Can you find the grand?

[jdonn]

Perhaps you alert and disclose this deviation appropriately I do not know.  If you write about it as if it is standard when it is not then there is at least a suggestion that you might not.

Have I done that? Please show me where. I seem to remember careful use of the word "I" in my ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Do you not find it the least bit personally gratifying that I mentioned I didn't bring it up to begin with so the thread wouldn't get sidetracked, and you immediately took it upon yourself to sidetrack the thread? Was two other long threads about psychs that are currently ongoing not enough for you?

[mikeh]

I almost posted early in this thread, and, had I done so, no doubt I would be the one whose ideas were criticized by Cascade.

 

This truly is a wtp 2♣ response, and I strongly reject any other response.

 

Firstly, 2♣ is always suspect... while I would agree with Harald about doing this, sometimes, on 3=4=4=2 shape, it is completely normal to do it on 3=4=3=3, as one example... I know of no standard method in which one responds 2♥ with that shape. And before anyone says: what about notrump? ... maybe we hold xxx in a minor.

 

So opener won't commit to clubs merely because I bid the suit.

 

Secondly, we have slam interest from the outset... and a red suit slam is certainly something we can anticipate.. but our hearts are too short to bid, and our diamonds are too short/weak to bid comfortably in any sequence that suggests a diamond slam... put another way: if diamonds are to be trump we want and maybe need him to have a hand on which he will bid diamonds himself! The same is true for hearts... and the way to maximize the chances of his showing a 4+ red suit is to begin with 2♣.

 

To call 2♣ a psyche is a misuse of the word.

 

As for the initial problem: I think that it is a real stretch to get to 7N, altho I agree with much of what josh argued.

 

If opener does the decision making, it is tough for him to know about the spade Queen, without which 7N is silly.

 

If responder is doing the decision making, it is tough to know about the spade texture and the club honours/length.

 

Also, if N keycards in hearts... does everyone have an agreement as to how to respond with opener's hand?

 

I once played with an expert who, in response to my keycard, showed two with a working void, via 5N. Unfortunately, the void wasn't really working, in the sense that I held AK of the suit... and what I was interested in was the QUEEN of trump.... so there I was, having to guess whether he held that card.

 

I actually did not, previously, ever have an agreement with any partner (in my most detailed partnership, we rarely used keycard, because we had relay) about this, but now, since that experience, I discuss with partners that the '2 with a void' response denies the trump Queen.

[Cascade]

Perhaps you alert and disclose this deviation appropriately I do not know.  If you write about it as if it is standard when it is not then there is at least a suggestion that you might not.

Have I done that? Please show me where. I seem to remember careful use of the word "I" in my ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Do you not find it the least bit personally gratifying that I mentioned I didn't bring it up to begin with so the thread wouldn't get sidetracked, and you immediately took it upon yourself to sidetrack the thread? Was two other long threads about psychs that are currently ongoing not enough for you?

So the "10000%" hyperbole was intended to emphasize that this was part of your special system.

 

Sorry my mistake.

[jdonn]

No the "I would" was intended to emphasize that this was part of my special system. But I appreciate you admitting that you were mistaken.

[Cascade]

To call 2♣ a psyche is a misuse of the word.

Why so?

 

I have heard players say "I made a psychic response of 2♣ to avoid a club lead" etc. I appreciate that that is not the reason for the 2♣ here.

 

Nevertheless it is a deviation from standard and therefore if that is what you are playing it is arguably a psyche. One would have to determine a where the boundary for gross is.

 

For me ♦ xxxx ♣ AKQ would not be a psyche but ♦ AKQJ ♣ xxx would be. It is complicated since different players play different styles but I think the boundary lies somewhere between these two extremes.

 

Note this assumes that your methods are standard and that there is no disclosure to the contrary.

[mikeh]

Wayne, what would you bid, as responder, with Kxx AQxx xxx AKx?

 

Would you bid 2♣, absent any special agreements? If not, would you concede that many experts, playing standard, would do so?

 

If so, then we are most of the way there.... responding 2♣ to 1♠ on AKx is NOT a distortion of the club suit.

 

I take it that you agree that responding 2♥ on Qx AKJx xxxx AKx would be non-standard. I suggest that very, very few good players would even consider responding 2♦ on that hand....who in their right mind wants to suggest that suit as trump?

