[Vilgan]

Standard would have to be a cue bid of some sort. The few times I have had this sort of bid come up at the table, the person who bid on had a void and a good hand.. and wanted to explore slam. So they cue bid their void. Now their partner can evaluate a: do I have wasted values, b: do I have a decent slam worthy weak raise, or utter crap with 1Q and 2 J's? If it seems worthy of bidding on, they do so.

I don't think the 4S bid being a void is anything resembling standard. Its just a cue bid. Just most of the time, the cue bid has ended up being a void.

Shortness ask seems like something you can experiment with. However, suggesting it is anything resembling standard (or should be standard) is a bit out there I think.

[kenrexford]

Just to clarify why the "bid where you live" theory of cues here "works."

If you cue 5♣, that allows partner to cue 5♦. If you enable a cue, you are looking for that cue. Hence, 5♣ is "looking for a diamond cue."

If you cue 5♦, that bypasses 5♣ clearly. If you bypass a cue, you need that card. You cannot logically need both spades and clubs, so the clear one is "requested."

If you bid 4♠, you are giving space to define the key feature. The key feature not discoverable by cues is shortness. Hence, Responder shows shortness.

The missing option is a need for a spade control. Hence, 5♥.

[Stephen Tu]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

However, I don't get why the general principle here would be assumed as cuebidding.

Maybe it doesn't make sense logically to you. But if you went out and surveyed 100 adv/expert players, well north of 90 of them would probably agree with a statement along the lines of "it may well not be optimal in an advanced partnership, but undiscussed you simply have to assume cue-bid". So the general principle is simply determined by the assumptions of the bulk of the players. The simple fact that *no one* on these boards is coming to back your proposal that shortness ask is standard should suggest to you that you concocted your own general principle here rather than taking it from actual player practice.

Quote

The people with whom I play use LTTC and Serious 3NT.

Which cannot remotely be assumed to be on without discussion either ...

Quote

So, the cheapest call, as in most situations like this that I have discussed, is usually a shortness ask.

Which other auctions, other than 1M-3M-(3M+1)? List a few?

Quote

When a sequence like this has occurred (many times), I have assumed this set of parameters correctly because that's what partner also assumed.

So you've played with people, with no discussion about this, pulled out shortness asking bids and were on same wavelength? What auctions?

Quote

When I checked similar situations through Google, the trend was to confirm what I was taught, but this precise situation is never discussed.

Confirm on which auctions? Please provide a link to any article that you believe suggests shortness asking bid is standard and can be assumed w/o discussion other than jacoby 2nt or Mathe.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

The people with whom I play use LTTC and Serious 3NT. The GP resulting from this is that cuebidding is done below game, not above game, with rare exception.

I play both of these too, but that doesn't mean that I don't cue bid at the five level. The five level is used to cue bid cards that there wasn't space to cue bid earlier.

Are you saying that you just skip the five level entirely? Or do you do your cue-bidding at the four level and then use the five level to finish finding out about each other's shape?

[kenrexford]

First Stephen Tu Question Line: Examples of Shortness Asks?

The "shortness ask" applies whenever partner has just made a call that promises or very highly advertises shortness. Examples:

1NT-P-3♦(both majors, GF)-P-3M(agrees major, shortness ask)
1NT-P-2♣-P-2♦/♥-P-2♠(5-card unbalanced invite)-P-2NT(shortness ask)
1M-P-3M-P-3M+1 (mentioned that)
1M-P-3♣(limit raise or splinter)-P-3♦ (shortness ask -- technically a convention)
1minor-P-2minor (lots of shortness asks here)
E.g., 1♦-P-2♦-P-3♣-P-3♦ (shortness ask)

Many others. Often, in the context of a "strange" convention, where a series of bids reaches a level and then a shortness ask kicks in. An example from this year is 2♦(strong, 4+ spades, unbalanced)-P-3♥(GF spade raise)-P-3♠(6+ spades)-P-3NT(shortness ask). We had not discussed this 3NT call because it was obvious.


Second Stephen Tu Question: Confirmation Link?

I have not recorded it. However, the specific reference could be Google'd through terms I used, like shortness, asking, 4M, jump, stuff like that. I found a write-up with exactly what I was describing, except in the context of a 4♦ super-limit raise (4♠ asked shortness, etc.). As this link, wherever it was, referenced Jeff and SOloway, I assumed that it was RM stuff. As my source was second-hand RM, that seemed to confirm my thoughts.


