[hijumper]

aguahombre, on May 19 2010, 12:27 AM, said:

2/1 --1c-1H-1S-2D 3C.

Not likely from here we could determine that the spade jack was the key to the grand. Probably die in 6C and lose a lot to the 6NT people.

Just being honest, since I gave the N hand to my reg partner, and didn't mastermind from the South position.

why do you care about s Jack?

[gszeszycki]

Dealer: South
Vul: N/S
Scoring: MP

♠ AQ5
♥ A843
♦ T2
♣ AQJ5

♠ KJ83
♥
♦ A64
♣ KT8742

1c 1h 1s (so much for the EASY PART)

2d (i play fsf only 1 round) (i also play a 3c bid here as invitational with a pretty obvious dia weakness)

2N I am MINIMUM and have a dia stop *(its MP surely you not going to LIE about having a dia stop and force p to make irrational decisions) (in truth i would bid 2n either way) *dont get all carried away with having 6 clubs P knows from get go you probably have 4 and once you bid 2n they KNOW you have at least 4 (4 S max 2 H etc) and if they know % you probably have 5 or more so feeling compelled to show 6 is dereliction of duty when you have NT to find)

3C a key bid P has to have SLAM ASPIRATIONS surely they are not running from 2n to play 3c (in my system they could have bid 3c right away for that)

3D P KNOWS i am minimum with a dia stop and they still looking for slam??? with my 6th club (NOW LOOKING SO MUCH BETTER) all of my power concentrated in my 2 suits (except for dia ACE) I am ready willing and ABLE to cooperate with P thus 3D cue bid (with boring balanced minimum hand say KJxx xx AJx Kxxx) i am rebidding 3n (if p wants to go on they can bid 4c then i will bid 4d). The 3d bid now helps P know i am unbalanced. The key part to this 3D bid is that now BOTH partners have agreed to slam search so there is no stopping below 4N (thus 3n* is no longer a viable contract)

3H cue bid (dont bother telling me you found a 6th heart it's too late)

3S cue bid (yes i can cue bid kings)

3N* (see note at end of 3D bid above) I use this as showing 2 of top 3 trump (in this case clubs) honors (though some captain freaks might like to play it as asking for more information) note also that one could bid 4c to DENY 2 of top 3 honors and still keep bidding LOW since we are forced to at least 4n.

4D (confirms the ACE)

4H (confirms the ACE) this bid is important we have already shown all side side suits controlled AND good trumps P must now be looking for SEVEN so our bididng is now forced to 6C and all else can be cue bid)

4N confirms last of missing club honors denies SPADE A.

5C confirms spade A but nothing further to add (still looking for 7) NOTE a case can be made here for 5s confirming the A AND providing the Q or J of spades ( partners KNOWN 4 card suit) but since P can always ask for that later it is best to keep bidding as low as possible since any other cue bid by P might be sufficient for us to bid grand

5S this is CRUCIAL. This bid looking for a card otherswise impossible to find spade Q or spade J (in this case looking for Q since i own the J). I make this bid because I can see 7clubs making since P has at most 5 spade/dia and they will be covered with my 4 spades and dia ACE

7C I have spade Q (or J)

P I can count 12 tricks off top in NT and 13 off top in clubs and have no reason to assume P has an extra K they failed to cue bid---if they have the QJ dia and the finesse works (i just say i HATE MP and take my bottom sigh when the field bids and makes 7n) ruining all of my bidding artistry with LUCK sigh.




and i did all this w/o having the director called even once:)

[wyman]

hijumper, on May 20 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

aguahombre, on May 19 2010, 12:27 AM, said:

2/1 --1c-1H-1S-2D 3C.

Not likely from here we could determine that the spade jack was the key to the grand.  Probably die in 6C and lose a lot to the 6NT people. 

Just being honest, since I gave the N hand to my reg partner, and didn't mastermind from the South position.

why do you care about s Jack?

What 13 tricks are you planning to take?

[gnasher]

How about:

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦
3♣-4♣ (4-6; sets trumps)
4♦-4♥ (cue; cue)
4♠-5♠ (cue; cue)
7♣

South knows that North doesn't have ♥K or ♦K, so he probably has to have ♠Q and ♣A to justify his bidding.

As South in some partnerships I'd be able to bid 5NT as RKCB over 5♠, but if not playing that I think South should just bid 7♣ anyway.

[junyi_zhu]

mikeh, on May 20 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on May 20 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 20 2010, 02:19 AM, said:

Omg, as much as I love saving the space rebidding 2NT is sooooooo baddddddd. Even the stopper itself isn't a good reason since it's anti-positional (in both red suits!)

