very strong balanced responding hand

[bluenikki]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq4haq82dakjc843&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp]133|200[/hv]

In a robot imp individual, I responded 1♥ and, as I feared, I was never able to express my extremely high slam interest.

 

On reflection, I believe I would have been better off responding 2♥ even though this would have promised "rebiddable hearts." As Charles Goren wrote in a different context, "It is better to lie about a deuce than about a king."

 

Any other ideas?

 

In the homegrown methods I played with my late wife, the 2NT response to any suit one-bid showed 16+ without a six-card suit or two five-cards. It worked wonderfully.

[paulg]

I think everyone would respond 1♥ and hope that they'll get the opportunity to express the hand. I appreciate it may get a little complicated, but in my view the more room you've got, the more chance of finding the best contract.

 

This hand is obviously close to slam but it is unclear in what denomination. You may belong in clubs, hearts, no trump or even a pointed suit is partner is very unbalanced.

 

Starting with 2♥ helps get some of the power of your hand across but makes it very difficult to find the right strain and over stresses the heart suit. I would not recommend it.

 

When I started playing it was popular to play a 2NT response as any 16+ balanced. It rarely came up but it did tend make life easier if you had a minor suit fit: but nowadays you'd hope to find those slams without taking up as much room with your first response.

[LBengtsson]

I do not see any problem with bidding 1♥ here. It is forcing :)

 

And if partner bids a new suit, you can use the 4th suit to keep the auction open also. And, if partner rebids 1NT he is limited within a specific point range and balanced shape.

 

Amateurs will bid 4NT here, but good intermediate+ players realise the importance of trying to find out more about partner's hand by constructive bidding. This is a good hand to illustrate this principle.

[bluenikki]

I do not see any problem with bidding 1♥ here. It is forcing :)

 

And if partner bids a new suit, you can use the 4th suit to keep the auction open also. And, if partner rebids 1NT he is limited within a specific point range and balanced shape.

 

Amateurs will bid 4NT here, but good intermediate+ players realise the importance of trying to find out more about partner's hand by constructive bidding. This is a good hand to illustrate this principle.

When I bid 1♥ opener rebid 1♠, of course. I had no option but to bid 2♦. Opener replied 2♥, of course. What do I do now Charley? There is *no* strength-showing bid available to me.

 

I tried to temporize with 2NT. Opener bid 3♥, of course. I have much information about opener's hand. *Except* I don't know their club honor holding. And opener has no way of knowing that is what I am interested in, because they don't know we are in a slam auction. They think I am searching for the best strain for game.

[Gilithin]

*Except* I don't know their club honor holding.

But you do know that Opener has 5 clubs, since the 1♠ rebid announces an unbalanced hand and the 2♥ call rules out the minute chance of the wrong minor having been opened from 4144. So if your main concern is finding out about the club situation, it seems like an easy process to bid 3♣, follow up with some cues and eventually bid whichever of 4♣, 4♦ or 4NT is your ask. If you are instead playing an up-the-line system, such that partner might still have a 4333 hand after 2♥, partner must surely not bid 3♥ over 2NT with that, in which case you might have to fall back on minor agreement at the 4 level system - not ideal but the price you pay for not defining your hand type earlier.

 

Finally, there is a method that allows you to jump with this type of hand without giving up all of the jumps to rare beasts, sometimes called Condensed Solloway Jump Shifts. In that convention, a response of 2♦ followed by a 2NT rebid shows a big balanced hand. Most players do not think it is worth it but if you discover that your methods have a hole here, giving up one uncommon response to cover it (and a few other awkward hand types) is a relatively small price to pay.

[bluenikki]

But you do know that Opener has 5 clubs, since the 1♠ rebid announces an unbalanced hand and the 2♥ call rules out the minute chance of the wrong minor having been opened from 4144. So if your main concern is finding out about the club situation, it seems like an easy process to bid 3♣, follow up with some cues and eventually bid whichever of 4♣, 4♦ or 4NT is your ask. If you are instead playing an up-the-line system, such that partner might still have a 4333 hand after 2♥, partner must surely not bid 3♥ over 2NT with that, in which case you might have to fall back on minor agreement at the 4 level system - not ideal but the price you pay for not defining your hand type earlier.

