Who to blame?

[jdonn]

I agree I misevaluated this hand pretty badly but is my general view on what a 4D/4S bid should mean wrong/non standard?

No you worded it exactly how I think of it

[neilkaz]

Phil's a bit more aggressive with the lower point of his ranges than I. I'll admit that I am not sure what's correct, but felt that you could stretch about 1 pt in evaluation (after factoring in to account anything positional things from the PJO)

 

So for me, 3♠ shows a very good single raise to an average limit raise, 4♠ shows a better than average limit raise to a minimum GF, and 4♦ would show a decent GF+.

 

Splitting hairs...yeah maybe..but really enjoying the discussion here and learning.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[mike777]

As a nonexpert for me:

1) If you open sound, or very sound this is an easy 4d responder hand or easy 100% game force hand. Partner opens sound! :)

2) if you open all balanced 11 or almost all 5-4 ten point hands this is a typical invite hand. IN this example/auction a typical 4s bid.

 

I guess I could even understand if partner argued this is a dead minimum game force hand, dead minimum, but really for me this would be a typical invite hand.

[kenrexford]

Jxxx KQxxx xx xx?

 

is that a 4S bid?

Or, rather worse from the point of view of a South who is considering a slam try, Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand. I always thought of a 4S bid as a good limit raise/bad GF hand and as 4D as a not-bad GF+. Bidding 4S on bad limit raise hands (and this example is like a queen weaker than that) seems like a bad idea?

 

I agree I misevaluated this hand pretty badly but is my general view on what a 4D/4S bid should mean wrong/non standard?

This is where I think context makes the difference. I think a one-under cue is stronger, like you suggest. However, a two-under, because of LTTC, is more flexible.

 

However, there are two admitted flaws to my thinking, at least that I spot immediately:

 

1. A flexible cue does not protect us well against a sacrifice to Responder's left as the next call. My rebuttal is that you either have more problems after the cue or more problems after the jump to game, and I'd rather handle the situation with the optimistic approach that there might not be interference.

 

2. I don't see many discussions here about the impact of the availability of LTTC as affecting how much turf the cue can cover. That suggests that a partner will not catch this meaning as "standard" unless it is discussed (GP that a descriptive call is more flexible the lower it is below game).

 

 

FWIW, I open incredibly light, and my regular partner does as well, but I seem to be on the extreme end of how much turf 4♦ covers. I don't see that as inconsistent.

[gnasher]

Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand.

No, nor would I - I was just adapting Frances's example to make it more of a problem opposite this South hand. I would, however, bid 4♠ with some quite weak hands containing five spades, like Jxxxx xx x KJ10xx or Jxxxx Qxxx x Kxx

 

It wasn't that easy to construct hands where 5♠ is in jeopardy facing the South hand, so maybe it's not so dangerous for South to move.

[Guest Jlall]

Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand.

No, nor would I - I was just adapting Frances's example to make it more of a problem opposite this South hand. I would, however, bid 4♠ with some quite weak hands containing five spades, like Jxxxx xx x KJ10xx or Jxxxx Qxxx x Kxx

 

It wasn't that easy to construct hands where 5♠ is in jeopardy facing the South hand, so maybe it's not so dangerous for South to move.

I have always thought it was wrong to bid 4S on these weakish hands with 5 trumps in this auction (don't preempt over a preempt?). I have always bid 3 on those type of hands. I have also always passed with hands like Kxxxx Jxx xx Jxx. Is this wrong?

[kenrexford]

Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand.

No, nor would I - I was just adapting Frances's example to make it more of a problem opposite this South hand. I would, however, bid 4♠ with some quite weak hands containing five spades, like Jxxxx xx x KJ10xx or Jxxxx Qxxx x Kxx

 

It wasn't that easy to construct hands where 5♠ is in jeopardy facing the South hand, so maybe it's not so dangerous for South to move.

I have always thought it was wrong to bid 4S on these weakish hands with 5 trumps in this auction (don't preempt over a preempt?). I have always bid 3 on those type of hands. I have also always passed with hands like Kxxxx Jxx xx Jxx. Is this wrong?

Whether I agree or disagree is not what prompted me to post.

 

I understand the motivation of not preempting over a preempt. However, something about the reasoning behind not bidding 4♠ with weakish hands, but bidding 4♥ on a different thread hand, seems backwards or inconsistent somehow. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusions, again. I am just scratching my head in trying to figure out how these two fit together on the basis of the articulated reasoning.

[Guest Jlall]

Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand.

No, nor would I - I was just adapting Frances's example to make it more of a problem opposite this South hand. I would, however, bid 4♠ with some quite weak hands containing five spades, like Jxxxx xx x KJ10xx or Jxxxx Qxxx x Kxx

 

It wasn't that easy to construct hands where 5♠ is in jeopardy facing the South hand, so maybe it's not so dangerous for South to move.

I have always thought it was wrong to bid 4S on these weakish hands with 5 trumps in this auction (don't preempt over a preempt?). I have always bid 3 on those type of hands. I have also always passed with hands like Kxxxx Jxx xx Jxx. Is this wrong?

Whether I agree or disagree is not what prompted me to post.

 

I understand the motivation of not preempting over a preempt. However, something about the reasoning behind not bidding 4♠ with weakish hands, but bidding 4♥ on a different thread hand, seems backwards or inconsistent somehow. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusions, again. I am just scratching my head in trying to figure out how these two fit together on the basis of the articulated reasoning.

Not sure why 2 totally different situations would confuse you. In fact, they are opposite, in one I like to preempt with a strong hand and in this one I don't like to show a good hand with a weak one.

 

Not sure why you keep trying to question things like this. What is your point?

 

Believe it or not I believe that in some auctions I prefer to be conservative, and in some I prefer an aggressive approach. Given totally different contexts is this also confusing to you? How can one like conservative action in one auction and aggressive action in another?!?!?! THAT IS VERY INCONSISTENT!!!

 

Or maybe it's not some all or nothing game where you have to always believe in one style, and you can evaluate each problem on it's own merits. If you ever feel like calling me out for inconsistency then try two positions that are analagous where I say I would do something different as opposed to this weak attempt, thanks. This is your second attempt recently, and both have failed miserably, so please do a better job.

[kenrexford]

Boy! Quite defensive!

 

I actually was intrigued by the comments. Not from a standpoint of thinking that they were wrong. Rather, as I tried to state, because I thought that the conclusions seemed right but that your way of summarizing the thinking was a strange way of putting it. So, I sought clarification, as the way you articulated the two conclusions seems strange.

 

Again, and I say this like a person trying to sneak a toy from an angry kitten, by "inconsistent," I don't mean dumb or errant or crazy.

 

In the one situation, a troubling hand with an extremely high ODR and high general value forces the side expected to have boss trumps to make a decision that forces us to make a decision, and may well place us into the last-guess scenario. In contrast, the other auction features a decision to not make the same guess scenario jump, despite having boss trumps, again with a high ODR.

 

These two situations seemed, therefore, extremely similar in many respects. I was intrigued by the hearts-vs-spades situation and the weak-vs-strong ODR concept and was hoping to get your thoughts.

 

Not "calling out," at all. I also have noticed some situations that appear initially similar but handled in a way that seems inconsistent or backwards unless you delve deeper into the problem. These two surprised me, in that I seemed to agree but found my agreement troubling bexcause I could not put my finger on what made the difference.

[benlessard]

I think xxxx Kxxxx x AQx would still be a 4♦ call, but Jxxx Qxxxx x AQx or Jxxx Kxxxx x AJx would not. So, fairly close.

The best post ive read today.