ATB

[jdonn]

I don't know anyone who plays 3♥ as artificial and see almost zero need for it. The hand you provided....KQxxx Qxx Jx Qxx... is an easy....truly trivial....3♦ call

If 3♥ is natural, presumably you have to bid 3♦ on all 5323 shapes that aren't suitable for 3NT. If you played FSF, you wouldn't be able to show hearts, but you could show real diamond support at the three-level.

 

Why is it more useful to be able to show heart length than diamond support?

It's much easier to bid over a natural 3♦ bid than an artificial 3♥ bid. For that matter it's much easier to bid over an artificial 3♦ bid than an artificial 3♥ bid.

 

There is also the issue that it might be desirable to bid 3♦ on a doubleton even if 3♥ is artificial since you give partner more room.

 

Also if a 3NT bid is 2+ or 3+ hearts then it seems any 5-3 heart fit will be lost. Whereas if 3♦ doesn't promise true support then it is still very doable to get to diamonds.

 

You may have answers to any of those points, but I hope I showed that it's not just a question of what's more useful.

[bluecalm]

Unless one plays 2N as artificial and forcing, what is one to bid over 1♠ with AJx x AKJxxx AQx?

 

I am serious....if any of the experts here have another rebid that they think is 'standard' on such hands, I'd be delighted to hear from them.

 

Standard american methods are not standard everywhere in the world.

Italians use Gazilli (2♣) for every hand which is 17+. Polish players who play variation of 2/1 traditionally use 2NT as artifical rebid here. I am not sure about Norwegians. Maybe someone from there could tell us what's expert standard there.

 

I've learnt a lot about "standard" in NA sense recently I am amazed how bad and difficult to handle this system is. Jumps with 3 card suit, routine jump shifts with 4card suits, reverses with 3 cards suit, wide range vs wide range situations creating guesses all the time (vide last 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ thread).

 

I've never assumed the point of those thread is to answer the question what would you bid with pick up partner from NA but how to solve this problem in your partnership.

I think that if that's the former then I would even be afraid to bid 4NT because it may be taken as blackwood. If that's the latter I think the best answer is to switch to simpler and better methods (like incorporating gazilli or multimeaning 2NT).

 

It's hard to me to accept that world expert standard is 3♣ = 17+hcp, 3+♣ not balanced (I wonder what do you bid with 18hcp and 2-3-7-1/3-1-7-2 in this system I guess 2♥ false reverse or 3♣ jump shift with 2 cards...).

[the hog]

Well, for me 3H would be artificial; we play this as 4th suit forcing asking for a H stopper. East can have a 0355 or 1255 hand after all.

I think West should bid 3NT and not 3H. Now when East pulls to 4C, West does indeed have a monster. The minor suit cards are exceptionally valuable as well.

[jdonn]

I just don't get either west bidding 3NT, or that east showing extra length in the minors helps west.

 

To the first point, he has 13 POINTS! East will pass on normal shapes with 20 or 21 points and there you are in 3NT with 33-34.

 

To the second point, his hand is mostly in the majors. Make one of east's clubs a heart to give him the most normal pass of 3NT ever and it's a great 6NT. East's fifth club does almost nothing to help west's hand, in fact it assures him of shortness opposite one of the KQxxx suits.

[PeterGill]

By passing 5C, West is putting all his eggs in one basket, that:

- 430 or more is not available

- 5C is the best contract, making no more than 11 tricks.

 

That all seems unlikely, which makes passing 5C, as usual as Matchpoints, an inferior choice. West must TRUST his partner. With a weak 6-6 or 6-5 or 5-5, East would rebid 2C, not 3C, to save space in order to bid out his shape.

 

I would bid 5H over 5C. I have a massive hand for my previous bidding. My 2nd choice is 6NT over 5C, hoping that the major aces, if both are missing, are not both cashed. My distant 3rd choice is 5NT over 5C, but I worry that partner might misinterpret that bid, so it's best for me not to add more confusion to the auction.

