Easy 6 or 7

[jillybean]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakxhakxxxxdxckqx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♥:3♥* 10-11 4 card

3♠:4♥

?[/hv]

[Jlall]

I would bid a simple 4N over 3H. I would still bid 4N now, which makes the 3S bid a bit fatuous.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakxhakxxxxdxckqx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♥:3♥* 10-11 4 card

3♠:4♥

?[/hv]

with the 4♥ bid partner has denied any ♣ or ♦ control so it should be safe to pass. Partner's hand should look like QJx QJxx QJx JTx altho partner may only feel comfortable qbidding 1st round controls and so holds Qxx Qxxx KQxx Jx

[pooltuna]

I would bid a simple 4N over 3H. I would still bid 4N now, which makes the 3S bid a bit fatuous.

I see!!! You want to insure you reach the 5 level when all you need to hear to go on is a minor suit control :rolleyes:

[Fluffy]

4NT no second choice

[cherdanno]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakxhakxxxxdxckqx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♥:3♥* 10-11 4 card

3♠:4♥

?[/hv]

with the 4♥ bid partner has denied any ♣ or ♦ control so it should be safe to pass. Partner's hand should look like QJx QJxx QJx JTx altho partner may only feel comfortable qbidding 1st round controls and so holds Qxx Qxxx KQxx Jx

4♥ did not deny a control, with a bad hand for slam partner would not cuebid here.

[vuroth]

This is confusing. Now I have no idea when to show controls and when not to.

[Fluffy]

This is confusing. Now I have no idea when to show controls and when not to.

With whatever partner though it was horrible for slam.

 

We have a tool that asks about the 2 cards we are looking for, add to these that you have a really hard time to construct a hand with no 5 levle safety, and voila!.

 

Blackwood was invented for this deal.

[Stephen Tu]

4♥ did not deny a control, with a bad hand for slam partner would not cuebid here.

 

How can responder possibly know what a bad hand for slam is without being able to peek in opener's hand? IMO a tightly limited strength range hand should cue bid freely opposite a partner who asked him to cue anyway, if you have no way of knowing what constitutes wasted values.

 

Surely an ace should cue-bid in this spot IMO. Not cue bidding a king I could go along with.

 

Granted, the 5 level is almost certainly safe, unless partner comes up with a horrific QJx QJxx KJx xxx which arguably shouldn't qualify for a limit raise.

[Jlall]

4♥ did not deny a control, with a bad hand for slam partner would not cuebid here.

 

How can responder possibly know what a bad hand for slam is without being able to peek in opener's hand? IMO a tightly limited strength range hand should cue bid freely opposite a partner who asked him to cue anyway, if you have no way of knowing what constitutes wasted values.

 

Surely an ace should cue-bid in this spot IMO. Not cue bidding a king I could go along with.

 

Granted, the 5 level is almost certainly safe, unless partner comes up with a horrific QJx QJxx KJx xxx which arguably shouldn't qualify for a limit raise.

Imo bidding a suit after finding a fit, and especially after a limit raise, is not simply a cuebid, but it is at least semi natural and asks partner to evaluate his holding in that suit. Partner will rarely cuebid back if he has a bad spade holding.

[Stephen Tu]

You'd have to specify that you are using help-suit slam tries then, which I don't think should be assumed in the beginner/int forum. I don't think they are default without specification in the adv/expert forum either.

[Jlall]

You'd have to specify that you are using help-suit slam tries then, which I don't think should be assumed in the beginner/int forum.  I don't think they are default without specification in the adv/expert forum either.

What use is a strict cuebid? Are you implying 3S could be bid on a stiff here, and that not bidding 3S would deny a spade control? What would a 4D bid over 3H mean to you, would it really deny controls in BOTH black suits? That is pretty absurd.

 

I learned a rule when I first started playing bridge "The first slam try below game is not shortness." Maybe this is non standard and I never knew it, but it is a sound bridge rule that I would guess most experts follow in almost every situation.

 

I have never heard of the term help-suit slam try, this just seems like normal bridge to me the way I know it. Maybe I do not know normal bridge.

[pooltuna]

This is confusing. Now I have no idea when to show controls and when not to.

if you have a limit raise and partner qbids then if you can cooperate below the game level. The meta agreement should be to cooperate below game in auctions like this.

[jillybean]

I would bid a simple 4N over 3H. I would still bid 4N now, which makes the 3S bid a bit fatuous.

Its no surprise that you think my bid is obnoxiously stupid, more surprised this kind of comment is acceptable in forums.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatuous

 

Yes, I could have avoided a disaster by bidding 4nt, my partner could have saved me my cueing the A♦ - neither thing happened.

 

I chose to cue rather than 4nt because I thought it was the safe route, I was wrong for a number of reasons. Its so much nicer if I can blame my partner for not cueing A♦ below game. Then I wouldnt need to post these hands and learn why it was my fatuous bid that paved the way for the disaster.

