[Antrax]

I'm currently reading the conventions CD by Mike Lawrence and Fred Gitelman, where Lawrence strongly advocates that in the auction: 1♥-(1-♠)-2♠ show a game-forcing balanced raise with four trumps, and not just "limit or better" (and 3♥ be a four-card limit raise and not weak with four trumps). He gives the following hand and auction as an example:

---

If 2♠ can be limit or GF, then south doesn't know what to do.
So first of all, to the example at hand, why doesn't south just pass? He has a minimum opening and he showed it. Is the singleton spade that great an asset as to make 5♥ appealing?
Secondly, why can't North make an informed decision? He knows how strong and/or shapely his hand is.
And the third question, do you agree with this treatment?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Mike Lawrence and Fred Gitelman are world class, I am not, so take the following with a grain of
salt:

The question the partnership has to answer is, when does forcing pass apply.

#0 2S - sets up a forcing pass below 3H, since it does force the partnership to play at least 3H.
(generally agreed)

#1 you can agree, that it always sets up a FP, if 2S showes, inv.+ and you open sound, you own the
hand, you will have at least 22-23HCP between you (and this is only the case, if both sides are
dead min.)

#2 2S - sets up a forcing pass on the 5 level.


In general, it may make sense, to have a game forcing raise av., besides the inv. raise and the
preemptive raise - such structure exists, usually 2NT is used to show a raise.

And last - I would not give up the preemptive raise, and it makes it harder for them to find their
game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2011-June-05, 23:51, said:

He has a minimum opening

No, he doesn't.

[Antrax]

Could you elaborate?

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2011-June-06, 03:53, said:

Could you elaborate?

Sure. This hand evaluates (even before partner shows a fit) to 17.55 by the Kaplan & Rubens hand evaluation method. A minimum opening is around 11, so this is more closer to a reverse than to a minimum opening. Alternatively, this hand has 34 Zar points, the minimum for a 1♠ opening being 25.

More generally, 6421 hands are very powerful.

[Antrax]

Thanks. Never heard of either (and the first doesn't immediately pop up on Google, though references to it do)

[aguahombre]

P_Marlowe, on 2011-June-06, 00:10, said:

And last - I would not give up the preemptive raise, and it makes it harder for them to find their
game.

The treatment advocated seems to be specific to this auction, where we have hearts under spades; preemptive raises are certainly good things, but perhaps not as useful in this particular case as:

--you might want 2NT available in a natural sense, so that the negX, and subsequent double or 2NT can be used more efficently to show other hands.
--with a heart fit, they will most likely be bidding one more than you, no matter what you bid; so the two situations (inv or G.F.) need to be distinguished quickly.

[gwnn]

Calling this a minimum opening is probably the falsest thing of the decade.

xxx
Kxx
Axx
Kxxx

is a solid slam.

[aguahombre]

I think he meant it would be a minimum forcing-club opener

[Antrax]

That's great. So, having firmly established that my hand evaluation skills rest firmly within the region that my self-rating portrays (hint: check the forum name), can anyone please answer the question I've posed? I don't mind you calling me an idiot, but at least stay on-topic while you're doing it.

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2011-June-06, 11:44, said:

That's great. So, having firmly established that my hand evaluation skills rest firmly within the region that my self-rating portrays (hint: check the forum name), can anyone please answer the question I've posed? I don't mind you calling me an idiot, but at least stay on-topic while you're doing it.

I'll answer the third question, twice.

Answer one: I'm sure Mike Lawrence has good reasons for proposing this treatment. I am not willing to judge it in isolation. I need to know what 2NT instead of 2♠ would mean, what 3♥ would mean, whether 3m is a fit jump, etc.

Answer two: I do not agree with beginners playing this treatment.

[aguahombre]

I thought Marlowe, Mgoetze, etc, already did that (answered the OP questions), so we were just goofing off afterward.

[Antrax]

Indeed, Marlowe and mgoetze gave insightful answers, for which I thank them. There's an entire forum dedicated to goofing off.
mgoetze, as you may have guessed, 2NT is currently not defined in our system. The rest are, though: 3m would be a (long suit) game-try. 3♥ is rejecting an invitation (so responder with the limit raise is expected to pass, and responder with the opening bid + support is expected to bid on). 4♥ is accepting the invitation (shows a balanced opener with more than minimum HCP), 3♠/4m are undefined - 3♠ should probably be a splinter of sorts.

[Mbodell]

As others have hinted I think there is some logic to this treatment specifically for when we have hearts and they have spades because spades beats hearts, but 4M games are quite common (each way) as are the sacrifices. That said, I wouldn't advise playing this to anyone without a lot of memory and time. It is decidedly not standard, and will be different to what a lot of similar sounding auctions are.

