Lobowolf

I've noticed this as well, and for that reason, I don't ask until it matters. If the first thing I'm doing is playing a suit where count is irrelevant to me, I don't ask. If I then switch to a suit where it matters, I don't ask until the answer would affect my decision (e.g. 3rd round finesse or drop). You get more honest signals before you let them know you're paying attention.

ok, fair enough. No more such threads from me in the future. FWIW, I wasn't trying to justify 3NT, but to subject 1NT to a little more scrutiny than it had been getting.

Well, when it's addressed in the original thread, you get comments like "resulting is beside the point," so it seemed like a separate thread was a better forum. I guess the real question would be, if the auction in this layout were 1NT-3NT (presumably making north's bidding blameless), and it led to a poor result, in an "assign the blame" thread, would the overwhelming consensus really be "no blame...just one of those things"? I'm inclined to doubt it, but maybe it would. Ironically (in the Alannis Morrisette sense of the word) the point, to the extent that Josh's question isn't rhetorical, is to avoid resulting by considering a layout on which north doesn't have the 4th heart and see if south's role in the original post is still dismissed fairly cavalierly.

Oh, after a while all hands look the same.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxxxhaqxdatxckjxx&s=sahkjxxdqxxxcqtxx]133|200|Scoring: MP No opposition bidding. Standardish system but with 12-14 NT.[/hv]

I thought that one of the challenges on this problem is that partner will not bid slam with this hand unless you do something other than bid 5♦. Not that it stopped me making the same bid. Paul I think part of the question is certainly, "Will he bid it anyway over 5♦ if 2 of his black cards are clubs?"

Definitely agree that it's less than ideal; I just think it's enough for a cue below the game level, particularly given the opponents' having bid clubs, and therefore that on some of the hands on which 6♦ is correct, partner won't move over 5♦ due to concerns about that suit. Part of the question is where you fall on the cuebids-below-game continuum -- On one end, they can suggest a hand that REALLY looks good for slam; on the other end, you can take the position that you're going to 5♦ anyway, and as long as your hand doesn't look quite UNsuitable for slam, you should use the room to show partner a holding that might help him with his possible decision on whether to go farther.

At the given conditions, I'd invite with an eye toward 3NT. At pairs, I'd pass 1NT. Even if I knew partner had 4 hearts, I'd prefer 3NT to 4♥

That analysis (sic) addresses only a portion of my argument, and it bears a passing resemblance, at best, to what I was saying. At the risk of being understood, I'll clarify. Losing trick count characterizes Qx as a 2-loser suit, the same as xx; it characterizes Qxxx as almost as bad as xxx, 2 1/2 losers. However, when partner has length in suits where we have a queen, and partner has a good hand, it becomes more probable than the Q will in fact be a useful card, and thus losing trick count makes our hand seem worse than it is. Putting our red suits up against some of the relevant hands for partner (partner has a hand worth at least considering 6♦), as, for instance, the hands posted by Phil, MikeH, and others, make this point by specific example, as opposed to the general terms I was using, but it's the same point. My point is nothing remotely like "partner will cover most of my losers." Part of my point (the part about the red suits) is: "Because partner has strength, and length in the suits where I have Qx(xx), my hand is better than LTC would suggest."

Signalling with a doubleton so you can ruff the third round is often mischaracterized as a count signal. Unless you're specifically in a count situation, you don't play high (using standard signals) from a doubleton to show an even number; you play high to let partner know you want a continuation. If attitude is "obviously irrelevant," then you should show count. But be careful which situations you construe as "obviously irrelevant."

Agree 100%. Ditto.

I agree completely, which is why in my post LTC was merely a basic starting point. I contextualized my evaluation with reference to partner's bidding (making it likely that my red suit holdings weren't full of the losers as they would be in isolation), the opponents' bidding (partner's potential concern about the club suit), and the potential "in and out" (as Jeff Rubens would say) benefit of having slow honors in partner's suits and fast honors outside it.

