Ignoring the side major

[Winstonm]

Han,

 

It's not important enough to me to debate, but....these auctions make no sense to me. (If they do to you, then that is fine.)

 

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx. You'd like to be in slam opposite the second one but not opposite the first. How do you distinguish? Well, if you start with 2C then the auctions are simple:

 

1S - 2C

2D - 2S

3H

 

Why, with a poor fit and minimum, would opener bid 3H and not simply bid 4S? What is the purpose of bidding 3H?

 

Now you know partner's shape and you know that the hands fit badly. On the second hand the auction would probably start with 1S-2C-3D (splinter) and now you know that the hands fit very well.

 

I cannot imagine a splinter over 2C - especially if it is known that partner will introduce Kxx as a club suit with a balanced hand! I would bid 3C and think nothing much of it.

 

To each his own.

[H_KARLUK]

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

Come on, seriously? If you're not even going to bother reading the thread then I don't think anyone is going to summarize it for you.

What I am confused the 2/1 book I bought is 2 level forcing natural tho may not have 5 cards sometimes but exactly at least 4 cards.

 

That's why i sympathise and believe natural approach is best to fix.

 

Hey :) I am a good guy and I really like to read new ideas. Okay, anyway I ll reread all posts abt this issue again. Hopefully did not miss anything coz to be honest only focused Han's sample :

AQx

Axxxx

xx

Kxx

I think each HCP of opener worthy for declarer. At least 24 HCP on their side. So after 1♠ > 2♥ prospects bright. I expect opener would follow so on :

2♠ 6+limit- denies 3 cards ♥

2N-denies 3 cards hearts, balanced 5-2-3-3

3♥ 3+ cards

3♣/3♦ natural 4 + side suits , still may have 3 cards ♥, like responder did not show direct support to spades this time opener just showing side values.

 

If p alerts 2♣ artificial relay np. If p sticked 2/1 dont you think he thought 4+ and gave 3 ♣ with such one :

5-3-1-4 or 5-3-2-3 limit with bad ♦. Obviously you will find ♥ fit soon or late. On th other hand partner would not be comfortable and sure that you have four or five hearts bcos you did not bid at start.

[han]

 

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx. You'd like to be in slam opposite the second one but not opposite the first. How do you distinguish? Well, if you start with 2C then the auctions are simple:

 

1S - 2C

2D - 2S

3H

 

Why, with a poor fit and minimum, would opener bid 3H and not simply bid 4S? What is the purpose of bidding 3H?

 

 

???

 

Because this isn't a minimal hand and you can easily have slam, partner is allowed to have extras too. And because by bidding your pattern you have a better chance to reach good slams. And by bidding your pattern you might stay out of a poor slam.

 

Now you know partner's shape and you know that the hands fit badly. On the second hand the auction would probably start with 1S-2C-3D (splinter) and now you know that the hands fit very well.

 

I cannot imagine a splinter over 2C - especially if it is known that partner will introduce Kxx as a club suit with a balanced hand! I would bid 3C and think nothing much of it.

 

To each his own.

 

Why on earth wouldn't you splinter? Partner can have 3 clubs but partner can also have long clubs, and then it would be good for partner to know your shortness. If partner has only 3 or 4 clubs he may still want to know because you might have a spade fit, or maybe partner will perhaps bid 3NT next and then you'd certainly wish you had shown your shortness.

[maggieb]

As I said before, I agree with those that just bid their suits in their natural order. That's how I've been bidding my hands for almost 35 years and I'm happy doing so. I think my partners wouldn't know what to expect from me if I suddenly started bidding 3-card suits when I have a perfectly normal 5-card suit to bid.

 

Of course, if I had AQx xxxxx Ax Kxx then I would bid 2C as I'm sure everybody here would, so I don't understand the objection to bidding 2C on king-third. And probably even HARLUK's book would tell you to bid 2C on AQx xxxx Axx Kxx. But that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to bid 2C on a 3-card suit, we don't open 1C with AQx Axxxx xx Kxx either do we? :D

 

As for winstonm:

 

It's not important enough to me to debate...