Well, some bids may not look pretty, but they are more effective than you perceive. How to judge whether a bid is good or bad is not based on whether it looks pretty, right sided, blalba, it should be based on whether it is effective. Here, 2NT to show a stopper is certainly effective when partner holds club support, because it would save 3C for partner and allow you to bid your pattern out, and even allow you to rkc with a void as shown in this case. I am not saying position issue isn't important. However when partner didn't make a certain number of NT bid in the second round, it becomes a minor issue.

Still, traditional 4th suit gameforcing isn't very effective. However, within the ineffective framework, some bidding accuracies can still be achieved. Anyway, improving bridge bidding really need an open mind IMO.

I agree with the sentiment that one should evaluate system choices (such as whether to rebid 2N on 4=0=3=6 with Axx in diamonds) on how effective the choice is, compared to alternatives.

Where I may differ from you is that I see 2N as usually ineffective. I concede: it is effective opposite AQx Axxx xx AQJx, but I think you will agree that that hand type is rare.

I also suspect that you would agree that you'd bid 2N with 4=2=2=5 shape where you chose not to rebid 1N...maybe because you generally show the 9 black cards rather than bid 1N or because, perhaps, you are out of range (15-16 as examples) and with 4=1=3=5.

Partner will usually just blast 3N over 2N with most hands with 3 good clubs. Thus, for example, we'd likely play 3N opposite AQx Qxxx xxx AQx. I think you'd agree that your 2N was ineffective, even if you get lucky and make it.

Now, I see that your 3♣ call showed 3+ clubs, so you may argue that N should bid 3♣ rather than 3N....but opposite the usual 2N, why on earth would anyone look for an 11 trick contract, or a club slam, with 3=4=3=3 13-14 hcp opposite most 4=2=2=5/4=1=3=5 shapes? And you cannot effectively argue that he should bid 3♣ just in case partner has 6 clubs and a heart void. Firstly, that seems improbable even if allowable systemically, and secondly, you need to reserve these 3-level probing auctions for hands on which responder has uncertainty re either or both of level and strain opposite the more common 2N hand-types.

In addition, since the way most play 2N, partner can infer that you are not void in hearts, so may insist on playing in hearts. Or he may be coming in spades, with weak hearts, and you may never get to show either your 6th club (a source of tricks in a spade slam) or your void heart (a control in hearts plus maybe ruffing tricks).

In short, I think that 2N is an incredibly bad choice precisely because I like to maximize the effectiveness of my bidding choices over the range of hands partner might hold, rather than the hand he actually held on the problem posted.

what you are saying is that you think 2NT shows a stopper in D and balanced or semi-balanced shape. Therefore, any other treatments are ineffective and bad.
That's why I said an open mind is needed. With AQx Qxxx xxx AQx, responder should really show club support at some point of the bidding, once he hears partner rebids 1S after 1C opening, because it doesn't require much to make a slam or excellent 5C and 3NT may not be very safe. Suppose your partner holds KJxx x AKQ Kxxxx, if you bid 3NT, your partner may not really want to bid more when you didn't show your excellent club fit, because you may hold something like AQx AKxxx xxx xx and 3NT can easily be the limit. Or your partner may hold KJxx x AKx Kxxxx, where 5C is decent and 3NT would go down after a heart lead which isn't unlikely at all from Kxx or Axx. As I said again and again, you guys really like those bids that look pretty, but proved to be ineffective, like this hand or the faked jumpshift in another thread. These two examples are indeed very similar. In both hands, responder need to bid to the 4th level to show his fit in clubs and has no idea what the pattern opener should have. And one modern bidding principle is that bidder should try their best to set up their trump fit at 3 level.
Also, I am not saying 2NT is a great bid, but it's way better than your seemingly pretty bid of 3C or 3D.

For those who really like 4th suit gameforcing, a way better treatment is to play 2H over 2D as waiting, which is better than the 2NT showing stopper stuff. Still, the overall structure of 4th suit gameforcing is still bad in some other area which I don't really want to show here.

[hanp]

junyi_zhu, on May 20 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

Still, the overall structure of 4th suit gameforcing is still bad in some other area which I don't really want to show here.

Junyi, stop being so modest and tell us what you think.

[dwunn1]

Being that with 2/1 players, with a 1!C opening there is no 2/1 bid. So if you have a response of 1!D and there is no interference the opener is either going to bid a 4 card major or he will bid a balanced 1no. With the 1!D bid which is not being used by the way as a xfer, the responder now has the option of showing a reverse. ie:
1!C, 1!D, 1!H, (1!S). That would be your reverse and a game forcing bid. Other scenarios could be 1!C, 1!D, 1no, 2!H or 2!S,. Quiet frankly I am suprised that there are not more advanced players who are not buying into Walsh.

[Fluffy]

once you know partner has ♠Kxxx but equally likelly ♠KJxx or ♠K10xx anyone knows what the percentage for 4 spade tricks is?

[dwunn1]

Walter was asking for a 2/1 approach or a standard way of advancing this lay out. So being Walsh is not standard then my use of Walsh with an non-Walsh partner is mute. But that being said, in response to bidding 1 diamond with only 1 or 5 diamonds but a gf hand then a Walsh response of 1 diamond is the bid. Bidding a a major to a 1 club opener is on the first implecation to the opener that it is a weak 4 card major. But there is the "HOWEVER". With the void in hearts it would be to my estamation that 6no would be out of the question. The gf response by the responder will allow a suit agreement in clubs as well as cue bidding to finally get to 6 clubs. Not ruling out 6 spades either.

[mikeh]

dwunn1, on May 20 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Walter was asking for a 2/1 approach or a standard way of advancing this lay out.  So being Walsh is not standard then my use of Walsh with an non-Walsh partner is mute.  But that being said, in response to bidding 1 diamond with only 1 or 5 diamonds but a gf hand then a Walsh response of 1 diamond is the bid.  Bidding a a major to a 1 club opener is on the first implecation to the opener that it is a weak 4 card major.  But there is the "HOWEVER".  With the void in hearts it would be to my estamation that 6no would be out of the question.  The gf response by the responder will allow a suit agreement in clubs as well as cue bidding to finally get to 6 clubs.  Not ruling out 6 spades either.

I suggest you buy, beg, borrow or steal a basic book on walsh bidding.

You and whoever you learned this weird idea from seem to have become confused.

In walsh, a response of 1M to 1♣ is absolutely unlimited in strength, regardless of whether it is bid with a 4 card suit or a longer suit.

The walsh principle revolves around responding hands that hold both a diamond suit and a major.....when no diamond suit is held, 'walsh' doesn't apply.

Playing up the line, with 4M and 5+ (some would argue, 4+) diamonds, one always bid 1♦, expecting that opener would rebid 1M with any 4 card Major, and thus we find our fit.

Playing walsh, one bypasses 4+ diamond suits to bid 1M if one is weak....how weak depends on style...some (me) only bid up the line with gf values, others will do so with invitational or better values.

But no 'walsh' player would expect partner to bid 1♦ on all strong hands with a 4 card major unless partner actually had diamonds! And no walsh player would take a 1M response to 1♣ as promising a weak hand.

Someone has misled you (or you have screwed up learning walsh yourself)

[jdonn]

junyi_zhu, on May 20 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 20 2010, 02:19 AM, said:

Omg, as much as I love saving the space rebidding 2NT is sooooooo baddddddd. Even the stopper itself isn't a good reason since it's anti-positional (in both red suits!)

Well, some bids may not look pretty, but they are more effective than you perceive. How to judge whether a bid is good or bad is not based on whether it looks pretty, right sided, blalba, it should be based on whether it is effective. Here, 2NT to show a stopper is certainly effective when partner holds club support, because it would save 3C for partner and allow you to bid your pattern out, and even allow you to rkc with a void as shown in this case. I am not saying position issue isn't important. However when partner didn't make a certain number of NT bid in the second round, it becomes a minor issue.

Still, traditional 4th suit gameforcing isn't very effective. However, within the ineffective framework, some bidding accuracies can still be achieved. Anyway, improving bridge bidding really need an open mind IMO.

I don't recall saying the purpose of rightsiding is because it looks pretty. It's to get to a contract that makes instead of a contract that goes down.

Have you considered you may belong in notrump very very often here, and that it almost certainly players better from partner's side? Have you also considered that partner might not be able to show clubs UNLESS we show extra club length? You are catering to save 1 level if partner has club support. Any time he doesn't have club support you have done something bad, and often even if he has club support the extra level will not matter.

[dwunn1]

This is for Mekeh, you can say what you want, but for thoses that will just bid up the line or by-pass a diamond to bid a major are just your "standard" bridge players.

KQ65, Q874 Q1042, 8 whats your bid?
10743, K53, KQ974, 8 "
9, A643, Q87654, 96 "
AK54, A6, K8743, 93 "
8, 8654, A1087432, 8 "
8, 8654, A654, Q753 "
654, 863, AQ5, 8743 "
J954, Q6, 87, A10654 "
742,86,AK874, A65 "
Q104, KJ5, J6543, Q9 "
KJ83, void, A64, K108742 "
AQ5, A843, 10,2, AQJ5 "
Your partner has opened 1 club, no interference.
and here partner opens 1 club and responder bids 1 diamond, so now it's openers bid after the 1 diamond by partner.
AK109, AQ9, 87, 10643 what is your 2nd bid?
A874, 10843m A6, AJ5 "
9643, K108, A104, AQ9 "
A64, KQ95 8, AQ743 "

I have no problem with Walsh, anytime you want to go to school I can teach you something. Yes, I can respond with 1 heart with gf values and a 5 carded heart suit. Walsh is so different from Standard, and Walsh bidders should ALERT, in using the 1 diamond approach and even a 1no response and the opener has responsiblity to ALERT as well.

[aguahombre]

deleted

[mikeh]

dwunn1: you may be able to teach me something, but I doubt it is about walsh, lol. whatever you are playing, it is not walsh.

[awm]

Openers natural rebids after 4sf aren't very well optimized. In the auction here of:

1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦

Opener having five spades will be quite rare yet a cheap bid of 2♠ is reserved for it. Opener having three hearts is also rare, especially if you often raise with minimum 4315 patterns (admittedly some will rebid 2♥ here on 4225 with a heart honor too but this just raises frequency a little). In comparison opener's 4036/4126/4216/4xx7 patterns (all of which presumably bid 3♣) are quite common. It seems like poor use of space especially since when opener has these patterns you often want to try for slam in clubs.

Just a thought about a spot where some alternative methods might help.

[mikeh]

awm, on May 20 2010, 11:13 PM, said:

Openers natural rebids after 4sf aren't very well optimized. In the auction here of:

1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦

Opener having five spades will be quite rare yet a cheap bid of 2♠ is reserved for it. Opener having three hearts is also rare, especially if you often raise with minimum 4315 patterns (admittedly some will rebid 2♥ here on 4225 with a heart honor too but this just raises frequency a little). In comparison opener's 4036/4126/4216/4xx7 patterns (all of which presumably bid 3♣) are quite common. It seems like poor use of space especially since when opener has these patterns you often want to try for slam in clubs.

Just a thought about a spot where some alternative methods might help.

I have played a relay method where shape is shown, commonest first, and so on...would need to dig up the notes to describe it: it seemed very effective

[Fluffy]

awm, on May 21 2010, 04:13 AM, said:

Openers natural rebids after 4sf aren't very well optimized. In the auction here of:

1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦

Opener having five spades will be quite rare yet a cheap bid of 2♠ is reserved for it. Opener having three hearts is also rare, especially if you often raise with minimum 4315 patterns (admittedly some will rebid 2♥ here on 4225 with a heart honor too but this just raises frequency a little). In comparison opener's 4036/4126/4216/4xx7 patterns (all of which presumably bid 3♣) are quite common. It seems like poor use of space especially since when opener has these patterns you often want to try for slam in clubs.

Just a thought about a spot where some alternative methods might help.

I am learning a system based on step responses, appart from maybe wrongsiding NT from time to time I think it should be ok (and you can complicate it to make NT always NT)

[cherdanno]

awm, on May 20 2010, 11:13 PM, said:

Openers natural rebids after 4sf aren't very well optimized. In the auction here of:

1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦

Opener having five spades will be quite rare yet a cheap bid of 2♠ is reserved for it. Opener having three hearts is also rare, especially if you often raise with minimum 4315 patterns (admittedly some will rebid 2♥ here on 4225 with a heart honor too but this just raises frequency a little). In comparison opener's 4036/4126/4216/4xx7 patterns (all of which presumably bid 3♣) are quite common. It seems like poor use of space especially since when opener has these patterns you often want to try for slam in clubs.

Just a thought about a spot where some alternative methods might help.

A simple fix is to allow 2♥ rebids with 4225, and to invert the 2♠ and 3♣ rebids.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I have no problem with Walsh, anytime you want to go to school I can teach you something. Yes, I can respond with 1 heart with gf values and a 5 carded heart suit. Walsh is so different from Standard, and Walsh bidders should ALERT, in using the 1 diamond approach and even a 1no response and the opener has responsiblity to ALERT as well.

The problem is that by "Walsh" most bridge players understand the scheme of bypassing diamonds if you have 4 card major.
This treatment : http://en.wikipedia....alsh_convention

What you are referring to is much less known convention. This one:
http://www.bridgehan...d_Responses.htm

You should be aware that if you say "Walsh" 99% of bridge players will think you mean the first one as it's much more popular and always referred in literature as "Walsh responses " or simply "Walsh". Before flaming other posters who actually have a clue you should get in touch with bridge terminology.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on May 20 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

once you know partner has ♠Kxxx but equally likelly ♠KJxx or ♠K10xx anyone knows what the percentage for 4 spade tricks is?

There are 9 spades excluding the AKQ5, and partner has 3 of them. Hence he will have:
KJxx 3/9 of the time = 1/3
K10xx 6/9 x 3/8 of the time = 1/4
Kxxx 6/9 x 5/8 of the time = 5/12

With K10xx, playing from the top and taking a marked finesse when they're 5-1 is about 61%. Adding a bit for card-reading, let's call it 65%. Without the 10, you make when they're 3-3, or 36% of the time.

Hence you make: 1/3 + 1/4 x .65 + 5/12 x .36 = 65%