Blame asignement

[Fluffy]

North gets almost all the blame. Why?

 

North does see his diamond void right? I see it. His partner bid slam so must have a control in diamonds and in hearts. The one in hearts is likely to be a singelton or void, but do we think south can be void in diamonds? I think not. So south has a sure diamond stopper (ACE or possibly king). What ever it is, it is wasted opposite our void. So if partner has a high diamond honor, what does his spades look like. Can he have"

 

♠AQxxxxx ♥x ♦Axx ♣xx or ♠AQxxxxx ♥x ♦Kxx ♣xx. Not the way I preempt. The diamond honor partner has is a clear warning to stop.

 

If north FELT in the gambling mood, he could have bid 5NT over 4♠,, this way, he is gambling that the hearts come home (hook or ruffing setup) and gets to grand if partner holds (as expected) AQ long in spades.

 

I think south's bidding is adequately justified.

I fully agree with you here Ben, 6♠ is almost for sure with a ♦ honnor. Althou I might be biased because I was south on this one :P.

[inquiry]

North gets almost all the blame. Why?

 

North does see his diamond void right? I see it. His partner bid slam so must have a control in diamonds and in hearts. The one in hearts is likely to be a singelton or void, but do we think south can be void in diamonds? I think not. So south has a sure diamond stopper (ACE or possibly king). What ever it is, it is wasted opposite our void. So if partner has a high diamond honor, what does his spades look like. Can he have"

 

♠AQxxxxx ♥x ♦Axx ♣xx  or ♠AQxxxxx ♥x ♦Kxx ♣xx. Not the way I preempt. The diamond honor partner has is a clear warning to stop.

 

If north FELT in the gambling mood, he could have bid 5NT over 4♠,, this way, he is gambling that the hearts come  home (hook or ruffing setup) and gets to grand if partner holds (as expected) AQ long in spades.

 

I think south's bidding is adequately justified.

I fully agree with you here Ben, 6♠ is almost for sure with a ♦ honnor. Althou I might be biased because I was south on this one :P.

Well all of this is perfect world thinking of course.

 

1) 4♠ is clearly fine bid with eight card suit QJT and side AQ.

 

I play naymats too, so this is almost the perfect 4S bid. Yes some people don't preempt with side aces, don't you just love playing against them? If preempts are very precise it helps BOTH sides.. issue for another day, however.

 

2) 5♣ can be many things. One meaning is bid slam with a club control one is cue-bid, bid your controls. Some one suggest this could be CLUBS as alternative place to play. Let's deal with that first. If I open 4♠ vulnerable, trumps have been set. Period.

 

If 5♣ asked for slam with club control what should you bid? Arguably 5♦ then 6♠. If 5♣ was control showing, what should you bid. I argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that the correct bid is 6♠. If you cue-bid either red suit, you leave teh second red suit control undisclosed. Here you have first or second round control in all side suits. The best way to show controls in both red suits, imho is to bid 6♠ opposite a cue-bid 5♣.

 

Given this scenario, it is north who went wildly ovrerboard. Even if partner has spade AK that doesn't mean hearts run, you could very much need a heart hook or even a club hook. Take a simple 7-1-4-1 hand with AQJxxxx x xxxx x on a trump lead and they withhold the spade TEN. Win in hand, heart ace, heart ruff, spade to king (ten still withheld. Txx), heart ruff. If the king didn't fall. You are toasted.

 

I for one see nothing wrong with ACCEPTING partners slam invite with the correct hand. If partner was interested in top two spades for slam, he would have bid 5S or blackwood. If partenr was interested in diamond ACE or trump ACE, he would have bid blackwood. His 5C bid was looking (presumably) for a red suit control. We have BOTH. Tell him about it.

 

As for north, what the hell was he looking for? The magic bid here is 5♥ over 4♠ as a control asking bid. IF partner shows ♥ king, then 6♥ as josephine. Yes, yes, who plays josephine anymore?

[whereagles]

Ben, while your reasoning makes sense, it is still true that 6♠ is a bid that is likely to create confusion in pard. First of all, as we have seen, it was undiscussed. Second, pard might draw the wrong inference and/or draw no inference and bid 7 just because he's afraid of missing a grand.

 

You won't miss out on a slam if you bid your diamond control with 5♦. Even if pard bids 5♠ (no heart control), you can still bid 6♠ because you have that control as well.

