YBTJ

[kenrexford]

Hi Ken,

 

:)

 

The same is true of me (and the rest of us) of course

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

After 1S-2NT, I can buy that your methods allow opener to show both the King and Queen of hearts, but at what point does he show the 2 of hearts?

 

Opener did not show a fourth heart. He showed 3 1/2 hearts. But, the fact that he has a non-minimum with a mere 13-count strongly suggests that the heart honors are with length.

 

As far as I can tell, in your preferred methods, opener never said he has a 4-card heart suit (which is rather important in terms of bidding 6NT or the right number of spades). Sorry if I am missing something.

 

True. The auction is not ideal. However, consider again that the first decision, a non-minimum, implies that the honors are with length.

 

I agree with you that in the long run you will do best to make a forcing raise (rather than make a 2/1) when you have a strong balanced hand with 4-card support for opener's major though I have no doubt that playing 2C as some kind of artificial relay (as MikeH suggests) will be (much) better still for combinations like this one.

 

Yes. I default 2♣ more than most also, for that reason. With anything but pure primes, I bid 2♣.

 

However, given that you seem to have used the auction 1S-2C-2H-2S as an opportunity to plug your own fancy cuebidding methods, I hope you took some time to think about how much better "pattern showing" rates to work with this sort of combination.

 

I agree that it works, but not better. In my sequence, I "showed" the short diamond, and I can show (if Responder cares) the lack of club shortness. Thus, pattern emerged without focusing on pattern primarily. I hope you have seen that control cues do not eliminate the ability to know pattern. This is the big elephant in the room that people miss. I gave up pattern bidding because I found that control bidding, as on this hand, allows pattern to emerge more often than pattern bidding allows control status to emerge. This deal actually confirms this for me.

 

On the actual hand it doesn't really matter. Your methods work just fine but if opener's 3rd bid shows his shape the auction is just as successful (and arguably much easier on the partnership). Of course neither method will get the job done unless opener has a way to show the Queen of hearts later in the auction.

 

I see that you did notice this. However, you are missing something. Whereas control cues allow pattern to emerge on this hand, pattern bidding does not allow controls to emerge as well. The end result of my sequence is to eliminate any need to even ask about internal spade honors (that story is told), to know about the pattern, to know about the heart control, and to focus the five-level on the missing question -- the heart Queen. Exactly what you asked for.

 

But you seem to gloss over the possibility of opener having 5-5 distribution as if this is not a big deal. True it is not a big deal when responder has the actual hand he does, but he does not need a minor suit King at all to make 7S cold if opener has 5 hearts. Showing the 5th heart is trivial of course if opener bids out his pattern over 2S, but as far as I can tell you don't have this club in your bag. There are other similar layouts in which responder will want to know that opener is 6-4 and I don't think you can express that either.

 

If you think about what I have proposed, Responder makes a grand try in the sequence, after focusing hearts as important, and then bids 6NT. If Opener cannot figure out that a fifth heart or a sixth spade is enough in that sequence, bidding science is not your problem. Judgement from partner is lacking.

 

No doubt you will come up with some kind of answer to these points (all of which are pretty much meaningless anyways since neither of us would have bid 2C in the first place).

 

:) I might. That heart Jack does seem appealing. Most of the time, I'd bid 2NT. But, I hate Jacoby 2NT, even sexified.

 

I don't really want to get into yet another debate about whether pattern bidding or fancy cuebidding is superior in this auction. All I am hoping to accomplish with the above is to make sure that you take a look in the mirror and consider the (mainstream) alternative whenever you propose a fancy cuebidding auction.

 

Did. Not impressed.

 

If you do this then perhaps one day you will change your mind, but that will never happen if you, like most mad scientists I have met, cling to your pet theories while glossing over the alternatives without proper consideration.

 

Here's the thing. Exactly how much time should one dedicate to thinking about an issue before you would accept that they have put enough thought into it and might be sufficiently researched to have a right to their position? How much research would be sufficient to suggest that perhaps that position is valid, and maybe even the best, at least for that person's style? I mean, I have probably spent more time considering cuebidding theory than most people have spent considering bridge generally. I have logged enough hours on hand records and specific sequences to merit a masters degree in cuebidding. You may reach another conclusion, but please do not suggest that I need to think about it more. That's frankly rather insulting.

[fred]

Here's the thing.  Exactly how much time should one dedicate to thinking about an issue before you would accept that they have put enough thought into it and might be sufficiently researched to have a right to their position?  How much research would be sufficient to suggest that perhaps that position is valid, and maybe even the best, at least for that person's style?  I mean, I have probably spent more time considering cuebidding theory than most people have spent considering bridge generally.  I have logged enough hours on hand records and specific sequences to merit a masters degree in cuebidding.  You may reach another conclusion, but please do not suggest that I need to think about it more.  That's frankly rather insulting.

