[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Jun 13 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 13 2007, 06:05 AM, said:

Once my hand is more limited or more precisely described than pd's, pd is Captain. And Captain makes the decisions.

This is isn't the best approach. Systems should strive to make the stronger hand capitain, not the unlimited one.

As for the auction, seems like 4♣ was a bit on the optimistic side. Opener's 3NT clearly says "my reverse is lousy for playing a slam". After 4♣ there's no turning back.

Still, the slam is quite playable.

Actually, I think that systems should not "make" the stronger hand the captain or pre-define anyone as the captain at all.

The "captain" should be a flexible concept very often, with the person having sufficient information to commit becoming captain only when the information exchange justifies his grasping of that position.

If the strong hand can completely describe his hand, or can describe all relevant aspects of his hand, and if the weaker hand has the critical unknown, then certainly the weaker hand should grab captaincy.

Not that this deal provides proof of that concept. It just seems that bidding acumen goes through stages. First, everyone bids their own hand (hopefully accurately). Then, the partnership decides upon the need for captaincy and defines the rules for deciding who is captain. Then, the partnership gets really advanced and allows that captaincy issue to resolve itself on a case-by-case basis.

[whereagles]

ken, the problem with your flexible approach is

1. in the vast majority of cases, the strong hand is better positioned to make decisions

and

2. you'll have a really hard time coming up with rules as to who is capitain and when.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Jun 13 2007, 09:05 AM, said:

ken, the problem with your flexible approach is

1. in the vast majority of cases, the strong hand is better positioned to make decisions

and

2. you'll have a really hard time coming up with rules as to who is capitain and when.

It is not as difficult as you think.

Adding in Serious 3NT and LTTC helps, of course. As do Picture Jumps.

Granted, the stronger hand usually wants to be and should be captain. However, that is far from clear. A simple example of bouncing captaincy in that context might be a strong 1NT opening. The assumption, strangely, is that Responder, who is expected to be weaker, is the presumed captain, because Opener has the more defined hand. However, Opener might become captain, in a sense, after a super-accept of a transfer, or after a mild slam try, or something like that.

[Fluffy]

My rule is responder is always captain when it is non competitive auction (freak hands are exceptions).

That means opener is very rigid, he doesn't raise on 3 cards, nor does he show unbalanced with balanced.

[MickyB]

Yup it seems difficult to stay out, even if I rebid 2NT instead of 2♦.

FWIW, the other table passed 3NT on the same auction. Seems pessimistic to me.

[whereagles]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

A simple example of bouncing captaincy in that context might be a strong 1NT opening.  The assumption, strangely, is that Responder, who is expected to be weaker, is the presumed captain, because Opener has the more defined hand.  However, Opener might become captain, in a sense, after a super-accept of a transfer, or after a mild slam try, or something like that.

In fact, I disagree with making responder capitain. Responder's task after a strong NT should, in my opinion, be to evaluate combined strength and say where the hands belong. After that, opener should take charge. Example:

1NT 2♣
2♦ . 3♣
4♣

From now on, I define opener as capitain. He'll decide whether to stop in 5, 6 or 7.

[foo]

mike777, on Jun 13 2007, 02:48 AM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Jun 13 2007, 02:44 AM, said:

...4N(let's play 4NT, since club is only 5-3 fit and my club sucks big time...) pass

You guys make statements such as 4nt is straightforward but why?
Partner shows 18-19 hcp
We have a very nice 14 hcp with a 5 card suit.
Why is 4nt STRAIGHTFORWARD?

Because =in the context of this auction= we do !not! have "a very nice" hand.

we have a 5332 flat hand with moderate support for pd, no strong source of tricks, etc etc.

After this hand has shown its moderate C support and its 3 A's, it really doesn't have anything else to say.

[FrancesHinden]

This is actually very tough.
Give South the C10 as well, and suddenly you want to be in slam, so it's hardly a disasterous piece of bidding.

Be that as it may, 5NT was a clear overbid. Partner bid 3NT over 3C, so is clearly minimum for the reverse. Give him the CK instead of the DK: Kxx K AQJx KQxxx and grand slam is pretty poor. He can't have Kxx K AKQx KQxxx, that's far too good a hand for 3NT. He can't have Kx of hearts, he would have bid 3H over 3C.


If you were playing some methods later in the auction such as good/bad 4NT you might manage to stay out of it.

[Fluffy]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2007, 09:43 AM, said:

This is actually very tough.
Give South the C10 as well, and suddenly you want to be in slam, so it's hardly a disasterous piece of bidding.

Be that as it may, 5NT was a clear overbid. Partner bid 3NT over 3C, so is clearly minimum for the reverse. Give him the CK instead of the DK: Kxx K AQJx KQxxx and grand slam is pretty poor. He can't have Kxx K AKQx KQxxx, that's far too good a hand for 3NT. He can't have Kx of hearts, he would have bid 3H over 3C.


If you were playing some methods later in the auction such as good/bad 4NT you might manage to stay out of it.

good/bad 4NT hasn't yet reached Spain

[whereagles]

gonzalo, want me to send spain a post package with good-bad 4NT? if so, give address

[helene_t]

I think it's worth discussing with p if a reverse implies good suits. Your bidding is fine but if the partnership prefers opening 1♦, or rebidding 2N, this is the chance of getting it settled.

This is a diabolic deal but I've seen worse slams than this one. It would have been nice if either player could have ended the auction with a non-forcing 4N but I'm not sure if it pays in the long run to be that conservative.

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Jun 15 2007, 10:17 AM, said:

gonzalo, want me to send spain a post package with good-bad 4NT? if so, give address

Don't laugh, but if you could also send an extra with Mixed Raises I'd be pleased, because they also haven't got in here yet.


PS: cappeletti hasn't arrived also, but you can keep it for yourself, thanks

[foo]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2007, 04:43 AM, said:

This is actually very tough.
Give South the ♣T as well, and suddenly you want to be in slam, so it's hardly a disastrous piece of bidding.

Be that as it may, 5N was a clear overbid. (emphasis mine- Foo) Partner bid 3N over 3C, so is clearly minimum for the reverse. Give him the CK instead of the DK: Kxx K AQJx KQxxx and grand slam is pretty poor. He can't have Kxx K AKQx KQxxx, that's far too good a hand for 3N. He can't have Kx of hearts, he would have bid 3H over 3C.

If you were playing some methods later in the auction such as good/bad 4N you might manage to stay out of it.

Frances succinctly makes the same point I've been trying to make for some time in the bolded section of my quote of her.

5N is a slam force. A 5332 with 3 A's + 1 Q and Axx in support is simply not strong enough to force to slam in the context of this auction playing a strong NT based system.


I've never heard of a formal treatment called "good/bad 4N". Anyone got some documentation? Or is Frances "pulling our leg"?

[keylime]

I've heard of it, and play it.

Refer you to Marshall Miles' Comp Bidding for the 21st Century; refers to it as an adjunct to g/b 2NT.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Jun 15 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

I've never heard of a formal treatment called "good/bad 4N". Anyone got some documentation? Or is Frances "pulling our leg"?

There are two versions of good/bad 4N, but the concept is the same in both.

Version 1:
When a minor suit has been explicitly agreed, and we are making slam tries at the 4-level, a 4NT bid shows a bad hand in context and 5-agreed minor shows a good hand in context

Version 2 (a more complex version):
As version 1, but 4NT is a good hand in context if NT have not yet been bid naturally and 5m bad, while 4NT is discouraging if it is a possible place to play.

Assuming version 1, this hand is a good example. I would bid it this way:

1C - 1H
2D- 3C
3NT - 4C
4D - 4H
4S - 5C
P

3C = forcing
4D/4H/4S cue bids
5C = I have extras for the auction so far (3 aces!) but not quite enough to bid a slam, can you see 12 tricks?
P = no, I have horrible trumps

Sometimes the "encouraging" bid is, in effect, a trump cue bid, take an auction such as

1H - 1S
2C - 4C
5C

4C = sets clubs as trumps, suggests cue bidding
5C = I don't have anything to cue bid (we tend to cue 1st round controls) but I'd still like to encourage you to bid on as I have great trumps (xx KQJxx xx AKxx say)
4NT instead = I hate this auction. Please can we stop bidding soon?

When a major is trumps, you sometimes see a jump to 5 of the agreed major being just a general "bid slam if you have extras" bid. You can't do that in a minor, so this is the replacement.


I've seen this played on BBO vugraph more than once in different countries, but I agree it's not that common.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

I play 4NT as 'Last Train' with clubs agreed. With Diamonds agreed, I use 5C also in the Last Train style. It is a great tool to show extra(or minimum) values.

The Italians of years ago used 4NT as a 'on going' bid. It kept the bidding open and suggested a higher contract. Partner was encourages to cue or bid slam.