 

If you agree, then we are almost all the way there... responding 2♣ with 2=4=4=3 shape, with weak diamonds, is NOT a distortion of the club suit or the diamond length.

 

To then claim that it is ok to bid 2♣ with SOME 2=4=4=3 hands, but that this one is a GROSS distortion strikes me as bizarre.

 

An analogy: I pick up 5432 KJx KJx Qxx and partner opens 1♣: is anyone really going to report me for psyching if I choose to respond 1N? Yet, don't I 'deny' a 4 card major by doing so? If you really think that this is a gross distortion, then we play different games, and I sure hope I never get you as a director or on a committee when this is an issue, because such a position, if held by you, would tell me you 'just don't get it' (of course, maybe it's me that doesn't)

[Cascade]

Wayne, what would you bid, as responder, with Kxx AQxx xxx AKx?

I might respond 2♦ and if I did I would consider it a psyche.

 

Would you bid 2♣, absent any special agreements? If not, would you concede that many experts, playing standard, would do so?

 

Yes that is standard.

 

If so, then we are most of the way there.... responding 2♣ to 1♠ on AKx is NOT a distortion of the club suit.

 

I take it that you agree that responding 2♥ on Qx AKJx xxxx AKx would be non-standard. I suggest that very, very few good players would even consider responding 2♦ on that hand....who in their right mind wants to suggest that suit as trump?

 

I am not sure. The response of 2♦ is not just about determining trumps.

 

If you agree, then we are almost all the way there... responding 2♣ with 2=4=4=3 shape, with weak diamonds, is NOT a distortion of the club suit or the diamond length.

 

To then claim that it is ok to bid 2♣ with SOME 2=4=4=3 hands, but that this one is a GROSS distortion strikes me as bizarre.

 

Why?

 

♠ AKQJ

♥ 65432

♦ Kx

♣ xx

 

Would you concede that someone might open 1♠ with this?

 

But swapping the spade and heart texture would be a GROSS distortion.

 

Why then is 2=4=4=3 where some three card club suits are GROSS distortions bizarre but 4=5=2=2 where some four-card spades are GROSS distortions not bizarre.

 

An analogy: I pick up 5432 KJx KJx Qxx and partner opens 1♣: is anyone really going to report me for psyching if I choose to respond 1N? Yet, don't I 'deny' a 4 card major by doing so? If you really think that this is a gross distortion, then we play different games, and I sure hope I never get you as a director or on a committee when this is an issue, because such a position, if held by you, would tell me you 'just don't get it' (of course, maybe it's me that doesn't)

 

I don't believe that is a GROSS distortion that is an exceptional hand that you are exercising judgement on.

 

I don't see what is exceptional about the Qx Axxx AJxx AKx hand that needs to distort with 2C. That is not to say that I cannot see that there is some merit in the 2C response. The distortion then is either a misstatement of suit length or inadequate disclosure.

 

If it is a misstatement of suit length then it is a matter of opinion whether or not it is GROSS.

 

I have indicated above that for some suit qualities I would consider this distortion not GROSS but for others I would consider it GROSS.

[the hog]

I also don't get why the same stupid discussions keeps getting run through again.

 

2♣ is an obvious, non-copntrived response for many of us.  As proof, read the bridge base forums.

Because you keep making the same stupid bids. (Unless you play 2C as a relay or some sort of artificial and alertable response). Whatever, 2C IS contrived.

[eyhung]

I'm generally not a fan of Ken's answers, but I don't think 2♣ deserves the adjective "stupid". I think there's enough good reasons (suit quality for slam, conservation of bidding space, prepatory bid to show a big balanced hand) to respond 2♣ rather than 2♦ that I wouldn't call it "stupid", unless you are deliberately violating a partnership agreement that you must respond in your longest minor.

 

Let's try to get along and save the harsh words for bids that are truly stupid, shall we?

[cherdanno]

Someone should buy a The Bridge World gift subscription for Wayne.

[kenrexford]

All of the arguments here against 2♣ being obvious are hopeless. I don't mean the arguments, themselves, although that is included. More precisely, the arguments are so ridiculous that they are either contrived or the gulf between sides of this "debate" is too wide for any possible resolution, unless the one side first spends thousands of hours explaining the purposes and principles of bidding to the other, to establish a rudimentary understanding of the game.