[kenrexford]

I would have assumed that 3♠ (the cheapest call) showed a stiff somewhere and that 3NT (spades), 4♣, and 4♦ would be "Help Suit Slam Tries."

 

Hence, 3♠ would have enabled Responder to bid 3NT to ask for the shortness, to cue a trick source, or to sign off with no slam interest opposite shortness.

 

I pretty much need partner to have the club Ace and something interesting in spades (Q or doubleton), or club Ace and length.

 

So, why not now indicate the stiff? If I ask with 4NT, I might find out about the club Ace, but not the rest of the story. If I bid 5♦ to show my stiff, can a partner who initially signed off continue to reject the slam move with the club Ace and either club length or the spade Queen?

 

OH!!!

 

Justin is bidding 4NT for the obvious reason. 4NT cannot be RKCB -- that's stupid. Why bid 3♠ first? 4NT must be a "useful space principle" surrogate for the highest stiff. In other words, 4NT shows a stiff diamond, which I have! Brilliant! That allows partner to make other moves on a close call.

 

Perfect auction!

[Stephen Tu]

What use is a strict cuebid? Are you implying 3S could be bid on a stiff here, and that not bidding 3S would deny a spade control? What would a 4D bid over 3H mean to you, would it really deny controls in BOTH black suits? That is pretty absurd.

 

I learned a rule when I first started playing bridge "The first slam try below game is not shortness." Maybe this is non standard and I never knew it, but it is a sound bridge rule that I would guess most experts follow in almost every situation.

 

I also like the length first method, it's just that I don't think it's beginner/int std. I've never seen the "cue-bid based on holding in the suit partner cue-bid first, first cue shows length not necessarily control" in a beginner/int book; I first saw it in more advanced texts by Miles.

 

As for 4d in a non-length first method, perhaps this is an ace-first method, and cue-bidder only has 2nd round black suit controls. No one ever tries to claim that "standard" = "most efficient optimal way to bid". Standard = "most common way taught to people in popular beginner/int books" but in no way implies "this is how you want to do it in an adv/expert partnership".

[Stephen Tu]

Its no surprise that you think my bid is obnoxiously stupid, more surprised this kind of comment is acceptable in forums.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatuous

 

I think Justin meant to say "superfluous" and unfortunately picked "fatuous". He's a pro bridge player not a pro writer so I'd give him benefit of the doubt here. Although I do think he's crossed the line on previous occasions in other threads.

[fred]

I would have assumed that 3♠ (the cheapest call) showed a stiff somewhere and that 3NT (spades), 4♣, and 4♦ would be "Help Suit Slam Tries."

 

Hence, 3♠ would have enabled Responder to bid 3NT to ask for the shortness, to cue a trick source, or to sign off with no slam interest opposite shortness.

 

I pretty much need partner to have the club Ace and something interesting in spades (Q or doubleton), or club Ace and length.

 

How about this hand where partner has neither club length nor anything interesting in spades:

 

xxx

xxxx

xxxx

Ax

 

Needless to say, this is hardly a limit raise.

 

Needless to say, it is hardly unlikely that partner's side length is in diamonds.

 

So, why not now indicate the stiff?  If I ask with 4NT, I might find out about the club Ace, but not the rest of the story.  If I bid 5♦ to show my stiff, can a partner who initially signed off continue to reject the slam move with the club Ace and either club length or the spade Queen?

 

Not sure if you are being serious, Ken, but in my strong opinion it is an extremely bad idea to tell partner (not to mention telling the opponents) that you have a singleton diamond and then respect partner's signoff in 4H or 5H. Catering to staying out of 6H when partner has an Ace is just not practical bridge (IMO).

 

There are too many possible "rest of stories" that end with you being either laydown for 6H or wanting to be in 6H in which partner will not even think about cooperating. I suspect you don't need me to construct any example hands to prove this point, but in case I am wrong, here is one for you:

 

xxx

Qxxx

KQx

Axx

 

It sounds to me like you have fallen in love with a relatively obscure convention (which may well be a useful convention) to the extent that you did not bother to look at your actual hand (assuming you were being serious).

 

But serious or not, I hardly think that the B-I Forum is an appropriate place to present a convention like this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jillybean]

Its no surprise that you think my bid is obnoxiously stupid, more surprised this kind of comment is acceptable in forums.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatuous

 

I think Justin meant to say "superfluous" and unfortunately picked "fatuous".

I wouldnt put any money on it.

[Jlall]

Its no surprise that you think my bid is obnoxiously stupid, more surprised this kind of comment is acceptable in forums.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatuous

 

I think Justin meant to say "superfluous" and unfortunately picked "fatuous". He's a pro bridge player not a pro writer so I'd give him benefit of the doubt here. Although I do think he's crossed the line on previous occasions in other threads.

