From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: A reply to Prof. Weird (was Assign the blame)
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:50:48 GMT

an1739@anon.penet.fi (Professor Weird) writes:
>Old_Subject: Re: Assign the Blame
>Apparently-To: anon@anon.penet.fi

First of all, I would like to make it clear that I prefer to play
essentially natural systems with some gadgets.  I do not claim to be
 any sort of bridge theoretician, but here is my understanding.

>Bharat, in a strong endorsement of Bob Silverman's view that in the
>sequence 1H-1S-2D-3C-3S, opener has shown an extra-values 3-5-4-1 or so,
>mentioned something akin to the following:

>"You do NOT cue bid voids in partner's suit......"

This should be carved in stone and added along with "thou shalt not
splinter in partners suit".  However, my disagreement with your
message (and the previous one) is not about the C or 5D cue, but about
4H versus 4S and the pass to 4S by South.  I am not keen on arguing
this point (about not Q-bidding voids) but would like to discuss my

   "strong endorsement of Bob Silverman's view that in the sequence 
    1H-1S-2D-3C-3S, opener has shown an extra-values 3-5-4-1"...

Let us agree at the outset that 3C is a game force.  This is not
germane to the following discussion, but irrespective of whether is
shows/promises/says-nothing/denies clubs, it should be forcing to game
as responder is (a) unlimited and (b) bid a new suit at the 3 level.  Ok..

After 1H-1S-2D-3C-?..... 

you had said in an earlier note that 3S could be on Kx.  I disagree
strongly.  While my partners will attest that I am quite fond of the
4-3 fit with ruffing values in the short hand, I have a distinct
aversion to playing in 4S on a 4-2 fit.  Your mileage may vary.

The nub lies in that you claimed in an ealier post that 3H should show
not only extra values, but "significant extra values".  As I said, I
am no theoretician,, but jeez WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A FIT AT THIS POINT,
this may be a HUGE misfit (partner could be 5-5 in the blacks -- just
because 3C does not promise clubs, does not mean it denies them), and
to say that 3H should show extra values is IMO plain wrong.

I called a couple of my partners (they are no theoreticians, but they
are pretty good; one especially has impressive bridge credentials with
several regional wins, and two appearance in the finals of the GNT
teams) -- they concurred.

They said that 3S should promise 3 spades, 3N should show a club
stopper, and 3H is the nebulous inbetween bid. that you will make on
the ubiquitous 2-5-4-2.  This was what I had thought earlier.  Now,
with no club stop and 5 spades partner can bid 3S and you can raise to
4S with the Kx.

>In this sequence, EVEN granting that opener has shown an extra values
>3-card raise, I would still only bid 4S with the responder's hand
>[S:AQxxx H:AQ D:xxx C:xxx] since 4H is NOT clearly a cue-bid, and I
>have to deny that important club control. 

4H is NOT a cue bid.  It should show secondary support with a
doubleton honor.  To not bid 4H at this point is masterminding.  To
continue in the same engaging vein of frankness that you have, I think
you ought to bid your own cards and show your values, and not worry
about denying the club control.

(of course the inference that partner is 3-5-4-1 makes the club
 control unnecessary at this this point, but we disagree there)

>Indeed, how would one show
>a strong, mildly slammish hand with only four spades and either heart
>or diamond support??

You would bid 3H at your second turn rather than 3C with hearts.  You
can bid 4D now over 3S to show a second fit (KQxx would be nice value
to have).

>1H-1S-2D-3C-3S-4H

>whether opener is showing extras with 3 spades or a min. with no C stop.  In
>almost the same way opener loses the ability to tell if responder is showing
>any of the following three hands:

>S:AJxx H:Axx D:Qx C:Qxxx 	[a]
>S:AJxxx H:Ax D:QJx C:Jxx	[b]
>S:AQJxx H:Qxx D:xx C:Axx	[c]

On (a) I think a 3NT call is in order at some point.  The above auction
      is wrong!

On (b) the sequence is perfect.

On (c) you can bid 3H over 2D.  At MPs you may want to consider NT
      after partner shows a double fit with 3S (but this is IMPs).

Now I am sure you can create hands where I am stuck for a bid, but my
understanding/methods work fine 99% of the time, which keep me happy.

In my book (and yours I am sure), what partner didn't bid is as
important as what partner did.  I trust my partners to show their
hands.  I realize that my essentially natural 2/1 methods are by no
means perfect, fairly archaic, and lose some of the degree of
precision that the more advanced methods have, but I am (a) too lazy
to learn complex methods which (b) I forget and (c) enjoy using my
judgement to plan entire auctions rather than playing an admittedly
better gadget that would convey the same message more clearly and
briefly.  So we have the occasional misunderstanding, but I find this
more enjoyable.  Everyone has different mileage of course.

>In the first, opener will KNOW that responder was setting up a minimum 
>game-forcing sequence; in the second opener will compliment partner on
>a good cue-bid; in the third hand it will be an advanced-cue-bid 3 clubs
>preparing to show a slammish heart raise with no diamond control.

>Not to mention that on the second hand opener may have had the weak
>doubleton spade hand and compliment partner on a delicate game-choice
>sequence after passing quickly.

Maybe, you ought to try playing at a different club.  You seem to have
a somewhat dubious view of how players obtain their results.

>I agree with Eddie Grove that 3H is a better call, however, as I had explained
>in another post, 3H leads to complications that will severely test a good
>partnership, and is bad for an inexperienced pairing.  If I have to assign
>scores in an experienced partnership I might assign

I think 3H ought not to show any significant extra values.  None of
the people I play with think it does.  In fact its the baillout bid.


>	---- Professor Weird.

>Disclaimer:  I am NOT, despite what you might think to the contrary, telling
>the people who disagrees with me about the relative merits of 3S and 4S/3H
>that they are cheating.  What I did say, however, is that as a matter of pure
>bidding theory it is clear IMNSHO that opener has several ranges of hands
>that vitally needs description, and using 3S for 3-5-4-1 extras seems unplayable
>and it leaves open the door to temptation (of unethical behaviour).

No problems at this end.  I will always have 3 spades when I bid 3S,
and even when I don't my partners will play me for 3.  No doubts here
of any sort.  Noice, if you don;t play that 3H shows extras here
(other than the failure to bid 2H over 1S which guarantees a
non-minimum), all problems, real and imagined disappear.

I am quite willing to agree that my methods are sub-optimal and/or
inferior, but I think these would be the understandings 2 players who
were not playing anything special would have.  It is certainly what I
would assume sitting across a decent partner.

Bharat

--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217) 333-5978 (O), 337-6498(H) 
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
OFFICE: , 244-0292 (NOTE new numbers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge