[pclayton]

HeartA, on Nov 21 2006, 02:34 PM, said:

To me, 1NT response and 4NT over 4S were two contradict bids.  If your hand is not strong enough for 2/1, then you should not bid 4NT over pd's 4S.  It is true that your hand is better than "average" 1NT hand, but it is still a 1NT hand.  Ben didn't agree with 1NT so OKed 4NT.  I am OK with 1NT and so don't like 4NT.

Would it be contradictory for the South hand to make a slam try if the auction had been an interrupted 1♠ - 1N - 4♠ (or even 3♠)?

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

Couple points here: From my perspective, the single worst bid was 5♦. However, we've beaten that horse to death already. As for the rest of it, I'm going to chalk it up to system.

There are pluses and minus to every system. The 4♥ exposed a seem in the 2/1 variant that you're using. You're playing 2/1 GF responses while opening light distributional hands.

I see nothing wrong with using a forcing NT response, planning to show a three card limit raise. As Phil points out, there are a lot of potential 1♠ openings that won't produce game opposite responder's hand.

In a similar fashion, rebidding 4♥ after the 4♥ intervention also strikes me as reasonable. Passing with this type of weak distributional hand is very dangerous. You could be looking at a double game swing.

Finally, its hard to fault responder for looking for slam after the 4♠ rebid. 4♠ is very wide ranging and you have a super max. (I'm somewhat surprised at folks who are simultaneously suggest that that responder is too strong for 1NT, but at fault for bidding on after 4♠)

In short, if you want to open on crap and not use a strong club or soemthing similar to limit your hands, its gonna bite you every once and a while. The benefits could very well outweigh the costs, but don't try to pretend that everything is always gonna be hunky-dory.

Agree; playing a strong club, you would likely keep us out of trouble on this one. Preempts don't have nearly the effect on limited openings as standard openings.

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

Would it be contradictory for the South hand to make a slam try if the auction had been an interrupted 1♠ - 1N - 4♠ (or even 3♠)?

I assume that you are talking about no interruption from opps. Over 1S-1N-4S I would pass. Yes, I have the upper limit for my 1NT response, but still I have only one key card. If my hand becomes xxx, Axxx, x, AJxxx, I might be tempted to bid further. Over 3S, well, depending on partnership agreement. If 3NT is clearly not to play (serious 3NT), I would try that. If 4H is not to play and pd knows it is cue-bid, I would bid 4H. Otherwise, I would simply bid 4S.

[Echognome]

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

The fact that the 4♥ bidder had no idea what he was doing is entirely beside the point.

Ahem... the 4♥ bidder had a 5 loser hand at favourable and although the bid would not have worked out if the opponents defended, it happened to work out. With both North and South bidding is there any reason the 4♥ bid has to be entirely preemptive? If so, let me play against you because then I always know what your bids show.

Let's rather say that we might not agree with the 4♥ bid, but the fact that it may be wide ranging should come as no surprise.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Nov 22 2006, 04:27 AM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

The fact that the 4♥ bidder had no idea what he was doing is entirely beside the point.

Ahem... the 4♥ bidder had a 5 loser hand at favourable and although the bid would not have worked out if the opponents defended, it happened to work out. With both North and South bidding is there any reason the 4♥ bid has to be entirely preemptive? If so, let me play against you because then I always know what your bids show.

Let's rather say that we might not agree with the 4♥ bid, but the fact that it may be wide ranging should come as no surprise.

Agree with Matt...

You might not approve of the 4♥ bid, but the bid did its job... Without the intervention, I doubt that Phil and co would have bid a grand off three keycards

[gwnn]

This unfortunate misunderstanding is good advertisment for "1♠-2♥=9+ support points, 3 card raise" (and 2♠\4-8 3 cards). Then 4♠ wouldn't imply this monster hand which on first sight it would imply.

[EricK]

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

I also don't agree that this hand is worth a game force. Give pard a very plain opener; AQxxx, xx, AQxx, xx and game needs an awful lot. A little more, and pard would accept a game try.

He doesn't necessarily need a little more, he needs stuff in different places. AQxxx Qx Axxx xx, for instance, or even AQxxx KQ xxxx Jx massively improve chances for game and I doubt your system can differentiate between these - and by many counts these hands are actually slightly weaker than the one you quoted.

Quote

The only way a 2♣ response pays off is when pard reveals a double fit; AQxxx, xx, xx, Axxx for instance (and this isn't an opener for many). I also have methods (via an ambiguous 2♣) where I can show a 3 card limit raise cheaply. 

2C can also gain in finding the low point count slams with two running 5 card suits. But this is perhaps of minor significance.

This is of course one of the major flaws with many incarnations of 2/1 - on invitational strength hands, there is often no way to tell your partner which cards are useful for game.

[microcap]

gwnn, on Nov 22 2006, 03:04 AM, said:

This unfortunate misunderstanding is good advertisment for "1♠-2♥=9+ support points, 3 card raise" (and 2♠\4-8 3 cards). Then 4♠ wouldn't imply this monster hand which on first sight it would imply.

I have discussed just this type of hand with Rex for a long time with no resolution. I have found 3 card intermediate raises very awkward in standard 2/1.

That said, I am not likely to give up the natural 2♥ bid. Are there any ideas or threads out there for this issue?

[gwnn]

Actually, what you're giving up is the natural 2♦ bid as you'd now use it for transfer. 5+ ♥ with optional strength (weak or GF/any).

[whereagles]

I think 4NT was the only bad bid here, although it's a very human bid to do. It requires a lot of experience, good judgement and a clear head to pass 4♠. I've been in situations like these before and 95% of the time when I pressed on to slam, it would be a bad one. So now when in doubt, I just settle for the sure plus.

1NT was ok. If you have in your system "limit raise = 1NT + 3M", what else can you do? At most you could try and change methods, AFTER the hand's over.

4♠ was ok too. A hand with an ODR of 6 and good spades cannot let opps play 4♥, period. Wouldn't we all bid 4♠ with that hand over a 4♥ opener by RHO? Why not doing the same here?

After 4NT all hell broke lose, so the rest isn't too important.

[inquiry]

Now that we have fallen into several camps on this hand, we can get past the worse bid concept and deal with the problems this hand shows.

First, is VUL if this responder hand is not GF, how different should it bd
Second, is it right to show distributional limit raise through 1NT and it not what other strategies might be useful?
Fourth, what is the minimum and maximum hand for an unsupported 4♠ after a 1NT response and a barrage bid. Maybe some new thread to address these various issues.

[temp3600]

I'm surprised that there are so few comments about the 1S opening. If the North hand had been given as an opening bid poll, with 1S, 3S and 4S as options, I would have expected 3S to be chosen the most.

[microcap]

gwnn--- do you have a whole structure for this problem that I can look at ? thanks

[Winstonm]

I'm sure others have posted on this - I have read them but it's been a while - but I am in the camp that using a forcing NT for anything but a bad raise is a fault in the system. I would rather sacrifice the knowledge of 4-card support in order to gain the information that a limit raise is across from opener - IMO it is very much like an opening 1N in that the hand that has the ability to define within a narrow range should do so and do so quickly.

The other problem here it seems to me was simply lack of discussion of an auction that occurs rarely - it seems South thought 4S a bigger hand while North had other ideas - that to me is simply a misunderstanding and not an error from either.

But I can't help but point out that regardless of the understanding, if South had been able to limit his hand and support immediately, he would not have felt compelled to move again over 4S.

When this sort of semi-accident occurs at the table, I have found from my experience that it is ususally best not to speculate and simply stop bidding at a reasonable sounding contract.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Nov 21 2006, 01:29 PM, said:

4NT is the worst bid by far. Nth is under pressure and may not have bid 4S if the opps had not bid 4H. 4NT is unsympathetic to say the least - most unlike you too, Phil.

Sorry to reopen this old post being late but, I was really surprised only Ron though 4NT was worse bid, first of all is the one that makes a plus into a minus unavoidable, maybe you might win slam sometimes, but 1NT was bid to show a limit raise at most, by reopening you are being inconsistent with your previous bid (sorry phil!, ow I know it was you)

About the 6♦ bid, I would rather pass 5♦ than bid 6♦ with my regular partner, but only with my regular partner, I know there are some people out there who abuse 1NT with monster balanced hands, so that question is only to be discussed with phil and his partner.


EDIT: Thinking more carefully, 1NT might have been bid to show an intermediate 4♠ raise, maybe on that case you can have the rights to reopen 4♠, althou it is not very clear.

[microcap]

winstonm--you articulated my question well....so what solutions do people use to distinguish a 3 card limit raise from a 4 carder, or do you just raise immediately and not worry about it?