 

Then why not stay in the watercooler? :) :P :P

[gnasher]

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx.

...

But if you start with 2H then with both hands the auction would start 1S-2H-3H-3S, and now there simply is no way to sort it out.

Wouldn't they bid 1S-2H-4C and 1S-2H-4D respectively, or would that promise four hearts?

[Fluffy]

This reminds me of my italian friend who wanted to show me why with a 4243 strong hand, you wanted to bid 2♦ over 1♥ from partner, it really worked well on the hand given (you saved a lot of space by showing GF on first round even with a expensive bid compared to 1♠).

 

About the hands, I hope everyone agress that you can do these things only because you always can play back in spades, and lying about a major suit lenght without assured fit is nonsense.

 

I don't like 2♦ on the second hand because it creates missperception on ♥K (we want partner to know it is BIG!), a lonelly ♦Q (its better to have it anywhere else!) and singleton diamond.

 

On the first hand, forgetting about hearts sounds reasonable being a big winner when partner has singleton.

[mikeh]

This is wonderful if your partner is a moron, and you are able to read through the backs of his cards. It is woeful if he is a bridge player.

 

There we go again, can't we just have a bridge argument in which you don't state that those who disagree with you are not experts or disrespect partner? On the first hand I was playing with Justin who I think is a very strong player. I believe he agreed with 2C and he certainly wasn't offended. He asked some other very strong bridge players what they would do with my hand, if I call correctly Joe Grue said that 2C is obviously better than 2H. The second hand was given to me in Boston by a very good Swedish player. I said I would bid 2H and he made a very good effort to convince me that 2D is better with this shape.

 

[

Why don't you read, quote, and respond to the bridge arguments which preceded the hyperbole that you did quote?

 

You began the OP by stating that the reason for 2♣ was that you were only interested in hearts if partner could bid the suit... you then tell me that I misread your post....

 

I posted an argument that if partner DID bid 2♥, which was what you were looking for in order to play in hearts, he would never believe that you held 5 of them... a point to which you haven't responded.

 

I also argued that you would never be able to describe your spade support if he rebid 2♥, because you'd have to raise hearts first.... a point to which you haven't responded.

 

I find it odd that you castigate me for the passage you quoted, and ask that we have a bridge argument, and then fail to put forward a bridge argument.

 

Instead, we get a reference to authority... and while Justin and Grue are better players than I am, I do not consider either to be authorities whose simple word is gospel, especially when I have no idea what discussion took place. I would enjoy a bridge discussion with them, but find your resort to them as the voice of authority to be a ducking of the issues, not an answer.

 

Moving along to opener's posited KJxxx KQx Axxx x, you suggested that opener rebid 3♥ after 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠.

 

That may have merit (I am not being sarcastic)... but it also smacks to me of perhaps being influenced by knowledge of the actual responding hand. It seems difficult to justify a cue bid with weak trump, a misfit in the minors, a near-minimum in hcp, and no heart A. Unless we have reserved 2N as an artificial call, that choice would seem to be more descriptive, and, if not, then why not 3♠? That might allow for a very smooth 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ auction on some hands.... after all, opener is not actually looking for 5 heart tricks, is he?

 

 

Han, I tend to make arguments in black-and-white language, and to express my thoughts bluntly, but much of this is aimed at generating a response, not to truly assert that those who disagree with me are 'morons', or non-experts. As anyone who reads these forums as much as you do will know, I make a lot of errors, and a lot of very good bridge players disagree with much of what I post. That isn't going to stop me from expressing myself... if for no other reason than that the bridge arguments countering my arguments help me to broaden my understanding of the game. Yes, it might be useful if I were able to restrain myself on occasion, but that won't happen as much as either you or I might like.... I tend to get carried away :)

[Fluffy]

I make a lot of errors, and a lot of very good bridge players disagree with much of what I post.