I believe you when you say you have spent a great deal of time thinking about these matters. You have probably logged more than enough hours to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

So from that point of view you probably don't need to think about it more.

 

But some friendly advice from a person who has read your book and a lot of your posts over the years and who has tried to keep an open mind: my opinion is that you need to think about it more objectively.

 

So from that point of view you still need to think about it more.

 

Sorry if you feel insulted by that.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Here's the thing.  Exactly how much time should one dedicate to thinking about an issue before you would accept that they have put enough thought into it and might be sufficiently researched to have a right to their position?  How much research would be sufficient to suggest that perhaps that position is valid, and maybe even the best, at least for that person's style?  I mean, I have probably spent more time considering cuebidding theory than most people have spent considering bridge generally.  I have logged enough hours on hand records and specific sequences to merit a masters degree in cuebidding.  You may reach another conclusion, but please do not suggest that I need to think about it more.  That's frankly rather insulting.

I believe you when you say you have spent a great deal of time thinking about these matters. You have probably logged more than enough hours to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

So from that point of view you probably don't need to think about it more.

 

But some friendly advice from a person who has read your book and a lot of your posts over the years and who has tried to keep an open mind: my opinion is that you need to think about it more objectively.

 

So from that point of view you still need to think about it more.

 

Sorry if you feel insulted by that.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I can accept the general advice, Fred. However, here's what is frustrating. You suggest that I might need to think these things through more because of a take that you have on the issues. However, it is so amazingly easy for me to spot precisely how little you yourself must have thought through these very same issues.

 

This deal is a perfect example of what I mean.

 

Your comment was that "normal" pattern bidding works better that my cuebidding approach. However, this is an absurd conclusion, if you think about it.

 

Both auctions reach the point of spades being agreed at 2♠.

 

With pattern bidding, Opener will be able to show the short diamond in one of three ways. If Opener bids 3♣, then we know that Opener has a diamond stiff inferentially. However, if you use Mikeh's theory, this focuses clubs too much, especially with xxx in clubs. Even if not, then we do not know that Opener has no club help at all. Responder can then, presumably, cue 3♥ to show the heart card, which allows Opener, I suppose, to cue 3♠, which may or may not have meaning. After a 3NT cue from Responder, a 4♥ cue will allow the picture to be completed, to the point where Opener has short diamonds, something interesting in spades (perhaps two of the top three, two of the top three hearts, but no club card. We may also know that Opener has only four hearts. This is great for this actual hand, but it breaks down when Opener has better clubs and cannot cuebid them twice.

 

With pattern bidding, Opener might also perhaps splinter 4♦. However, this leaves only LTTC for Responder, and we know little about Opener's cards. Maybe Opener has a more "spade focus," but little more is known. Maybe this shows "extras?"

 

With pattern bidding, perhaps Opener can bid 3♥ to show 5-5. But, then we are running seriously low on space for exploring cards, and we have the task remaining to indicate the shortness (5521/5512).

 

My well-examined conclusions about control bidding first suggests that pattern often emerges anyway.

 

On this hand, as I noted, pattern did emerge. After the same start, Opener's first cue (3♦) gives Responder a world of data. Because Responder is looking at the diamond A-K, he already knows that Opener has a stiff diamond. Hence, we, on this hand admittedly, were able to bootstrap a control bid and a splinter together into one call. 3♦ handles, in a sense, both a control cue in some situations and, in this situation, a cheaper "splinter." Opener also already has cue'd the two top spades and the lack of a club card.

 

In fact, I made a silly mistake earlier. When Responder now cues 3♥, Opener's 4♥ call does not just show the heart King. Duh! It shows the two missing hearts. Responder, then, will know from this call that Responder has two of the top three spades, but not all three (Opener bypassed 2NT to show 2 but also bypassed 3♠ to deny the third; of course Responder is looking at the Queen). Responder will also know that Opener has at least two clubs, but not the Ace, King, or Queen (he did not have a club card, because he bypassed 3♣, and he does not have a short club, because he bypassed 4♣). Responder will know that Opener has a stiff diamond (he cue'd the control, and Responder has the Ace-King, but he bypassed 4♦). Responder will also know that Opener has two of the top three hearts (he cue'd 4♥).

 

Hence, Opener's hand will be KNOWN to be AKxxx(x)-KQxx(x)-x-xx(x).

 

That's fairly close.

 

Furthermore, as Opener could have bid a serious 3NT and then 4♥, Opener is odds-on to have specifically 5413 pattern, because with 6412 or 5512, he should probably bid 3NT and then 4♥.