 

 

You think I should fake-agree clubs and ask keycards. What is the "standard" way to sign off in 5NT? Is there any after so many suits have been bid and 5♦ would be queen-ask?

 

But notice: I avoided a single jump in my initial response, but now I would take up at least two rounds for the ask. And that is typical, as Culbertson pointed out 90 years ago.

[pescetom]

When I bid 1♥ opener rebid 1♠, of course. I had no option but to bid 2♦. Opener replied 2♥, of course. What do I do now Charley? There is *no* strength-showing bid available to me.

 

This a well known quagmire of natural bidding, but there are effective conventions like XYZ that get you back on solid ground again. Not sure what GIB does, but I doubt 2♦ is natural.

[DavidKok]

On the auction 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦ you have bid fourth suit game forcing, incidentally making the same game forcing asking bid if you were playing XYZ. 2♥ now shows a 4=3=1=5 or 4=3=0=6 (if partner can still have 4=3=3=3 or 4=3=2=4 you might be facing some difficulties, but no problem) and after 2NT; 3♥ partner confirms the 4=3=1=5 (sixth club would bid 3♣, if balanced hands were a live possibility they would raise to 3). So set trumps with 4♣ and off you go.

 

I think bidding 4NT (quantitative) over 1♣ might not even be that bad - partner can show an unbalanced hand with clubs by bidding a second suit on the 5-level (or rebidding clubs with a single-suiter), and pass with the balanced minimum. Not the best course of action, but it will often work.

[bluenikki]

This a well known quagmire of natural bidding, but there are effective conventions like XYZ that get you back on solid ground again. Not sure what GIB does, but I doubt 2♦ is natural.

2♦ is artificial and forcing. But opener will feel free to show secondary heart support with 543. and rebid clubs with Q97652. They don't know it's a slam auction.

[DavidKok]

You think I should fake-agree clubs and ask keycards. What is the "standard" way to sign off in 5NT? Is there any after so many suits have been bid and 5♦ would be queen-ask?

 

But notice: I avoided a single jump in my initial response, but now I would take up at least two rounds for the ask. And that is typical, as Culbertson pointed out 90 years ago.

The standard way is that 5♠ is a transfer to 5NT, although it's not very widely played so 'standard' is a stretch really.

[nullve]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq4haq82dakjc843&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp]133|200[/hv]

In a robot imp individual,

the 1♠ rebid announces an unbalanced hand

It doesn't.

[pescetom]

2♦ is artificial and forcing. But opener will feel free to show secondary heart support with 543. and rebid clubs with Q97652. They don't know it's a slam auction.

I think it should be forcing to game. But even if not, you're now out of the quagmire.

[smerriman]

The "standard" definition of Soloway does include jump shifting followed by rebidding NT to show a big balanced hand. But it also limits that big balanced hand to 18-19 points, because that's the range which is hard to show by going slow (and it has to be tightly defined to make up for the loss of space).

 

With 20+ like here, you have to go slow even with an extra heart, just that you're strong enough to keep the bidding going later on.

[Gilithin]

You think I should fake-agree clubs and ask keycards. What is the "standard" way to sign off in 5NT? Is there any after so many suits have been bid and 5♦ would be queen-ask?

 

But notice: I avoided a single jump in my initial response, but now I would take up at least two rounds for the ask. And that is typical, as Culbertson pointed out 90 years ago.

It is not really a fake agreement if partner has 5+ and you have 3. According to the official sources, the way of signing off in 5NT after minor suit agreement is bidding 5♠. Not too many at club level know that though. The vast majority of expert plays use either 4♣ or 4♦ as their ask after 3 level agreement in clubs, so 5♦ would not be the queen ask. This is a solution I can recommend providing you and your partner are clear in when it applies. Bidding has come a fair way since Culbertson's day. Ely did not believe in cue bidding and strongly preferred his complex asking bid scheme. These days, with many systems allowing for game forcing suit agreements to be created at the 3 level, there are more ways of using the extra bidding space to make slam investigations easier.

[Gilithin]

It doesn't.

It does in most modern natural bidding systems. It does not in up-the-line systems, which I addressed in the part of my post that you chose to cut.