I disagree with this, doh!, then I agree, doh!!, oh wait, I ain't good player anyway :)

[kenrexford]

If y'all read through what each other is saying and think through things, you might realize that no one is really disagreeing, IMO. To disagree, people must discuss the same issue and come to different conclusions. Instead, people are discussing different issues and coming to different conclusions, which does not establish true disagreement.

 

There are some dumb analyses of the other discussion at times, though. For instance, Mike, you say that partner will never believe that you have five hearts if you do not bid hearts. Surely you see how obviously wrong this is. If partner would expect you to do exactly what he would do, namely to frequently bid a minor when you have a GF hand with three-card support for the opened major and five of the other major, then the auction 1M-P-2min-P-2OM-P-3OM will often feature the double-fit.

 

The reason, though, that I say that people are not really discussing the same thing is that the decision as to how to respond is governed by the style of bidding afterwards. One initial decision might cater to one latter style, whereas another initial decision might cater to a different latter style.

 

Take the KJxxx-KQx-Axxx-x hand. Han would cue 3♥ after 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠. Mike questions that as not making sense with a misfit and weakness. Well, tada! The bidding styles are different.

 

Personally, I would cue 2NT, which denies, for me, good trumps (not two of the top three honors). That erases any need for blasting slam considerations. Lacking that tool, 3♥ is not so obvious unless you use Serious 3NT and Last Train, but if you do then it is, IMO, whether it is a pattern bid or a cue. This is especially so if 3♠ would be a trump cue and because there was no splinter to 4♣, assuming that the 4♣ call would be a splinter.

 

So, can't anyone recognize that different starts cater to different styles? This is not a mater of foolish people, or masterminds, or whatever - it is style-catering and prediction, and style-centric experience.

[H_KARLUK]

Of course, if I had AQx xxxxx Ax Kxx then I would bid 2C as I'm sure everybody here would, so I don't understand the objection to bidding 2C on king-third. And probably even HARLUK's book would tell you to bid 2C on AQx xxxx Axx Kxx.

 

AQx xxxxx Ax Kxx >I bid 2 ♥

AQx xxxx Axx Kxx >I bid 1N F1

 

Like or dislike.

[jdonn]

Moving along to opener's posited KJxxx KQx Axxx x, you suggested that opener rebid 3♥ after 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠.

 

That may have merit (I am not being sarcastic)... but it also smacks to me of perhaps being influenced by knowledge of the actual responding hand. It seems difficult to justify a cue bid with weak trump, a misfit in the minors, a near-minimum in hcp, and no heart A. Unless we have reserved 2N as an artificial call, that choice would seem to be more descriptive, and, if not, then why not 3♠? That might allow for a very smooth 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ auction on some hands.... after all, opener is not actually looking for 5 heart tricks, is he?

Obviously he is not cuebidding, he is bidding out his pattern. It's definitely the style that I prefer. I would do it on any strength hand - maybe we belong in 3NT after all, and it certainly helps to judge slam possibilities.

[mikeh]

If y'all read through what each other is saying and think through things, you might realize that no one is really disagreeing, IMO.  To disagree, people must discuss the same issue and come to different conclusions.  Instead, people are discussing different issues and coming to different conclusions, which does not establish true disagreement.

 

There are some dumb analyses of the other discussion at times, though.  For instance, Mike, you say that partner will never believe that you have five hearts if you do not bid hearts.  Surely you see how obviously wrong this is.  If partner would expect you to do exactly what he would do, namely to frequently bid a minor when you have a GF hand with three-card support for the opened major and five of the other major, then the auction 1M-P-2min-P-2OM-P-3OM will often feature the double-fit.