[gnasher]

It's much easier to bid over a natural 3♦ bid than an artificial 3♥ bid. For that matter it's much easier to bid over an artificial 3♦ bid than an artificial 3♥ bid.

Except that it's not a "natural" 3♦ bid: it's a 3♦ bid that shows anything from primary diamond support to a balanced hand with ♦xx and no heart stop. I don't see how it can be easier to bid over a 3♦ bid that shows a wide range of hands, than over a 3♥ bid that shows only half of that range of hands.

 

There is also the issue that it might be desirable to bid 3♦ on a doubleton even if 3♥ is artificial since you give partner more room.

True, you give opener room to bid 3♥. Is that natural too, or is it a FSF-like stop ask?

 

Also if a 3NT bid is 2+ or 3+ hearts then it seems any 5-3 heart fit will be lost.

Yes, I can't argue with that. It's not very common to have a 5-3 heart fit here, though.

[gwnn]

Eazst 100% blame, that means west gets no blame. 3NT doesn't mean "I have a balanced hand", it means "I hear you have the minors, let's play 3NT".

 

By the way, there is a hand in the "deal of the weak" archives where Fred bids 3NT with a somewhat similar (though perhaps weaker) hand.

I specifically remember him bidding 3♥ on that hand. One of us has lost our marbles.

 

On this deal I give both blame, west is worth 4NT over 3♣ (natural) assuming he doesn't want to bid 3♥, and east misdescribed by bidding 5♣ instead of 4♣.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=471141

[hanp]

One of us has lost our marbles.

If that is the case, I think it is not close.

[JLOGIC]

Marbles? I'm glad they're gone

[Codo]

They deserve each other.

 

3 Nt is a big underbid, 5 ♣ a misbid, and pass 5 ♣ is wrong too.

 

It is quite difficult to find hands where partner has his bid and 5 club is the winner in a mp event.

 

To me 3 ♥ had been artifical too. I guess it is artificial too most who are not used to the American way of Life and bidding.

[aguahombre]

To me 3 ♥ had been artifical too. I guess it is artificial too most who are not used to the American way of Life and bidding.

Interesting. MikeH seems to have given the best logical reasoning for 3H being natural. I understand that Canada is on the North American Continent, but it isn't usually included in the cheap shots.

[Codo]

Cheap shot? Why and what?

 

I did not intend any evaluation in my sentence and I can see no evaluation in it.

I can see no bad wording about that American style.

 

So what did offend you?

[hanp]

Did some American kid kick you when you were small or something?

[gnasher]

Interesting.   MikeH seems to have given the best logical reasoning for 3H being natural.  I understand that Canada is on the North American Continent, but it isn't usually included in the cheap shots.

Yes, but if you want to put down Canada, one of the best ways is to pretend not be aware of any distinction between Canada and the USA.

 

Actually, you've just done that very thing, by interpreting Codo's "American" as meaning "of the USA", rather than "of the American continent(s)".

[mikeh]

Interesting.   MikeH seems to have given the best logical reasoning for 3H being natural.  I understand that Canada is on the North American Continent, but it isn't usually included in the cheap shots.

Yes, but if you want to put down Canada, one of the best ways is to pretend not be aware of any distinction between Canada and the USA.

 

Actually, you've just done that very thing, by interpreting Codo's "American" as meaning "of the USA", rather than "of the American continent(s)".

I think the vast majority of Canadians think of references to 'Americans' or 'America' as, respectively, references to denizens of or the nation of the USA.

 

I don't think any Canadian would see a reference to 'America' as including Canada. A reference to North America or the Americas would be different.

 

As for my apparent myopia in terms of 'standard', with all respect there is nothing remotely resembling a European 'standard, while it is common in NA to refer to an admittedly ill-defined 'standard' method. Add to that the undeniable fact that the plurality of posters and, I assume, readers of these fora are based in NA, and I would have hoped that anyone posting that in their opinion something is 'standard' would be taken, absent compelling contextural reasons otherwise, to be referring to NA standard.