[mikeh]

If we’re discussing robot bidding, which means we’re discussing the intricacies and (often woeful) failings of the GIB algorithm, I have zero interest. The more one bids well with GIB, then the less likely one is to bid well playing actual bridge, unless you’re a savant who can do both, and not let one game influence how you play the other

 

If discussing how one should handle this with a good human partner, playing bridge with an ability to draw inferences rather than add up ‘total points’ (whatever that means to GIB) and make a literally robotic, non-thinking call, then this is a discussion worth having.

 

But I think it’s virtually insoluble without knowing what inferences one can draw from 1S.

 

Contrary to what Gilithin says, I don’t think it’s at all standard to bypass 1S with all balanced hands. I do, in my partnerships, but I know some pretty good players who do not.

 

I don’t know the current Bridge World Standard approach. When I last subscribed, one bypassed spades only with 4=3=3=3. With 4=2=3=4 or 4=3=2=4 one bid 1S and, even if that’s no longer BWS, I suspect some strong players still do that.

 

If 1S promises an unbalanced hand (for us 4=5 or wilder in the blacks) the hand still isn’t simple

 

1C 1H 1S 2D 2H….

 

What does partner bid with, say, KJxx Jx xx AQJxx?

 

In one partnership we use the cheapest step over 4SF as a noise, simply denying the ability to do anything else. We might even have 4=1=3=5 shape with xxx in diamonds…we’d fudge 2N with as little as Jxx. Have you had this discussion about 2H with your favourite partner? If not, what is your rebid with 4=2=2=5, xx in diamonds?

 

Say I have KJxx Kx xx AJxxx. I would bid 2H in any expert partnership and I think that would get a lot of support in expert circles.

 

With say KJxx x Qxx AJxxx (make it AQxxx if you wouldn’t open that 11 count) then 2N

 

So after 2H, I agree with 2N, and I also agree with 3H by opener….if he has 4=3=1=5 shape.

 

On that auction, this 20 count isn’t as strong as it looks…it’s rarely good to hold xxx in partner’s main suit and AKJ in his stiff suit. Compare to AQx AQxx xxx AKJ

 

I don’t even think this is a slam force opposite a sound opening bid. In my partnerships we open almost all 11 counts so my partner could easily hold KJxx Jxx x AQxxx

 

Thus if we did have 2C 1H 1S 2D 2H 2N 3H I think all we can do is 4N. Kxxx Kxx x AQJxx is a borderline accept in my partnerships….we have a queen more than we’ve promised and that club Jack is a good card. Give me AQJ10x and the major kings and it’s clearly right to bid.

 

 

I should qualify that 4N choice. It probably isn’t available to most players who would automatically think that 4N was keycard. We play kickback, so we use 4S as keycard. Here, 4N is a quantitative slam invitation.

 

If you don’t have that,then you’re pretty much stuck.

 

However, even if 4N is invitational, style (as almost always) matters. Our general philosophy on game and slam invites is to invite heavy and accept light. The logic behind that for game bidding is overwhelming. The same mathematical reasoning doesn’t apply to slam bidding quite as strongly, but it’s still there….on a really bad day, when you stretch, for example, to bid an invitational 4N, and partner rejects, you might find 9 tricks is the limit. 4N down one is an awful score no matter imps, mps, or rubber

 

Thus I can bid 4N with perhaps more comfort than those who need partner to have a reason to accept…we accept unless we have a reason to pass. We don’t need much more than we’ve shown.

 

If opener needs, say, a king more than a reasonable minimum in order to accept, I think you just have to bid 6N. As little as Kxxx Jxx Q KJxxx, and he has more than that, gives one a (minuscule) play for slam. And, since he’ll pass often when slam is good (playing a style where he needs ‘extras’ to accept) you’ll miss too many decent slams by inviting

 

 

Also, if this is matchpoints and you’re in some normal field, rather than the last day of a Blue Ribbon Pairs, you ‘know’ that almost everyone whose partner opened is in 6N.

 

And if you are stuck over 3H, then I’d just blast 6N. There’s a reason virtually all expert partnerships have very detailed agreements and use lots of low-frequency artificialities. When the right hands arise, those agreements make ‘judgement’ less challenging.

[cherdano]

The more one bids well with GIB, then the less likely one is to bid well playing actual bridge, unless you’re a savant who can do both, and not let one game influence how you play the other

Mike Hargreaves, meet Roger Lee.