[gnasher]

Can't you all accept that:

- It's playable to agree to bid 2♣ on this hand.

- It's also playable to agree to bid 2♦ on this hand.

- Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.

- It's not "hopeless", "stupid" or "a psyche" to make the bid dictated by your agreements.

[the hog]

Can't you all accept that:

- It's playable to agree to bid 2♣ on this hand.

- It's also playable to agree to bid 2♦ on this hand.

- Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.

- It's not "hopeless", "stupid" or "a psyche" to make the bid dictated by your agreements.

Of course I can Gnasher.

 

My comment, and i have no doubt Wayne's as well, was a reaction to Ken's post - his first, where he bid 2c with no explanation as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and his second, where he called reactions to 2C "stupid". It would probably not surprise you that I would prefer to play an ARTIFICIAL 2C response to 1M. A relay, or esle some sort of enquiry similar to what Bocchi Duboin used to play. However that is quite different to the argument Ken has been pushing. Anyway, enough said.

[the hog]

All of the arguments here against 2♣ being obvious are hopeless. I don't mean the arguments, themselves, although that is included. More precisely, the arguments are so ridiculous that they are either contrived or the gulf between sides of this "debate" is too wide for any possible resolution, unless the one side first spends thousands of hours explaining the purposes and principles of bidding to the other, to establish a rudimentary understanding of the game.

Ok Ken, I will take up your challenge. When would you like me to start teaching you? I can set aside a couple of hours on Sat afternoon my time. Also, i hav about 7 weeks holiday startng on wed.

[kenrexford]

OK, I'll bite on this a little more.

 

First of all, the "stupid" comment was not a comment that bidding anything but 2♣ would be stupid. Rather, the "stupid" comment concerned how stupid it is to claim that bidding 2♣ on this hand is a psychic or contrived.

 

As a further example of how 2♣ should not be expected to show a real suit reliably, I'll pose a question.

 

Suppose you and partner have agreed that 2/1 is GF but that 1M-P-2NT shows invitational and balanced, or a specific range of GF raise, or a specific hand type of GF raise.

 

If that is the case, then we need not focus solely on 3433 hands.

 

What do you bid after a spade opening from partner with GF values and 5422? 6412? 7222? 8401?

 

As to why 2♣ was provided no explanation, when I menioned it. I actually started to include explanations but then deletaed then as silly. I started with something like:

 

Opener: 1♠ (duh)

Responder: 2♣ (you know...)

Opener: 2♥ (duh)

 

I then even typed in, but deleted, that the first three bids are obviously what I would do. However, I retracted all of this in an effort to not stir up the same old idiotic debate. Of course, that failed miserably.

 

Again, it is not an idiotic debate in the sense that 2♣ is obviously the right bid for everyone. Rather, it is idiotic because people keep getting more insane in defending their positions, when the simple reality is that those of us who trend 2♣ and convinced that trending 2♣ works better and those who trned natural disagree. Of course, the reason why some think trneding 2♣ is better, and probably the reason why others think trending 2♣ is bad, is largely due to the myriad of subsequent auction types and the underlying philosophy to those auction types that factor into decisions as to starts.

 

When your focus in subsequent auctions trends pattern, then pattern purity early on makes sense. When your focus in subsequent auctions trends control, then starting in the AK suit makes more sense than starting in the AJ suit when the suit lengths are close and the AK suit is clubs (lower ranking, more space, not preempting diamonds, etc.).

 

Hence, it is not contrived or psychic to make a call that shows a suit of expected minimum length simply because you trend control rather than trend pattern.

 

This is especially true with a primed-out 18-count. Even if you have a blended approach, where you trend pattern on weaker hands but perhaps trend control with stronger hands, or where you trend pattern with unbalanced hands but trend control with balanced hands, 2♣ works. It is only the trend-pattern purists that would bid 2♦ with this hand.

 

Now, anyone who knows the game should be able to appreciate this nuance. If you understand bridge, and understand theory, and understand nuance, your response to those who bid 2♣ might be, "Oh, control-trender." Not, "psychic contriver, seeking to manufacture a double-dummy auction."