 

I have learned a lot from this thread, which is nothing new for me, of course. It would not have previously occured to me that 3♥ might be commonly used as artificial. I still don't think it is as useful as its proponents suggest.....perhaps more accurately, I don't see the mix of cost and benefit from the usage, especially compared to the 3♦ temporizing alternative, as being strong. But I found it interesting and it is always useful to learn of the approach espoused by strong players in other parts of the world.

[mikeh]

3♥ as 4th suit makes a lot of sense. You may want to bid that with single/half stopper to offer choice of games. For example holding Axx in hearts you want partner to bid 3nt on his Hx but you want to be in 5m opposite 2-1-5-5.

I don't like fancy agreements in specific sequencies. 4th suit as rebid by responder doesn't show natural length according to my meta agreements.

I am not sure about standard especially because bidding culture seems to be different in NA than in Poland/Europe.

I would expect expert+ partner not from America to understand 3♥ as FSF.

 

I can understand people who want 3♥ to be natural if they play systems when 3♣ may be bid on 4card suit (1-3-5-4 for example). I think such systems are inferior and I don't much care about solving problems they created in the first place but yeah playing such way I would reconsider.

I think you will find that most people who post hands that caused a problem for their partnership are not particularly interested in learning how you and your partner, playing a perhaps highly personalized method, would have solved the problem. Posting your own ideas can be ego-rewarding....and I have done that myself....but it really doesn't address the concerns of most who post here.

 

Most who post are playing something akin to 'standard' or they are likely to be specifying their non-standard approach...as in the numerous posts we see specifying an acol-type method, or a Precision method, etc.

 

What most posters appear to want is advice on how they, and their partners, could improve their game within the context of their current general style.

 

You may think that NA standard is horrible, and virtually unplayable. I suppose that the fact that there are a number of world champions who play a style based on NA standard is irrelevant to you....smugly secure in the merits of your own methods. But the reality is that most of the atb problems on this site are posted by users of NA standard-type methods. I should add, in anticipation of your response being that maybe that's because NA std is so flawed, that this would appear to be because: (1) the plurality of posters play NA methods, and (2) NA methods are used, as best as I can tell, by more players than any other method.

[bluecalm]

I suppose that the fact that there are a number of world champions who play a style based on NA standard is irrelevant to you....smugly secure in the merits of your own methods.

 

Well actually my opinion comes directly from seeing what people who have won the most titles at bridge in last decade play.

I don't have strong opinion if precision is better than system which Lauria Versace/Duboin Sementa play or if Fantunes system is better than both of them.

 

I also think that your point about world champions is not valid as I those people are pros and can afford to have very detailed agreements about untangling for example 3♣ bid which means 2+clubs, unbalanced, 17+ barring some specific distributions like 6d-4H. I am saying that this standard system is:

 

-very artificial and not intuitive for beginners and anybod who has not played this system for a long time

-very difficult to play by people who are not experts

-virtually impossible to understand for beginners

-just plain inferior without tons of gadgetry and detailed understanding to untangle all the wide range opposite wide range situations.

 

Anyway, to the 3♥ call.

If I played the system where 3♣ means 17+, 2+♣ then I agree with your view and I think 3♥ should be natural.

[gnasher]

Occasionally having to jump shift or reverse on a non-suit isn't something that only happens in Canada and the adjoining countries. The same problem exists in any natural system where 2♣ is the only strong bid.

 

I dont see it as a reason to condemn the entire system. The only hand-type that has to invent a 3♣ bid is a strong one-suiter. Such hands are fairly rare, and opener can usually go back to diamonds if the clubs are raised, so losses from having to bid like this are uncommon.

 

It also isn't a reason to play 1♦-1♠;3♣-3♥ as natural - the combination of opener's havig three hearts and responder's having five is very low frequency. The main reason for playing 3♥ as natural in this auction is so that responder can describe his hand, rather than specifically to find a 5-3 heart fit.

[jdonn]

I don't see how it can be easier to bid over a 3♦ bid that shows a wide range of hands, than over a 3♥ bid that shows only half of that range of hands.

You may not believe it IS easier, but I don't believe that you don't see how it CAN BE easier.