[mikeh]

Mike Hargreaves, meet Roger Lee.

Hey, I was very careful to carve out an exception for…well…exceptional players😀 which Roger Lee is.

 

So your point was?

[bluenikki]

The standard way is that 5♠ is a transfer to 5NT, although it's not very widely played so 'standard' is a stretch really.

Surely that is only when spades have not been bid naturally!

[bluenikki]

If we’re discussing robot bidding, which means we’re discussing the intricacies and (often woeful) failings of the GIB algorithm, I have zero interest. The more one bids well with GIB, then the less likely one is to bid well playing actual bridge, unless you’re a savant who can do both, and not let one game influence how you play the other

 

If discussing how one should handle this with a good human partner, playing bridge with an ability to draw inferences rather than add up ‘total points’ (whatever that means to GIB) and make a literally robotic, non-thinking call, then this is a discussion worth having.

 

 

I am not interested in how to bid with robots. I am interested in what was the Master Solvers Club situation: You are playing with someone you have never met, who is regarded as a good player and agrees to play a named system.

 

Special agreements are not available.

 

That is why I thought the initial jumpshift was probably the most practical bid.

[bluenikki]

 

And if you are stuck over 3H, then I’d just blast 6N. There’s a reason virtually all expert partnerships have very detailed agreements and use lots of low-frequency artificialities. When the right hands arise, those agreements make ‘judgement’ less challenging.

 

Why I didn't blast 6NT:

 

1. The club AK may be missing. In that case, there may well be no play for 12 tricks, even if they don't cash the first two tricks.

 

2. The club ace may be missing. In that case, notrump is wrong-sided.

[akwoo]

My preference is that opener's 2♥ bid shows 4=3=1=5 (and they bid 2♠ with 4=2=2=5 and xx in diamonds).

 

I suppose 3♥ is a strong suggestion to play in a Moysian, but it feels like it shouldn't really exist.

 

I want to say that, in this situation, there has been no suit agreement, and hence, even if not playing Kickback, 4N by responder is natural quantitative. But most people seem more averse to sometimes completely giving up RKCB than I am.

[michel444]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq4haq82dakjc843&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp]133|200[/hv]

In a robot imp individual, I responded 1♥ and, as I feared, I was never able to express my extremely high slam interest.

 

On reflection, I believe I would have been better off responding 2♥ even though this would have promised "rebiddable hearts." As Charles Goren wrote in a different context, "It is better to lie about a deuce than about a king."

 

Any other ideas?

 

In the homegrown methods I played with my late wife, the 2NT response to any suit one-bid showed 16+ without a six-card suit or two five-cards. It worked wonderfully.

robot are funny whatever is bid over 1 heart is speculation and no matter what is the bid you go to blackwood the probality of finding that AK of club are misiing

exist but with "standard " 5 cards major" i see no other option

[cherdano]

Hey, I was very careful to carve out an exception for…well…exceptional players which Roger Lee is.

 

So your point was?

A pathetic attempt at a lame joke!

I think that's progress - rather than a flamewar breaking out, one of us attempts a lame joke, which briefly irks the other one.

 

If I had been trying to make a point, it would have been that I respectfully disagree. But I couldn't have said anything better than what Roger and the late Justin already wrote on bridgewinners in this thread: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/acbl-tests-online-nabc-event/

 

E.g., Roger:

It is not possible to be good at bridge but bad against the robots. It is not possible to be good against the robots but be bad at bridge. They are pretty equivalent skills.

I would be the first to admit that there are elements of robot bridge that are distinctly different from normal bridge, but to me it is wrong to think that robot bridge is 'not bridge' due to these differences. It seems to me that most people who make these claims do not really play much against the robots.

 

It's not the Spingold, but being good at deduction, deception, logical inferences, general cardplay technique, and having good overall bidding judgment are not just 'part' of the robot game, it is basically the entirety of the game. I hope people who belabor the small differences between robot bridge and normal duplicate bridge could find it in themselves to agree with that.

[johnu]

But you do know that Opener has 5 clubs, since the 1♠ rebid announces an unbalanced hand

Not true in the GIB 2/1 system, at least according to the descriptions. As for human players, it depends on partnership agreements.