cooperate or not?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sak4ha8743d852cak&s=s6hkt652dkt3cjt86]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 Pass  1♥    Pass  4♥

 Pass  4♠    Pass  5♦

 Dbl   6♥    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

 

Where did the wheels fall off?

[pclayton]

With 4♠. Don't look for the ideal hand. Even the 5 level isn't safe here.

[jtfanclub]

The X should be a giant warning. Before that, it was what, a 45% slam?

 

I probably wouldn't even try for slam with the North hand, but I don't have a problem with it.

[kenrexford]

North was too aggressive, but he was looking for the stiff diamond.

 

South's 5♦ showed a stiff diamond.

 

So, South gets the major charge, IMO.

 

How can 4♠ be anything but a stiff-ask?

[TylerE]

I do have a problem with it. Here 4♥ should have at most one outside K, so you know you have diamonds issues, and while the north hand IS very control rich, it's actually quite short in trick sources. With the given hand, I wouldn't be shocked to be down in 4♥ (Losing 3 diamonds, with K♥ not coming in, say).

 

EDIT: Ken, how on earth do you see 5♦ as shortness??

[mikeh]

I think North should get rid of those rose-tinted glasses and pass 4♥.

 

He needs short diamonds to have a play.. and even xxx KQJxxx x xxx isn't enough.

 

North committed a basic error: he or she saw that a 'magic hand' would allow slam to be a good contract, so he or she went looking for it. A player will rarely go wrong following the advice that 'don't play me for a magic hand, partner... I won't have it'.

 

As for S's call, 5♦ is mandatory, in my view... partner is trying for slam.. picture AKx AQxxx AQJx x: now 5♦ is the perfect call... btw, this hand IS one on which I would make a move, because I don't need 'magic'...and I would expect 5-level safety most of the time. Compare to the actual hand where, on a bad day, we fail at the 4 level!

 

N's 6♥ was truly, truly bizarre... but that was merely the final error, not the only error.

[skjaeran]

Where did north find another bid?

It's a clearcut pass over 4♥ to me.

[kenrexford]

I think North should get rid of those rose-tinted glasses and pass 4♥.

 

He needs short diamonds to have a play.. and even xxx KQJxxx x xxx isn't enough.

 

North committed a basic error: he or she saw that a 'magic hand' would allow slam to be a good contract, so he or she went looking for it. A player will rarely go wrong following the advice that 'don't play me for a magic hand, partner... I won't have it'.

 

As for S's call, 5♦ is mandatory, in my view... partner is trying for slam.. picture AKx AQxxx AQJx x: now 5♦ is the perfect call... btw, this hand IS one on which I would make a move, because I don't need 'magic'...and I would expect 5-level safety most of the time. Compare to the actual hand where, on a bad day, we fail at the 4 level!

 

N's 6♥ was truly, truly bizarre... but that was merely the final error, not the only error.

I think you are completely out of your mind with this analysis.

 

1. Responder cannot have xxx-KQJxxx-x-xxx. That's a 2♥ opening. Because he cannot have a 2♥ opening he must have five hearts only. With only five hearts, even with a stiff, he needs more opposite a third-seat opening. Therefore, he has Hxxxx in hearts with an outside stiff and an outside card or two. If the stiff is in diamonds, he must have an outside Queen. With an outside Queen(s), Qxxxx in hearts is not enough, so he needs the heart King. Thus, slam is a good slam if the stiff is diamonds.

 

2. 5♦ is far from mandatory -- it is absurd. Partner want to know the location of the stiff, period. 4NT makes sense -- stiff spade. Even if you cue card-or-stiff, which is dumb, 4NT is the cheaper cue -- the spade cue -- and was bypassed. So, 5♦ is 100% wrong and induced what should be a good slam.

 

3. Opposite your example hand, Responder bids 4NT to show the stiff spade, and Opener NOW can ask about the side control. However, Opener would be better served bidding 5♦ rather than 4♠.

 

4. 6♥ was 100% after the 5♦ call, for the reasons given. The double, BTW, confirmed to Opener that Responder was on the right wavelength -- wrong!!! Oh well.

