[kenrexford]

Because it got off track elsewhere, I thought I'd spin off.

There was an interesting discussion (IMO) of what the meaning was of a 4♠ call after a jump raise to game (by a passed hand, not that it matters much). P-1♥-4♥-4♠.

Obviously, 4♠ asks Responder to tell Opener something and is not simply for fun. So, the question implicitly debated was whether 4♠ asked for honor cues or shortness cues, and how to do this.

I have not yet found anything definitive through Google. However, by inference, I did find some things that were potentially useful.

First, I found a general trend toward relays asking for shortness. For instance, on both the 2001 standard WBF card and BWS, 1M-3M-(3M+1) is a shortness asking bid (also Pavlicek). May be called ""Mathe." Using analogy, 1M-4M-(4M+1) seems to me to be a shortness ask.

I found some "Jeff" notes discussing "Soloway" bids where 4♠ was described in one major sequence as a shortness ask, with 4NT showing the short spade.

From these and a few other notes of various people, it seems fairly reasonable as an extrapolation of "expert standard" that 4♠ in the 1-4 heart sequence would be a shortness ask, 4NT showing short spades.

Justin thinks this is idiotic trolling, BTW. That's why I spun this off.

Any thoughts on this? Anyone have any sources for this sequence?

[Stephen Tu]

It's reasonable to play it as shortness ask. It's also reasonable to play it as
control ask, control showing asking for cue-bid, or even as kickback.
It's not reasonable to assume any of these are standard without discussion. If
it was standard it would be clearly published in Bridge World Standard, or described
in Encyclopedia of Bridge or Truscott's Bidding dictionary as being the standard
treatment.

1M-3M-3M+1 is clearly Mathe shortness ask in BWS. But 1M-4M-? is not described,
so I don't think it's prudent to assume anything is standard. 4nt would be blackwood/RKC presumably lacking any other agreements.

I think both you & Justin went overboard in that other thread, you in the way you presented shortness ask as an obvious standard treatment, and Justin in the level of vitriol in criticizing this.

[EricK]

Shortness ask is not sensible IMO. Why? I'll tell you why!

There are two sorts of hands where shortness opposite will help - hands with a weak suit or hands with a suit headed by the Ace. If you have the former, then going to the five level opposite a pre-emptive raise is very risky - partner might have a weak suit there as well. But if you have the latter then any second round control (K or singleton) that partner has in the suit will be helpful but a void will be less helpful.

The difference between this and 1M 3M 3M+1 is that with a weak suit opposite a weak suit, you can still bail out at the 4 level if both hands have matching weak suits, so extrapolating from this to the next level up is not logically sound.

[kenrexford]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 12 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

It's reasonable to play it as shortness ask. It's also reasonable to play it as
control ask, control showing asking for cue-bid, or even as kickback.
It's not reasonable to assume any of these are standard without discussion. If
it was standard it would be clearly published in Bridge World Standard, or described
in Encyclopedia of Bridge or Truscott's Bidding dictionary as being the standard
treatment.

1M-3M-3M+1 is clearly Mathe shortness ask in BWS. But 1M-4M-? is not described,
so I don't think it's prudent to assume anything is standard. 4nt would be blackwood/RKC presumably lacking any other agreements.

I think both you & Justin went overboard in that other thread, you in the way you presented shortness ask as an obvious standard treatment, and Justin in the level of vitriol in criticizing this.

If it is reasonable to play it as anything, but nothing is agreed, then the bid has no meaning, and the ensuing auction has no meaning. So, one would think that a GP default should exist. Otherwise, the objections in that other post would be that 4♠ has no definition and was, for this reason, a bad bid.

The humorous thing about this is that most people attacked North as making an idiot bid because of how he interpreted 5♦. So, the assumed default was that 4♠ was a bid that asked partner to show side controls.

That seems odd.

I expressed an opinion, albeit a strong one, that Responder should show shortness, a position that is consistent with everything I have read before and recently for similar sequences.

Others expressed an opinion, very critically of North, that is inconsistent with everything mentioned above.

I'll agree that it is never prudent to assume anything. However, in the post-mortem, it seems wise to assume something when two competing ideas lead to a problem. Assuming shortness is not somehow inferior to assuming cue. In fact, I think it is superior and consistent with parallel auctions and with the bid type preceding the call.

[dbsboy]

Shortness ask is not bad...since the 4M bidder always has a short suit.

