bglover

LOL I knew you were up to the challenge! Just how DID you track this sucker?

Well, as I said, I got a peek at partner's hand before we redealt and it SEEMED that if opps led a spade thru dummy (the logical opening lead here) that the hand was likely to fail. However, if the strong hand was dummy, it also SEEMED that 3n had a chance on a spade lead (since the hand wasn't played I can't be sure). Now, when I picked up that hand, I realized it was a very nice hand but that it had some problems, and that it was not great for no trump unless partner could cover the majors for me. I did, indeed, reverse in diamonds rather than bid 2NT to cater to this possibility.. praying that partner did not raise diamonds after the reverse but could bid 2n as was the case here. I do not disagree that the hand has the correct shape and strength for a 2N rebid over 1H. That's why i posted this hand..to see how others would approach it. I do not know a way to track the hand down and see how 3N did from my side... if someone can tell me (Ben? Uday?), I would love to see the results. 3N was an almost sure thing partner's way just looking at the layout and appeared in danger my way.

Yes, Roland is making my point for me perhaps better than I am myself. One of my favorite phrases about bridge is that someitmes you have to lie... it's just that good players know which lie to tell partner. (I made that one up so please give me proper credit if quoted!) With the 15 point 1255 hand (if the suits are good and most of your HC strength is concentrated in them), then it is PERHAPS better to tell the small lie of opening a club and reversing into diamonds than to open diamonds and bid clubs twice. Why? Because, with Lenbensol, partner can ask how good you are and, if he isn't so hot, can bail at the three level. With the 19 point 1255 hand, I have no problem opening 1D and jump shifting as that hand can easily play at almost any level if partner has enough to respond. With the lesser hand I want a way to keep the bidding low while still showing I have DECENT (not great) values. I said all along my treatment may not be standard, but I think it is a practical solution to a hand that has an inherent problem. With the methodology available to ask "how good" my reverse is, I think this way of bidding moderate strength reversably minor hands makes sense. Frankly, it has never produced a bad result that I can think of and probably has created a few good ones.

AH, finally we have reached a reasonable and logical conclusion to this long thread, which is there is no clear answer... As I stated early in this long thread I felt there were missed opportunities by both parties and I think we can only conclude that 2 reasonably good plyers with different styles can both bid (in their own mehodology) correctly and still it comes out wrong absent CLEAR, COGENT AGREEMENTS. When Fred said he thought that this thread wouldn't get any answers because he thought his logic was so clear that kind of said it all right there... His partner bid logically, he bid logically but they still both (due to lack of proper understandings) came to the wrong place. FWIW. on the actual hand, due to a poor heart break, the hand goes down after the lead of a singleton. It was actually an over 60% slam that was missed, and the actual bidders got a great score for missing the slam! Hope we all had fun and hope that all this heated discussion didn't hurt anyone feelings! I really did post this to stir things up!

OK I apologize... and fully admit that when I read the pink passage it still did not indicate to me that opener should not bid his spade cards... admittedly it's written in a way that is not entirely clear and I may well have misinterpreted it. My humble apologies... Now, I did actually just do a "find text" search one the phrase "cue bid" and since the pink didn't actually use the term "cue bid" I probably missed it entirely (I wasn't gonna read the entire document but I should have done a more thorough search).

Well i said i was done with this.... but I just went thru BWS and looked at every instance where a cue-bid is used and could find nothing to substantiate Roland's statement... Just trying to piss me off or were you making it up to fortify your position (which i tend to believe was the case)? No matter... OK... one last time cuz I am SICK of this now.... I (personally) play that asking bids of the nature here are for UNBID SUITS only. So, that is MY PLANET and if your planet is different, then we are indeed on different ones. Responder is in CONTROL... Opener had UNDISCLOSED CARDS.. 4D says TELL ME MORE! He had a lot more and didnt show them... I don't believe any of us disagree that 4D constituted a slam try... I stand by my earlier comment that opener should be catering to the 2551 hand... NOTHING HAS CONVINCED ME OTHERWISE. NOTHING HAS CONVINCED ME THAT 4D SHOULDN'T BE A BID LOOKING FOR A SPADE STOPPER...I acknowledged that there are differing opinions but do not, repeat, DO NOT throw BWS at me cuz I know BWS.

Actually, that was the reason I used my example about dropping the Ace out of the 19 point hand... Maybe a better question would be whether 1255 and 15 HCPs is worth a reverse at all. I think it is. I want to stress that if I choose this strategy (reversing 5-5 hands) it is inevitably a club-diamnd hand... If the hand contains a long-suit major I rarely reverse... I always bid the major first. I think for minor suit hands tho, it is important to preserve biddng space as reversing can get you past 3nt sometimes when that is the best spot.