 

The only issue, IMO, with North is the aggressiveness. The technique was perfect. My problem with South was the idiot 5♦ call. My general problem is the lack of techniques.

[han]

Agree with all that mikeh said.

[hotShot]

North is not strong enough to go on after 4♥.

[matmat]

wheels fell off at 4♠

[cherdano]

I disagree with everything that Ken said. Obviously 4S = shortness ask would be a useful gadget here, but to assume it without discussion is beyond ridiculous.

[pclayton]

I don't mind a lot of Ken's methods, but they are far from standard, so its seems strange to call something an 'error' if you don't cue bid per these rules.

 

I think 4♠ is really, really poor. Stopping at the 5 level isn't a victory here - give South one more diamond and one less club and the 5 level is outright dangerous.

 

I also agree with Mike that a stiff diamond isn't the magic elixir for slam here.

[EricK]

Part of Ken's analysis is the assumption that responder has something because he is opposite a 3rd seat opener. But if I have read the OP correctly, this was a 4th seat opener.

[jillybean]

Yep, 4th seat opener - I was south here and a little unsure of the ♦ cue.

[Guest Jlall]

Lol@Ken.

 

Ken, why is Kxxxx of hearts and an outside queen ok for 4H, but KQxxx is not? What about KQxxx of hearts and stiff K/stiff Q of diamonds? Why is QJx Qxxxx x QJxx not good enough for 4H, but Kxxxx of hearts and a queen is?

 

Even if partner has a stiff diamond slam is not necessarily good. And what if partner doesn't have a stiff diamond? Why should he? You could just be off 3 cashers, and have an auction that makes it obvious for them to go to that.

 

And why do you assume 5D would show a stiff diamond? Maybe it is standard to play low/middle/high shortness, and south was showing his stiff spade. Oh yeah, that is because you make this ***** up on the fly, and then say it is the only logical explanation.

 

Maybe south assumed control asking bids, as they are superior to 4S shortness ask and are thus the only logical option.

 

Why do you think SAYC/2/1 discussion exists. People do not want to hear your idiotic NONSTANDARD ideas, so they post here. But of course you also post in advanced/expert, so I guess that this stuff means nothing to you.

 

We all know you think you're very very smart, and that your bridge logic is infallible, but you are so dumb if you cannot see that other idiots with non standard ideas could just as easily come here and say that their ideas are the only logical ways to think about bridge. You add nothing to the forum. You are trash, and you post only to troll and ruin the learning environment of others. You do not respect the respective forums and their purposes. You post the same ***** in beginner/intermediate and sayc/2/1.

 

You reminded me of another person who was a bridge author and thought himself as an expert and went on and on about his great bidding theories. He was the biggest joke in the bridge world for a long time, but the sad thing is some impressionable beginners actually believed what he said and were led astray. I really hope that new posters do not read your posts and have the same thing happen to them, because that would be really sad.

[rogerclee]

4♠ shortness ask with the North hand, unanimous.

[neilkaz]

North gets 100% of the blame here, IMO. North does have a good and control oriented hand, but there's and issue with ♦ losers and also maybe a ♠ loser or perhaps they're missing the K of trumps. In short, South has to hold a perfecto to make slam a good bet.

 

Note that with a stronger hand, S has other methods to get to game, like some kind of Drury or whatever and that his 4♥ call is just hoping to make based on distribution.

 

So I'd not make the slam try with N's hand, as it seems a bit too optimistic, but I don't hate it.

 

What I do hate is N's awful 6♥ bid, after 5♦ was X'd. This should have sounded like a tornado warning to N, who now must wonder where his ♦ losers are going, noting that he cannot be sure exactly what S has for his 5♦ bid playing standard methods where a first or second round control is Q'd.

 

N can either s/off with 5♥ or (as I so rarely seen done, since people with good hands wear rose colored glasses) pass the X around to PD to still show some slam interest ! PD can XX with first round control if he wants, or even bid the slam if he has a max for his previous bidding and is not concerned about the ♦ lead. In this case, S hates the fact that a ♦ lead is coming up and will bid 5♥.

