[MFA]

Jlall, on Aug 23 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

There is no shape that is bothersome (4135 would have started with 2C over 1H if it was too strong for a 4N bid now) imo.

I think you are making this sound a little bit too easy.
4NT is a rather strong suggestion about strain, and it could easily be an unacceptable bid, if for instance one of our black suits is too weak.
So we need a punt quite often here. If we are punting 3♥ with anything (even a small singleton), we might just as well define it as artificial - saying nothing about hearts.

On the theoretical side, it seems wrong to me to have TWO ways to support diamonds in this inelegant auction, while all cumbersome hands + hands that actually want to suggest hearts have to go through 3♥. This approach begs for troubles later.

[mike777]

why not start with 2c over 1h game force?
Kind of the whole point of 2/1 is too keep the bidding low and bid out your hand and shape.

"but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx"

[pclayton]

A few observations:

1. 3♥ is possible, but as Michael points out, overloading it with a lot of hands that have real support and quasi support is an issue.

2. Do we really want to have two ways to raise to diamonds, when 3♦ is quite possibly suspect? I know when pard retreats to hearts, it sort of cancels the diamond message, so maybe this is still playable.

I'm surprised Ken hasn't brought up bidding 2♣ instead of 1♠. Auctions like this are a hidden benefit IMO.

[pclayton]

gnasher, on Aug 23 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx.
...
I think this is the kind of hand that bids 4♣. If you want to call 4♣ a strong diamond raise and 4♦ a weaker raise, I suppose thats OK, but I would want to include hands that want to 'punt' over 3♦.

In other words you want to play 4♣ as Fourth Suit Forcing (or, as Ken might put it, Non-Specific LTTC). I'm usually in favour of the fourth suit being FSF even when we're already game-forced, but I think this is going too far. You need it only on hands which are too strong for a natural 4NT and don't fancy 3♥ - a very rare beast.

On this hand I'd bid 3♥, hoping to find out why partner game-forced. I'm probably going to bid 7NT in due course anyway, so the slight distortion is unlikely to cost.

Is 4♣ really so different than:

1♥ - 1♠
3♣ - 3♦

as a stall?

[pclayton]

Pard ended up with xx AQJxx AKJxx K. The heart hook lost, so only 12 tricks were available.

I suppose it doesn't matter what you do here. Pard will rebid diamonds and you'll reach slam. I do believe that a 5-5 owes a 4♦ call over 3♥ just in case pard has a doubleton.

[JanM]

In the amazing coincidences of bridge department, I'm watching the Cayne match and the auction just went (opponents' silent) 1♥-1♠-3♦ to a hand with QJTx, x, 9xxxx, AKT.
Not having read this thread, the person holding the hand bid 4NT presumably intending it as RKCB for diamonds (I happened to ask Chip about the auction and he agrees that 4NT should be natural here). Opener, who had x, AKJxxx, AKQT, Qx, bid 5♥ (I guess he also thought 4NT was natural). Responder bid 6♦ and opener, now realizing that 4NT had been KC, bid 7♦. Not a success. The other table bid 1♥-(1♠)-1NT-(P)-2♠-(DBL)-3NT-(P)-4♦-(P)-6♦ and made it (diamonds were 4-0 onside, hearts 3-3)

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

I'm surprised Ken hasn't brought up bidding 2♣ instead of 1♠. Auctions like this are a hidden benefit IMO.

2♣ seemed obvious. As does 3♥ in the actual auction.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

Pard ended up with xx AQJxx AKJxx K. The heart hook lost, so only 12 tricks were available.

I suppose it doesn't matter what you do here. Pard will rebid diamonds and you'll reach slam. I do believe that a 5-5 owes a 4♦ call over 3♥ just in case pard has a doubleton.

The 4♦ call is mandatory simply because partner can have a wide range of hands, so we are not in control of the auction and should describe our hand, and thus we should bid a 5-5 hand differently than a 6-3 hand. "Just in case" sounds a bit odd when partner will have a heart doubleton at least 82.3% of the time.
In a similar vein, I don't understand the problems some people are having with a 3♥ bid on the actual hand. 3♥ is mostly a waiting bid that asks opener to describe his hand further.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Aug 23 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

uhh, if 3H with a doubleton is "routine" then how does 3H agree hearts?