Gnasher Question: What's the 5-level?

The 5-level in a side suit means different things in different sequences. But, generally I play that a bid at the five-level could be Exclusion (if that makes contextual sense), or asking for key cards as if this new suit was actually trump (already know about trumps but need more info on this side suit), or sometimes further cues. Almost never patterning out, at least not in the traditional sense.

Jammed auctions depend also on circumstances.

[Stephen Tu]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

First Stephen Tu Question Line:  Examples of Shortness Asks?

The "shortness ask" applies whenever partner has just made a call that promises or very highly advertises shortness.  Examples:

So to support your position that these treatments are "standard" you pull out a bunch of treatments that are practically unheard of and nobody except you and a few others play? Surely you don't play these sequences with any partners after 5 minutes of discussion the first time you ever play with them???

Quote

1NT-P-3♦(both majors, GF)-P-3M(agrees major, shortness ask)

Non-standard. 3d is inv in SAYC, and in "Walsh" responses to 1nt. For systems involving 4-way xfers, I've seen 3d played as both minors GF, and as 3-suited. Your post is the first time ever that I've seen anyone play it as majors GF.

Much more common to play 3H/3S as both majors, inv/gf, and in response to 3H, 3S is to play, and 3nt over 3S is also to play.

Now certainly opposite a GF 5-5 majors it makes sense to relay for the rest of the shape, but I'm not going to yank out 1nt-3d undiscussed and think anyone on the planet will think I have majors.

And even over 1nt-3S GF, I'm not going to assume 4c is a shortness relay either.

Quote

1NT-P-2♣-P-2♦/♥-P-2♠(5-card unbalanced invite)-P-2NT(shortness ask)

(1) A lot play that 1nt-2c-2h-2s is a *4* card invite, and 2nt is to play
(2) I would never assume shortness ask is standard even over the 5 cd
unbal invite without discussion.

Quote

1M-P-3♣(limit raise or splinter)-P-3♦ (shortness ask -- technically a convention)

Another non-std treatment. Of course if you are playing some sort of spl in any suit convention you have some way to unwind which suit it is in.

Quote

1minor-P-2minor (lots of shortness asks here)
E.g., 1♦-P-2♦-P-3♣-P-3♦ (shortness ask)

No one but you assumes this is shortness ask without discussion.

Quote

Many others.  Often, in the context of a "strange" convention, where a series of bids reaches a level and then a shortness ask kicks in.  An example from this year is 2♦(strong, 4+ spades, unbalanced)-P-3♥(GF spade raise)-P-3♠(6+ spades)-P-3NT(shortness ask).  We had not discussed this 3NT call because it was obvious.

Again, non-std, you are playing in an established partnership with artificial openings and have presumably discussed a structure over these or explicitly set up shortness asks in parallel meaning auctions. You expect to sit down with random expert, agree SA / 2/1, and think 2d opening is anything other than weak 2?

Quote

I have not recorded it.  However, the specific reference could be Google'd through terms I used, like shortness, asking, 4M, jump, stuff like that.  I found a write-up with exactly what I was describing

Finding a writeup of someone's system notes, presumably developing an advanced partnership with lots of special sequences fleshed out, is not the same as finding a description of "standard". An appearance of something in Meckwell system notes doesn't make it a standard treatment! If anything that makes it more probable as *non-std*, as if were just bog std and a no-brainer to play something as a shortness ask, people often wouldn't bother writing it down!

How about something in a book or web site purporting to teach advanced/expert standard to a general audience, that presents a particular shortness ask as something that can be just assumed as a given without agreement? *Other than responses to Jacoby 2nt*. I am fairly sure you won't be able to find any!

[kenrexford]

How about this, Stephen. There is nothing "standard" here. I'll challenge you to find a single reference to any "expert standard," any "non-expert standard," or even a single note in any single published or unpublished system notes where anyone has ever put down to writing what the Heck 4♠ means in this sequence. I doubt you will find this, because no one ever discusses what Opener, with a massive hand, does when his partner, as a passed hand,leaps to game as his first call, with no competition.