 

N really showed blindness in bidding the slam after 5♦ was X'd.

 

So for me.. 4♠ gets a 3 out of 10 and 6♥ a 0.

 

Just my opinion ... neilkaz ...

[peachy]

One wheel came off with the 4S. Could happen to anybody on occasion that an 18-count looks like monster, shouldn't look like that in this hand though. The rest of the wheels came off at 6H. After opener bids 4S, 5D by South is mandatory IMO, having the "better" 4H bid and two kings.

I often play 2/1, 1NT forcing, and Bergen, and have agreed that 1M-1NT can include a weak hand with 5-card trump support but which has one outside ace or king. I like that method.

[kenrexford]

Lol@Ken.

Ken, why is Kxxxx of hearts and an outside queen ok for 4H, but KQxxx is not?

 

Because KQxxx and nothing outside the stiff is not an acceptance -- bid 5♥ declining.

 

What about KQxxx of hearts and stiff K/stiff Q of diamonds?

 

Same problem.

 

Why is QJx Qxxxx x QJxx not good enough for 4H, but Kxxxx of hearts and a queen is?

 

Same problem. You don't show the stiff without values. Duh.

 

Even if partner has a stiff diamond slam is not necessarily good.

 

True. Not necessarily. But, it will be if Responder cooperates. Note, however, that I assessed North as too aggressive for his 4♠ call.

 

And what if partner doesn't have a stiff diamond? Why should he? You could just be off 3 cashers, and have an auction that makes it obvious for them to go to that.

 

As I said...

 

And why do you assume 5D would show a stiff diamond? Maybe it is standard to play low/middle/high shortness, and south was showing his stiff spade. Oh yeah, that is because you make this ***** up on the fly, and then say it is the only logical explanation.

 

Without explanation, you assume the most natural approach. The most natural approach is to show your stiff by bidding your stiff, or bidding the cheapest available alternative if your stiff is not biddable. Basic, right? If the structure was specific and agreed, the problem would be system departure, not a disaster from an unknown cause. If your objection is that a different shortness indication is called for, please feel free to object on that basis.

 

Maybe south assumed control asking bids, as they are superior to 4S shortness ask and are thus the only logical option.

 

South obviously assumed this. That makes no sense. South has advertised massive support, a weak hand, with a stiff somewhere. When the major feature of a hand is already known to be distribution, the obvious priority feature to show is the shortness. If this sequence does not scream shortness ask to you, what does? Call 4♠ LTTC; call it a cue; call it natural. Whatever you think it shows is irrelevant. South's bids must be shortness bids. 4NT could be seen as a "natural" shortness bid because South is, in a sense, offering notrump because of the duplication of values. Not really, but functionally the same.

 

Why do you think SAYC/2/1 discussion exists. People do not want to hear your idiotic NONSTANDARD ideas, so they post here.

 

Easy to solve for you -- skip the post.

 

But of course you also post in advanced/expert, so I guess that this stuff means nothing to you.

 

It must suck being unable to argue theory, substituting personal attacks, with a guy who actually plays bridge just once in a while, for fun, when your "career" is bridge.

 

We all know you think you're very very smart, and that your bridge logic is infallible, but you are so dumb if you cannot see that other idiots with non standard ideas could just as easily come here and say that their ideas are the only logical ways to think about bridge.

 

Not sure I follow. I'm more than willing to hear the thoughts of others. In fact, I sometimes change my thinking becauise of these forums. For example, although I strongly advocated a methodlogy over jump 2NT rebids, I have changed to transfers because of posts here. I have changed to 2♣ of two-way to a relay to 2♦ because of here. It's not a matter of the "only" logical way sometimes. Rather, it is a matter of the "most logical" way. Sometimes, however, I honestly don't feel that alternatives are truly reasonable. Maybe you would rather that I always preface each sentence with something like, "That's a very valid opinion, and a very well thought out take on this sequence, and I applaud you for your fine effort. However, I humbly have considered a different view, such that..." I could do that if you are sensitive.