 

The reason, though, that I say that people are not really discussing the same thing is that the decision as to how to respond is governed by the style of bidding afterwards.  One initial decision might cater to one latter style, whereas another initial decision might cater to a different latter style.

 

Take the KJxxx-KQx-Axxx-x hand.  Han would cue 3♥ after 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠.  Mike questions that as not making sense with a misfit and weakness.  Well, tada!  The bidding styles are different.

 

Personally, I would cue 2NT, which denies, for me, good trumps (not two of the top three honors).  That erases any need for blasting slam considerations.  Lacking that tool, 3♥ is not so obvious unless you use Serious 3NT and Last Train, but if you do then it is, IMO, whether it is a pattern bid or a cue.  This is especially so if 3♠ would be a trump cue and because there was no splinter to 4♣, assuming that the 4♣ call would be a splinter.

 

So, can't anyone recognize that different starts cater to different styles?  This is not a mater of foolish people, or masterminds, or whatever - it is style-catering and prediction, and style-centric experience.

Ken, I appreciate your effort to smooth ruffled feathers (If I interprete your motives accurately), but I disagree with your arguments.

 

Firstly, an approach in which one bids 2♣ with 3 spades and a 5 card heart suit is definitely non-standard, and if this is part of the partnership method, then it has to be pre-agreed, and definitely alerted.

 

Secondly, whether it is systemic or not, if opener rebids 2♥, pray tell how (absent specialized agreements) responder is going to distinguish between the hand type held and a run-of-the-mill hand with 4 hearts and longer clubs, with which all of us (natural) bidders would respond 2♣ and raise hearts.

 

Josh, while I appreciate that Han was patterning out, as would you, with KJxxx KQx Axxx x (despite my describing the 3♥ as a cuebid), I am puzzled by why one would bid this way on a not-great hand, rather than rebid, for example, 2N... if one were inclined to cater to 3N doesn't 2N offer more bidding space while showing the heart values and suggesting club shortage? Of course, we might be 5242 with good hearts (I doubt we'd suggest notrump with only 1 heart stopper if 2♠ promised 3+ support, as it seems most play.. presumably using 2♥ over 2♦ as a stall). Personally, while I also pattern out in these auctions, 3♥, for me, shows a better hand... maybe KQJxx KQx Axxx x, but I recognize that maybe I am being too conservative.

[Winstonm]

Because this isn't a minimal hand and you can easily have slam, partner is allowed to have extras too. And because by bidding your pattern you have a better chance to reach good slams. And by bidding your pattern you might stay out of a poor slam.

 

This is the reason it is umimportant for me to debate - all you are doing is cliaiming that the way you think about a hand is superior. But here is the deal - I see your point that there could at times be some merit in bidding 3H; I disagree that doing so is the best method.

 

It would be good if you point out also the problems of your methods along with the benefits. If you cannot see any problems with the methods, then there is no way to debate the issue.

 

 

As for winstonm:

 

 

QUOTE 

It's not important enough to me to debate...

 

 

 

Then why not stay in the watercooler?   

 

Lack of targets. :(

[cherdano]

Josh, while I appreciate that Han was patterning out, as would you, with KJxxx KQx Axxx x (despite my describing the 3♥ as a cuebid), I am puzzled by why one would bid this way on a not-great hand, rather than rebid, for example, 2N... if one were inclined to cater to 3N doesn't 2N offer more bidding space while showing the heart values and suggesting club shortage? Of course, we might be 5242 with good hearts (I doubt we'd suggest notrump with only 1 heart stopper if 2♠ promised 3+ support, as it seems most play.. presumably using 2♥ over 2♦ as a stall). Personally, while I also pattern out in these auctions, 3♥, for me, shows a better hand... maybe KQJxx KQx Axxx x, but I recognize that maybe I am being too conservative.

I would always pattern out here (and so would Han). 2N just shows 5242, in fact I would even do it with xx in hearts (in which case I would of course not pass 3N by partner). 3♥ is automatic with 5341; partner is unlimited and may have a balanced hand for which club shortness is great news. Strength can be sorted out later with serious/frivolous 3N.