I didn't say it did. It does, however, make it more likely that hearts will be the agreed suit if we do end up bidding Blackwood.

Take one of your example sequences: 3♦-3♥; 3NT. As you say, 4NT would be natural, so we might consider 4♣, intending to follow it with 4NT. That would, however, be RKCB for hearts. Alternatively, we might consider 4♦, but it's not clear what 3♦-3♥; 3NT-4♦; 4NT would mean.

My point was that with this hand we may just want to know about aces - if partner is missing a red king, we're likely to have 13 tricks anyway. From that point of view, it would be useful, on this hand, to have a 4♣ bid that says "we don't have a clearcut fit, and I'm too strong for 4NT". That doesn't mean that I want to play it that way.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Aug 24 2008, 06:24 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 23 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

uhh, if 3H with a doubleton is "routine" then how does 3H agree hearts?

I didn't say it did. It does, however, make it more likely that hearts will be the agreed suit if we do end up bidding Blackwood.

Take one of your example sequences: 3♦-3♥; 3NT. As you say, 4NT would be natural, so we might consider 4♣, intending to follow it with 4NT. That would, however, be RKCB for hearts. Alternatively, we might consider 4♦, but it's not clear what 3♦-3♥; 3NT-4♦; 4NT would mean.

My point was that with this hand we may just want to know about aces - if partner is missing a red king, we're likely to have 13 tricks anyway. From that point of view, it would be useful, on this hand, to have a 4♣ bid that says "we don't have a clearcut fit, and I'm too strong for 4NT". That doesn't mean that I want to play it that way.

This is all solved rather easily if 4NT is RKCB for hearts and 4♠, which will be the out-of-focus major by this point, is RKCB for the agreed minor (diamonds).

[gnasher]

gnasher, on Aug 23 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

With hearts agreed, you may not be able to distinguish between, say, Q AQxxx AKJxx KJx and Q KQJxx AKJ10x KJx.

No one else seems to have noticed this, so I suppose I'd better point out that my examples both have 14 cards. It's actually rather hard to construct a hand where we want to be in 7NT without ♥K, so I don't think I accept my own premise that responder might be unhappy to bid RKCB for hearts.

[pclayton]

I've come around on this one. I agree that 3♥ is an acceptable solution on this hand, reserving 4♣ and 4♦ as strong diamond raises. I particularly like this because if 4♣ is vague, then Opener is a little strapped with a 1=5=4=3.

I was thinking if you changed the responding hand to a good 4=1=4=4 you'd have a problem, but I think these hands can safely raise diamonds.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Aug 24 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 24 2008, 06:24 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 23 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

uhh, if 3H with a doubleton is "routine" then how does 3H agree hearts?

I didn't say it did. It does, however, make it more likely that hearts will be the agreed suit if we do end up bidding Blackwood.

Take one of your example sequences: 3♦-3♥; 3NT. As you say, 4NT would be natural, so we might consider 4♣, intending to follow it with 4NT. That would, however, be RKCB for hearts. Alternatively, we might consider 4♦, but it's not clear what 3♦-3♥; 3NT-4♦; 4NT would mean.

My point was that with this hand we may just want to know about aces - if partner is missing a red king, we're likely to have 13 tricks anyway. From that point of view, it would be useful, on this hand, to have a 4♣ bid that says "we don't have a clearcut fit, and I'm too strong for 4NT". That doesn't mean that I want to play it that way.

This is all solved rather easily if 4NT is RKCB for hearts and 4♠, which will be the out-of-focus major by this point, is RKCB for the agreed minor (diamonds).

It's also all solved easily if you don't bother with RKCB in these auctions at all.

Then 4NT by opener is just - wait for it - natural.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Aug 23 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

1. If we are about to agree diamonds, 4♦ gives Responder the ability to bid a lot between 4♦ and 4NT. If 4NT is RKCB, then we have no problems. Alternatively, the "better treatment" here would be for 4♦ to actually be RKCB, which even further bolsters my point.

