[Cyberyeti]

 KingCovert, on 2019-July-05, 09:35, said:

These replies are hilarious... C'mon.... Just try to be a bit more honest. Why would anyone in their right mind STRETCH a 2NT opener? Are the rest of your systems so abysmal that you don't trust them to find the correct contract? If you want to hypothesize why your proposed solutions are better because they cater to hands you aren't allowed to hold.... Well, good luck playing bridge that way.

It really seems like none of you understand the dangers of patterning out your hand so thoroughly... I hope that you remember this one day when you wonder why opponents always find the correct lead to defeat your marginal games and slams. Why does any new suit at the 4-level have to promise or deny a fit? Does your partner need to know where you're playing? 4♣ can be minor suit keycard and you can fully intend to play 6/7 of partner's major.

2NT - 3♣ - 3♠ while holding

KQXX
X
KXX
AT9XX

Minor suit keycard in clubs here tells a pretty complete story. But what are the proposed options? 4♦ artificial slam try in spades? and 4♥ as Roman Key Card? Do either of these bids help this hand? Grand could quite easily be cold here. I'm not even saying I like the proposed solution I made, I made it up in like a minute. I'm just trying to highlight the point. The 2NT opener is a passenger, gather the information you need and make a judgement. As soon as that hand opened 2NT it became a passenger. Stop trying to bring it back into the auction. On the 3% of hands where it's useful you've gained, on the rest you're just helping the defense.

Minor suit keycard in clubs tells you absolutely nothing some of the time.

Partner has 3 keycards with or without club Q. What do you do now ? 4 keycards and no club Q what now ? (I don't know whether you play 1430 or 0314)

4♣ natural is more useful, partner may work out his hand is a mega fit or a mega non fit. Both methods will work if he has the nuts.

AJ10xx, AQx, AQx, Kx is a solid grand, and you'll only find it without VERY specific agreements if the 2N opener asks after knowing you have 3-4 spades and 5+ clubs, because you can't be sure he doesn't have AJ10xx, AQJ, AJ, Kxx.

[KingCovert]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-05, 14:50, said:

Minor suit keycard in clubs tells you absolutely nothing some of the time.

Partner has 3 keycards with or without club Q. What do you do now ? 4 keycards and no club Q what now ? (I don't know whether you play 1430 or 0314)

4♣ natural is more useful, partner may work out his hand is a mega fit or a mega non fit. Both methods will work if he has the nuts.

AJ10xx, AQx, AQx, Kx is a solid grand, and you'll only find it without VERY specific agreements if the 2N opener asks after knowing you have 3-4 spades and 5+ clubs, because you can't be sure he doesn't have AJ10xx, AQJ, AJ, Kxx.

I think you'd just cuebid your King of diamonds in that situation, and partner should now understand the keycard situation, and should accept this invitation to slam, and you'd correct to grand.

But, I won't argue with you that you can do better than Minor Suit Keycard... I don't personally play it. But, I also don't play much 2/1, it's not a very good system in my opinion. I just find it sort of convenient how the conversation keeps shifting away from the core point. Don't pattern out, gather the information you need and set the contract. You can minor suit keycard holding AX of the minor for all I care... As long as you know where you're playing.

If you want to play some other agreement, obviously do so, but after partner's response to puppet stayman, your hand is going to give you no more than 2 contracts to consider, sometimes only 1. You're not trying to find a fit on these hands. You know the situation too well, I just fundamentally disagree with agreements that aren't purely artificial here.

People don't really realize this, but 10% of hands dealt can make small slam or better on perfect declaration. Those are incredibly good odds. Keep in mind that you're not considering slam on most hands, and your opponents don't have to make good decisions on defense, especially on the opening lead. Telegraphing the lead is actually so self-defeating... The odds are so in your favour, you should leave room for opponents to make a mistake.

[mikeh]

 KingCovert, on 2019-July-05, 09:35, said:

These replies are hilarious... C'mon.... Just try to be a bit more honest. Why would anyone in their right mind STRETCH a 2NT opener? Are the rest of your systems so abysmal that you don't trust them to find the correct contract? If you want to hypothesize why your proposed solutions are better because they cater to hands you aren't allowed to hold.... Well, good luck playing bridge that way.

It really seems like none of you understand the dangers of patterning out your hand so thoroughly... I hope that you remember this one day when you wonder why opponents always find the correct lead to defeat your marginal games and slams. Why does any new suit at the 4-level have to promise or deny a fit? Does your partner need to know where you're playing? 4♣ can be minor suit keycard and you can fully intend to play 6/7 of partner's major.

