[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2015-January-09, 14:06, said:

Sorry but either you are allowing knowledge of the hand to distort your thinking, perhaps unconsciously, or you don't know how to bid.

No good player would play that 4♣ 'set clubs'. That would be absurd.

Give opener AQx A Qx AKJxxxx and responder either of xx xxx AKxxx Qxx or xxx xxx AKJxxx x

Would the bidding be different through 4♣?

On the first hand you want to play in 7♣ but on the second, 7♦.

No, the reason 4♣ set clubs, for you, was to allow 4♠ to be a cuebid by responder, rather than, say, bidding out his 4=2=5=2 shape, and (even more absurd) 5♦ to be a cue by opener showing a VOID!!!!! Wow.

The way to avoid this sort of thing, and it happens all the time on BBF with several posters, is to try to blank out one of the hands and imagine the auction as if you were holding the hand you haven't blanked out. Forget that responder has Kxx xxx AKxxx xx. Just imagine you'd opened 2♣, the auction proceeded to 4♠ and ask 'what would that mean if I couldn't see his hand'?

When asking that, ask if there are layouts where natural makes sense.

AKQx Ax x AKQxxx opposite Jxxx xx AKxxxx x

How does the auction start? How does it go at the 4-level? How do you find spades if 4♣ sets trump?

Timo nailed it, btw, and I upvoted his post.

Although at first I though that 4♥ should be the bid as 4♠ is too risky, and might be taken as natural, I later realiced that 4♠ as natural makes very little sense (upong reading phoenix reply) and I mover towards the cuebid camp, still I understand that the "if a bid can be natural it is natural" rule is too strong, so some players will play 4♠ as nat, even if clearly not best on this particular situation. But I would not.

Phoenix might have nto elaborated his respone deeply, but you are taking his words the wrong way. As it is obvious for him (and everyone else) that 4♣is a very strong suggestion to use as trumps, but doesn't really set up trumps. How do I know this? because he did bid 4♠ over 4♣, if 4♣ showed self sufficent suit he would bid 4♦.

Now why is he loving the diamond void and getting to grand slam without heart control is not really great and is likely influenced b the knowledge of the full hand.

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2015-January-10, 04:14, said:

Although at first I though that 4♥ should be the bid as 4♠ is too risky, and might be taken as natural, I later realiced that 4♠ as natural makes very little sense (upong reading phoenix reply) and I mover towards the cuebid camp, still I understand that the "if a bid can be natural it is natural" rule is too strong, so some players will play 4♠ as nat, even if clearly not best on this particular situation. But I would not.

Phoenix might have nto elaborated his respone deeply, but you are taking his words the wrong way. As it is obvious for him (and everyone else) that 4♣is a very strong suggestion to use as trumps, but doesn't really set up trumps. How do I know this? because he did bid 4♠ over 4♣, if 4♣ showed self sufficent suit he would bid 4♦.

Now why is he loving the diamond void and getting to grand slam without heart control is not really great and is likely influenced b the knowledge of the full hand.

Hmm......No! Not even close. Sorry m8.

phoenix214, on 2015-January-08, 10:51, said:

4 clubs sets clubs, 4 spades shows spade cue(pard already showed AK in diamonds, so no point cueing diamonds now) 5 diamonds, shows diamond cue(shortness) and interest in 7 - 7 clubs(well your hand does not get better then this)

I don't know what is it between you and Mike that you feel obligated to disagree with him, but imho you should not let this affect your bridge judgement. Especially when it is about the basics of bidding. In fact, what Phoenix said makes much more sense than what you are trying to attribute to him.

Now back to what you are trying to attribute to him. If 4♣ is not self sufficient and/or setting trumps, then 4♦ or 4♠ by responder better be natural since you are burning all your bridges to find another fit. For example, responder may hold AKxxxxx cards ♦ suit and void or stiff ♣, I would think a sane person would rebid this suit (diamonds) since has has 2 cards extra than what he showed previously, even if he had A of spades to cue. By allowing 4♠ being a cue, you are not only disabling yourself from bidding spades naturally, but also disabling yourself from rebidding diamonds naturally. This is just unplayable unless one thinks that 4♣ sets the trumps. Which is pretty much unplayable in itself unless you play something like Wank suggested. And all of this for what? Like most people do, you do not want to use 4♥ bid just because you have xxx in this suit when it is the only cue available. You can and imho you should use 4♥ also for ambiguous hands like the one we have in hand, where we do not have a clear bid.

It is ironic that you mention use of 4♠ being natural is not good, while you seem to spare 4♥ for only specific purposes, which should be pretty flexible bid when auction got too high with no one being sure where our fit is, if any.

