybe they should not have had this accident, but

• there are $scary_number of possible auctions and you cannot hope to have an agreement about all of them
  
• fatigue happens
  

[kenrexford]

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

I have a hard time attributing total insanity to an action that seems like it could be based on ration.

[rogerclee]

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

I have a hard time attributing total insanity to an action that seems like it could be based on ration.

Sometimes people make bad bids! That is why there is a forum, called "Beginner/Intermediate" to allow these people to talk about their bad bids, get feedback on their bad bids, and stop making bad bids! Some people are just bad players! They take crazy actions because they don't know what they are doing!

 

Sometimes, they even make a REALLY bad call! A call that has no merit whatsoever! A call that no half-experienced player would even consider!

 

BUT THEY NEVER BID 4♠ SHORTNESS ASK WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!!

 

Is this clear?

[kenrexford]

Is this clear?

No. Not clear. Here is why...

 

No one that I know has written down every bid that could ever occur in every conceivable auction, with branches spinning out depending on what certain bids by the opponents mean. No one could reasonably do this. Agree?

 

So, in the real world, people have agreements that may fit onto a convention card and assume certain GP to fill in the blanks. Maybe system notes are put together, but gaps still must be filled with GP.

 

GP comes from sources. The sources may be teaching, reading books, forums, mentors, experience, watching what others do, thinking through what seems consistent and logical from similar sequences, and the like. Agree?

 

If one did not make a _____ call without discussion, then many auctions might go like this. 1NT-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-??? The person would sit there at the table, refusing to bid, because they only agreed "Stayman" and never discussed what happens after the answer. As there are multiple ways to follow up this sequence, and as the school of thinking here is not discussed, no bid can be made.

 

So, in my humble opinion, a partnership develops best when the two practice together for a reason that is not memorization based. Memorization of system can be done while apart, looking over system notes. A partnership develops when the two players know and agree on schools of thought, such that extrapolation of what "would be in the notes" if the notes were that detailed can be mutually assumed with sufficient and increasing accuracy.

 

The result of this is two things. First, a developed partnership does make bids that are not "discussed," but they get it right. Second, a developed partnership can usually spot the risk before the misunderstanding.

 

In other words, if I were playing as South, at least today, I would know that 4♠ could be meant in a few different ways. I would assume that partner assumed shortness ask. I would then make a call that catered to him understanding what page I was on (4NT) if I could. If I could not, and if partner assumed differently, I would immediately be able to say that I misconstrued the sequence as a shortness bid or misconstrued it as a control bid, but I would not need to because partner would also know what happened. We would then probably agree rather quickly which way to go. (In fact, we just recently had a sequence where this very thing happened.)

 

When analyzing North, he may have trusted South too much to be on his wavelength of style, or he may have been incorrect in his assessment of what "expert standard" is, because he may have been taught or may have studied a different school than South. Or, maybe North made this up on the fly. Or, maybe North was just high on crack. The last seems unlikely, but that seems to be your guess.

 

Nevertheless, I would not agree that you never make an undiscussed call. You make a lot of undiscussed calls throughout a game and hope that the developing partnership sync will enable you two to get more and more of these situations right.

[Guest Jlall]

You still don't get it.

 

How much do you want to bet that the North player thought that, whatever the heck 4♠ showed, asked, told, delayed, or suggested, South should show his or her shortness as their next bid?  And, hence, that 5♦ showed a stiff diamond?

 

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

I would be willing to bet $5,000 dollars. We can escrow the money with fred (or someone else we both trust), and have jilly ask north whether south showed A) a control, or B ) specifically shortness assuming that north does not read the forums.

[Guest Jlall]

I shudder to think that people can actually dedicate the vast majority of their time in life to one partnership, playing day after day after day, practicing in bidding rooms, but collapse on something like this. I guess I play a completely different game, at least as to bidding. Thankfully for me, so does my partner. I would not enjoy this other game.

Why do you and your partner not win anything? Why are you unknowns. You are vastly superior in bidding and knowledge of bidding. Why does a pair like Garner-Weinstein who doesn't even know what 1S p 5H mean do so well consistently?

[Guest Jlall]

People make undiscussed bids if they think partner will understand what they mean. If that is with a new partner, then it just assumes the standard way people play bridge in that situation.