 

What I say is that unless you have your follow-ups to a 4x opening completely sorted out (which no one does, except perhaps professionals), you should just bid your hand and not make undiscussed masterminding bids like 6♠.

 

Masterminding works better with strong hands because pard is weak and thus too scared to bid on. Pay heed to what I say, for I am a reputed masterminder :P

[pclayton]

6♠ is all wet. To me it shows no 1st round controls (OK, well, trumps don't count), and a real good suit. 5♣ did something to wake your hand up.

 

AKQxxxx, x, x, Kxxx seems right to me.

 

The relevant feature in the actual South hand is the ♦AQx.

 

Still, I can't help but feel Josh had a lot to do with the result, so the poll is flawed.

[inquiry]

What I say is that unless you have your follow-ups to a 4x opening completely sorted out (which no one does, except perhaps professionals), you should just bid your hand and not make undiscussed masterminding bids like 6♠.

Well, I don't consider 6♠ here masterminding at all....

 

Partner bid 5♣ showing a control and expressing concern over two quick losers in one or more of the red suits (imho), and inviting slam. I have control in BOTH red suits, so I accept his invite. In fact, I accept his invite in the weakest way possible (PFA). Your bid 5♦ then over 5♥ bid 6♠ should be stronger, in fact. Add to that, if partner were to bid 6♠ over 5♦ I would have left my heart control un-shown.

 

To me the masterminding bid is to do anything other than 6♠ when partner issues a 5♣ cue-bid looking for a slam. He asked, I answered. I would bid this hand exaclty as fluffy did (and to be honest, and he will tell you, we rarely agree). There is no "masterminding" here. Partner asked me to show my red suit controls with 5♣ for possible slam (if I have the correct one), and I have both. So I tell him. HE is captain, I am mate.. I answer his question with the proper response.

[jdonn]

Partner bid 5♣ showing a control and expressing concern over two quick losers in one or more of the red suits (imho), and inviting slam. I have control in BOTH red suits, so I accept his invite. In fact, I accept his invite in the weakest way possible (PFA). Your bid 5♦ then over 5♥ bid 6♠ should be stronger, in fact. Add to that, if partner were to bid 6♠ over 5♦ I would have left my heart control un-shown.

I wouldn't take that sequence as stronger, I would take it as first round diamond control and second round heart control. Jumping to 6♠ (as I thinks someone else mentioned) should be second round control of each. I admit all this ignores trump quality but perhaps south should bid 5NT over 5♥ with AJT9xxxx x Ax xx or something. What would you be saying if north had AKx A xxxx AKQJx? How is he to know if south has first or second round diamond control? Maybe south just opened 4♠ with QJT9xxxxx Kx - xx or something, or maybe the same hand with 1-1 in the red suits. Or perhaps north has Kxx AKQJxx xx Ax and not only doesn't know if south's diamond control is first or second round, but he lost his room to find out the trump situation. Or A AKQ xx AKxxxxx, the example are endless. North often wants more information than the vague 'do you have some sort of control in one or both red suits', and south should start transmitting specific information, not guessing.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think north had a 7♠ bid. I just think south brought the result upon himself by needlessly forcing north to guess instead of describing his hand precisely.

[hrothgar]

I can't believe people are haggling about the 4♠ bid. It's an absolutely standard textbook example of a 4♠ opening bid!

Which textbook would that be?

 

I'd be very interested to see any text that claimed that this a "standard" vilnerable 4♠ preempt. As I noted earlier, I consulted "Preempts from A to Z" (one of those "standard" textbooks) which clearly considers the spade suit too weak for a vulnerable preempt.

 

For what its worth, I not saying that a 4♠ is a bad bid with the hand in question, rather I think that its important that partnership's recognize that there is a lot debate regarding the requirements for these openings.

 

Claiming that there is a "standard textbook" approach seems overly simplisitic.

[jdeegan]

1) 4♠ is clearly fine bid with eight card suit QJT and side AQ.

 

I play naymats too, so this is almost the perfect 4S bid. Yes some people don't preempt with side aces, don't you just love playing against them? If preempts are very precise it helps BOTH sides.. issue for another day, however.

 

2) 5♣ can be many things. One meaning is bid slam with a club control one is cue-bid, bid your controls. Some one suggest this could be CLUBS as alternative place to play. Let's deal with that first. If I open 4♠ vulnerable, trumps have been set. Period.