[MrAce]

As Joe Grue says, all of this mess, of course and once again, is caused by pd interfering with our 2♣ opening. Perhaps, we should try to avoid bidding positive diamonds over 2♣ when we are short in ♣ suit, which is likely that pd will bid them.

2♣--3♦
4♣

is an auction from hell ffs and should be avoided at all costs imho. You don't need preempting opponents if your system is forcing you to bid like this.

[mikeh]

wank, on 2015-January-09, 19:05, said:

it rather depends what the rest of your system is. for example many people in my locality play 3S directly as 4S, longer diamonds, in which case 4S over 4C would have to be a cue. i believe this is also quite popular in forum land. no reason for it not to apply after 2H.

i rather agree with you about bidding 3 diamonds though. still, that wasn't part of our remit.

You play that responder bids 3S to show spades with longer diamonds? First I've ever heard of and I hate it. I am well aware of the gadget where opener bids 3S over a 2d response with spades and longer diamonds and played it for a short time, but I've never heard of any pair intentionally preempting their own power auction as badly as that. Are you sure you meant this?

[Fluffy]

MrAce, on 2015-January-10, 07:20, said:

Hmm......No! Not even close. Sorry m8.



I don't know what is it between you and Mike that you feel obligated to disagree with him, but imho you should not let this affect your bridge judgement. Especially when it is about the basics of bidding. In fact, what Phoenix said makes much more sense than what you are trying to attribute to him.

Now back to what you are trying to attribute to him. If 4♣ is not self sufficient and/or setting trumps, then 4♦ or 4♠ by responder better be natural since you are burning all your bridges to find another fit. For example, responder may hold AKxxxxx cards ♦ suit and void or stiff ♣, I would think a sane person would rebid this suit (diamonds) since has has 2 cards extra than what he showed previously, even if he had A of spades to cue. By allowing 4♠ being a cue, you are not only disabling yourself from bidding spades naturally, but also disabling yourself from rebidding diamonds naturally. This is just unplayable unless one thinks that 4♣ sets the trumps. Which is pretty much unplayable in itself unless you play something like Wank suggested. And all of this for what? Like most people do, you do not want to use 4♥ bid just because you have xxx in this suit when it is the only cue available. You can and imho you should use 4♥ also for ambiguous hands like the one we have in hand, where we do not have a clear bid.

It is ironic that you mention use of 4♠ being natural is not good, while you seem to spare 4♥ for only specific purposes, which should be pretty flexible bid when auction got too high with no one being sure where our fit is, if any.

You are very wrong here, it is perfectly playable for bids that are impossible to be natural bids to be cuebids while possible natural bids to be natural. That's how I would play it on this sequence. Chances of a 4-4 playable spade fit are somewhere on the 3-5% camp, while a 6-2 or 7-2 diamond fit will be about 10 times more likely. I have found many similar situations with the same scheme: new suit at the 4 level is a ceubid agreeing last one, while a previously bid suit is natural proposing this strain rather.

About me and mikeh you are getting a wrong impression, we agree with each other on most topics, but Murphy's law makes you notice only the few times we disagree. At least in my case, I don't waste everyone's time by quoting him to say he is right, He is right by default, and there is little sense saying so. But here he was wrong, IMO he was very wrong on the starting line where he says on the BIL to a non usual poster that he is either biased or a bad player.

[rmnka447]

There's a theme that seems to come up again and again in bidding when opener has a really big hand. It's often better for responder even with a very good hand to get out of the way of the big hand and let the big hand start describing their hand. Once some information about the big hand is gained, responder may be in a better position to help find the optimum place to play.

I'm not saying that responder should always forget about showing really positive values, but it's at least something to consider.

Here, with a forward going PASS available, responder might consider using that instead of bidding 3 ♦. If RHO has ♥s, bidding 3 ♦ forces the auction to 3 ♠ or higher when it comes back around to responder. At that level, responder still won't know much about opener's hand.

However, over the PASS, opener is probably able to make about the same bid that would have been made over an uninterrupted 2 ♦ response. So the auction will be able to proceed pretty much normally, provided there's no huge ♥ raise. Over 2 ♠, 3 ♠ by responder will be positive move toward game/slam. Over 3 ♣, responder can still show ♦ with a 3 ♦ bid. Opener might rarely just be able to find a 2 NT or 3 NT bid over the PASS. Either would be more informative than a 3 NT call over a positive 3 ♦.

The above principle has popped up in a number of discussions with friends about hands, but probably most often about making a positive minor response versus a 2 ♦ waiting bid over a strong 2 ♣.