[david_c]

Hmm. I do think that, if you have not discussed it, you have a right to expect that partner will bid 2♦ on this sort of hand. I do actually think 2♣ is the better bid (in fact I prefer to play 2♣ as artificial - clubs or any balanced hand) but I would say this is by agreement only.

 

[Edited for clarity]

Edited June 11, 2009 by david_c

[kenrexford]

Hmm. I do think that, if you have not discussed it, you have a right to expect that partner will bid 2♦ on this sort of hand. Much as I prefer the style where 2♣ is artificial, I would say this is by agreement only.

Sure. But, if he does not, how can that remotely be a "psychic?" If Responder can have two clubs for the call, and he actually has three, then how is bidding the suit with one more card than minimum possible in any way psychic?

 

How can you overstate club length when holding club length that exceeds minimum possible?

 

Take another example. You hold 5♠/6♣ and deal. The "normal" bid is 1♣, say. But, you for whatever reasons decide to bid 1♠ as your opening bid. How is 1♠ a "psychic?" What if you play 4-card majors? This makes calling 1♠ a "psychic" even more ridiculous.

 

For that matter, are you supposed to alert all 1♠ openings if partner has a tendency to occasionally open 1♠ with 5-6, such that you have to alert the opponents to an occasional "tendency canape?"

[jdonn]

'1M p 2♣' is the new 'fit non-jump' of the forums.

[Cascade]

My arguments against 2♣ have not been based on their merit or otherwise. But on the presentation of those methods in this thread. All of the early posters who suggested 2♣ presented the bid without any explanation whatsoever. As if this was standard. It is far from standard. It needs an explanation it probably needs an alert. If it is presented as standard then it is a misstatement of standard methods. It is then moot whether or not it is a gross misstatement.

 

It borders on nonsense to post a pet gadget without explanation as if it were standard. If I may adapt Josh's hyperbole, it would be silly for me or anyone to post for the hand in this thread "I would open 1♦ 10000%". What value does this add? It is complete nonsense? Would you not agree? Oh but my pet gadget is strong diamond or better yet 1♦ shows spades (I played against this method a week or so ago where Andy Braithwaite of T-Rex fame was playing what he called "transfer ACOL" - which was really "transfer Fantunes" since these openings were unlimited). It would be equally silly of me to post my relay auction which incidentally makes bidding this hand trivial without any explanation. It is just as silly to post this 2♣ gadget without explanation.

 

The border between psyche and not psyche is completely context dependent - what is gross with one hand is not gross with another hand with the same or similar shape. It obviously is also not a psyche if it is part of your method. But then it needs disclosure. The presentation of gadgets as if they are standard is akin to inadequate disclosure. Or if played as if standard then it is a deliberate misstatement of suit length which is possibly a psyche. I have no idea how Ken, Josh and others disclose this method and it is not that important on forums for obvious reasons. But it is also not that instructive to present non-standard methods without explanation either. Similar to my 1♦ example above it would be equally silly to post my relay auction to 7NT without explanation.

 

My claim that Josh's 2♣ was a psyche was made with a certain amount of tongue in cheek. Not to hijack the thread as Josh suggests. But to highlight what I consider the nonsense of presenting non-standard methods as standard and also to highlight the nonsense as I perceive it of not psyching against beginners. Combining these two points if your methods are standard and you deliberated bid your third best suit at your first turn to call then aside from very specialized situations I would consider that a psychic. I found those concepts combined amusing. And worth making a point.

[Cascade]

Hmm. I do think that, if you have not discussed it, you have a right to expect that partner will bid 2♦ on this sort of hand. Much as I prefer the style where 2♣ is artificial, I would say this is by agreement only.

Sure. But, if he does not, how can that remotely be a "psychic?" If Responder can have two clubs for the call, and he actually has three, then how is bidding the suit with one more card than minimum possible in any way psychic?

 

How can you overstate club length when holding club length that exceeds minimum possible?

 

Take another example. You hold 5♠/6♣ and deal. The "normal" bid is 1♣, say. But, you for whatever reasons decide to bid 1♠ as your opening bid. How is 1♠ a "psychic?" What if you play 4-card majors? This makes calling 1♠ a "psychic" even more ridiculous.

