[whereagles]

fred, on Apr 26 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

About "trying to fill too many holes", the holes exist - you can either try to fill them or not. If you don't fill the holes then it is dangerous to use sequences that end in a hole.

IMO serious partnerships should attempt to define common auctions (ie fill holes).

Well, my point is that it may be an overkill to distinguish, say,

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
4♠

from

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
3♠ 3NT
4♠

In other words, not every open sequence needs be defined with milimetric accuracy.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Apr 26 2007, 10:36 AM, said:

fred, on Apr 26 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

About "trying to fill too many holes", the holes exist - you can either try to fill them or not. If you don't fill the holes then it is dangerous to use sequences that end in a hole.

IMO serious partnerships should attempt to define common auctions (ie fill holes).

Well, my point is that it may be an overkill to distinguish, say,

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
4♠

from

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
3♠ 3NT
4♠

In other words, not every open sequence needs be defined with milimetric accuracy.

Quite the opposite. For a serious partnership it would be a grave error NOT to discuss and define these sequences. It is MUCH more important to discuss non-conventional sequences like these than to add conventions. If you don't want to, no one is making you.

[whereagles]

jdonn: there is quite a lot of overlap in the hand types of those two sequences. Why bother to agree that one is a queen stronger than the other when chances are that won't matter in 99,99% of the time?

I'd much prefer spend that time discussing a common source of confusion like, say, inverted minors

[jdonn]

There is no overlap at all. They show similar hands but no hand is correct for both. In fact it's if you don't have an agreement that there is overlap, as the choice between these similar bids becomes random.

I'm not sure how you can say it won't matter that two hands differ by a queen in strength. In that case why not just randomly choose to open a suit or 1NT on balanced hands from 13 to 16, they differ by about a queen in strength so obviously it doesn't matter.

Again, I am referring to serious or long term partnerships (as was Fred.) Yes it is better for casual or less serious partnerships to discuss more common issues, such as inverted minors. That doesn't mean it is a waste of time to talk about other auctions too. You have no reason to think so.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

There is no overlap at all. They show similar hands but no hand is correct for both. In fact it's if you don't have an agreement that there is overlap, as the choice between these similar bids becomes random.

I'm not sure how you can say it won't matter that two hands differ by a queen in strength. In that case why not just randomly choose to open a suit or 1NT on balanced hands from 13 to 16, they differ by about a queen in strength so obviously it doesn't matter.

Again, I am referring to serious or long term partnerships (as was Fred.) Yes it is better for casual or less serious partnerships to discuss more common issues, such as inverted minors. That doesn't mean it is a waste of time to talk about other auctions too. You have no reason to think so.

Well, I think there's considerable overlap between, say,

QJxxxxx
Axx
Kx
x

and

QJxxxxx
AQx
Kx
x

but ok, let's not get picky on this

As for your claim that one might as well disregard a queen systematically, that's an abusive interpretation and you know it

[fred]

whereagles, on Apr 26 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

There is no overlap at all. They show similar hands but no hand is correct for both. In fact it's if you don't have an agreement that there is overlap, as the choice between these similar bids becomes random.

I'm not sure how you can say it won't matter that two hands differ by a queen in strength. In that case why not just randomly choose to open a suit or 1NT on balanced hands from 13 to 16, they differ by about a queen in strength so obviously it doesn't matter.

Again, I am referring to serious or long term partnerships (as was Fred.) Yes it is better for casual or less serious partnerships to discuss more common issues, such as inverted minors. That doesn't mean it is a waste of time to talk about other auctions too. You have no reason to think so.

Well, I think there's considerable overlap between, say,

QJxxxxx
Axx
Kx
x

and

QJxxxxx
AQx
Kx
x

but ok, let's not get picky on this

As for your claim that one might as well disregard a queen systematically, that's an abusive interpretation and you know it

Not a good example

When your partner very likely holds the King of hearts (because of his 2NT bid) the Queen of hearts is not a small thing - it is a trick. Even if partner lacks the King of hearts it is not unlikely that the Queen of hearts is a valuable card (prevents opps from setting up heart trick immediately, might win a trick via a finesse, combines with the Jack opposite to produce a sure trick).

Maybe I should not have expressed my definitions in the way that I did as I can see how my "extra Queen" statement does not really capture the point I was trying to make.

The idea is that the 2 sequences can be used to distinguish between having a minimum and a maximum of a particular hand type.

Assuming both partners can remember that has to be good right?

And these are not the type of agreements that rate to put a strain on the memories of the members of a serious expert partnership (because they are natural and logical agreements and because these auctions actually come up).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

Well.. let me rephrase it: I'm not sure that using the two above sequences to distinguish a min from a max within very similar hands is a good use for them (the sequences).

I would tend to give a straight 4♠ the meaning: "I'm really not interested in slam", whereas 3♠ + 4♠ would show something more like "I was wondering if you could spare a cue in support of spades. Since you didn't, I think 4 is the limit".

I think it's best to use the two sequences as bidding tools from the point of view of opener, rather than bids showing this or that. In other words, I am arguing that the capitain here should be opener, not responder.

[jdonn]

Well if by "rephrase" you mean completely change your mind from saying people shouldn't distinguish the two auctions from each other

whereagles, on Apr 26 2007, 10:36 AM, said:

Well, my point is that it may be an overkill to distinguish, say,

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
4♠

from

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
3♠ 3NT
4♠

to describing how you distinguish them from each other

whereagles, on Apr 26 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

I would tend to give a straight 4♠ the meaning: "I'm really not interested in slam", whereas 3♠ + 4♠ would show something more like "I was wondering if you could spare a cue in support of spades. Since you didn't, I think 4 is the limit".

Then feel free

But realize this is what Fred is already suggesting, that the two auctions show similar hands except the first be a worse hand. If your only point is to argue who is the 'captain', then hey whatever I'm not getting involved with you in that one.

[whereagles]

No, no that's not it

The point is if opener is captain, he can use one sequence or another depending on his hand. There are no particular requirements to use one sequence or the other, just judgement.

If responder is captain, then there's some sense in trying to distinguish one hand from the other.

I'm just saying it probably better to play opener as captain instead of trying to fill out all open bids.