When asked what it meant, the explanation was 'rollling the hand in a circle in the air' it keeps the auction going.

Edgar Kaplan also liked to use the 'rolling' 4NT in many of his auctions.

Regards,
Robert

[whereagles]

Fluffy, on Jun 15 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

PS: cappeletti hasn't arrived also, but you can keep it for yourself, thanks

so, you DO know of weapons of mass destruction!?

i'm afraid I'll have to call the CIA

[mikeh]

I don't know about good/bad 4N, but I have played, for years, that in a forcing minor suit auction, in which we have cued a major at the 4-level, 4N is NOT keycard: it is showing a hand with ongoing slam interest but not enough to commit to slam. Thus, if ♣s are trump, and we have just cued 4♥, 4N would be an inability to cue 4♠ (either we lack the 1st round control or, if one of has already shown 1st round, we lack second, etc) and yet too much to bid 5♣. So I probably hold a King I haven' t been able to show, or an extra trump or an undisclosed queen in a suit of partner's or something. 5♣, otoh, says: I'm bid out.. nothing left in the tank. If we are in ♦s, then 4N denies a club cue while suggesting too much to bid 5♦. It is not, usually, passable, altho I can think of some auctions on which it would be (say, one of the partners had suggested playing 3N and the other had pulled to 4 minor as a slam move)

I continue to believe that many players would improve their game, in the long term, if they agreed not to use keycard, of any kind, for a year or two. They'd be forced to realize that there are other ways to get to or stay out of slam. Certainly, my experience has been that in these minor suit auctions, keycard is largely irrelevant if you know what you are doing.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Jun 15 2007, 05:34 PM, said:

I don't know about good/bad 4N, but I have played, for years, that in a forcing minor suit auction, in which we have cued a major at the 4-level, 4N is NOT keycard: it is showing a hand with ongoing slam interest but not enough to commit to slam. Thus, if ♣s are trump, and we have just cued 4♥, 4N would be an inability to cue 4♠ (either we lack the 1st round control or, if one of has already shown 1st round, we lack second, etc) and yet too much to bid 5♣. So I probably hold a King I haven' t been able to show, or an extra trump or an undisclosed queen in a suit of partner's or something. 5♣, otoh, says: I'm bid out.. nothing left in the tank. If we are in ♦s, then 4N denies a club cue while suggesting too much to bid 5♦. It is not, usually, passable, altho I can think of some auctions on which it would be (say, one of the partners had suggested playing 3N and the other had pulled to 4 minor as a slam move)

I continue to believe that many players would improve their game, in the long term, if they agreed not to use keycard, of any kind, for a year or two. They'd be forced to realize that there are other ways to get to or stay out of slam. Certainly, my experience has been that in these minor suit auctions, keycard is largely irrelevant if you know what you are doing.

Well we often read comments like this but I think back to Zia playing in the WC with his fellow Paki's and they just decided to have 4nt always be blackwood, 100%.

I remain convinced that very few top WC players play last train, and for those that do I wonder how often if comes up without confusion. Same for exclusion bw, though I will concede more play that than last train.

Congrats to those that bid 4nt as some sort of invite on this auction and stay out of slam.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jun 15 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

I don't know about good/bad 4N, but I have played, for years, that in a forcing minor suit auction, in which we have cued a major at the 4-level, 4N is NOT keycard: it is showing a hand with ongoing slam interest but not enough to commit to slam. Thus, if ♣s are trump, and we have just cued 4♥, 4N would be an inability to cue 4♠ (either we lack the 1st round control or, if one of has already shown 1st round, we lack second, etc) and yet too much to bid 5♣. So I probably hold a King I haven' t been able to show, or an extra trump or an undisclosed queen in a suit of partner's or something. 5♣, otoh, says: I'm bid out.. nothing left in the tank. If we are in ♦s, then 4N denies a club cue while suggesting too much to bid 5♦. It is not, usually, passable, altho I can think of some auctions on which it would be (say, one of the partners had suggested playing 3N and the other had pulled to 4 minor as a slam move)

That seems a very detailed description of a 4N bid exactly as I explained an "encouraging" or "good" 4NT bid above. I told you lots of people bid it...

There's probably some detailed theory possible about whether it's superior to play 4NT as encouraging and 5m as discouraging or the other way round... the logic behind 4NT discouraging is that partner can pass it, though admittedly that's a slightly matchpointy argument. (I've played a few rather delicate 4NT contracts as a consequence.)