 

For that matter, are you supposed to alert all 1♠ openings if partner has a tendency to occasionally open 1♠ with 5-6, such that you have to alert the opponents to an occasional "tendency canape?"

When did responding in a two-card suit (or fewer) become the norm for the minimum requirement for a two-over one in clubs?

 

The disclosure requirements in the laws are "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them."

[mikeh]

My choice of 2♣ does not mean I have gone over to the dark side, where Rexfordian bidding is the norm :)

 

I would expect that in a sample of experienced north american players, of expert status or better, constrained to play 2/1 5 card majors, a significant percentage would opt for 2♣ and almost all of them and many of the 2♦ bidders would be astounded at the idea that 2♣ should be alerted, let alone considered a psyche.

 

As gnasher said, there is merit to either minor as the initial response... and I agree that beginners would be taught, in all probability, that the 'textbook, bid was 2♦. So what?

 

2♣, on this hand, is NOT an artificial bid!!! Anyone who thinks that (the non-rexfordian) 2♣ bidders intend it as artificial is missing the point.

 

It's akin to raising 1N to 3N (in a strong notrump context) with Axxx KQx Q10x Q10x.

 

Do we have to start alerting this raise as 'denies a 4 card major unless he holds a hand on which he uses judgment to make the best call'? I mean, isn't he psyching by hiding the 4 card major? Isn't he forced to use stayman, or have his partner alert?

 

Respond 2♣ or 2♦, according to your perception of the best way forward, but stop claiming that your choice of 2♣ is the only proper, non-alertable choice. We have a player in the local club who freaks out whenever dummy comes down and he thinks that dummy has misdescribed his or her hand.. and often calls the director in an almost invariably futile effort to gain relief. The attitude that responding 2♣ here, absent an alert, is some kind of infraction would be a typical act of lunacy on his part...surely posters here should be more in tune with the game than that.

[cherdanno]

My arguments against 2♣ have not been based on their merit or otherwise. But on the presentation of those methods in this thread. All of the early posters who suggested 2♣ presented the bid without any explanation whatsoever. As if this was standard. It is far from standard. It needs an explanation it probably needs an alert. If it is presented as standard then it is a misstatement of standard methods. It is then moot whether or not it is a gross misstatement.

 

It borders on nonsense to post a pet gadget without explanation as if it were standard.

Or maybe you don't know what standard is.

Seriously, you are quite impressive. I wonder whether there is anyone else in the world who plays internationally, spends a lot of time on bridge, has English as native language but has so little clue about North American standard treatments.

[kenrexford]

This is so silly that I cannot stop myself from continuing this "debate."

 

In response to a 1♠ opening, a 2/1 bid in a new suit is forcing to game. That fact is not alertable.

 

What about length?

 

2♥, as a standard treatment, shows 5+. That's normal.

 

2♦, as a standard treatment, shows 4+. That's normal.

 

2♣, as a standard treatment, shows 3+. That's normal, if Max Hardy 2/1 GF is normal 2/1 GF.

 

Now, admittedly Max Hardy would view 2♣ as showing 3-card only if 3433 shape specifically. However, 3+ is the expected, normal range.

 

So, if you have a 3-card club suit that you bid, the length is as expected.

 

Thus, the only "alertable" treatment that would be relevant to this specific situation would be that you also might bid 2♣ with 2443 (or maybe 3343?) if the club honors are good but the diamond honors weak.

 

However, here's the thing. I bet not all of us voted 2♣ because of an expectation that partner would copnsciously think about that sole exception. Rather, some probably just bid 2♣ because it seemed right, even if a violation. That violation, however, is so friggin' minor, and not done with purpose to deceive, that it cannot be logically called a psychic.

 

So, back to the question of alerting. Should this slight nuance be alerted?

 

I would say this. There are some 18 bazillion nuances out there as to when in a natural system to open 1♣ and when to open 1♦. Some always want four diamonds. Some open "better minor." Some open 1♦ only if specifically 4432. Some open somewhat randomly. If we spent all day alerting these minor nuances,, and not just explaining them if asked, we could never bid.