 

If 5♣ asked for slam with club control what should you bid? Arguably 5♦ then 6♠. If 5♣ was control showing, what should you bid. I argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that the correct bid is 6♠. If you cue-bid either red suit, you leave teh second red suit control undisclosed. Here you have first or second round control in all side suits. The best way to show controls in both red suits, imho is to bid 6♠  opposite a cue-bid 5♣. 

 

Given this scenario, it is north who went wildly ovrerboard. Even if partner has spade AK that doesn't mean hearts run, you could very much need a heart hook or even a club hook. Take a simple 7-1-4-1 hand with AQJxxxx x xxxx x on a trump lead and they withhold the spade TEN. Win in hand, heart ace, heart ruff, spade to king (ten still withheld. Txx), heart ruff. If the king didn't fall. You are toasted.

 

I for one see nothing wrong with ACCEPTING partners slam invite with the correct hand. If partner was interested in top two spades for slam, he would have bid 5S or blackwood. If partenr was interested in diamond ACE or trump ACE, he would have bid blackwood. His 5C bid was looking (presumably) for a red suit control. We have BOTH. Tell him about it.

 

As for north, what the hell was he looking for? The magic bid here is 5♥ over 4♠ as a control asking bid. IF partner shows ♥ king, then 6♥ as josephine. Yes, yes, who plays josephine anymore?

:) For any of you who wish to learn the finer points of the game, I strongly recommend that you read Inquiry's post (reproduced above) and take it to heart. I can only add the philosophical observation that good slam bidding is CONVERSATIONAL, and bidding 'vocabulary' is limited in the extreme.

 

North's 5♣ bid says club control and an interest in at least six. He should have bid Josephine, but that's another story.

 

South's 6♠ bid answers that he has at least second round control of both of the unbid side suits and thinks six is fine, but he has no interest in seven

 

North's 7♠ bid is absurd.

 

My only quibble, a small one at that, is with the analysis if South has

AQJxxxx

x

xxxx

x

(a seven trick hand, by the way)

If opps don't lead a trump, you can win seven spades, three diamond ruffs, and two aces. The thirteener is better than 50% (w/o a club opening lead, a club hook if the heart fails to drop). With a trump lead, you are probably slightly better off to go for dropping the heart king. If it falls in two or three rounds, that's all you need. The alternative is the 25% chance of two finesses.

 

If this 7-4 hand represents my worse case, I'm willing to shoot it out after making my Josephine bid, since any extra trick makes seven a near laydown. Pard's preempt (vul vs vul at IMPS) shows 7.5 tricks. I have, at worst, five more - two ruffs, the trump king and two aces.

[hrothgar]

For any of you who wish to learn the finer points of the game, I strongly recommend that you read Inquiry's post (reproduced above) and take it to heart. I can only add the philosophical observation that good slam bidding is CONVERSATIONAL, and bidding 'vocabulary' is limited in the extreme.

So, apparantly the only time you get to use all this "vocabularly" is when you have Spade honor opposite partner's vulnerable 4 level preempt?

[Fluffy]

I also though I might had jumped to 6♦ over 5♣, would it show my hand?

[inquiry]

For any of you who wish to learn the finer points of the game, I strongly recommend that you read Inquiry's post (reproduced above) and take it to heart.  I can only add the philosophical observation that good slam bidding is CONVERSATIONAL, and bidding 'vocabulary' is limited in the extreme.

So, apparantly the only time you get to use all this "vocabularly" is when you have Spade honor opposite partner's vulnerable 4 level preempt?

Hmm.. you need good spades from partner, what do YOU bid? I bid 5♠.....

[hrothgar]

For any of you who wish to learn the finer points of the game, I strongly recommend that you read Inquiry's post (reproduced above) and take it to heart.  I can only add the philosophical observation that good slam bidding is CONVERSATIONAL, and bidding 'vocabulary' is limited in the extreme.

So, apparantly the only time you get to use all this "vocabularly" is when you have Spade honor opposite partner's vulnerable 4 level preempt?

Hmm.. you need good spades from partner, what do YOU bid? I bid 5♠.....

The use of a 5♠ to ask about trump quality is completely irrelevant to my original point:

 

You went and traced out an exiting little chain of logic about the meaning the 5♣ response and the 6♠ rebid yada, yada, yada. This is all fine and dandy... However, the only reason that you don't have two trump losers is that partner... the person making the 5♣ advance happens to have Kxx in Spades. If opener is able to make an extremely aggressive advance to 6♠ holding such a weak trump suit then responder is going to run into trouble advancing on a variety of strong hands that lack "good" trump support. The less discliplined that 4♠ opening, the more complicated your constructive responses are going to get

 

A month or so ago there was some discussion about 5M openings and surrounding requirements. Personally, I'm not overly enamoured of the idea that 5M should ask for trump honors in the suited opened. With this said and done, I suspect that a case could be made to split high level spade preempts across 4♦/4♠/5♠ ios order to get more bidding accuracy. It might even make sense to use 4♠ as a realtively discliplined opening (you have room to explore intelligently) and 5♠ as a crapshoot opening which denies a hand suitable for 4♦ or 4♠

[inquiry]

For any of you who wish to learn the finer points of the game, I strongly recommend that you read Inquiry's post (reproduced above) and take it to heart.  I can only add the philosophical observation that good slam bidding is CONVERSATIONAL, and bidding 'vocabulary' is limited in the extreme.

So, apparantly the only time you get to use all this "vocabularly" is when you have Spade honor opposite partner's vulnerable 4 level preempt?

Hmm.. you need good spades from partner, what do YOU bid? I bid 5♠.....

The use of a 5♠ to ask about trump quality is completely irrelevant to my original point:

 

You went and traced out an exiting little chain of logic about the meaning the 5♣ response and the 6♠ rebid yada, yada, yada. This is all fine and dandy... However, the only reason that you don't have two trump losers is that partner... the person making the 5♣ advance happens to have Kxx in Spades. If opener is able to make an extremely aggressive advance to 6♠ holding such a weak trump suit then responder is going to run into trouble advancing on a variety of strong hands that lack "good" trump support. The less discliplined that 4♠ opening, the more complicated your constructive responses are going to get

Wrong. When you preempt vul you promise some number of tricks. Pickem, did you promise 7? 8? 9? Partner looks in hand and starts counting, there isn't a lot of room for exploration.

 

What can partner do? IF he just needs top spades, blackwood does it. If he needs two top spades and a side ace? Well, that isn't a prempt for me unless the two top spades are KQ, and blackwood still works.

 

As a matter of fact, responder who needs solid spades and a sided ace had best stop now as that is not happening.

 

Then, as you correctly pointed out, there are the new suit bids as CAB or as control showing. This is looking for slam based upon "I can count the tricks" if we are not off two in this suit. Or there is cue-bidding up the line that is "I can count the tricks if we are not off two quick tricks in some suit, not this one", So imagine you held S-KQJTxxxx H-Ax D-void C-xxx and the bidding goes 4S-p-5D-p-? What do you bid? Do you show your heart ace? your heart ace and diamond void? Your good spades? Of course not, you lack a club control, your partner lacks one too. You will be a good boy and bid 5S.

 

Now change the hand around, you hold KQJTxxx void Ax xxx what do you bid. Maybe 5D and then if partner bids 5S then 6H, trying for 7 anyway. To try for seven this has to be first round control in both reds. But the problem here is if you bid 5D and partner bid 6S he has no idea about the heart void. Do you bid on or pass? You have not come close to describing your hand. I think a jump to 6H shows this exact hand.. void in jump, ace in other, GS try. I think jump to 6S should show first and second round controls in the off two suits. I think 5NT should show stronger hand than jump to 6S (PFA).

 

The argument that partner is looking to have you prevent two quick losers in some side suit and have solid spades is, well, not sound. PArtner would have somethhing like xxx AKQxx xx AKQ and wants max 1♦ loser and no ♠ loser. Somedays you will catch partner with AKQJxxx xx x xxx but not often enough... to be worth worrying about. Bid 6S and hope for no ♦ lead is probably a better bet if you wanted to gamble

[whereagles]

It's an absolutely standard textbook example of a 4♠ opening bid!

Which textbook would that be?

Well.. Robson/Segal for instance. They don't give many examples, but they do something no other book does: they explain the strategy of preemption properly, in terms of ODR. This hand, with an ODR of 6 and solid suit, certainly qualifies for a 4-level preempt.

 

In any case, any textbook that claims 4♠ is out because "the suit is too weak" clearly isn't making an effort to be precise. I mean.. it's 8 cards to the QJT. EIGHT CARDS :P

[whereagles]

What I say is that unless you have your follow-ups to a 4x opening completely sorted out (which no one does, except perhaps professionals), you should just bid your hand and not make undiscussed masterminding bids like 6♠.