This is to Ben's response: If you think that responder's bidding showed CLUB concern and not SPADE concern we live on differtent planets. He would RKC the hand with a singleton spade but not if he has 2 fast losers in the suit. HE KNOWS HE DOESNT HAVE 2 FAST CLUB LOSERS BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING AT THE 2D ROUND CONTROL. Opener has an easy inference of this. Your argument is made of tissue. Sorry. Now, as to Fred's comment... HE SHOWED FIVE DIAMONDS (most likely) and therefoire you could infer he had 1 or 0 clubs.. or at least cater to the possible 2551 hand.... That to me was your failure in judgment. I have said all I can on this hand... Obviously there is room for different interpretations and that's why this board exists.. But I am all talked out on this one...

Mea culpa.. i reversed hts and spds in hand... partner was indeed 4-4-4-1 and bid hts 1st. I had xxx of spds and Qx of hearts...bidding did go as shown. Point is that 3N more likely makes if partner is declarer.. and that a 2N bid by me wrong sides the contract if the contract is to have any chance at all, and I think opener needs to spot that at the very beginning and realize that a jump to 2N is probably the wrong choice given his major holdings....

Firstly, let me say I merely kibbitzed this hand... I did not play it, and if I did, I would have splintered clubs over a 2H raise.. It was a very slammish hand with a fit and that is how I bid these types of hands. Now, as to my cue bidding.. I admittedly am old school... I cue bid 1st round controls mainly (if I have AK in an unbid suit I will of course cue bid the 2d round control too given the opporunity). Now, having said this, I pick and choose which hands need cue bidding vs. which hands need RKC. IMHO too often people cue bid when the information needed is better found using RKC and if your risking a 5 level cue bid from partner which is going to destroy your RKC opportunity, i think treading carefuly is necessary. I am not fond of 2d round cue bids... they are misleading in my opinion.. If partner isn't looking at the ace he will always assume it IS the ace and now you reach 7 off an ace (seen it happen more than once). Having said all this, I will say that NOTHING REPLACES GOOD JUDGMENT. The reason i posted this little ditty was because I thought it would stir up a debate... Well, it succeeded. I can find fault with the way the hand was bid by either party... but, honestly, this was not a hard slam to bid using 3 or 4 card raises, precision or Moscito or whatever... It required both parties using good judgment and sound deduction, and I thought there was a failure on this hand, and the opener had the same argument as the others...Why didn't my partner cue bid his stiff club? To repeat from my last post...4D clarifies the responder's hand so well that to continue to hide the AKQ of spades was not a system failure in my opinion, it was a judgment failure. Sure, the auction could have been more artful by responder, but he conveyed ENOUGH information for opener to reevaluate his holdings IMHO. This was the true failure of the sequence to me... unless, of course, he didn't belive his partner had 5 diamonds along with 5 hearts... but he should have. Once that information was conveyed there was nothing more to worry about.. Partner had 1 or 0 clubs... Absolutely. Why? Because he was worried about SPADES. The auction clearly shows that....

My only response to this is... Partner has a stiff club... Now, I have 6 trix not 8... My partner left and we redealt the hand due to the bozo bidding but partner did have 4d to the Q and the king of hts, along with the q of spds 4 times, so 3N looked like it "could" make... I really don't know if it did... But AKQxx is NOT five trix.. its 3 (ya i know how to do LTC) if partner doesn't have 3 of them. So, as a practical (as opposed to theoritical) matter, this hand needs to not "blast" in no trump because it just plain doesn't have enough tricks for 2N in my opinion. 3N is the likely landing spot, from partner's side if probably best.. cuz I lack the stoppers and want the lead up to partner's hand if it's correct to be there (appeared it was, and 3N my side may not make).

