[Halo]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2008, 06:47 AM, said:

Make our hand

-
98xx
AQxx
A10xxx

and I think we have to bid 6H. Partner cannot realistically expect 3 first round controls from a passed hand.

So there are definitely hands on which it's right to bid.

This is an interesting example, but personally I would open it, so it tends to confirm me in believing I would never raise 5H to 6H.

[gnasher]

NickRW, on Jun 2 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Most of the posters here, you included it seems, seem to be taking it for granted that the 3♠ bid sets up a forcing pass situation.  I didn't, indeed don't, take it that way.

Then in answer to your original question, which was:

NickRW, on Jun 1 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

do you read this auction differently to me.

Yes, and the answer to it was in two of the posts that preceded your question.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-June-02, 06:51

[Vilgan]

NickRW, on Jun 2 2008, 06:49 AM, said:

Most of the posters here, you included it seems, seem to be taking it for granted that the 3♠ bid sets up a forcing pass situation.  I didn't, indeed don't, take it that way.

Huh?

This statement boggles my mind. Suggesting it does not create a forcing pass situation would be very very non standard. I think the main problem in this discussion is a misunderstanding of what 3♠ means here rather than anything else.

3♠ showed shortness and a heart GF. If the auction went: 1♥ p 3♠ 4♠ all pass, someone screwed up. Likewise, 1♥ 2♠ 3♠ 4♠ all pass is the exact same situation. If pass isn't forcing here, what is partner supposed to do if he is fine with 5♥ but wants to give you the option to double in case you are very defensive in the side suits? Double and hope you overrule him? Bid 5♥ and hope its right? The ability to have a partner discussion on this hand outweighs the advantage (is there any?) of allowing it to go all pass after 4♠.

So yes, 6♥ becomes more tempting if you don't play the pass as forcing. But that is a serious system issue that needs to get fixed, not some great argument for why 6♥ is a great bid.

[FrancesHinden]

Vilgan, on Jun 2 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

I think the main problem in this discussion is a misunderstanding of what 3♠ means here rather than anything else.

Quite possibly, because

Quote

3♠ showed shortness and a heart GF.

Very few people would say that 3♠ here showed shortage.

To put it a different way: suppose you had a heart GF without spade shortage, and want to set up a forcing pass, how else would you show it?

[kenrexford]

I have to echo the forcing pass concern and to underline, if not initiate, the concept that this auction is unusual by prior definition.

We already know, per systemic parameters, that Opener had the initial option of an intermediate 2♥ opening. Assuming this, we can conclude that 5♥ will not be based on those hands that qualify as intermediate.

I am also assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that a 1♥ opening could be based on a four-card suit with a roughly balanced hand. Even is that is not possible, a 1♥ opening could easily be based on, I would assume, a high-end weak two in hearts.

If that is accurate, I would imagine 2♠ to be (obviously) forcing 3♥, with an assumption that 3♥ might even fail by a trick on occasion.

In that scenario, which is unusual, I don't agree that a forcing pass in in effect, frankly. Not at these colors. If that assumption is accurate, then what are new suit bids?

I would expect, in this unusual (but sound) approach, that a new minor introduction is natural, showing a player 5-5 and isolating the strength. Sure, a 4NT call as somewhat quantitative or Last Train might make sense. However, it seems that Opener is entitled to rely upon system parameters here. If a 5♥ call cannot logically be a high-end weak two (perhaps a big "if" to some) and cannot be an intermediate bid, then it must show "stuff." If 5♥ shows "stuff," why use 4NT to show that which 5♥ shows?

In looking at some of the SIM hands, though, I have a serious question mark over my head. Some of these hands look like 1NT openers to me. I'm curious as to the agreements as to 1NT openings with a five-card heart suit.

It may be that 5♥ always will show some type of 54 maxi-minimum. If that is the case, I think the tendency is toward a good club secondary, making the slam likely turning on a diamond hook or trump hook/drop. The average hand I'd expect features good trumps and clubs.

[Vilgan]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

Very few people would say that 3♠ here showed shortage.

To put it a different way: suppose you had a heart GF without spade shortage, and want to set up a forcing pass, how else would you show it?

Eh? As an unpassed hand I agree 100%. As a passed hand (with all opps also being a passed hand), what is the advantage of this again?

3♠ with a semi balanced hand (since I apparently don't have a fit jump either) on 10-11 hcp seems silly. Why not bid 4♥ (obviously to make given the passed hand status of everyone)? Its not like my X card suddenly disappeared if they bid 4♠.

Anyways, perhaps I am far off from standard here. At least we agree that 3♠ is a GF, but bidding it with some boring 10-11 hcp hand w/ trump support sounds does seem like it muddies the communication for when we do have a hand like the one in the OP. Or even a more mundane hand like x Qxxx AJxx KTxx where the shortness showing helps partner to judge that we should go to 5♥ and I don't have to just guess on my own when it comes back around to me.

[kenrexford]

Wow. I wonder what the obvious impact of Responder's failure to make a fit non-jump are... LOLOLOL

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jun 2 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

If that is accurate, I would imagine 2♠ to be (obviously) forcing 3♥, with an assumption that 3♥ might even fail by a trick on occasion.

In that scenario, which is unusual, I don't agree that a forcing pass in in effect, frankly. Not at these colors. If that assumption is accurate, then what are new suit bids?

What has a 2♠ bid got to do with anything, other than being insufficient?

Quote

3♠ with a semi balanced hand (since I apparently don't have a fit jump either) on 10-11 hcp seems silly. Why not bid 4♥ (obviously to make given the passed hand status of everyone)? Its not like my X card suddenly disappeared if they bid 4♠.