Mike, I would also find it nice if you could in future eliminate your frequent "bidding this way shows you think your partner is a moron/you don't trust your partner" arguments. You bring these up very often when someone is suggesting a bidding style different to the one you are used to.

 

One reason for 2H that Han is a little overstating, I think, is the heart shortness with partner. If partner has a heart singleton, then that isn't all that great news.

[han]

So now we have two people suggesting that the 5341 14-count is too weak to pattern out after 1S-2C-2D-2S? And both would respond 2C with a 16-count holding something like Axxx in clubs. I don't understand these methods.

 

As for Arend's comment that a singleton heart isn't great, I agree (although it is not as bad as partner would expect if we'd respond 2H, and if we did, partner would not be able to show it).

 

As for mikeh's comment that after 1S-2C-2H-3H, partner will not expect us to hold 5 hearts and we are in a worse position, I agree. If I was as confident as Joe Grue about the merits of 2C I wouldn't have restarted this discussion.

[han]

It would be good if you point out also the problems of your methods along with the benefits. If you cannot see any problems with the methods, then there is no way to debate the issue.

Alright, what's the big problem with patterning out on a 5341 14-count when partner could have a monster? What's the big advantage of jumping to game with this hand?

[sathyab]

 

 

 

 

Why on earth wouldn't you splinter? Partner can have 3 clubs but partner can also have long clubs, and then it would be good for partner to know your shortness. If partner has only 3 or 4 clubs he may still want to know because you might have a spade fit, or maybe partner will perhaps bid 3NT next and then you'd certainly wish you had shown your shortness.

Why not splinter ? May be because your hand contains neither a decent suit that can be a source of tricks for slam purposes nor very many controls ? A minimum splinter might look like KQJxx Axx x Axxx ?

[gnasher]

Why don't you read, quote, and respond to the bridge arguments which preceded the hyperbole that you did quote?

The solution is in your hands: don't post the hyperbole in the first place, and nobody will be distracted from your bridge arguments.

[mikeh]

Mike, I would also find it nice if you could in future eliminate your frequent "bidding this way shows you think your partner is a moron/you don't trust your partner" arguments. You bring these up very often when someone is suggesting a bidding style different to the one you are used to.

 

Actually, I think I bring this up only when I think that the proposed bidding method represents an attempt to take over control of an auction prematurely... usually by making a non-standard bid. There are a lot of bidding methods with which I am unfamiliar, and many of them have (to me) obvious merit. Rebidding 1N with a stiff is one... responding to 1♥ via 2♣ with a gf hand and 4=4 in the blacks is another. I learn a lot from the posters who explain why they advocate methods that are new to me... but not from the posters who ignore the problems and tout only the advantages of the method, or claim that the method is good because (fill in the blank) plays it.

 

What I find interesting is that neither you nor Han have tried to rebut the arguments that immediately preceded the comment that so offends you.... just how are you going to have an informed, collaborative auction with partner if he rebids 2♥ over your 2♣? Indeed, Han has agreed that this is a problem.. a problem to which he offers no solution, even tho the OP contained a specific reference to the possibility that hearts was the better trump suit if opener rebid 2♥. Be careful what you hope for, I guess.

 

Now, the odds are that a 2♣ response will end up being as effective as a 2♥, and that some of the time it will be more effective.

 

But whether the distortion is justified or is masterminding depends both on the frequency of when it costs/helps but also on the significance of the loss or benefit. To me, the fact that a 2♥ rebid by opener means, essentially, that we can no longer involve partner, on an informed basis, in a collaborative auction is a very big strike against the method.

 

Having said that, such a strike accounts for little if partner cannot be expected, due to his or her skill level, to meaningfully evaluate his or her hand, holding good heart support, after a 2♥ response. So, in that case (a case in which we do not respect partner's ability) the cost of the 2♣ distortion diminishes, and it may well be that taking control early on will lead to a superior outcome.