2NT - 3♣ - 3♠ while holding

KQXX
X
KXX
AT9XX

Minor suit keycard in clubs here tells a pretty complete story. But what are the proposed options? 4♦ artificial slam try in spades? and 4♥ as Roman Key Card? Do either of these bids help this hand? Grand could quite easily be cold here. I'm not even saying I like the proposed solution I made, I made it up in like a minute. I'm just trying to highlight the point. The 2NT opener is a passenger, gather the information you need and make a judgement. As soon as that hand opened 2NT it became a passenger. Stop trying to bring it back into the auction. On the 3% of hands where it's useful you've gained, on the rest you're just helping the defense.

You're not the first, and assuredly won't be the last, new poster who thinks he or she knows everything there is to know. A few go on to become valuable members of the community, but most never seem to learn: they reject any suggestion that their ideas may not be optimal. Time will tell into which group you fall: I hope it is the former.

I do not play puppet over 2N. I have played a form of puppet that, imo, is superior, and allows for smolen hands as well as checking for 5 card majors, and I certainly know how to play puppet (I just happen to think it inferior in the context of my preferred, complex, methods over 2N).

In any event, let's suppose that partner has opened 2N and rebid 3M over our 3C enquiry. To me this shows a good 19 to a bad 21. This is nothing to do with stretching and everything to do with hand evaluation. While not all hands with 5 card suits should be upgraded a point, many should be and a denial of that simply reveals ignorance of how to value a hand, which is more than adding 4-3-2-1 points. So a good 19 is worth at least as much as a mediocre 20, and your methods should reflect this.

AJ108x KQ10 AQ10 Kx is the sort of hand where calling it a 19 count is silly. Not to mention that one would rather be declarer in notrump than dummy.

Ok, one issue hopefully at least addressed.

Next: how best to continue as responder with a good hand?

It is pretty common to use 'cheapest other major' as agreeing opener's major and expressing at least mild slam interest. This is effective over ordinary stayman and there is no reason, of which I can think, why it ought not to be the same over a positive puppet response. In fact it makes more sense over puppet than over regular stayman. Consider, in regular stayman: 2N 3C 3H....opener could be 4=4 majors, so how does responder check back? Those who use 3S as a slam try in hearts bid 3N, since we would not stayman without a 4 card major....but maybe we are too strong for 3N. We can bid 4N, or 5N, etc, the former inviting slam with 4 spades, the latter forcing to a small slam. This is theoretically flawed but in practice arises so infrequently, and usually works out ok when it does, that it's probably ok.

After opener shows 5 of a major, no rational opener would have a side 4 card holding in the other major, so there are no issues at all.

Ok: responder is not at all interested in showing his 4 card major, but of course may want to explore a high minor suit contract.

While Helene's scheme of transfers is interesting, and I have played transfers here, years ago, I currently play that 4m over 3M (whether in response to the modified puppet I used to play or normal stayman) is natural and shows at least mild interest in slam.

However, using it as keycard is simply silly.

A lot of non-expert players use keycard in sequences where it makes no real sense, and this is a classic example of it. While on many hands, it works out, simply because opener has so many hcp, there is a lot more to bidding a good slam than counting hcp and keycards, especially if one is bidding a suit slam.

What I play is a form of optional keycard. I see that someone above suggested that opener is supposed to make the decision to cooperate based on how many cards opener has in the minor. That is not the approach that my partnership uses.

Our approach is that opener evaluates his hand in light of slam suitability. This values any honours in responder's minor (Kx is at least as good as xxx) and having Aces and Kings as opposed to quacks, and given that we don't play puppet, a ruffing value is useful (if one plays puppet, opener will usually, but not always, have 3 cards support as part of liking his hand and so, by definition, opener has a side doubleton.


Opener bids the cheapest step to show a hand with little liking for slam. Responder can sign off in 5m or 4N, or can insist upon keycard via the next step (so 2N 3C 3S 4C 4D 4H insists on keycards).


The point is that not all 20-21 5332 hands are equal for slam purposes.


KQJxx QJx AKx Ax is nowhere near as good for a club slam as, for example, AK10xx Axx Ax Axx, a 'mere 19', which any thinking bridge player knows is undervalued by the 4321 scale.

You don't have to agree with my methods: the beauty of the game lies in part in the wide variety of paths that players can follow and still come up with a coherent, effective system. Of course, the flip side is that the vast majority of non-experts, trying to build their own methods, end up with internally inconsistent or incoherent methods.