Well, I don't consider 6♠ here masterminding at all....

 

Partner bid 5♣ showing a control and expressing concern over two quick losers in one or more of the red suits (imho), and inviting slam. I have control in BOTH red suits, so I accept his invite. In fact, I accept his invite in the weakest way possible (PFA). Your bid 5♦ then over 5♥ bid 6♠ should be stronger, in fact. Add to that, if partner were to bid 6♠ over 5♦ I would have left my heart control un-shown.

 

To me the masterminding bid is to do anything other than 6♠ when partner issues a 5♣ cue-bid looking for a slam. He asked, I answered. I would bid this hand exaclty as fluffy did (and to be honest, and he will tell you, we rarely agree). There is no "masterminding" here. Partner asked me to show my red suit controls with 5♣ for possible slam (if I have the correct one), and I have both. So I tell him. HE is captain, I am mate.. I answer his question with the proper response.

I agree with you. But I would be very weary to bid like that unless I had these post-preempt sequences fully sorted out with pard. Especially since I have an alternative in the form of 5♦ followed by 6♠. The straight 6♠ bid is obviously not masterminding if you have the sequence fully locked-up, but otherwise it runs a serious risk of confusing pard.

 

For the record, I went through a similar experience once. I used to play with a guy who did this sort of things to me, like leaps to 6♠ and similar stuff. That confused the heck out of me, and at table I usually drew the wrong inference and we ended up in silly contracts. But then he would always win the post-mortem with beautiful and thoughtful reasonings like yours, which mathematically showed he was right and I sucked for not having understood his "master bids". Last time this happened we had a serious arguing and I have never played him eversince. (Nor do I intend to, eventhough he's an otherwise excellent bidder.)

 

All in all what I'm saying is this: eventhough brilliant reasonings like yours look great on paper, in practice they can turn out terribly wrong at table if pard is in another wavelenght. This happened to me before, it happened to Gonzalo and it will happen again and again whenever people take risks with undiscussed bids. They can impress mathematicians at a congress, but it is not winning bridge :P

[whereagles]

I also though I might had jumped to 6♦ over 5♣, would it show my hand?

On paper I would take that as diamond void, likely heart controls and good trumps. At the table that could not be it, so 6♦ would have managed to confuse me beyond belief :P

[hrothgar]

whereagles,Mar 29 2006, 12:42 PM

 

>In any case, any textbook that claims 4♠ is out because "the suit is too weak"

>clearly isn't making an effort to be precise. I mean.. it's 8 cards to the QJT.

>EIGHT CARDS :P

 

Quote page 129 of "Preempts from A to Z"

 

Requirements for Open 4♥ and 4♠

 

1. A good seven or eight card suit. Non-vulnerable the suit occasionally may contain two losers. Vulnerable the suit should never have more than one loser opposite a possible singleton in partner's hand, assuming normal trump break.

 

2. At most one Ace or King outside the trump suit

 

3. Seven playing tricks non-vulnerable; Eight playing tricks Vulnerable (the rule of two or three)

 

Its all fine and dandy for folks to have different requirements for a 4♠ opening. Many people consider the rule of two and three someonewhat old fashioned. With this said and done, I'm still waiting for for your example from any one of a variety of "textbooks"

 

>Well.. Robson/Segal for instance. They don't give many examples, but they

>do something no other book does: they explain the strategy of preemption

>properly, in terms of ODR. This hand, with an ODR of 6 and solid suit, certainly >qualifies for a 4-level preempt.

 

I've read Robson and Segal. Moreover, I actually understand it. At lot of my own beliefs regarding pressure bidding came after reading that work. But even R-S have some degree of respect for vulnerable 4 level openings.

 

I'd like to include a couple quotes from that work.

 

"First in Hand Vulnerable

 

Now the odds shift, particularly if you are at "red". In fact, vulnerable against not we really wouldn't call this a pressure bidding situation at all. At game all the odds are not overly dissimilar from Love All -except that if you conceed one or two doubled off against a part score its more painful. Whilst on the subject of part scores, its important to recognize that, at matchpoints, its very dangerous to pressure preempt when vulnerable."

 

"Its usually wrong to open with a pressure bid when your side "owns" the hand. You must not exclude or hamper partner in the competitive process when your priority is to discover how high a contract your side can make. In such auctions your goals is to converse descriptively with partner. Similar considerations apply if the hand seems to be evenly balanced with each side able to make the same number of tricks.