 

You add nothing to the forum.

 

That's a very valid opinion, and a very well thought out take on this situation, and I applaud you for your fine analysis. However, I humbly have considered a different view, such that some other folks and I often enjoy each others thoughts.

 

You are trash, and you post only to troll and ruin the learning environment of others.

 

You are a sad waste of intellect. I hope you do not end up like so many other bridge pros I know, and call friends. Broken relationships, substance abuse, general anger at the universe, and an inability to comprehend basic social skills. Oh, *****!!! Too late!

 

You reminded me of another person who was a bridge author and thought himself as an expert and went on and on about his great bidding theories. He was the biggest joke in the bridge world for a long time, but the sad thing is some impressionable beginners actually believed what he said and were led astray. I really hope that new posters do not read your posts and have the same thing happen to them, because that would be really sad.

 

I still have not heard in all of this why this sequence does not call for a shortness bid, if that is wrong. You could explain to the impressionable beginners exactly why you would want to cuebid the diamond King rather than the shortness in this sequence. You might discuss the theory of bidding, how it applies, and why precisely Opener is probably looking for side controls. Mention, while you are at it, why Opener does not simply bid 5♦ himself, for instance, if he has a diamond suit and want an honor there rather than shortness.

 

See, that way, you might show the impressionable beginners how a thought that they might have, a thought that North, BTW, apparently had, is so obviously wrong, being a true expert yourself. As these impressionable beginners might learn well from your intellect and reasoning, and thereby understand the prinsiples of the game better by reading your words, you have a great opportunity.

 

It is sad that, instead, you substitute insults and belittling for argument and reasoning. That is what people do when they lack argument and reasoning. You, however, do not. You clearly could explain the theory of the game here much better. So, why do you let these impressionable beginners think that you are a fraud and a buffoon instead? Why do you let the impressionable beginners think that you are a a clueless asshole who has no real knowledge of the game and substitutes hostility and personal attacks, as loud as contextually needed, to beat down the person with whom you cannot intellectually debate? That, if anything, would be more lilkely to drive the impressionable beginners my way.

[655321]

I think you are completely out of your mind with this analysis.

 

1. Responder cannot have xxx-KQJxxx-x-xxx.  That's a 2♥ opening.  Because he cannot have a 2♥ opening he must have five hearts only.  With only five hearts, even with a stiff, he needs more opposite a third-seat opening.  Therefore, he has Hxxxx in hearts with an outside stiff and an outside card or two.  If the stiff is in diamonds, he must have an outside Queen.  With an outside Queen(s), Qxxxx in hearts is not enough, so he needs the heart King.  Thus, slam is a good slam if the stiff is diamonds.

 

Picking only your first point:

 

You have made a chain of assumptions, and deduced that your conclusion applied with 100% certainty. None of your separate assumptions apply with 100% certainty, so your conclusion is faulty. Here is my (top of the head) guess at the probabilities. Of course, you may reasonably differ on my percentages, they are just guesses. ;)

• Responder cannot have xxx-KQJxxx-x-xxx. That's a 2♥ opening.
  • 95% People bid differently. Perhaps OP wasn't playing weak 2s. Anyway, Mikeh just picked this as an example to show that slam needs a perfecto.
    

  [*]Because he cannot have a 2♥ opening he must have five hearts only.

  • 70% Jack to 6 and a four count, for example.
    

  [*]With only five hearts, even with a stiff, he needs more opposite a third-seat opening.

  • 50% In fact it was a 4th seat opening, but I don't understand the logic of needing more HCP to preempt opposite a 3rd seat opening anyway.
    

  [*]Therefore, he has Hxxxx in hearts with an outside stiff and an outside card or two.

  • 80% I agree this is likely
    

  [*]If the stiff is in diamonds, he must have an outside Queen.

  • 80% I agree this is likely
    

  [*]With an outside Queen(s), Qxxxx in hearts is not enough, so he needs the heart King.