But i dont think its standard, I play it as a cuebid, and I think most people play this control-showing.

Referring to that 1M-4M thread, I think its North to blame. I think that a hand like this with 2Ks is already a very very good hand one can have, which means that even if responder has short Diamond, Slam is still not quite likely to make.

Btw, I'm not going to risk my 4H, it may go down easily

[Stephen Tu]

Without any discussion, most people assume default cue-bidding in slam investigation auctions. You are the only one here who thinks shortness ask should be standard. So assuming cue bid is a safer course of action when playing with non Ken Rexfords who accept that standard bidding is poorly defined & that a lot of inferences that could be reasonably available a given auction if thoroughly discussed with an expert partner just aren't available in a newer partnership.

I'd only assume shortness ask after 1M-3M-3M+1, and only if the agreement was "BWS" since that treatment is explicitly included. With anyone else that I play 1M-3M as LR, I always confirm this first.

[kenrexford]

Am I reading this right?

1. If we don't have an agreement, assume normal defaults.
2. Normal defaults are to cuebid.
3. Therefore, I'll assume a cuebid.

The problem with this thinking, IMO, is that the "normal default" is not to cuebid in this sequence, for three reasons.

1. Cuebids don't usually start above game. Cuebids usually are concluded below game.

2. When one person has shown a weak (or limited), but a (potentially) distributional hand, and the other is slammish, most auctions/agreements have relays or cheapest available asking bids for shortness asks.

3. The usual accepted progression is suit/suit/shortness. (e.g., Kokish) This is not suit/suit/shortness, but SUIT/suit+suit+shortness (e.g., 5431) seems closer than suit/control (5431 of unknown variety, but an Ace or King here).

[dbsboy]

I cannot even claim that Mathe Asking Bid is standard / widely used on BBO (playing with someone who has 2/1 written on his/her profile I will not assume 1M-3M-3M+1 is Mathe), how can this be?

1. The pt is 'USUALLY'. I wanna cuebid below game too

2. That depends on your style.
a. 1H-2H-2S is not shortness ask in standard
b. There are many hands you would like to know about the location of his controls.....since responder has so few, we want to know if he has that PARTICULAR card or not.....

3. Dunno how to answer your third statement. Dont think its standard though...

[655321]

Without agreement to the contrary, I would always play 4♠ as a cue.

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

3. The usual accepted progression is suit/suit/shortness.  (e.g., Kokish)  This is not suit/suit/shortness, but SUIT/suit+suit+shortness (e.g., 5431) seems closer than suit/control (5431 of unknown variety, but an Ace or King here).

Sorry, Ken, I don't understand what you are saying here.

[Stephen Tu]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

1. Cuebids don't usually start above game.  Cuebids usually are concluded below game.

That's not a standard agreement. Most people's agreements allow for cue-bids above game. They just require higher values than cue-bids below game. Now, certainly many experts have agreements that include waiting bids like non-serious 3nt or serious 3nt allowing cue-bidding below game without extras, avoid silly "fast arrival" bids when partner is unlimited, and use up-the-line Italian styles that avoid skipping uncontrolled suits to show aces ahead of kings, and the combo of all these agreements would make cue-bidding above game rarely necessary. Certainly with discussion then one might want to redefine the bids above game in these cases. But all of these are advanced, established partnership agreements, and pickup & new partnerships cannot assume all of these. Certainly I would never assume with anyone that new suits beyond game cannot be cues. Lots of standard texts describe beyond game cues.

And of course on this auction one didn't have the opportunity to cue below game.

Quote

2. When one person has shown a weak (or limited), but a (potentially) distributional hand, and the other is slammish, most auctions/agreements have relays or cheapest available asking bids for shortness asks.

But only with special partnership agreements. I can't think of *any* shortness asks that really can be considered standard other than jacoby 2nt raises, or the Mathe after a limit raise in BWS. In "Preempts A-Z" there are lots of places where shortness asks & control asks are recommended, but I wouldn't consider any of them standard, as in I'd pull it out with a random expert without discussion and expect them to field it.

Quote

3. The usual accepted progression is suit/suit/shortness.  (e.g., Kokish)  This is not suit/suit/shortness, but SUIT/suit+suit+shortness (e.g., 5431) seems closer than suit/control (5431 of unknown variety, but an Ace or King here).

what????

[dbsboy]

Agree...'Usually' is not right. In expert standard maybe it is.