 

The only major exception to this is when you open with a game bid. Now - even if the hand appears to be yours - it will often be right to open high. On the one hand, you may induce your opponents to conceed a large penalty (see a couple pages ago). On the other, you may prevent the opponents from finding a profitable sacrifice. The following deal (illustrating a red 4♠ opening caused some discussion

 

♠ KQJ9854

♥ Q

♦ 7

♣ AK96

 

I include this hand because the trump suit is quite a bit stronger than the QJT eight that you provided... (As R+S note, missing trump honors can be problematice, because the make it easier for the opponents to convert for penalty)

 

I admit: its possible that R+S believe that the benefits of opening with a game level opening outweigh the dangers associated with a vulnerable 4 level preempt. However, this seems ambiguous at best.

 

In short, i'm still waiting for that textbook that you mentioned earlier...

[inquiry]

Its all fine and dandy for folks to have different requirements for a 4♠ opening.  Many people consider the rule of two and three someonewhat old fashioned.  With this said and done, I'm still waiting for for your example from any one of a variety of "textbooks"

ACBL CLUB SERIES, THE CLUB BOOK,

 

Opening preempts...

 

Weak hand, seven card suit or longer, three of the top five honors. In deciding between the three level and four level. extra legnth is useful.

 

Now that is from memory, I looked it up last night out of curiosity, as I had no intention to post on this subject. And BTW, they then proceed to show a 4C preempt on AJ-seveth (only two of top 5 honors) as a typical preempt.

 

If you REALLY want the actual wording, I can get it for you tonight, not that I think audrey Grant and her beginner book is the gospel with respect to such issues, it is a widely sold textbook, and I ahve no doubt it has sold more than preempts from A to Z.

[whereagles]

> hrothgar wrote:

> I'm still waiting for for your example from any one of a variety of "textbooks"

 

Look, since this subject seems to be bothering you, I'll concede the hand is probably not a textbook example. Some textbooks might have examples like that, but I agree most don't. This is because authors tend to be conservative, so as not to be blamed for when readers go for -1100s or so. In practice most authors (if not all) open on junk and we both know it. Let's not be hypocrate.

 

 

> I've read Robson and Segal. Moreover, I actually understand it.

> The following deal (illustrating a red 4♠ opening caused some discussion

>

> ♠ KQJ9854

> ♥ Q

> ♦ 7

> ♣ AK96

>

> I include this hand because the trump suit is quite a bit stronger than the QJT eight

> that you provided...

 

KQJ 7th takes the same 6 tricks as QJT 8th. If you can't understand that simple fact, I really have to dispute your claim to have understood more complicated concepts like those of Robson/Segal...

[hrothgar]

KQJ 7th takes the same 6 tricks as QJT 8th. If you can't understand that simple fact, I really have to dispute your claim to have understood more complicated concepts like those of Robson/Segal...

Potentially the "fact" isn't as simple the person making it

 

I readily admit that

 

QJT987654

 

and

 

KQJT987

 

will both (probably) produce 6 trump tricks opposite a small singleton

 

With this said and done, the decision to make a penalty double or convert a card showing double for penalties often depends on the quality of one's trump holding. Judged by this criteria, eight cards to the QJT is significantly weaker.

[whereagles]

the decision to make a penalty double or convert a card showing double for penalties often depends on the quality of one's trump holding.  Judged by this criteria, eight cards to the QJT is significantly weaker.

I respectfully point out that honors isn't the only criteria. Let me bundle that with some other:

 

- trump honors

- trump length

- intermediate cards in trumps

- lack of shape to bid over a take-out double

 

So.. while from the point of view of trump honors QJT 8th is more likely to be penalized, from the point of view of length and lack of shape it is less likely to be so.

[luis]

My view:

 

4♠ is automatic and with respect people discussing 4♠ should have their head examined.

 

5♣ is probably wrong, certainly you do have a cuebid in clubs and slam intentions but what are you going to do next? I mean you also have diamond AND heart controls in your hand. 5♣ in my view is used in hands where you are lacking a control in a side suit and need to investigate that.

For me there are two options with the North hand: 6♠ or 5NT, 6♠ is the conservative view, 5NT asking pd to bid 7 with AQxxxx(x) of spades is the agressive view. It seems that 6♠ is the "right" bid but I can live with 5NT if you needed a good result.