So don't feel that I am trying to tell you 'the answer'. There are few 'sole answers' to bridge questions. But please do try to learn, from the other posts on this thread if not from this one, that much of what you think to be obvious and correct is neither. I loved this site until most of the really good posters left, whether to post elsewhere or simply not to post at all. Why did I love this site, and still visit?

Because bridge has been good to me, and I enjoy sharing what I have learned about the game, and because, more frequently in the past than now, I learned new ideas or different perspectives. Now, few real experts post so for me it is more about giving back to the game than about learning. I hope you read this post with that understanding of my intent.

[KingCovert]

 mikeh, on 2019-July-08, 14:17, said:

You're not the first, and assuredly won't be the last, new poster who thinks he or she knows everything there is to know. A few go on to become valuable members of the community, but most never seem to learn: they reject any suggestion that their ideas may not be optimal. Time will tell into which group you fall: I hope it is the former.

I do not play puppet over 2N. I have played a form of puppet that, imo, is superior, and allows for smolen hands as well as checking for 5 card majors, and I certainly know how to play puppet (I just happen to think it inferior in the context of my preferred, complex, methods over 2N).

In any event, let's suppose that partner has opened 2N and rebid 3M over our 3C enquiry. To me this shows a good 19 to a bad 21. This is nothing to do with stretching and everything to do with hand evaluation. While not all hands with 5 card suits should be upgraded a point, many should be and a denial of that simply reveals ignorance of how to value a hand, which is more than adding 4-3-2-1 points. So a good 19 is worth at least as much as a mediocre 20, and your methods should reflect this.

AJ108x KQ10 AQ10 Kx is the sort of hand where calling it a 19 count is silly. Not to mention that one would rather be declarer in notrump than dummy.

Ok, one issue hopefully at least addressed.

Next: how best to continue as responder with a good hand?

It is pretty common to use 'cheapest other major' as agreeing opener's major and expressing at least mild slam interest. This is effective over ordinary stayman and there is no reason, of which I can think, why it ought not to be the same over a positive puppet response. In fact it makes more sense over puppet than over regular stayman. Consider, in regular stayman: 2N 3C 3H....opener could be 4=4 majors, so how does responder check back? Those who use 3S as a slam try in hearts bid 3N, since we would not stayman without a 4 card major....but maybe we are too strong for 3N. We can bid 4N, or 5N, etc, the former inviting slam with 4 spades, the latter forcing to a small slam. This is theoretically flawed but in practice arises so infrequently, and usually works out ok when it does, that it's probably ok.

After opener shows 5 of a major, no rational opener would have a side 4 card holding in the other major, so there are no issues at all.

Ok: responder is not at all interested in showing his 4 card major, but of course may want to explore a high minor suit contract.

While Helene's scheme of transfers is interesting, and I have played transfers here, years ago, I currently play that 4m over 3M (whether in response to the modified puppet I used to play or normal stayman) is natural and shows at least mild interest in slam.

However, using it as keycard is simply silly.

A lot of non-expert players use keycard in sequences where it makes no real sense, and this is a classic example of it. While on many hands, it works out, simply because opener has so many hcp, there is a lot more to bidding a good slam than counting hcp and keycards, especially if one is bidding a suit slam.

What I play is a form of optional keycard. I see that someone above suggested that opener is supposed to make the decision to cooperate based on how many cards opener has in the minor. That is not the approach that my partnership uses.

Our approach is that opener evaluates his hand in light of slam suitability. This values any honours in responder's minor (Kx is at least as good as xxx) and having Aces and Kings as opposed to quacks, and given that we don't play puppet, a ruffing value is useful (if one plays puppet, opener will usually, but not always, have 3 cards support as part of liking his hand and so, by definition, opener has a side doubleton.


Opener bids the cheapest step to show a hand with little liking for slam. Responder can sign off in 5m or 4N, or can insist upon keycard via the next step (so 2N 3C 3S 4C 4D 4H insists on keycards).


The point is that not all 20-21 5332 hands are equal for slam purposes.


KQJxx QJx AKx Ax is nowhere near as good for a club slam as, for example, AK10xx Axx Ax Axx, a 'mere 19', which any thinking bridge player knows is undervalued by the 4321 scale.

You don't have to agree with my methods: the beauty of the game lies in part in the wide variety of paths that players can follow and still come up with a coherent, effective system. Of course, the flip side is that the vast majority of non-experts, trying to build their own methods, end up with internally inconsistent or incoherent methods.