 

For instance, your example of 1N p 2C p 2D p ? is both a good and bad example, because "everyone" plays 2H as weak with the majors. However, 2S undiscussed would be unclear and should be avoided.

 

The problem is you have no clue what other people do, except for your unknown guru/mentor/genius/roommate of eric. You do not seem to understand that other than you and your mentor, nobody would assume undiscussed that 4S was a mathe ask, and 5D showed extras + a stiff diamond. NOBODY. Like Roger said. The only one this is unclear to is you.

 

You need to learn to acknowledge that you do not know everything, especially in terms of what is standard bridge.

[pclayton]

In the past, I have had two partners that loved to tinker with the type of stuff Ken suggests. We would have some very interesting theoretical discussions about whether or not the 7th bid in a precision sequence was a cue or a pattern bid. We would have reams and reams of notes. The fact is that these 'agreements' have a huge error rate in practice under stress (I remember, but did pard remember, and v.v.?) and so much stress and mental bandwidth is dedicated to remembering agreements that hardly ever come up, when the practice time should be spent on things that really matter, and the lack of individual practice time on making yourself a better player all gets thrown overboard.

 

I got tired of scoring 53% in regional pair games with these clowns and I let them find other partners to mentally masturbate with.

 

I loved Ulf's post. This type of nonsense is a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME for a serious partnership.

 

I've locked horns with Justin before but he is so dead on here it makes me sick. especially when it comes to Jilly.

 

I do like Ken's methods, but purely on an academic basis. I read articles in the Bridge World by other gearheads, and think, hey, thats kind of cool. Note I only read this stuff after I have completely devoured and reread the play, defense and bidding articles, and even the letters to the editor though.

 

If you want to go to your grave and be known as a 'great bidding theorist', then go ahead. I'm sure Jeff Rubens will love to read all your swell ideas. Maybe, a junior pair from Bum*****stan will use your methods and you will have the sheer rapture of watching them on vugraph and show the world that I WAS RIGHT.

[EricK]

I admit that I am not very good at constructing hands (another admission for the "why you suck at bridge" thread), but I still don't get what sort of hand, opposite a pre-emptive raise, is:

1. safe at the 5 level

2. keen on playing slam if partner shows the right singleton or void

3. not interested in what high card controls partner might have

 

And even if they exist, are they common enough (as a proportion of hands which are slam interested on this auction) to justify using the cheapest bid for them?

[Stephen Tu]

GP comes from sources. The sources may be teaching, reading books, forums, mentors, experience, watching what others do, thinking through what seems consistent and logical from similar sequences, and the like. Agree?

 

Yes. However your mentor appears to have been really bad in distinguishing what were his personal preferences and what is actually GP when he taught you. If you had learned from a greater variety of adv/expert partners, or by reading a ton of the standard texts, you would get a more accurate assessment of what is truly standard.

 

And yes, standard is far from optimal. But it's practical to play it, and not everyone has enough time & mental energy to optimize it to the nth degree without causing a decline in actual results. Some people have an easier time with categorizing and applying bidding principles than others.

[dbsboy]

I think its better not to write anything more in this thread. Save some energy.

 

Ken is often thinking of some new and wrong excuses to support his idea. And then new and wrong excuses (or reasons behind his logic) to support his wrong reasons.

 

I think 44 replies have already clearly pointed out what is standard.

[kenrexford]

Reams and reams of notes? I think you are missing the entire concept of how the thinking works here. Whereas one might have lots of specific agreements for specific situation, that is not what leads to a conclusion of showing splinters here. There is a wild difference between a codified set of systemic agreements and a philosophical understanding of sequence principles.

 

As a simple example, consider a fit bid situation. I don not have any notes at all regarding fit bids wih my partner. None.

 

Instead, I understand his philosophy and his school, through practice. I can tell when a call is a fit bid and when it is not fairly well. That includes admissiomn of a recent major error on my part from which I tweaked the system.