[Trump Echo]

Answering the OP...

Obviously it helps to be playing with your regular partner.

South would see the slam in Clubs right away due to the positive response and the self supporting Clubs. The odds of taking 7 with Hearts to the AJ10 is small seeing as how North has already promised honors in Diamonds. So we would end up slamming in Clubs. South would call 4 Clubs forcing (this would not set clubs) but we would end up at 6 Clubs at the very least.

We would likely miss the grand slam.

I do see the advantage of responder passing the first round though. It does increase the odds of finding 7.

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2015-January-10, 11:55, said:

You are very wrong here,.....

I am rarely wrong when it comes to basics. This maybe one of those rare times and I never ignore this possibility and I am always open to learn. But imho seeing both hands made you blind. Because I know you are better than that and you are confusing this one with other auctions where a new suit at 4 level, is a cuebid, indeed. Not this one though, sorry m8.

Here is what people think when they do not see both hands and are unbiased.

FYI

http://bridgewinners...le-an-argument/

[Fluffy]

MrAce, on 2015-January-10, 13:20, said:

I am rarely wrong when it comes to basics. This maybe one of those rare times and I never ignore this possibility and I am always open to learn. But imho seeing both hands made you blind. Because I know you are better than that and you are confusing this one with other auctions where a new suit at 4 level, is a cuebid, indeed. Not this one though, sorry m8.

Here is what people think when they do not see both hands and are unbiased.

FYI

http://bridgewinners...le-an-argument/

Fluffy, on 2015-January-10, 04:14, said:

Although at first I though that 4♥ should be the bid as 4♠ is too risky, and might be taken as natural, I later realiced that 4♠ as natural makes very little sense (upong reading phoenix reply) and I mover towards the cuebid camp, still I understand that the "if a bid can be natural it is natural" rule is too strong, so some players will play 4♠ as nat, even if clearly not best on this particular situation. But I would not.

Some people prefer clear agreements over best agreements, and they have a very good reason. I am just not like them. Also I would open 1♣ many hands that you would open 2♣ including 5+♣ and 4♠

[MrAce]

Gonzalo, I have no problem with that. But we are debating a hand in the context it was given to us. Hell...I would probably never bid 3♦ over 2♥ if it was my own auction. Now we are in a position, not sure whether we should find a fit, or start cueing and hope that we will eventually find a fit.

But that poll in BW shows, I am not as wrong as you said I am.

All this time in this topic I have explained you why I do not like 4♠ being a cue and/or why I do not like 4♣ setting trumps. Now would you please explain me, what is it that you do not like about 4♥ by responder being used as a flexible bid and that it does not promise any values or control in ♥ suit? What do you lose for using it this way? What is your alternative usage for that bid. And what advantages does it give you?

[Fluffy]

you inmediately land in 5♣ when neither partner has heart control when 4♥ is meaningful. Opener also rules out grand with heart singleton or heart king. It is obvious how having 2 options to cuebid is superior to having only 1.

Another thing that I didn't mention, although I was scared of partner reading 4♠ as natural, I am also scared of partner taking 4♥ as a control for clubs landing in a no play slam. Your partnership experience will tell you which one is more likely.

MrAce, on 2015-January-10, 15:05, said:

But that poll in BW shows, I am not as wrong as you said I am.

It is a free country and I am entitled to my wrong opinion. Wait, what country are we in?

[benlessard]

For me its just common sense when im at 3D or 3H. Bids that bypassed 3NT show a strogn interest in slam or 5m.

4m got to be a self sufficient suit or natural with a fit im partner suit. If opener is looking for a stopper/for 4S or hes got so-so clubs all he has to do is bid 3H. 3H tend to deny a D fit not show one.

After 3D-3H-?? the same logic applies.

Without 4S and no stopper ill bid 3S (punt to keep 3nt in the picture)
With a stopper ill bid 3NT
and the rest is available to show 4S or 5D+5C or awesome diamonds.

[mikeh]

benlessard, on 2015-January-11, 09:55, said:

For me its just common sense when im at 3D or 3H. Bids that bypassed 3NT show a strogn interest in slam or 5m.

4m got to be a self sufficient suit or natural with a fit im partner suit. If opener is looking for a stopper/for 4S or hes got so-so clubs all he has to do is bid 3H. 3H tend to deny a D fit not show one.

After 3D-3H-?? the same logic applies.

Without 4S and no stopper ill bid 3S (punt to keep 3nt in the picture)
With a stopper ill bid 3NT
and the rest is available to show 4S or 5D+5C or awesome diamonds.

