[foo]

navit, on Jun 29 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

How do I respond to my partner's opening bid of 1♥. she was 2nd seat. I was 4th

This was my hand
?????,Both,IMP
♠ Q9432 ♥ AJ7 ♦ KQ ♣ KT5

Wow, I just saw all this.

Ken, before resorting to "super science", let;s see how far inituitive bidding can get the B/I's? Until you know natural bidding well, super science can be very dangerous to the user...

1♥-1♠;??
1n => no problem, we rebid 4H and we are done.
2m => 4SF followed by 4H's shows this hand fairly well.
2h => 4H.
2s => Yum. A 2x fit with at least one of them 9 cards +and+ we still have undisclosed extra's.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the problem with a 1S response that requires heroic measures to solve.

[EricK]

foo, on Jun 30 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

navit, on Jun 29 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

How do I respond to my partner's opening bid of 1♥. she was 2nd seat. I was 4th

This was my hand
?????,Both,IMP
♠ Q9432 ♥ AJ7 ♦ KQ ♣ KT5

Wow, I just saw all this.

Ken, before resorting to "super science", let;s see how far inituitive bidding can get the B/I's? Until you know natural bidding well, super science can be very dangerous to the user...

1♥-1♠;??
1n => no problem, we rebid 4H and we are done.
2m => 4SF followed by 4H's shows this hand fairly well.
2h => 4H.
2s => Yum. A 2x fit with at least one of them 9 cards +and+ we still have undisclosed extra's.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the problem with a 1S response that requires heroic measures to solve.

The problem with some of these sequences (i.e. showing the hand as a spade suit plus heart support) is that this is not the really the best description of the hand. For one thing the spade suit is lousy, for another the hand is essentially balanced, and for a third (although this partially follows from the first two) much of the strength is in the minor suits. If partner has a singleton it is most likely to be in ♠. This is not altogether bad news, but partner is not going to realise this if we deliberately mention our spade suit.

The question of what to teach B/I's about bidding is an interesting one. It is not at all obvious that teaching them methods which don't allow for any judgement is the best approach. For if you do that, how are they ever going to learn judgement? Bidding 2♣ is not "super science", nor would be bidding an old-fashioned 2NT (balanced GF), nor would be bidding a new-fangled 2NT support bid. I would much rather a beginner was aware of what "natural" bidding is trying to achieve (tell each other the important information about our hands until one partner can take captaincy) than them simply being given a list of how to bid each hand type.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 30 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

Frankly, such an idea probably appeals to a club player, because it sounds like a "short" club. I can see the afternoon regulars talking about this:

"Look George, you don't have 4 card trump support, and 1♠ leads to nothing but confusion. A game forcing "short" 2 clubs set up a game force".

"But Gladys, where do I check that on the convention card? If I have 3 diamonds and 2 clubs, do I then respond 2 diamonds instead of 2 clubs"?

I'm having trouble typing because I'm laughing so hard actually imagining my local George and Gladys having this discussion. Point VERY well made. I'll honestly try better. ROTFLOL

[foo]

EricK,

Are you seriously suggesting that probing for a 2x major suit fit with a forcing 1bid on Q9xxx is worse Bridge than making a 2/1 with KTx in the other suit?

If we are holding ♠ Q9432 ♥ AJ7 ♦ KQ ♣ KT5, what do you think pd opened 1♥ on in front of us?

The only defensive tricks missing are
♠A, AK, AJ, KJ, Kx; ♥ KQ, Kx; ♦ AJ, A; ♣ A, AQ, AJ;

Except for the holding of ♠AK..., pd has to have at least =2= of the above holdings for an opening bid.

The odds are ~5:7 that pd has ♠ values if we include the AK holding and better than that if we don't (since we get at least two chances to pick from the above sets if pd does not have ♠AK...), =especially= if pd raises a 1♠ response (even more so if pd's raise promises 4 card support).

In fact, given that we are looking at 2 of the ♥ honors, there's a good chance that pd is only looking at 1 ♥ honor. Yet even though they opened the bidding on what was probably ♥Hxxxx, or even ♥xxxxx. I don't hear complaints about that...

[BebopKid]

1♠

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 30 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

Frankly, such an idea probably appeals to a club player, because it sounds like a "short" club. I can see the afternoon regulars talking about this:

"Look George, you don't have 4 card trump support, and 1♠ leads to nothing but confusion. A game forcing "short" 2 clubs set up a game force".

"But Gladys, where do I check that on the convention card? If I have 3 diamonds and 2 clubs, do I then respond 2 diamonds instead of 2 clubs"?   

I'm having trouble typing because I'm laughing so hard actually imagining my local George and Gladys having this discussion. Point VERY well made. I'll honestly try better. ROTFLOL

Good.

Glad we can keep things on a positive level in the end.