 

So, in reality, I answered too quickly. My methods provide a roadmap sequence, below game.

 

My point, though, is that your analysis and comments frustrate the heck out of me. When you use a hand where I actually reach incredible description of cards AND actual revelation of pattern, commenting that pattern-first should be strongly considered as superior convinces me that you are the one not thinking these things through.

 

BTW, after re-assessing this sequence and the stupid mistake I made, typing too quickly, I now realize that Responder's 4NT would NOT be RKCB -- the answer is already known. Instead, it MUST ask for more info. If Opener does have a fifth heart, he can bid 5♥. With a diamond honor (stiff though it may be), he can show that. With xx in clubs and a sixth spade, he can show the tertiary control.

[jdonn]

In fact, I made a silly mistake earlier. When Responder now cues 3♥, Opener's 4♥ call does not just show the heart King. Duh!

.....

I now realize that Responder's 4NT would NOT be RKCB -- the answer is already known. Instead, it MUST ask for more info. If Opener does have a fifth heart, he can bid 5♥. With a diamond honor (stiff though it may be), he can show that. With xx in clubs and a sixth spade, he can show the tertiary control.

I think my main problem with your suggestions is the appearance that you are making it up as you go to fit the particular hand. (In fairness I see you admit you can't distinguish between 6412 and 5512, if I'm reading correctly?) Almost every time that a bid is redundant I have serious doubts that you would interpret it at the table as you describe. I don't mind being told I'm wrong about that and it's not something I'm going to argue further, except to say that if I am wrong I am quite scared!

 

Of course my opinion is somewhat ignorant by definition since I haven't read your book and I doubt I will end up doing so (I'm probably not reading any more bridge books any time soon.) But I do know the basics from your posts over time, and that's how it has always appeared to me.

[fred]

Ken,

 

Forget about this specific hand.

 

My contention is that there are many combinations of hands (some similar to the one in this thread, some not) where it is of the utmost importance that responder knows if opener has a 5th heart or a 6th spade.

 

I assume you agree with this.

 

You admit that your methods offer no direct way for opener to transmit this information. While I can accept that on some combinations the responder, through a delicate series of inferences, *might* be able to reasonably conclude that there is a good chance opener has either 5-5 or 6-4 (and *maybe* he will be able to figure out which of these is more likely), it is obviously much easier on responder if opener can bid 3H to say "5-5" or 3S to say "6-4". Even if you don't buy that "easier=better" this type of information has the advantage over that which comes out of your delicate series of interferences of being completely reliable.

 

I assume you agree with this.

 

The same happens to be true of 54(31) and all other possible patterns for opener. On some combinations responder will need to know opener's shape. On some of these combinations the auction will work out so that your methods allow responder to figure this out indirectly. On some of these combinations it will be relatively easy for responder to figure this out with a great deal of confidence. On other combinations he will have to go through some serious mental contortions and will not have a great deal of confidence in his conclusion. I suspect that there are combinations that exist for which responder will be left with a complete guess as to what opener's shape is.

 

I assume you agree with this.

 

Pattern bidding will do better than cuebidding when it is critical that responder knows opener's pattern. As you might say: Duh

 

I assume you agree with this.

 

And of course I agree with the reverse - your methods are more likely to work better than pattern bidding when responder does not care what opener's pattern is. Duh again.

 

What does not fall into the category of Duh:

 

- the frequency with which one method gains over the other

- the number of IMPs/MPs that rate to be involved when one method gains over the other

- the cost that comes with your method in terms of extra work, someone subtly screwing up somewhere in the middle of these delicate series of inferences, etc...

 

Since I don't know these things I am not in a position to say with any certainty that one method is better than the other. If you think otherwise then (sorry) but I think you are not being honest with yourself.

 

Sure I could offer an opinion based on my instincts and experiences and sure you could do the same. I am willing to back my own judgment in this area and I commend you for being willing to back yours even if we disagree.

 

The contention of my previous post was that your posts consistently have given me the impression that your attachment to your methods has biased your opinions. You are all too willing to pat yourself on the back (rightly so!) on combinations where your methods work well, but it seems to me that you tend to ignore cases in which your methods are less than optimal. Even worse, when someone calls you on this, you tend to get defensive and sometimes start typing drivel.

 

As I have said before, I think that many fine bidding theorists suffer from this same problem (in the same way that many parents can only see goodness in their children). I am also willing to admit that my personal bias toward natural bidder probably results in biased nonsense coming out of my own keyboard on occasion.

 

So I hope you will take my observations in the spirit they were intended (and not take them as an attack on either you or your methods).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Actually, Fred, I occasionally post on here "my sequence" responses where I have ended up with a conclusion that the actual sequence is a "tough call" or unresolvable with my methods. The fact that I also post on deals where my methods work well, therefore, needs to be taken in that context.