So don't feel that I am trying to tell you 'the answer'. There are few 'sole answers' to bridge questions. But please do try to learn, from the other posts on this thread if not from this one, that much of what you think to be obvious and correct is neither. I loved this site until most of the really good posters left, whether to post elsewhere or simply not to post at all. Why did I love this site, and still visit?

Because bridge has been good to me, and I enjoy sharing what I have learned about the game, and because, more frequently in the past than now, I learned new ideas or different perspectives. Now, few real experts post so for me it is more about giving back to the game than about learning. I hope you read this post with that understanding of my intent.

This is a far more reasonable opinion on how to play in these situations. Because, you're not seeking to pattern out any further as responder... You'll notice that the only bids of yours that pattern out further are slam tries in the minors, but you've already decided the suit. This is my exact point. Decide the contract and make otherwise artificial bids to pick between two when it's not clear. I'm not really a proponent of Minor Suit Keycard I've played it fewer times than I can count on one hand, I still think it's a better agreement than some of what I've read in this thread, although I do prefer your more qualitative approach to the situation. My only concern with it is that I don't think your partner knows what hands to value in those situations, I think your partner kind of sort of guesses if they have enough as Opener. But, it's an educated guess...

There are tons of players better than me out there, I play every week with an absolutely fantastic player, but my bar is nonetheless a high one, and I've read a lot of ideas in this thread that I wouldn't seriously entertain under any circumstances. I just think it's losing bridge. But, people are allowed to play losing bridge.

[mikeh]

 KingCovert, on 2019-July-08, 18:16, said:

This is a far more reasonable opinion on how to play in these situations. Because, you're not seeking to pattern out any further as responder... You'll notice that the only bids of yours that pattern out further are slam tries in the minors, but you've already decided the suit. This is my exact point. Decide the contract and make otherwise artificial bids to pick between two when it's not clear. I'm not really a proponent of Minor Suit Keycard I've played it fewer times than I can count on one hand, I still think it's a better agreement than some of what I've read in this thread, although I do prefer your more qualitative approach to the situation. My only concern with it is that I don't think your partner knows what hands to value in those situations, I think your partner kind of sort of guesses if they have enough as Opener. But, it's an educated guess...

There are tons of players better than me out there, I play every week with an absolutely fantastic player, but my bar is nonetheless a high one, and I've read a lot of ideas in this thread that I wouldn't seriously entertain under any circumstances. I just think it's losing bridge. But, people are allowed to play losing bridge.

I don't want to continue to seem to be beating up on you, but this post confirms my view that you lack insight into your relative ability as a player.

The players with whom I regularly play are pretty good: good by anyone's standards. Neither they nor I have much difficulty evaluating whether our 2N opening bid is 'good' or 'bad' when partner uses stayman and then bids 4m. The fact that you think this creates a difficult guessing game says a lot more about your ability than I think you realize.

I was a late bloomer as an expert, relative to most good players, primarily because in my 20's I lived 500 miles away from any strong players, and this was well before the internet. I moved to an area where there were several very good players, and on arrival I was sure that I was as good as them. I thought I was a 'gun', because in the area in which I had spent the past 10 years, my partner and I pretty much won everything.

Then I got to play with a real expert. That was a bit humbling.

A few years later, I got to play with someone now in the Canadian Hall of Fame, and was humbled again. Finally, I got to play in a regular partnership with a player I viewed and still view as the best player in Canada at the time. Each time I got to play with a stronger player, I realized how little I knew, despite, on each occasion, thinking that I was already pretty hot stuff.

The reality is that it is very difficult to appreciate one's level until one at least plays against and ideally plays with someone significantly better than one is. The benefit is, that provided one recognizes the opportunity one has been given, one can elevate one's game significantly.

I go into this story, not to aggrandize myself, but to tell you that I suspect you are more or less in the position I was when I lived in an isolated area. You think you're better than you are primarily because you have no idea of how good good players actually are.

Learning bridge is like ascending a series of hills....each higher than the previous...as one climbs the slope, one cannot see the next hill or the ones beyond it, so one thinks one is nearing the top. Get to the top, and you realize that another, higher hill lies waiting for you. I've been playing this game for more than 45 years, and have become fairly good at it. I continue to play because I think I can learn to be better (tho the reality is that I almost surely can't because of the effects of aging). By the way, the view from the top of the next hill is better than the view from whatever hill you are on at present.

Recognizing one's limited knowledge is essential if one wants to improve. I think it was Bob Hamman who, when asked what more he looked for from playing the game, said something to the effect of hoping that he'd learn to play better.