 

It is in that sense that I wrote the passage that so annoyed you.

 

Finally, as I tried to convey in my last post, before this one, I welcome any bridge arguments that counter the ones on which I base my 'partner is a moron' comments... I think that you will find that I (usually) explain why I think the auction in question reflects that mindset... and if I am wrong, as I concede I often am, I do try to understand the arguments that demonstrate that error. You haven't made any, and Han, who shares your annoyance with me, concedes that the auction in question is a problem, to which he offers no solution... instead, telling me I was wrong because Joe Grue said so, and then saying (as I read his last post) that maybe Joe Grue was wrong.. I'm getting confused.

 

Ok, my last paragraph wasn't the final one -_- My posts tend to read dogmatically, at least in part. I have no pretensions of being a bridge authority. I do have views.. I state them... I read countering views, and sometimes change mine as a result... please bear that in mind when reading anything else of mine that you find offensive.

[han]

What I find interesting is that neither you nor Han have tried to rebut the arguments that immediately preceded the comment that so offends you.... just how are you going to have an informed, collaborative auction with partner if he rebids 2♥ over your 2♣? Indeed, Han has agreed that this is a problem.. a problem to which he offers no solution, even tho the OP contained a specific reference to the possibility that hearts was the better trump suit if opener rebid 2♥. Be careful what you hope for, I guess.

 

It takes more than a bridge post from you to offend me Mike.

 

You started your first post by saying that the 2C bidders hope to get a 2H response from partner so that they know we have a 9-card fit. This is just wrong and you know it, nobody said this. The claim was that we wouldn't miss a superior heart fit by not bidding 2H ourselves, because if we have a 9-card fit partner will bid them and we find hearts, and if partner doesn't then we'd rather play in spades. This is a very different statement and I don't understand why you keep distorting it.

 

I have indeed admitted that bidding 2C can work out less well when partner has 4 hearts, after 1S-2C-2H-3H partner will not be aware of our 9-card fit, and partner will not know that we have a side fit in spades.

 

I do not know what you mean by "a problem to which he offers no solution". I know exactly what I play with Arend after such a start and I think we would often do well enough. The situation actually can't occur for us because after a start equivalent to 1S-2C-2H we would find out partner's shape and strength with relays and it is not clear that we would be worse off. But if we were still playing "standard" 2/1 then I think our cuebidding agreements over 1S-2C-2H-3H are refined enough to find out whether we have slam most of the time. Partner would start by bidding 3S to deny serious slam interest or cuebid to show serious slam interest. In the latter case slam is almost guaranteed (unless we don't have a diamond control), and in the former case we still have some room to investigate.

 

But I admit that it is possible that we do less well after 1S-2C-2H then after 1S-2H-3H, but I think I also showed situations where 2C can do better than 2H. In fact, isn't it the case that for almost any close choice you make there are follow-up auctions where you wish you would have chosen the alternative?

 

So such situations don't necessarily need to be rebutted.

[han]

instead, telling me I was wrong because Joe Grue said so, and then saying (as I read his last post) that maybe Joe Grue was wrong.. I'm getting confused.

Alright, now you are really at the winstonm level of debating, leaving all truth behind in an attempt to win and argument.

[kenrexford]

OK, Mike. You keep saying things that do not make any sense to me because you seem (I may be wrong) to keep forcing your style into the subsequent auction and offering that incorrect assumption as a means of explaining why the initial sequence with a 2♣ start will leave partner in the dark.

 

One way to reach resolution in the debate might be to actually propose hands and then see how the auctions play out. That, of course, would take a lot of time and effort and would undoubtedly break down into minutae analyses of specific bids and questioning of every tactical decision (like, for example, Han's decision to bid 3♥ in one of only two hands proposed).

 

A more theoretical approach has been attempted, but this still seems to break down into obsession with presumptions about the stylistic differences about to be unleashed. However, always lacking judgment in this sort of discussion, I plod forward with another stab at it.

 

In an auction that I would have, a 2♣ response to a major opening may be short (3-card is possible). It will typically fall into one of three categories:

 

1. Balanced

2. Real clubs

3. Frag+ with 5-3 in the majors (3-card fit, 5-card other).

 

Thus, when partner hears 2♣, he will not be surprised if any one of these three patterns later shows up.

 

You then posit the great question of how partner is supposed to participate in an informed, collaborative sequence if you start this way. Well, the simple answer is that he, upon hearing your 2♣ call, will be informed that you have one of these three hand types and will then collaborate with the rest of the auction.

 

If he, for instance, bids 2♦, and you now bid 2♠, he will be able to make cuebids. As will you. From this point forward, we will have some information exchange that will be better than your techniques, and, hence, more informative and collaborative. Other aspects of the sequence will be less so. Whereas you may know more about shape in the end, we will know more about fitting honors in the end. I will, for instance, immediately know whether Opener does or does not have two of the top three spades, whereas you may not know this until after RKCB, which may be too late. I may know exactly how many club honors he has, whereas you may have a more generalized feeling about heart honors.

 

Your claim, therefore, that you cannot have an informed and collaborative auction without stressing shape properly is biased. For, I could easily challenge your techniques as masterminding and uncooperative because you cannot possibly have an informed and collaborative sequence if you cannot tell partner about all of your cover cards, and hear about all of his.

 

When you note the inability for Opener to know that the fit is 5-4 instead of 4-4, I can rebut that after a 2♥-3♥ sequence Responder cannot know whether the fit is 5-3 or 5-4. Each time, someone is in the dark. My way, however, both of us will know that at least a 4-4 fit exists. I'd rather know for sure that a 4-4 fit exists than a second 5-3 fit, as the 4-4 (or 5-4) is often the more powerful holding. So, which is worse?

 

All that said, I don't even care as much about the 4-4 or 5-4 question, as the perhaps more pressing need is to find out about the security of the trump suit below game (which I can do whenever I can set trumps at the two-level) and about controls. I find that 2♣ calls in sequences like this are the best route to avoiding the 5-level when slam is off, a task that your methods probably will not as easily allow.

 

Besides, you finally acknowledge that here may be specialized tools to enable finding out what needs to be discovered, to solve these problems. Well, guess what?

[Winstonm]

instead, telling me I was wrong because Joe Grue said so, and then saying (as I read his last post) that maybe Joe Grue was wrong.. I'm getting confused.

Alright, now you are really at the winstonm level of debating, leaving all truth behind in an attempt to win and argument.

Asshole. There, you can't get more truthful than that! Satified? :P

[han]

Twice in one week, such honor!

[Winstonm]

It would be good if you point out also the problems of your methods along with the benefits.  If you cannot see any problems with the methods, then there is no way to debate the issue.

Alright, what's the big problem with patterning out on a 5341 14-count when partner could have a monster? What's the big advantage of jumping to game with this hand?

Do you see any downside to your suggestion of method that opener should pattern out in the bidding?

 

I can tell you some plusses and minuses to my methods.

Plusses:

1) Opponents are kept in the dark as to opener's shape.

2) Opener can limit his hand and slam interest with fast arrival

3) Pattern bids or cue bids convey at least mild slam interest

4) Stoppers and controls are known quicker than with shape-showing

 

Minuses:

1)Opener's shape is withheld from partner

2) Fast arrival takes up bidding room.

 

I still get back to the first point I made in this thread - if responder has a strong enough hand that a pattern-bid by opener with a lower-range opener is important then the problem is in the initital response structures.

 

In other words, if this is the problem then the question raised is moot because it does not solve the underlying problem. IMHO.