You will not find anything where anyone calls this a shortness ask, anything where anyone calls this a cuebid, or anything where anyone calls this natural. In fact, this is the funny thing -- why not natural? Why not simply 5♥ as a quantitative invite and 4♠, 5♣, and 5♦ as natural calls, showing a second suit and a distributional two-suiter? Why assume (apparently) that 4♠ shows a spade control?

The question is not so much what 4♠ means. The question is what Responder should show.

Now, it seems wildly inconsistent for the majority to imply that 5♦ (in the underlying example) is somehow the right call because Responder has a diamond control. Why not 4NT to show the spade control, the cheaper call? Then, after 5♣, show the diamond "control?" If you are supposed to cuebid, why not cuebid the spade control?

What I found was that a general trend exists for treating the relay as a call that enables a bid of the shortness, whether Mathe or the Meckwell (it seems) 4♠ rebid after a 4♦ one-under heart "super limit" Swiss-type bid. If memory is eased by consistency, it seems to me that 4♠ in this auction should be enabling of shortness bids, for all the reasons that Mathe makes sense and that 4♠ (hearts agreed) after a 4♦ super-limit make sense PLUS consistency.

In the end, this sequence is never discussed. I'm rather glad that my mentor, however, would apply consistency principles from theory that is understood to reach this same conclusion. If that is not the "standard" understanding, fine. The standard interpretation that "it is not described anywhere so it must be a cuebid" seems to conflict with the standard interpretation that "if it sounds natural it is," and sounds inferior to that which I learned that "if it sounds like a situation that parallels such-and-such then it does."

[kenrexford]

A quick note reporting back.

Out of curiosity, I contacted Eric Kokish to gain some insights into this specific sequence. I'll assume that his status as an authority as to "expert" bidding is sufficient for BBF purposes?

He noted, first, as some of us have suggested, that the nature of the double jump raise to game by a passed hand is itself not standardized, the specific definition of which for the specific partnership may be critical to determination of precisely what to do after this move.

As to what 4♠ means. I asked Eric whether using 4♠ as a Mathe-like bid was obscure, standard, or a minority position. His opinion was that 4♠ as a Mathe-type bid is "not a common treatment but far better than random control-showing." He noted that a common corollary or variant for those who do use this treatment in this sequence is that Opener's other rebids (apparently 5♣, 5♦, and either 4NT or 5♥ for spades, I am assuming, if this is a corollary) are shortness bids by Opener himself, to help Responder know if his honors are "working."

Thus, the majority position, per Kokish, does seem to be the inferior random control bidding. He noted in this respect that "Experts, alas, are as likely as honest pluggers to leave certain important stones unturned." However, he noted that two minority positions, that he described as "far better" than this majority position, include the Mathe group (with what I learned for alternatives to the relay) and the Mathe variant group who also have Opener make what Eric calls "short suit slam tries" above the Mathe relay.

I guess I learned it the standard Mathe way. I suppose that I was wildly errant in assuming that everyone here either played the far better Mathe approach or the new fangled and perhaps even better Mathe variant. Sorry. Thank God I bid 3NT with those hands, avoiding the problem altogether.

LOL

[Stephen Tu]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

where anyone has ever put down to writing what the Heck 4♠ means in this sequence.  I doubt you will find this, because no one ever discusses what Opener, with a massive hand, does when his partner, as a passed hand,leaps to game as his first call, with no competition.

It's a rare sequence, and indeed it will be almost impossible to find any reference to specifically 1h-4h-4s in any standard bidding book. But it is standard, in all commonly available books about bidding, that after a trump suit has been agreed, bids in new suits are control-showing bids of some kind without making other special agreements. Nowhere are shortness asking bids assumed to be standard. Experts would routinely agree that "well with discussion there is probably something better, but default is cue bidding, so 4s must show control in spades and ask for responder to cue".

Quote

You will not find anything where anyone calls this a shortness ask, anything where anyone calls this a cuebid, or anything where anyone calls this natural.

You won't find this sequence specifically, but you will find plenty of statements where after trumps agreed, new suits beyond 3 of trump suit are assumed to be control-showing sans other agreements. Unlike next-step = shortness asks which are never presented as a standard assumption; these are always mentioned in the context of a convention explicitly agreed to.

Quote

Why assume (apparently) that 4♠ shows a spade control?

Because that's what the vast majority of other people assume is the case. You are alone in your current assumptions.