  • 80% I agree this is likely
    

Leading to your conclusion:

• Thus, slam is a good slam if the stiff is diamonds.
  • 17%
    

 

Now, I am not seriously claiming that if South has a singleton diamond then slam is 17%, but trying to show that you cannot follow a long chain of reasoning where each link is uncertain, and have faith in the end of the chain.

[kenrexford]

[interesting analysis missing something.]

I can make the percentages skyrocket here.

 

Percentage of time that partner bids 5♦ rather than 5♥ (declining to show the stiff, sort of) but is not appropriate for the call = 0%

 

If Responder has a stiff spade, he can show it by bidding 4NT and then decline any further noise from partner if ugly.

 

If Responder has a stiff club, he can bid 5♣ and reject a 5♦ call from Opener if ugly.

 

If Responder has a stiff diamond and a piece of s#!+, he bid 5♥ over 4♠ and says thereby, "ain't got 'er."

 

So, if he has any of these junk hands, he won't bid 5♦. That's why I agree with North's ultimate decision. I think 4♠ was a bit aggressive, but he thought for good reason that he got lucky.

[gwnn]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

[mikeh]

Ken:

 

It is certainly playable to require that responder cue shortness in response to opener's cue. But 'playable' does not equate with 'standard'.

 

Further more, there will often be hands on which opener wants to hear about high card controls.

 

Thus with AKx AQxxx xxx AK, opener wants a short diamond. Note that even this won't assure slam on a bad day, but we'd probably want to be there opposite a stiff diamond since partner may have a stray black Queen. Make the spades AKJ, and the case is even more powerful. However, this hand lacks 5 level safety. Make it AK AQxxxx Axxx x and we want a stiff, but, again, we lack 5-level safety. You can, I am sure, come up with a hand on which the right stiff leads to a good slam, while having 5-level safety if responder disappoints.

 

But, and this is a huge 'but', with Ax AKxxxx AQJx x, I really, really want to hear about the diamond King, because I need to pitch dummy's spades on my diamonds.. yes, if he has a stiff, I may be able to ruff out the King, but now he may have too many spades to pitch. And we can construct many other hands on which it is critical to know if partner is bidding strength or shortness and ABSENT and agreement, it is simply wrong to suggest, as you have, that the cue MUST be shortness. Indeed, imo, we will FAR more often have 5-level safety on hands on which we are looking for a high card control than a shortness control, and this factor, alone, makes asking for a high card cue far more appropriate.

 

It is common, in standard methods, to have a side high card control. Heck, it may include an Ace: especially with weak trump: xxx Qxxxx Axxx x looks like a 4♥ call to me.

 

Justin could and probably should have been less vehement in his criticisms of you, but others, including myself, have criticized you in the past for posting you more esoteric thoughts in the B/I forum, for example. You have a habit of writing lengthy posts (believe me, I am not saying THAT is wrong, given my propensities) but you rarely seem to acknowledge that your ideas are often (way) out of the mainstream. And you have posted here as if you ideas are standard, in a forum in which advancing players are entitled to have the posts explicate standard methods... if you want to add some alternate ideas, at least explain that they are your own pet theories.

 

I also understand that many fine players, people of real talent and insight into the game, simply don't have the time (or, in some cases, the financial ability) to play in high level events.... but that deprives the player of an opportunity to test his pet ideas against experts... and ideas that are both unorthodox and advanced by a player lacking in any high level success are bound to meet with a lot of resistance.

 

Your ideas are far more likely to be met with the respect you seek if anyone playing them (it needn't be you) was a high profile winner. Bridge theory is not simply an academic exercise... tournament play is a harsh, darwinian environment. Expert standard has evolved because it and its close cousins WIN. You want to supplant expert standard with your ideas...some of which even I see as having merit... you need to have someone WIN with them... and not a side game or a sectional.

[kenrexford]

so what does the near 2♣ opener with 2 small diamonds bid over 1♥-4♥?

Give me an example of a hand where Opener needs only a diamond control because he has xx in diamonds. I'll bet he either needs more than that or should have opened something else. If there is a freak hand, there may be a solution.