But playing Acol and Sayc and 2/1 (with Fast Arrival) I think a lot of cuebids start above game. Thx Stephen

1 more thing.

I only dislike those words 'usual accepted' 'most' 'usually' 'normal' 'reasonable' 'assumed' because not only this convention, but the whole set of logic does not seem to fit any of the words above

[rogerclee]

655321, on Jun 12 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

Sorry, Ken, I don't understand what you are saying here.

Do you think you are supposed to?

[kenrexford]

Well, sure. "Standard" and usual and default and the like have various possible meanings depending on what circle you are in. So, I suppose that the underlying question begs a next question, namely what level North and South in the original post were at, and how they generally played.

In that event, the answer should have been that the auction broke down because of a theory difference.

North made an aggressive slam try, one that I would not make. Having done this, South assumed cues, whereas North assumed shortness. I thing ____ makes more sense, but both positions were reasonable. Most do not discuss this sequence with their partners, and that's a second problem with the 4♠ call.

That would have been a fair assessment. No one made that assessment. I defended North. Others attacked North.

But, this idea of what is standard or normal or usual is strange to argue. There are many posts where one can find lots of "clear fit bid" and similar concepts. Fit bids are, in some sequences, very clearly expert standard. However, most bridge players have no idea what "fit bid" means. So, if experts are talking, "clear fit bid" makes sense. If experts are talking about what non-experts would mean, "fit bid" is not in the vocabulary.

[kenrexford]

655321, on Jun 12 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

Without agreement to the contrary, I would always play 4♠ as a cue.

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

3. The usual accepted progression is suit/suit/shortness.  (e.g., Kokish)  This is not suit/suit/shortness, but SUIT/suit+suit+shortness (e.g., 5431) seems closer than suit/control (5431 of unknown variety, but an Ace or King here).

Sorry, Ken, I don't understand what you are saying here.

4N6x^jer. Arcadiad. Hickory dickory dock.

Duh!

[andy_h]

I've never thought about this too deeply and don't really know what's best. But my partner and I currently play 1M-4M-bid as asking for a control in that suit, analogous to 4M-5C etc.

[ulven]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

655321, on Jun 12 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

Without agreement to the contrary, I would always play 4♠ as a cue.

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

3. The usual accepted progression is suit/suit/shortness.  (e.g., Kokish)  This is not suit/suit/shortness, but SUIT/suit+suit+shortness (e.g., 5431) seems closer than suit/control (5431 of unknown variety, but an Ace or King here).

Sorry, Ken, I don't understand what you are saying here.

4N6x^jer. Arcadiad. Hickory dickory dock.

Duh!

This comment hit a new low.

You start a thread and when a participant says he doesn't understand what you mean, you make some mockery reply??

Hell, I don't understand what you mean either, and I know quite a lot about bidding theory. Maybe I should ask Eric.

Pls explain.

[ulven]

Ken,

When it comes to your bidding ideas, I think (more than once) that you are too far off real life bridge playing to appreciate certain aspects. And I don't mean 24-30 boards here and there, I mean 8-14 days of playing at least 40+ boards/day. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As well as experience of high-level bridge myself, I've also had discussions on the subject with people I'm aquianted to. Such as Meckstroth and Duboin (among others). Duboin says he and Bocchi used to add more and more stuff, get to a point it got too much and then to remove parts. Over time in their partnership they went to one end, turned, went the other way and turned again... Finding optimal solutions to every situation isn't good for your bridge results, which may sound like a paradox.

Meckstroth says their system doesn't run as many pages as the legend goes. In fact he claims Eric has a version in shorthand in less than 30 pages. But he never sends it to Jeff, because it never gets read anyway (according to Jeff).

Meck also told me about the time Rodwell decided to solve 1C (16+) - 2NT (14+ bal) and came up with 68 pages (!) to nail down jacks/tens in 4333's facing each other to be able to judge whether a grand slam was odds on or not. This of course had to be thrown out the window immediately as it was totally unplayable in practical play even for guys like them.

This forum is great for ideas though. To a point. Some inexperienced players may take the wrong ones to heart.