 

Why do I understand his fit-bid analysis? Because I have read partnership bidding and understand the mindset there, for starters. Because I know that an unusual bid must show fit of extraordinary length or unusual, unbiddable pattern. Because I know that "unbiddable pattern" is usually a mirage with partner because he preempts more frequently despite flaw or opens very light because of shape. Because I know that wild shape is less frequent and lower priority and that partner thinks this way as well. Because I have studied the man, the known agreements of his peers, and alternative theories. I made a mistake by assessing the imact of a deeper development, assuming fit bid continuity rather than reversion to fdistribution in the deep secondary round, but I now believe that assumption flawed ab initio and have corrected that thought process.

 

Again, I have no notes on this. I learn the philosophy.

 

Justin asks why I and my partner "do not win anything." This means, of course, events that matter. A simple answer. You must enter events that matter before you can win events that matter. We are a relatively new partnership as far as serious events are concerned. I was emersed in a completely different world before starting to learn the real game with Kenny. Plus, I spend most of my time playing with my wife, who is a new player, because I enjoy her post-mortem much more, involving no theory at all. My regular good partner and I have had many successes in lower (regional and sectional) events, of course, but these are meaningless. Where our results have failed is in idiot play or defense mistakes, usually caused because we routinely see 4:00 or 5:00 before somewhat falling asleep because we talk more than play at these somewhat meaningless events.

 

However, with respect to system, there are occasional gaffs. These invariably, however, involve things that others might not view as gaffs. For example, the opponents in a team game might bid a failing slam. We might also bid that failing slam, with a more sophisticated sequence. At some point in that sequence, one of us might have made a call that could have been different and could have avoided this bad slam. I consider that a charge, even if the opponents did even worse. Similarly, if we should have sawed something off that the opponents never even considered doubling, I consider that a charge.

[glen]

From these and a few other notes of various people, it seems fairly reasonable as an extrapolation of "expert standard" that 4♠ in the 1-4 heart sequence would be a shortness ask, 4NT showing short spades.

To return to this, as you can now see (and/or bet), it is not a fairly reasonable extrapolation of "expert standard". I think what you were missing in the sample was the use of Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club. If you read 20 years or so of MSC, you get a good understanding of expert standard thinking, and this is very valuable investment of your time.

 

As to pclayton's "I'm sure Jeff Rubens will love to read all your swell ideas" - actually I'm not so sure: he loves card combos and never-seen-before clever hands a lot more than inspecting gadgets.

[gnasher]

As to pclayton's "I'm sure Jeff Rubens will love to read all your swell ideas" - actually I'm not so sure: he loves card combos and never-seen-before clever hands a lot more than inspecting gadgets.

And so he should.

 

He does, however, seem to allow about one system article per issue, provided that you can fit it all onto a single page. I suspect that for Ken this constraint would be a bit of a challenge.

[awm]

I did recently have a good local player ask me about this sort of sequence.

 

In general there is some advantage in slam try sequences started by the stronger hand to use an asking bid, whereas when the weaker hand makes the first slam move it is better to use a showing bid. To give a simple example:

 

2♣ (strong) - 2♠ - 3♠

 

With opener holding some huge hand, it is unlikely that the 2♠ bidder has all that much outside the spade suit (if he has good spades and a lot outside he may as well bid 7NT now). So it makes sense for responder to now show his outside shortness/controls if any and let opener evaluate. Compare this to:

 

2♣ (strong) - 2♦(waiting) - 2♠ - 3♠

 

Now opener is making the first move. But opener has gobs of controls and high cards, and will never get all of these across to partner. It makes sense for opener to usually conserve space by bidding something like 3NT "asking" to let responder describe, or to bid a suit lacking a second round control at the four-level as a sort of denial cuebid, rather than trying to cue all his aces and kings.

 

This principle would suggest that playing 1♥-4♥-4♠ as asking is a good method. The problem is that there are a wide range of possible bridge auctions and it will not always be clear who has the stronger hand (in fact in many cases the values are roughly evenly divided). So making agreements about who is asking and who is showing in these sorts of sequences tends to be expensive and probably not worthwhile (especially since many bids acquire exactly opposite meanings and thus can easily lead to big disasters). For this reason it is standard to play that cuebids show controls in the suit named except in a small number of auctions where specific alternative agreements have been made. This is not standard because it is "best" but is standard because it is "convenient" and doesn't require dozens of pages defining who is "captain" in all possible auctions.