Ron Klinger called; his offer for your to provide a quotation for his next back cover has been rescinded.

IMO 4♥ = 10, 4N = 9, 5♦ = 8, 5♣ = 5, 4♠ = 4, _P = 3 The hand is poor in context. I disagree that the hand is poor in context. We have 6 1/2 losers out of context, which is about average (1NT openers tend to be either 6 or 7 loser hands), but given partner's all-red bidding, it's hard to seriously consider Qx Qxxx as 4 1/2 losers. We also have fast tricks in partner's short suits, and slow fitting honors in his long suits. If partner doesn't have slam interest, he's just going to bid 5♦ anyway, and no harm, no foul; if he does have slam interest, this hand shouldn't disappoint him, and what he may most want to know about is control of the suit they're bidding. I don't think we need the perfect (or even a great) hand to cuebid below the game level here. This hand is pretty good.

5♣

There's not much room for a "clever" Q to be relevant. It's clearly not from Qxx, since you didn't see the J pop on your left. If it's from Qx, you're going to see the J before you have to decide. If it's from QJx, you can't get it right. For all relevant, practical purposes, it's either Q stiff, or QJ tight. Assuming he wouldn't play the Q every single time from QJ tight, you should play for restricted choice. If he'd play the queen every time from QJ tight, and you know this, then it doesn't matter what you'll do (but you'll never get it wrong in the same situation when he plays the jack).

Yeah we watched Knocked Up for the 5th time or so last night. One of those movies that you laugh in every scene. I want to see Pineapple Express really bad, but will probably wait for it to be on cable next year. I liked Knocked Up, but prefer 40 Year Old Virgin. Tropic Thunder is funny for the not-easily-offended.

I'll suggest it. The responder to the doubler, if he has 5 points, knows that his side has close to half the deck and a spade fit of at least 7 cards and more often 8. He's in the seat of last resort, where the only choices are to defend 2♦ or compete to 2♠. I'd rather have that hand throw in a 2♠ call rather than make 2♠ by the doubler mean merely "I have a 4th spade" rather than the traditional "I have more than just bare opening hand values," especially given that at the time of the doubler's second bid, his partner will get another turn; at the time of partner's second bid, it's compete or defend.

That's how I like it. I'm a big boy, and I can compete to 2♠ (as the 4th seat bidder) on my own, and even play a 4-3 fit at the 2-level when I have to. Opening bid with spade support? Call me old-fashioned, but I heard the double the first time.

I'd assumed that 2NT was a low-road Lebensohl call. Whatever 2NT meant, I have to go with 3NT as the ultimate culprit. Lots of auctions are imperfect, but when one partner's made a takeout double, and the other partner never bids his long suit (which turns out to be the suit you belong in)...the burden is on partner #2.

I think it's about a 6 1/2 for NT, and about a 3 1/2 for hearts. To the downside, no aces & 4333 distribution; to the upside, very nice intermediates and no jacks, either. Not interested in 4 hearts with the slow values, but at IMPs, I'd take a poke at 3NT. At matchpoints, I'd let partner play 1NT.

I may stand corrected; I certainly don't remember any sort of furor over that.

As Hank's neighbor said to him on King of the Hill: You paint your house? That's like putting lingerie on a monkey! It does take some serious creativity to even make the connection between his common expression that everyone seems to have used, and her lipstick remark. It wouldn't have even occured to me that it had anything to do with her until the Republicans began whining about it. It would be like Democrats complaining when McCain says "I have the scars to prove it" because Joe Biden has a scar somewhere. It'd be more like the Democrats whining if McCain picked Romney and Hillary beat Obama, and the all-male Republican ticket used "lipstick on a pig" in reference to one of her proposals. And the whining would have begun before the "G" in "pig" made it out of his mouth.

What's the difference between a pit bull and a thug?

"Think as I think," said a man, "Or you are abominably wicked; You are a toad." And after I had thought of it, I said: "I will, then, be a toad." -Stephen Crane