[paulg]

ulven, on Jun 13 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Ken,

When it comes to your bidding ideas, I think (more than once) that you are too far off real life bridge playing to appreciate certain aspects. And I don't mean 24-30 boards here and there, I mean 8-14 days of playing at least 40+ boards/day. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As well as experience of high-level bridge myself, I've also had discussions on the subject with people I'm aquianted to. Such as Meckstroth and Duboin (among others). Duboin says he and Bocchi used to add more and more stuff, get to a point it got too much and then to remove parts. Over time in their partnership they went to one end, turned, went the other way and turned again... Finding optimal solutions to every situation isn't good for your bridge results, which may sound like a paradox.

Meckstroth says their system doesn't run as many pages as the legend goes. In fact he claims Eric has a version in shorthand in less than 30 pages. But he never sends it to Jeff, because it never gets read anyway (according to Jeff).

Meck also told me about the time Rodwell decided to solve 1C (16+) - 2NT (14+ bal) and came up with 68 pages (!) to nail down jacks/tens in 4333's facing each other to be able to judge whether a grand slam was odds on or not. This of course had to be thrown out the window immediately as it was totally unplayable in practical play even for guys like them.

This forum is great for ideas though. To a point. Some inexperienced players may take the wrong ones to heart.

Well said.

And good luck next week.

Paul

[kenrexford]

ulven, on Jun 13 2008, 07:46 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

655321, on Jun 12 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

Without agreement to the contrary, I would always play 4♠ as a cue.

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

3. The usual accepted progression is suit/suit/shortness.  (e.g., Kokish)  This is not suit/suit/shortness, but SUIT/suit+suit+shortness (e.g., 5431) seems closer than suit/control (5431 of unknown variety, but an Ace or King here).

Sorry, Ken, I don't understand what you are saying here.

4N6x^jer. Arcadiad. Hickory dickory dock.

Duh!

This comment hit a new low.

You start a thread and when a participant says he doesn't understand what you mean, you make some mockery reply??

Hell, I don't understand what you mean either, and I know quite a lot about bidding theory. Maybe I should ask Eric.

Pls explain.

Actually, I meant this as making fun of myself. I have no idea what I meant either. LOL

[kenrexford]

ulven, on Jun 13 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

Ken,

When it comes to your bidding ideas, I think (more than once) that you are too far off real life bridge playing to appreciate certain aspects. And I don't mean 24-30 boards here and there, I mean 8-14 days of playing at least 40+ boards/day. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As well as experience of high-level bridge myself, I've also had discussions on the subject with people I'm aquianted to. Such as Meckstroth and Duboin (among others). Duboin says he and Bocchi used to add more and more stuff, get to a point it got too much and then to remove parts. Over time in their partnership they went to one end, turned, went the other way and turned again... Finding optimal solutions to every situation isn't good for your bridge results, which may sound like a paradox.

Meckstroth says their system doesn't run as many pages as the legend goes. In fact he claims Eric has a version in shorthand in less than 30 pages. But he never sends it to Jeff, because it never gets read anyway (according to Jeff).

Meck also told me about the time Rodwell decided to solve 1C (16+) - 2NT (14+ bal) and came up with 68 pages (!) to nail down jacks/tens in 4333's facing each other to be able to judge whether a grand slam was odds on or not. This of course had to be thrown out the window immediately as it was totally unplayable in practical play even for guys like them.

This forum is great for ideas though. To a point. Some inexperienced players may take the wrong ones to heart.

I know the exact sequence and reason and story about the Jacks also. I also have a copy of that 30-page system notes (not supposed to -- shshh).

I hear what you are saying. That said, I don't get why this general principle applies here. General defaults exist for a reason -- memory. I agree. However, I don't get why the general principle here would be assumed as cuebidding.

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. The GP, as well, is that you want to make calls that show your critical feature. The usual critical feature is the stiff. So, the cheapest call, as in most situations like this that I have discussed, is usually a shortness ask. The usual default when a shortness ask exists is that calls above a shortness ask look for specific cards naturally.

Thus, if I never discussed this situation and sat down at the table with my partner, I would expect that his learning would lead to a conclusion that 4♠ gets out of the way for the shortness ask, that 5-minor is where he lives and this the other moinor where he does not, and that 5♥ (or 4NT) covers the other hand -- the "I need spades" hand. If the GP that I learned is the right GP to apply, then that application would result. If I were to assume that 4♠ is a cue, that would be against the GP that I learned and would therefore be esoteric and weird.

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

In the forums, I assumed that this GP was fairly normal. Apparently it is not. When I checked similar situations through Google, the trend was to confirm what I was taught, but this precise situation is never discussed.