 

After 5♣, 6♠ is a good way to destroy the auction completely and 7♠ is a "punishment" bid for bidding something that can't exist because south either has a diamond control (5♦ or he doesn't and then he bids 5♥ or 5♠).

 

It certainly looks as an auction that can finish a partnership, but once I have a similar disaster with my pd and the conclusion was that the board was the one to be blamed because if North doesn't get the hand he has over a 4♠ opening this doesn't happen, and south unfortunately decided to do something silly and north did something even more stupid, the chances of this happening again are almost null so let's keep playing together.

 

Blame the dealing software!

[hrothgar]

My view:

 

4♠ is automatic and with respect people discussing 4♠ should have their head examined.

Grow up Luis:

 

This is a matter of partership agreement. I don't really care what that agreement looks like. There are a variety of different styles, all with different pluses and minuses.

 

The one thing that I am damn sure about is that open 4♠ with this hand when partner is expecting a better trump is a recipe for disaster. Do you really think that North expected QJT9xxxx in Spades when he bid a grand holding Kxx?

 

You say that 4♠ is an automatic bid vulnerable at IMPs?

I say prove it.

 

I've never many formal game theoretic proofs applied in bridge.

I'd love to see one.

[luis]

My view: 

 

4♠ is automatic and with respect people discussing 4♠ should have their head examined.

Grow up Luis:

 

This is a matter of partership agreement. I don't really care what that agreement looks like. There are a variety of different styles, all with different pluses and minuses.

 

The one thing that I am damn sure about is that open 4♠ with this hand when partner is expecting a better trump is a recipe for disaster. Do you really think that North expected QJT9xxxx in Spades when he bid a grand holding Kxx?

 

You say that 4♠ is an automatic bid vulnerable at IMPs?

I say prove it.

 

I've never many formal game theoretic proofs applied in bridge.

I'd love to see one.

Richard,

 

I respect your opinion but if holding an 8-3-1-1 hand with 8 spades you can't open 4♠ there is something completely wrong in the Universe.

Playing Namyats you can choose 4♦ / 4♠ depending on your agreements.

Without Namyats this is a normal, obvious, solid, textbook 4♠ opening. If you ask 1000 good players 1000 of them will open 4♠ playing 2/1 or Sayc without special agreements. Maybe 1001 if someone decides to vote twice.

 

QJT is the most offensive heading you can have in a suit, I can understand reasons for not opening 4♠ with for example Ace 7th and a side ace where some people would open 1♠ because of the 2 defensive tricks but with an offensive hand 4♠ is so clear so clear that I really think you are absolutely wrong about thinking this depending on anything.

 

BTW: North bid 7♠ to punish pd for his 6♠ bid it is a clear allergic reaction to the 6♠ bid to me.

[hotShot]

The original post said 5♣ was a cuebid showing fit, i wonder why people had been discussing alternative meaning.

 

My view:

5♣ is probably wrong, certainly you do have a cuebid in clubs and slam intentions but what are you going to do next?

 

So what you say is, that if you don't know what your partner is going to do next, you just ignore him?

Partner started a cuebid sequence and oviously he wanted to hear a cuebid from opener.

 

I'll help you finding the answer:

AQ 7th opposit his Kxx with all controls will allow the Grand (at least with a finesse)

AJ 7th will allow a grand if the trumps are not 3-0 (at least with a finesse)

A 8th will allow a grand (at least with a finesse)

So how does he find out about the trump ace?

Probably this pair doesn't have any agreements

or voidwood is not agreed and a simple blackwood can't determinate which Ace opener holds.

By starting a cuebid sequence at least, some informations can be collected because:

- the long suit will have 3 of the top 5 (at least 3 HCP) and

- opener will usually have 10 HCP at most and

- any side control weakens the trump suit

- any ♦ values opposit a void may/will be wasted

Openers 5♦ will make the grand less probable, so advancer will settle for 6.

Without side controlls opener will bid 5♠, that can be advanced to 6.

 

This sound like a plan to me that should work with any partner that is willing to cooperate.

 

6♠ means: I don't care what you want from me. Advancer now has to guess, if opener hold the A♦ (stop in 6) or A♠ the grand is on.

 

 

My view:

BTW: North bid 7♠ to punish pd for his 6♠ bid it is a clear allergic reaction to the 6♠ bid to me.

Oviously i don't agree with that statement.