 

Now, those of us who play funky 2♣ would alert these funky 2♣ calls. However, when responding to a question online, it doesn't seem necessary to note that your specific 2♣ call would happen to be a funky 2♣ call if you think that a non-funky person would and should also bid 2♣. Just how long do you want posts to be? Do you want every nuance thrown in?

 

I mean, I open 1♠ on really rare occasion with a four-card suit in first or second sat. Should I have provided a dissertation as to when and why? Or, was "1♠" sufficient, seeing as everyone would open 1♠ too?

 

I also play "Sparts" with some people, where a 2♦ opening shows 5♠, 4-5♥, and a weak opening. Thus, 1♠...2♥ shows extras in some form. Should I have explained that, or can I just rely on the fact that everyone opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ and because the nuance I would have would be irrelevant to the problem?

[Cascade]

This is so silly that I cannot stop myself from continuing this "debate."

 

In response to a 1♠ opening, a 2/1 bid in a new suit is forcing to game. That fact is not alertable.

 

What about length?

 

2♥, as a standard treatment, shows 5+. That's normal.

 

2♦, as a standard treatment, shows 4+. That's normal.

 

2♣, as a standard treatment, shows 3+. That's normal, if Max Hardy 2/1 GF is normal 2/1 GF.

 

Now, admittedly Max Hardy would view 2♣ as showing 3-card only if 3433 shape specifically. However, 3+ is the expected, normal range.

 

So, if you have a 3-card club suit that you bid, the length is as expected.

 

Thus, the only "alertable" treatment that would be relevant to this specific situation would be that you also might bid 2♣ with 2443 (or maybe 3343?) if the club honors are good but the diamond honors weak.

 

However, here's the thing. I bet not all of us voted 2♣ because of an expectation that partner would copnsciously think about that sole exception. Rather, some probably just bid 2♣ because it seemed right, even if a violation. That violation, however, is so friggin' minor, and not done with purpose to deceive, that it cannot be logically called a psychic.

 

So, back to the question of alerting. Should this slight nuance be alerted?

 

I would say this. There are some 18 bazillion nuances out there as to when in a natural system to open 1♣ and when to open 1♦. Some always want four diamonds. Some open "better minor." Some open 1♦ only if specifically 4432. Some open somewhat randomly. If we spent all day alerting these minor nuances,, and not just explaining them if asked, we could never bid.

 

Now, those of us who play funky 2♣ would alert these funky 2♣ calls. However, when responding to a question online, it doesn't seem necessary to note that your specific 2♣ call would happen to be a funky 2♣ call if you think that a non-funky person would and should also bid 2♣. Just how long do you want posts to be? Do you want every nuance thrown in?

 

I mean, I open 1♠ on really rare occasion with a four-card suit in first or second sat. Should I have provided a dissertation as to when and why? Or, was "1♠" sufficient, seeing as everyone would open 1♠ too?

 

I also play "Sparts" with some people, where a 2♦ opening shows 5♠, 4-5♥, and a weak opening. Thus, 1♠...2♥ shows extras in some form. Should I have explained that, or can I just rely on the fact that everyone opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ and because the nuance I would have would be irrelevant to the problem?

Max Hardy actually says "Responder's two-level response in a minor suit will show a suit of at least four cards."

 

He does mention the one exception which is precisely 3=4=3=3.

 

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

 

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)

3=3=4=3

3=4=4=2

2=4=4=3

 

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

 

Hardy further states that with the exceptional 3=4=3=3 hand responder may elect to bid a forcing no trump and conceal the game force values.

 

You further claim that your extension is minor.

 

I dispute this I think there is a major difference between the rare exception that Hardy notes and the frequent use that you are advocating for short 2♣ responses.

 

When you have a three-card club suit in the Hardy scheme your suit length is not "as expected" to quote your language. It is at the minimum value. When you further weight those minimum length hands with relatively high frequency hands then you have a significantly different style.

[gnasher]

I wonder whether there is anyone else in the world who plays internationally, spends a lot of time on bridge, has English as native language but has so little clue about North American standard treatments.

Well, there's me, if two or three overseas tournaments a year counts as playing internationally. Until I read about it in this thread, I didn't know that responding a "natural" 2♣ on a 2443 shape was anything other than a Rexfordian fantasy.

 

Mind you, I wouldn't presume to tell a North American what is standard in North America.