Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Callaghan
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a very nice construction, David, and to drop the Q under the A as defender is certainly your best chance to get declarer to go wrong, but…

Suppose declarer now cashes a high trump from hand, crosses to dummy with a diamond, and after the A, tries the now-good J. You will have to follow with a low club, and declarer, if not on autopilot, may smell a rat and wonder at this Greek gift. He can change tack and ruff the club winner high, draw the last trump and rely on the diamond suit to break,
6 hours ago
Brian Callaghan edited this comment 6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to express their opinion. I guess it's back to the drawing board. Particular thanks to Steve Moese, who not only addressed my intended subject, bidding taxonomy, but put forward a user-friendly counter-proposal.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or to put it another way, if you held a two-suited hand, the only way to show it using purely natural bids, is by two distinct one-suited bids.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A one-suited hand is not synonymous with a one-suited bid.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural suit bidding by definition delivers one suit at a time. I wouldn't think that classifying a natural suit bid as one-suited is particularly contentious (even if it's not what one might have previously thought of as one-suited). If a bid were classified as two-suited it couldn't be natural (because it does show a suit other than that of the bid) and if it were classified as half-suited it couldn't be natural (because it might show a suit other than that of the bid).
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The consistency I was aiming for was to be able to order some types of bid by how strictly specified what they show is. So the larger the number before -suited, the more strictly specified what a bid shows is. For example two-suited is more restrictive than one-suited, which in turn is more restrictive than half-suited (or half-one-suited). But it's not a tool for comparing one-suited and half-two-suited, which aren't the same thing.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A somewhat belated addition. Although I wouldn't expect any bid to show half a suit, I might expect a bid described as “half-suited” to be showing its (one) suit in a mixed state—for instance half-hearts and half-spades.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, if you adopt the terminology of using a fractional preface to say that there are alternatives, it's reasonable that the absence of a fractional preface should say there aren't alternatives. That's what I do.

Natural suit opening bids are prototypical “one-suited” bids, in which the suit bid coincides with the suit shown. (The opener might have another suit or suits, but they aren't shown by the opening bid.) Take three different natural openings—1, 1, and 2. Each of them would be classified as “one-suited” because each of them shows a specific one suit—the suit of the bid. But not all of them would be classified as “heart-one-suited” (or more simply “heart showing”), because not all of them show hearts.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the same applies to any whole number greater than one. “two-suited”, “three-suited”, and even “four-suited”, all specify their suits.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a specified suit, it is specified. Any “one-suited” bid (in my interpretation) specifies the suit.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me be more explicit about my answer to your question “What's wrong with using ‘one-suited’ to mean ‘a single suit (and I’m not going to say whether that suit is defined or not)?'”

If you don't say that the one suit is defined then it means “either clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades”. My proposal uses the term “quarter-suited” to mean that. (The fraction says that there are alternatives and the denominator says how many alternatives there are.) So “one-suited” under my prososal should mean “one specified suit and no alternatives”, and not “any one suit”.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So in the example I gave earlier, a Michaels 2 overcall of an opening 1 is “one-and-a-half-suited” in contrast to a Michaels 2 overcall of an opening 1 which is “two-suited”.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm using “two-suited” to mean a bid that shows two specific suits, and “one-suited” to mean a bid that shows one specific suit. That may differ from casual use.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I did say not to try and use arithmetic. “one of four two-suiters” would be “quarter-two-suited” (not equal to “half-suited”). I'll admit to that being a somewhat barbarous construction.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm quite happy to use the unqualified terms “two-suited” and “one-suited” to talk about what kind of a bid a bid is, as opposed to describing what a particular bid shows to the opponents. The use of those terms aren't problems in need of a solution. I would be correspondingly happy to use a similar unqualified term to describe the kind of bid that shows either one suit or another. But I don't believe such a term exists, so a neoligism, illiterate or otherwise, would be useful. Maybe you have a literate term up your sleeve that you might reveal?

As to the “half”, it's not there to suggest that you are actually showing half a suit on any given hand. It's much like the average UK family was typically supposed to contain 2.4 children, without claiming that any particular family did. Suits come in whole numbers, but on average (approximately) each suit that a Multi (for instance) might show occurs half the time.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, thanks, that's an interesting idea. It gets at the notion of a suit being not fully promised at the time a bid is made.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Or blacks/pointeds/roundeds. But sometimes the two suits are not completely known—for instance a 2 Michaels overcall of a 1 opening shows spades and a minor. (That would be a one-and-a-half-suiter.)
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I am looking for is not an abbreviation, but a short way of describing the kind of bid. (Perhaps it was a mistake to give specific examples, because people have concentrated on those rather than the more abstract.)

We are happy to use “two-suited” instead of the phrase “both of two known suits”. I'm looking for something similar instead of the phrase “one of two known suits”. “Half-suited” is my attempt. I don't know if anyone else has their own idea.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether “one of two known suits” might usefully be shortened depends on the context. If one is describing the meaning of a bid to opponents, then the long form is perfectly reasonable, and I wouldn't dream of using my own term unless I was sure it would be understood. If one is writing some notes about bidding, then one might have grown weary of the long phrase after the fourth or fifth repetition.

And while each of the hand types is a specific single-suiter, the bid does not guarantee any specific suit. The (strange) fractional description is a shorthand way of emphasizing that.
May 16
Brian Callaghan edited this comment May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. But I was giving 2 as a specific instance of a type of bid. So, both a Multi 2 overcall of a 1NT opening, and a 2NT response to a 1NT opening in the EBU's Standard English (to sign off in a minor) would be half-suiters.
May 16
Brian Callaghan edited this comment May 16
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top