No, but sometimes it's helpful to invite partner to cooperate. What are you going to bid over 2S on, say,

xx
KJxxx
Axxx
Qx

that's too good a hand for an immediate 4H bid
It's nothing resembling a fit jump

[benlessard]

Quote

Huh?

This statement boggles my mind. Suggesting it does not create a forcing pass situation would be very very non standard. I think the main problem in this discussion is a misunderstanding of what 3♠ means here rather than anything else.

3♠ showed shortness and a heart GF. If the auction went: 1♥ p 3♠ 4♠ all pass, someone screwed up. Likewise, 1♥ 2♠ 3♠ 4♠ all pass is the exact same situation. If pass isn't forcing here, what is partner supposed to do if he is fine with 5♥ but wants to give you the option to double in case you are very defensive in the side suits? Double and hope you overrule him? Bid 5♥ and hope its right? The ability to have a partner discussion on this hand outweighs the advantage (is there any?) of allowing it to go all pass after 4♠.

So yes, 6♥ becomes more tempting if you don't play the pass as forcing. But that is a serious system issue that needs to get fixed, not some great argument for why 6♥ is a great bid.

Quote

Eh? As an unpassed hand I agree 100%. As a passed hand (with all opps also being a passed hand), what is the advantage of this again?

3♠ with a semi balanced hand (since I apparently don't have a fit jump either) on 10-11 hcp seems silly. Why not bid 4♥ (obviously to make given the passed hand status of everyone)? Its not like my X card suddenly disappeared if they bid 4♠.

Anyways, perhaps I am far off from standard here. At least we agree that 3♠ is a GF, but bidding it with some boring 10-11 hcp hand w/ trump support sounds does seem like it muddies the communication for when we do have a hand like the one in the OP. Or even a more mundane hand like x Qxxx AJxx KTxx where the shortness showing helps partner to judge that we should go to 5♥ and I don't have to just guess on my own when it comes back around to me.

I agree with these 2 post.

[neilkaz]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2008, 06:47 AM, said:

Make our hand

-
98xx
AQxx
A10xxx

and I think we have to bid 6H. Partner cannot realistically expect 3 first round controls from a passed hand.

So there are definitely hands on which it's right to bid.

Francis's example hand has the goods needed for slam..ie controls. We certainly have a max for an unpassed hand, but even here PD could simply be bidding 5♥ as a two way shot. However, I don't mind a 6♥ attempt with this max max for our previous bidding. But again wonder why PD didn't bid something other than 5♥ as a slam try ?

[OleBerg]

I pass.

It is correct, that we have a loser less in spades, than we might ordinarily have. But that is a loser less than a mediocre minimum-hand.

If I was opener, and my partner bid 6♥, turning a plus to a minus, I would only shrug my shoulders.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

What would a 5m bid mean?  That depends on what a 4NT bid would mean... personally I play
- 5m as a natural slam try
- 4N as an ongoing move inviting a minor suit cue bid

but I bet very few other people posting here do, I imagine the popular vote is
- 4NT RKCB
- 5m cue bid

Better be carefull with such statements.

According to Jlall, this constitutes highjacking.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 2 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

If that is accurate, I would imagine 2♠ to be (obviously) forcing 3♥, with an assumption that 3♥ might even fail by a trick on occasion.

In that scenario, which is unusual, I don't agree that a forcing pass in in effect, frankly.  Not at these colors.  If that assumption is accurate, then what are new suit bids?

What has a 2♠ bid got to do with anything, other than being insufficient?

Good point. I somehow missed that the cue was 3♠ rather than 2♠.

Tougher problem...

[FrancesHinden]

It's obviously relevant to our call now what partner's 5m would have meant.
Just as the assumptions about what our 3S bid showed matter.

[mikeh]

I am late to the thread, having been tied up with losing an event

I agree with the passers, for most of the reasons advanced by Justin and Frances. Let me add a thought.

We have made a 3♠ call that created a fairly good image of our hand, which image was probably sharpened by the 4♠ call. We are a passed hand, that forced to game over 2♠. Hence we have a shapely 9-11, with 4+ hearts and (due to the 4♠ bid if not already clear) short spades.

Partner KNOWS THIS.

He could have asked us whether we liked our hand within the context of our bidding to date. Had he done so, I think most of us would be very happy to say we love our hand.

He didn't ask that question.

He doesn't want to be in slam opposite a very good 3♠ call... which is the hand we have.

If you bid over 5♥, then you are insulting your partner. If slam is good opposite this or similar hands, then partner doesn't have a 5♥ bid.

Now, that is not to say that there are no hands on which you can override partner here. void xxxx AQ10xx Axxx is a hand where bidding seems odds-on.

But this hand is extraordinary.... we hold 3, count them, 3 1st round controls and a good potential source of tricks.

The hand we actually hold is very nice, but it is NOT extraordinarily nice in the context of what partner already should be expecting.

Simulations here are of very little use. However, my suspicion is that if slam makes, we should be running simulations from partner's perspective over 4♠. In other words, if slam is a good contract opposite this responding hand, then I would like to see if a simulation were to support partner's decision to bid 5♥... and I would strongly suspect that it wouldn't.

One reason I think that such a simulation might be practical, whereas a simulation based on this thread would not, is that the responding hand is defined by its original pass, its 3♠ call and, to some degree, the opposition action, whereas I think that defining opener's constraints is far more difficult.

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Jun 2 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

..., do you have anything useful to say?

I already have, you just don't get it.