Another example of allowing knowledge of the actual hand to create 'common sense'. The key to understanding these situations is to ignore the actual holdings and just think about the auction. Many players don't appear to be capable of this.

Btw,if one agreed that 3D denied any other 4card suit (as I think it should), then 4S in the OP, over4C, would be a cue. I am a strong believer that responder NEVER shows a positive suit response with a complex hand, but most here don't play it that way, although quite a few seem to forget that when it is convenient, in order to handle an awkward hand double-dummy.

[wank]

mikeh, on 2015-January-10, 08:37, said:

You play that responder bids 3S to show spades with longer diamonds? First I've ever heard of and I hate it. I am well aware of the gadget where opener bids 3S over a 2d response with spades and longer diamonds and played it for a short time, but I've never heard of any pair intentionally preempting their own power auction as badly as that. Are you sure you meant this?

i did mean it. i have played it myself with partners who like to get their own way when it comes to bidding (not that i'm claiming to play superior methods. i'm lazy and happy to sit down with anyone and see what happens with no more discussions than leads and signals). of course you're right though that its infinitely less attractive by responder, as opener very frequently has a strong 1 suiter to make up his 2C strength, but, well, people like consistency. i might be wrong, but i'm sure i've seen it espoused on here from both hands.

[benlessard]

Quote

Another example of allowing knowledge of the actual hand to create 'common sense'. The key to understanding these situations is to ignore the actual holdings and just think about the auction. Many players don't appear to be capable of this.

For many years Ive discussed these cases on bbo. Im not suggesting these methods are standard but the mechanics is simple and should be easily understood by any serious partnership. Just think about the auction a little bit more and look at these examples and you will see that im not resulting.

1S-1Nt
3D-4D

for me its clear that 4D should show a S tolerance in fact most bids that bypassed 3NT should show a S tolerance while 3S should tend to deny a S tolerance.If you just have a D fit and stiff S you should punt with 3S or use and artificial cheapest bid if you like gadgets. Keeping 3NT in the picture by bidding under 3NT is just common sense and isnt a complex method.


1NT--2C
2H---3D (GF natural 5/6D+4M but the M is not knowned)
??

same here you need 4S to bypass 3NT so 3S should denying 4S not show 4S. Unless you have a perfecto hand with good D support.

1D-1S
2H-4H

Its noob bridge to wait to have 4H to reverse in 2H. So for 4H either responder wait too long to have a 5S+5H or just use the common sense agreements that you need a D tol to bypass 3NT. If you dont have a willingness to play 5D why are you bypassing 3NT ?


1Nt--2H
2S---3D
??

again 3S should denying a S fit while most bid over 3NT should show a S fit. Its ok to have some bids that bypass 3NT without a spade fit but these should be super fit in the 2nd suit and be mostly perfecto hands that aim at 6m.

2C-2D (waiting)
2S-3D (natural)
3H-??

here again 3S should denies 2S and a H fit and mostly aim at 3NT, while bid that bypassed 3NT should suggest majors.

1D-1S
3D-3H (3H doesnt promise 4or5 H)
??

again 3S should suggest S shortness while 4m should show a S tolerance.

[Vampyr]

These are great ideas, Ben, but maybe difficult to apply and prone to accidents?

[gordontd]

wank, on 2015-January-11, 17:14, said:

i'm sure i've seen it espoused on here from both hands.

I think you have. I seem to remember that I also mistakenly thought they must be talking about opener's rebids when I first read it.

[benlessard]

Quote

These are great ideas, Ben, but maybe difficult to apply and prone to accidents?

If we look at

1S-3S (limit)
4D-4H (4H is cue, not last train)

its counter intuitive that 4H show a club control but denies a H cue, people who are thinking in term of rules will see this as one more exception to learn and probably decide that its an exception that is not worth it. But players who think about the goal of the auction and not just about showing their hand will quickly understand why 4H got to show a C cue rather than a H cue. Sure theyll make a mistakes at first but sooner or later they will need to draw cuebidding inference anyway so might as well learn to do them right at the start.

Once you and your partner start thinking this way there is a lot of cases that you and you partner will be on the same wavelenght automatically.

[Zelandakh]

benlessard, on 2015-January-12, 02:02, said:

its counter intuitive that 4H show a club control but denies a H cue

Play denial cues and everything is intuitive - 4♦ shows a club control and denies a diamond one; 4♥ shows a diamond control and denies one in hearts. You can do a similar thing with showing suits too but noone has written up such a system as yet afaik, with the exception of specific conventions such as Skip Baron. One day...