Quote

Now, it seems wildly inconsistent for the majority to imply that 5♦ (in the underlying example) is somehow the right call because Responder has a diamond control.  Why not 4NT to show the spade control, the cheaper call?  Then, after 5♣, show the diamond "control?"  If you are supposed to cuebid, why not cuebid the spade control?

Because many people do not have strictly defined cue bidding methods such as yours where you prioritize showing 2nd round control in a suit where one partner has already shown a control over showing a control in an unbid suit. Some people prioritize control of unbid suits first. This is arguably wrong on a useful space principle basis, but it is an error to assume that everyone thinks exactly the way you do thus whatever you think ought to be some way is actually standard. People are illogical, strange things sometimes become standard.

Also, 4nt undiscussed is highly dangerous because for some people 4nt is always blackwood/RKC even though it's stupid for responder's 4nt to be so in this sequence. So for an expert in a undiscussed situation with a new partner, 4nt here by responder is essentially an unused bid. Yes this is not optimal. But it is standard. Standard is not equal to optimal.

I have no problem with you presenting your ideas as possibly making more sense in an established partnership after discussion. I have a big problem with you presenting your ideas as "standard", that they should be assumed by beginners/intermediates, pickup adv/expert partnerships to be in effect and evaluating bids with all your unwarranted assumptions in effect.

Quote

The standard interpretation that "it is not described anywhere so it must be a cuebid" seems to conflict with the standard interpretation that "if it sounds natural it is,"

Agreement on a trump suit cancels the assumption of natural and changes it to cue-bid, above 3 level.

[xcurt]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I will bet you at even money for $10,000USD that 100 % of them will say something to the effect of "it's a cuebid" or "shows a spade control." We will escrow the money with a neutral third party who will be the judge on whether the spirit of their answer was "cuebid." We cannot lead the people in any way. We cannot speak. If we do, our money is forefitted.

And I thought prop betting at bridge tournaments was dead.

Seriously Ken, if you want to know where to focus your energy on improving your partnerships, look vugraph records from major championships. Even at that level, there are swings in competitive auctions because players don't know which sequence shows a simple raise vs an invitational raise vs a forcing raise in their partnership. And the hand that ended Welland's run at the USITT was 1S-5H-P, 5H was intended as exclusion and 7S, though awful, was cold. Know how to raise partner, and you can play in any field.

[kenrexford]

A few more comments afterwards, missing or ignoring, apparently, what I wrote after discussing this with Mr. Kokish. I'll take his assessment as accurate. When I learned from my mentor what he views as the right way to bid, and the way people I'd want to play with bid, it turns out that this position, at least to Mr. Kokish, is vastly superior to what most experts play, but definitely not what the majority play. An enlightened minority, however, would interpret this auction as I interpreted this auction (and apparently North, it seems, from his call).

Hence, I was errant in thinking that this was "expert standard," learning after all that "majority expert standard" is instead the weaker assumption of cuebids rather than the far better Mathe. I will acknowledge that. Apparently, "expert standard" grabs a lot of agreements that are based on a majority of experts apparently honest pluggers with important stones unturned. OK.

Apparently, expert standard can feature a partnership that does not have enough partnership understanding to avoid 1♠-5♥-P, which frightens me personally but must be reality. I actually and honestly believed that people who can discuss nuances of whether two-way checkback or X-Y-Z makes more sense in the end could actually follow what I believe to be an obvious Exclusion sequence were I playing with any serious partner.

I shudder to think that people can actually dedicate the vast majority of their time in life to one partnership, playing day after day after day, practicing in bidding rooms, but collapse on something like this. I guess I play a completely different game, at least as to bidding. Thankfully for me, so does my partner. I would not enjoy this other game.

With this knowledge, I'd never ante up any money for your bet, jlall. This would be rather silly. People who must not discuss theory as much as I would have expected because they all want to play that which the equally uninquiring majority plays would undoubtedly be quite capable of describing consistently the dumbed-down theory of the majority.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

A few more comments afterwards, missing or ignoring, apparently, what I wrote after discussing this with Mr. Kokish. I'll take his assessment as accurate. When I learned from my mentor what he views as the right way to bid, and the way people I'd want to play with bid, it turns out that this position, at least to Mr. Kokish, is vastly superior to what most experts play, but definitely not what the majority play. An enlightened minority, however, would interpret this auction as I interpreted this auction (and apparently North, it seems, from his call).