Some thoughts here... (1) As to captain-crew and this hand... After 3D in sequence originally given, if partner chooses NOT to bid 3N and 3H shows a minimum (re Easy's post), then 4D is CLEARLY a slam try with most likely 5-5 reds. Given that information, to NOT bid 4s over 4d is, to me, beyond comprehension because it can easily be deduced partner has 1 or 0 clubs. It is for this reason that I have found all arguments blaming responder for NOT CUE BIDDING HIS CLUB STIFF unpersuasive. It also brings up a secondary point... RESPONDER IS IN CONTROL. He has asked 2 TIMES about spade controls and 2 TIMES opener hides them and yet Ben and others continue to focus on responder not showing his second round control in clubs. I don't think this is right at all given these circumstances. I think opener (crew) is obligated to show his spade cards... I've read all the posts and I think Richard is the only one who got it right (of course that is my opinion only). 4D so clearly paints a picture of responder's hand that the rest should be a cake walk for opener... (2) As to jump shifting... Well, it isn't wrong, but it sure isn't right either when 5-5. To start the bidding at the 2 level with responder's hand with all that information to be passed, well, it's just a problem because he has to bid diamonds 2 times in a lot of cases,,, and 3nt may well be the best spot absent fitting cards in opener's hand if there is a misfit.. Don't get me wrong, i am a big propenent of strong jumps, but they must be used judiciously because they use up so much space... A 5-5 hand shouldn't usually jump unless it can guarantee the 6 level on its own (this hand was very nice, but not that nice). (3) And lastly, I entirely agree that if you respond 1nt instead of 2h this hand is so much easier to bid. Responder's 3D bid now makes the hand a snap.... The reason I mention this is that I have a partner that insists on 3 card raises, which I really do not like. Even with partners that insist on 4 card raises, I will occasionally raise with AJX of better... but as a rule, I have found that, when playing with partners that like 3 card raises always, these kinds of problems do come up frequently. Even when I play SAYC (which I mostly do in "real life") I play 4 card raises because these sequences often create problems... The 1nt rebid conveys (for me anyway) a more accurate picture of opener's hand, and the various gadgets we use (checkback, NMF, etc.) give us clarity down the line if we need it. I have found too often that playing 3n is correct even with a 5-3 fit. Since opener can have either 3 or 4 cards for his raise, you often miss 3n (one hand or the other can't bid it and you miss it) and play a poor fit at the 4 level... Just my 2 pennies on this treatment.

Well obviously its a fine hand with a rebid problem... No, I do not like a 2n rebid on 234 of a suit likely to be lead.. that's why i posted this. It is an alternative here but it's flawed. I did choose a 2D rebid like syl to see what would develop... unfortunately partner passed (bozo who designated self "expert"), so there is the true end of the story from my perspective... just curious how others bid it is all.

You pick this up: QX xxx AKJ AKQxx You open 1C, partner bids 1S (what else?), your turn... what is your plan?

LOL

Well, I am totally in agreement with Richard's comments here (saved me a lot of writing, thx) and I stand by my logic-- nothing Ben has said has swayed me in the least, but this is why I have posted this auction... I thought it might generate a little action (sorely needed around here lately). But, I think we can all agree that if the opener had responded 3nt instead of 3h over 3d, then the auction actually becomes easier, as now responder pulls by bidding 4c, which clearly cannot be to play... That was the REAL mistake in my opinion.

I have but one answer to that... Your partner opened 1C, so bypassing that bid to show slam interest (on the assumption your partner can control suit with opening bid) seems not unreasonable. Now, many people do not cue bid 2d round control until all 1st round controls accounted for... The responder's hand was indeed a nice, strong 2551 hand with nice hearts... this is why I prompted this question precisely.. The fact that Ben would not show a spade control while Richard would was why I thought this was worth a post... IN ALL CASES I personally believe that opener has a duty to bid 4S over 4H in case partner has a 2d round club control, or. as Richard suggested, just bid 5H. I do not think (personally) it is incumbent for the heart bidder to show a club control... He has a right to expect that suit isnt a problem... He has to find out about spade cards before he can really get excited...Over 4s I would bid 5c (actually looking for seven) showing 2d round control. OPENER HAS FAILED to disclose where his real strength is... How can he NOT show partner the spade cards when partner is so clearly fishing for that information? This is a STRONG auction and to NOT bid spades would say to me that opener's points are all concentrated in the club suit... exactly the information that responder cannot act on. I don't even think this one is a close call... I am truly surprised 3 people took the position that responder had to cue bid his club shortness while no one thought that it was important to show where opener's real concentration of strength was... The only thing I do agree with is that over 3D clearly 3n is operner's correct and only option... I do think from there responder can cue bid clubs (hearts having been agreed on as a trump suit) and go from there.

As an addendum to this post... I agree with both that the proper rebid over 3d is 3N on this hand... But I am not sure I agree that 4H is correct after 4d. I am with Richard on this... Now, let's assume that the bidding has gone 1c-1h-2h-3d-3n-4d... would you show spd control now (i.e., 4s over 4d?),

You pick up this hand: AKQ j9x xx q10xxx You open 1C, partner responds 1H, you raise to 2H (i would not on J9X but u and partner have agreed to 3 card raises). Partner bids 3d, you bid 3h, partner now bids 4d 1c-p-1h-p-2h-p-3d-p-3h-p-4d-p-? YOUR BID? Reasons?