There are more important things to worry about like hand evaluation, card combinations, defense, and 10*counting.

[gwnn]

I read something that I didn't agree with and I specified as accurately as I could how much I didn't agree with it. I don't think this is off-topic.

I didn't reply to the other questions because I felt like it is not so important to do so until we are clear on the appreciation of this hand. Also, other questions such as "should we try for slam and if so, how?" are far less clear-cut. There is one clear-cut answer that I perhaps didn't include in my initial reply: you shouldn't pass! You have an extra heart and 6-4 is always a great shape to have. If you pass, odds are you'll defend 4♠, which is a very bad thing.

Finally, personally I would bid 5♥, but perhaps 5♣ is better, but we need to agree exactly, what is 5♣? A cuebid? A second suit to help partner judge over 5♠? A lead direct against 5♠? A second suit in a slam try? I'm guessing we, in this particular partnership, don't know for sure, so I will just bid 5♥.

edit: Also, nobody called you an idiot. I just said that what you wrote was very far from the truth. I think the answer to the question "what would I do?" depends a lot on the question "what do I have?", and yes, if the answer is "a minimum 1♥ opener", say, Qx AQJxx Kxx xxx, then indeed, pass is best. But it is very important to see how strong 6-4 can be, and 14 is 14! Qx AQJxx Kxx xxx is much worse than the hand that we have, we shouldn't make the same bid on both hands. (this is not an absolute rule, it is not uncommon that a call in a competitive auction has a wide range, but in this case the difference is just too much)

But it is rather interesting that this hand is supposed to be an advertisement for GF raises. I can see that in some cases it can make it easier for us to deal with 4♠ bids, but in this case 5♥ stands out even opposite limit+.

[Antrax]

Thanks gwnn. FWIW in the text Lawrence states that defending 4♠ doubled might be the best spot. He gives this hand for partner:

---

I don't mind being told that I'm very far from the truth, but not when it's the only content in the post. Put yourself in my shoes: I'm quite aware that I have a long way to go, so I'm asking questions in these forums, trying to explain my thought process and get feedback where I go wrong. The reply I get is "you're wrong". Well yes, we knew that, but how can I improve simply by being told I'm wrong without an explanation of where and why?

[Antrax]

Mbodell, on 2011-June-06, 15:33, said:

As others have hinted I think there is some logic to this treatment

Sorry, "this treatment" meaning the one Lawrence proposed or the limit+ one?

[gwnn]

Antrax, on 2011-June-06, 22:27, said:

The reply I get is "you're wrong". Well yes, we knew that, but how can I improve simply by being told I'm wrong without an explanation of where and why?

mgoetze already explained why this is not a minimum. I merely wanted to illustrate this hand's potential by showing you a 10 point hand which is 4333 (granted, with nice controls) that makes slam quite good. I don't think that I just said "you're wrong".

I was and still am in your shoes in bridge and firmly am in your shoes in other areas. I would just like to say that sometimes you get replies that don't answer all your questions from the opening post. That is not (necessarily) because the replier is smug or callous. There might be several reasons, for example the replier doesn't have time for a long and detailed post, or he/she doesn't think that each question deserves equal attention. Don't take it as an insult, or anything. It's just the way it is sometimes, you get replies that don't cover everything, or even replies that are off-topic (which is something that you accused us of, and I don't think it's true).

All that said, I know I should try harder to make myself understood when I reply, especially in this subforum. So I'll try harder but in the meantime you should understand when some people do not give encyclopaedic replies.

Further reading is here.

[Antrax]

Thanks, it was an interesting read. For the record, I think it's reasonable to expect, at least in B/I, that just being presented with an obvious solution doesn't necessarily suffice, since the merits of that solution compared to other alternatives may be lost on the asker. That's why I try an include my thinking in posts that ask for a judgment call, so people can point out which concepts are wrong. For instance, from this thread you can see I thought the strength of a hand lies in its shortness (asking about whether to upgrade a "minimum 12-14 HCP opener" due to a singleton) and from your answer I see the strength is actually in the length (since you refer to the hand as 6-4, rather than "hand with a fit + singleton" that could also be 5-4-3-1). This is probably trivial to most posters here, but not to me.

[Mbodell]

Antrax, on 2011-June-06, 22:29, said:

Sorry, "this treatment" meaning the one Lawrence proposed or the limit+ one?

The one Lawrence proposed. The limit+ one is pretty much standard, so I don't really consider it a treatment (even though technically it may well be conventional/treatment - it is what I'd assume without discussion playing with any pickup partner and what I'd assume the opponents were playing any time I saw it unalerted).