 

All that said, here's what should seem apparent. If I am able to offer legitimate sequences using my methods quite frequently, in contexts where other bidding methods create a problem, then one of two things seems apparent.

 

1. My methods work, or

2. I'm not being honest about my methods and the inferences to be taken from them

 

If you cannot offer a legitimate challenge to the second, by citing some reason why the provided definitions of bids do not lead to the conclusions I offer, then #1 seems more likely.

---------------------------------------------------------

As to jdonn's comment, "Almost every time that a bid is redundant I have serious doubts that you would interpret it at the table as you describe. I don't mind being told I'm wrong about that and it's not something I'm going to argue further, except to say that if I am wrong I am quite scared!"

 

My cuebidding sequences at the table are incredibly fast, at least on my side of the table. Ask my partners. So, be very afraid. LOL

 

Seriously, though. How difficult is it to spot that partner has a stiff diamond when he shows 1st or 2nd round control and you have the A-K?

 

I know that this is more of a problem when partner has just the Ace or King. However, what usually happens in that event is that the first several cues are "rote." Then, at some point, you think.

 

This just happened the other day. Bid-bid-bid-trumpset. Cue-cue-cue-cue-courtesyQ. Partner now had to think. He got it wrong, IMO.

 

He had three options -- sign off, LTTC, or ask. If he thought through the KNOWN hand features, he should have known that I would be serious if I held the known cards AND enough key cards for slam to make. In fact, I could not even have enough knowns and keys to accept LTTC. But, I could not decline LTTC with my knowns and my neededs.

 

Were he to pop LTTC at me, I would then have to stop at that point, to figure out precisely what hands he might have. Some "knowns" were either this or that. But, either one fails, so I'd sign off easily.

 

The point is that sometimes the sequence leaves me with a very clear picture (or having provided a very clear picture). Sometimes, there are two or more options. However, my options are, in a sense, more complex and detailed. Rather than "something with good controls and probably a club card or two," I might have "two top trumps, but not sure if AK or AQ or KQ, hearts solid, no worries in clubs, and either the diamond stiff or the Kx." I might not know all the answers at the critical point, but I have a smaller field of possibilities. Hence, I also have fewer possibilities to consider. With fewer possibilities, the assessment of what to do is sped up.

 

This occurs for the obvious reason. I might have to play out 3-4 options in my head. Another person might need to think up 6-8 options and then play out 6-8 layouts. The latter takes longer, and more work, and more chance for error.

 

Plus, with fewer options to consider, finding the right next move is easier. Whereas some might still need to ask about key cards, I might be able to ask if partner "has it in diamonds." Partner, also knowing the limited options remaining, should know what "it" is.

[A2003]

Auction to reach 6NT.

 

1♠                 1NT [Forcing]

2♥                 4NT [Asking 1430 in ♥]

5♠[2keycards + Q♥]     5NT [Asks specific king]

6♠[K♠]                          6NT [5tricks♠+4♥tricks+AK♦+A♣ accounted].

 

This is to solve the problem.

I can never think of 1NT forcing.

[Phil]

Auction to reach 6NT.

 

1♠                 1NT [Forcing]

2♥                 4NT [Asking 1430 in ♥]

5♠[2keycards + Q♥]     5NT [Asks specific king]

6♠[K♠]                          6NT [5tricks♠+4♥tricks+AK♦+A♣ accounted].

 

This is to solve the problem.

I can never think of 1NT forcing.

Wow; works great WD.

 

Care to discuss what happens when pard doesn't rebid 2♥?

[A2003]

Auction to reach 6NT.

 

1♠                 1NT [Forcing]

2♥                 4NT [Asking 1430 in ♥]

5♠[2keycards + Q♥]     5NT [Asks specific king]

6♠[K♠]                          6NT [5tricks♠+4♥tricks+AK♦+A♣ accounted].

 

This is to solve the problem.

I can never think of 1NT forcing.

Wow; works great WD.

 

Care to discuss what happens when pard doesn't rebid 2♥?

If pard responds 2♣ or 2♦ to 1NT,

Jump to 5♠ asking pd for the quality of A♠ or K♠ to bid 6♠.

[Lobowolf]

Wow; works great WD.

 

Care to discuss what happens when pard doesn't rebid 2♥?

lol Reminds me of the old Chess Life & Review cartoon cover from around the Fischer-Spassky match....Spassky with stacks of books on all of the defenses to 1. P-K4 (e4), by far Fischer's favorite opening, from which he almost never deviated. One of the advisors says, "But Boris...what if he DOESN'T play 1. P-K4?"

 

Fischer uncharacteristically mixed it up quite a bit in that match, and won a resounding victory.