I have covered this in a previous thread (regarding how to bid 5-5 black suits) but I think it bears repeating. Please understand this is only my opiniion. Let us assume you pick up this hand (actual hand from earlier this week): A xx AK10xx AQjxx If you follow the requirement (oft stated in many places) that you must have unequal suits to reverse then you are required to open 1D and jump to 3c on your next bid. Now, this hand is certainly strong enough to withstand a 3 level bid on its own if partner bids... but if we take the ace of clubs away and replace it with the deuce, do u really want to force the three level and risk the 4 level? I wouldn't. As a practical matter, I would open either of the hands 1C and reverse in diamonds, then bid diamonds again to show my pattern if partner doesnt return to clubs. It saves an entire level of bidding vs. breaking the unequal suits requirement. In the 2d case (where i have removed the ace of clubs), that economy may well be necessary (its hard to stop below 3nt with this hand after a jump shift), and if partner is on a relative bust that savings is worth it.

I certainly do NOT wish to be in 6 with k10x of spades positioned where it is. I think 5D is the proper spot for this contract on this bidding and that a 6 bid is a "prayer " (praying that the spade honors are split favorably). If the field is in 6 on this auction then the field is wrong... 5D is quite enough.

Used to play support xx thru 2S, then found it was just too high for many auctions (i.e., a LAW violation) and lowered it 2H. So, any sequence above 2H is now penalty (not that it comes up much). If there is a double, it is merely saying We have the balance of power.. partner is free to bid again with a good hand if game is in the offering.

I looked at the hand... I did actually make a bergen raise on it instead of bidding 2 hts then 3.. the point, of course, was that it's not worth a 4 bid due to the bad distribution of the hand. Many players were, in fact, in 4 hts on that hand and 10 tricks has no play on normal defense. Change my doubleton spade to a singleton and I would have bid 4, and even expect it may make. As to redoubling, I simply play that it shows a good hand, and may or may not have support for partner's bid suit. My next bid will clarify to partner my holding... Over opponent's bid, partner rebids a 6 bagger or bids a new 4 card suit with some extras, passes with a mini and then the redoubler takes control (new suit is to play, cue bid of opp's suit has its normal meanings, etc.).

I have a problem with the hand you have constructed... it is so flat that making any sort of action on it invites disaster (I fully agree that the sequence of bidding given promises very little, so this is not part of my objection). The common problem i see with LOTT application is that responders totally ignore hand distribution when applying it and that is flat out incorrect. The flatter the hand distribution the more hesitant one should be to apply LOTT principles and this is the main adjustment Bergen advocates and that most bidders ignore. Let us assume you have 4333 shape with 6 HCPs and partner opens 1S red vs. white. Should you, his partner bid 3s, the weak, preemptive raise? Many will and do... I do not (I will bid 2 only with this hand). The 4th spade in your hand is an illusion.. it adds nothing to the total trick total of the combined hands because there are no ruffs available with that hand. If the opponents double 3s and partner has a minimum you are likely to go for a big number. I have seen this happen too many times and whenever it does I shake my head a little and just accept that it's a bad bid by my partner... and a misapplication of the law. The other day, i picked up a hand like this: Qx Qxxxx Kxx xxx Partner opened 1H, the opps bid 1S and I bid 2H... the bidding ended in 3H (by me) and we made 9 trix exactly. When my hand hit, my partner (a Law proponent) said he would just bid 4 directly with my hand... My response to him was I have bad shape for a 4 bid...Partner is likely to also have 2 spds on this auction and my hand is providing a 1/2 trick outside of the heart suit (the fifth heart is, again, an illuision here). The likely relative mirror distribution of the hands makes my hand fairly unattractive for LOTT purposes. Again, I don't disagree with your sequence.. 1S X 2S should show a weak hand (with xx and jordan available). But your hand should have some appropriate shape if it is going to lack additional honors that may help set up tricks if you choose to bid at all.. Just my 2 pennies.

I see one basic flaw with your idea-- the skill ratings are likely to be of little merit and quite posibly deceiving. The reason I say this is... when a semi-skilled player sits in with relative novices that player is going to acheive high play ratings when such a rating may not be merited. If I wanted to raise my skill raiting if I am an average player, what would prevent me from playing with novices who would think I am some sort of bridge god? Nothing that I can see. I guess there is a counter-argument-- this type of thing would encourage more skilled players to play with novices and that might be a good thing.. But, ultimately, I think that it would hurt the advanced+ or better players' games (people would artificially build up their skill ratings, then try to "move up" to the better games and be out of their element...). IF the skill rating was based on the level of competition-- here comes that "ratings" thing again-- then there would be more validity. But, since that is what this is meant to avoid, that isn't workable to begin with, so the basic flaw I mentioned is inherent here.