You still don't get it.
How much do you want to bet that the player who actually held the North hands intended 4♠ as a shortness ask?

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 13 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

A few more comments afterwards, missing or ignoring, apparently, what I wrote after discussing this with Mr. Kokish.  I'll take his assessment as accurate.  When I learned from my mentor what he views as the right way to bid, and the way people I'd want to play with bid, it turns out that this position, at least to Mr. Kokish, is vastly superior to what most experts play, but definitely not what the majority play.  An enlightened minority, however, would interpret this auction as I interpreted this auction (and apparently North, it seems, from his call).

You still don't get it.
How much do you want to bet that the player who actually held the North hands intended 4♠ as a shortness ask?

You still don't get it.

How much do you want to bet that the North player thought that, whatever the heck 4♠ showed, asked, told, delayed, or suggested, South should show his or her shortness as their next bid? And, hence, that 5♦ showed a stiff diamond?

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

[xcurt]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Apparently, expert standard can feature a partnership that does not have enough partnership understanding to avoid 1♠-5♥-P, which frightens me personally but must be reality.

Maybe they should not have had this accident, but

• there are $scary_number of possible auctions and you cannot hope to have an agreement about all of them
  
• fatigue happens

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 13 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

I have a hard time attributing total insanity to an action that seems like it could be based on ration.

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 13 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Or, is North just a drooling fool?

The answer is yes. Not that hard, was it?

I have a hard time attributing total insanity to an action that seems like it could be based on ration.

Sometimes people make bad bids! That is why there is a forum, called "Beginner/Intermediate" to allow these people to talk about their bad bids, get feedback on their bad bids, and stop making bad bids! Some people are just bad players! They take crazy actions because they don't know what they are doing!

Sometimes, they even make a REALLY bad call! A call that has no merit whatsoever! A call that no half-experienced player would even consider!

BUT THEY NEVER BID 4♠ SHORTNESS ASK WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!!

Is this clear?

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 13 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

Is this clear?

No. Not clear. Here is why...

No one that I know has written down every bid that could ever occur in every conceivable auction, with branches spinning out depending on what certain bids by the opponents mean. No one could reasonably do this. Agree?

So, in the real world, people have agreements that may fit onto a convention card and assume certain GP to fill in the blanks. Maybe system notes are put together, but gaps still must be filled with GP.

GP comes from sources. The sources may be teaching, reading books, forums, mentors, experience, watching what others do, thinking through what seems consistent and logical from similar sequences, and the like. Agree?

If one did not make a _____ call without discussion, then many auctions might go like this. 1NT-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-??? The person would sit there at the table, refusing to bid, because they only agreed "Stayman" and never discussed what happens after the answer. As there are multiple ways to follow up this sequence, and as the school of thinking here is not discussed, no bid can be made.

So, in my humble opinion, a partnership develops best when the two practice together for a reason that is not memorization based. Memorization of system can be done while apart, looking over system notes. A partnership develops when the two players know and agree on schools of thought, such that extrapolation of what "would be in the notes" if the notes were that detailed can be mutually assumed with sufficient and increasing accuracy.

The result of this is two things. First, a developed partnership does make bids that are not "discussed," but they get it right. Second, a developed partnership can usually spot the risk before the misunderstanding.

In other words, if I were playing as South, at least today, I would know that 4♠ could be meant in a few different ways. I would assume that partner assumed shortness ask. I would then make a call that catered to him understanding what page I was on (4NT) if I could. If I could not, and if partner assumed differently, I would immediately be able to say that I misconstrued the sequence as a shortness bid or misconstrued it as a control bid, but I would not need to because partner would also know what happened. We would then probably agree rather quickly which way to go. (In fact, we just recently had a sequence where this very thing happened.)

When analyzing North, he may have trusted South too much to be on his wavelength of style, or he may have been incorrect in his assessment of what "expert standard" is, because he may have been taught or may have studied a different school than South. Or, maybe North made this up on the fly. Or, maybe North was just high on crack. The last seems unlikely, but that seems to be your guess.

Nevertheless, I would not agree that you never make an undiscussed call. You make a lot of undiscussed calls throughout a game and hope that the developing partnership sync will enable you two to get more and more of these situations right.