Sorry if it seems like I am sometimes picking on you, Ken. I actually read your book recently and, although I have to admit I struggled to get through it (probably at least as much a function of the nature of my brain as opposed to that of yours), I was really impressed by the depth of thinking you demonstrated as well as some of your ideas themselves.

But I have to say that for me this particular auction is close to being a poster-child for the folly (in my view) of the increasingly popular method of using "4 of our minor is always RKCB".

I believe it is far, far more likely that you will simply want to raise diamonds (and not have a hand that is appropriate for doing so via 4C or 5D) then that asking for keycards will allow you to place the final contract with any degree of certainty.

For sure there are some auctions in which it is more or less free to use "4 of our minor is RKCB" (1D-2D-4D where 2D is an inverted raise for example), but I believe such auctions are very much the exception rather than the rule.

FWIW I rank "4 of our minor is RKCB" along with 2-way Drury to be among the worst of popular bidding "innovations" in recentish years.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

How do people play 1♥-1♠-3♦-3♠? My preference is to play this as a six-card suit, since opener often bids spades at third turn on three anyway, and it's nice to find the 6-2 fit in spades when available (or avoid the 6-1/6-0 fit).

Assuming 3♠ here is six, the typical shape for 4♣ as a punt would be 5-1-3-4. I suppose you could bid 3♥ on singleton here, but I don't think that view is very standard. You could potentially bid 4NT, but this could easily miss a slam in spades opposite a 3541 hand or in diamonds opposite a 5-5 red suit hand, and it's also possible that responder has weak or anti-positional clubs which would make notrump possibly a poor strain. I also doubt that many people would respond 2♣ to 1♥ with a game-forcing 5134 (okay, maybe Ken would, but most of us wouldn't).

[kenrexford]

fred, on Aug 24 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 23 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

1. If we are about to agree diamonds, 4♦ gives Responder the ability to bid a lot between 4♦ and 4NT.  If 4NT is RKCB, then we have no problems.  Alternatively, the "better treatment" here would be for 4♦ to actually be RKCB, which even further bolsters my point.

Sorry if it seems like I am sometimes picking on you, Ken. I actually read your book recently and, although I have to admit I struggled to get through it (probably at least as much a function of the nature of my brain as opposed to that of yours), I was really impressed by the depth of thinking you demonstrated as well as some of your ideas themselves.

But I have to say that for me this particular auction is close to being a poster-child for the folly (in my view) of the increasingly popular method of using "4 of our minor is always RKCB".

I believe it is far, far more likely that you will simply want to raise diamonds (and not have a hand that is appropriate for doing so via 4C or 5D) then that asking for keycards will allow you to place the final contract with any degree of certainty.

For sure there are some auctions in which it is more or less free to use "4 of our minor is RKCB" (1D-2D-4D where 2D is an inverted raise for example), but I believe such auctions are very much the exception rather than the rule.

FWIW I rank "4 of our minor is RKCB" along with 2-way Drury to be among the worst of popular bidding "innovations" in recentish years.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Actually, I would not play that 4♦ is RKCB for diamonds, either. That's why "better treatment" is in quotes, as it appears to be the pop choice for these types of auctions. In reality, I would and do play that RKCB for an agreed minor is the cheapest out-of-focus major.

You also know now that I do not even describe a single auction where four of an agreed minor is RKCB for the minor.

So, we are actually on the same page.

[kenrexford]

awm, on Aug 24 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

I also doubt that many people would respond 2♣ to 1♥ with a game-forcing 5134 (okay, maybe Ken would, but most of us wouldn't).

5314 -- absolutely 2♣.
5134? Never.

[han]

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

Perhaps I'm influenced by the actual hand, but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx. What is this hand supposed to do over 3♦?

3 hearts?

[pclayton]

han, on Aug 26 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

Perhaps I'm influenced by the actual hand, but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx. What is this hand supposed to do over 3♦?

3 hearts?

Sorry, misposted. I meant a 4144.