By giving me the benefit of the doubt you mean assuming I said the wrong word? Interesting. I didn't think you had to be a pro writer to write things on the forums!

 

Fatuous as far as I know means silly, or perhaps a form of foolish:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fatuous

 

As usual jillybean is being hypersensitive. It has always been the case on this forum that it is FINE to attack a bid or the merits of a bid, and NOT FINE to attack a person.

 

As you have noted, I have indeed broken this rule and attacked a person before (though I doubt I have ever done that on the beginner/intermediate forums).

 

In this case, I said SINCE I WOULD BID 4N NOW, the 3S bid was fatuous/silly/"inanely foolish." Obviously this is because if I'm going to bid 4N over the weakest possible bid by partner, I probably should have done it to begin with.

 

If you want to bid 3S then pass 4H, I made no judgement about your 3S bid, I just implied that I think this is poorly judged (based on the fact that I wanted to bid keycard over the signoff).

 

I think it is clear to any non hyper sensitive person that my point was: If you are going to bid 4N after the bidding goes 3S-4H you should not have bid 3S! THAT IS A SILLY WAY TO BID THE HAND IN MY OPINION!

 

If someone like jillybean instead of thanking me for my honest advice which I have never failed to give her, or any post on the beginner/intermediate forum in order to try to HELP her chooses to be hypersensitive and take my post as an attack on her, that is her problem. I honestly do not know why I even bother. I am frankly amazed that anyone who seems to have basic reading comprehension skills could be REMOTELY offended by my post.

[Jlall]

Its no surprise that you think my bid is obnoxiously stupid, more surprised this kind of comment is acceptable in forums.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatuous

 

I think Justin meant to say "superfluous" and unfortunately picked "fatuous".

I wouldnt put any money on it.

Jillybean, do you think you ARE a bid? Did I ever say "jillybean is a stupid person?" I didn't even say "someone who bids 3S is stupid." I DIDN'T EVEN SAY SOMEONE WHO BIDS 3S IS MAKING A STUPID BID (WHICH WOULD BE A FINE THING TO SAY).

 

I said that since I am bidding 4N over the signoff, my previous 3S bid was stupid.

 

You can take this to mean whatever you want. But it is astounding that over and over and over on the forums you feel like you are entitled to make snide little attacks on me like this one while maintaining your holier than thou, I'm so offended by everything attitude.

 

I would offer you a bet. If we made a poll on who is being more offensive and my post was posted, and your post (quoted) was posted, yours would overwhelmingly be considered more offensive. If nothing else, your motive is to try and denegrate my character, when mine obviously had no malicious intent at all.

 

I am shocked that you of all people are taking this attitude when all I have ever done in the past is help you and give thought out answers to every one of your threads. I am really amazed right now.

 

No doubt I frequently make offensive posts, and personally attack people, so maybe this is just a case of getting called out for past crimes which I was never called out on, but I do not understand where you are coming from at all right now if you are serious about this thread. Maybe there is some underlying issue you have with me.

 

Good luck.

[Cascade]

4♥ did not deny a control, with a bad hand for slam partner would not cuebid here.

 

How can responder possibly know what a bad hand for slam is without being able to peek in opener's hand? IMO a tightly limited strength range hand should cue bid freely opposite a partner who asked him to cue anyway, if you have no way of knowing what constitutes wasted values.

 

Surely an ace should cue-bid in this spot IMO. Not cue bidding a king I could go along with.

 

Granted, the 5 level is almost certainly safe, unless partner comes up with a horrific QJx QJxx KJx xxx which arguably shouldn't qualify for a limit raise.

Imo bidding a suit after finding a fit, and especially after a limit raise, is not simply a cuebid, but it is at least semi natural and asks partner to evaluate his holding in that suit. Partner will rarely cuebid back if he has a bad spade holding.

If you have that specific agreement.

 

I doubt that it is standard or close to standard without specific discussion.

[Jlall]

But serious or not, I hardly think that the B-I Forum is an appropriate place to present a convention like this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Just curious, am I way off in thinking that generally the first suit bid below game after a fit is found in this manner is naturalish is a normal treatment?

 

I am thinking also of an auction like 2C 2D 2S 3S

[fred]

But serious or not, I hardly think that the B-I Forum is an appropriate place to present a convention like this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Just curious, am I way off in thinking that generally the first suit bid below game after a fit is found in this manner is naturalish is a normal treatment?

 

I am thinking also of an auction like 2C 2D 2S 3S

As far as I can tell, it is very normal among the leading players in our part of the world. FWIW I am a strong believer - there is even a (hardly necessary) statement to this effect in my system notes.

 

Not sure about the rest of the world, but I suspect this treatment is not mentioned in (for example) the chapter on cuebidding in "5 Weeks to Winning Bridge".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Jlall]

But serious or not, I hardly think that the B-I Forum is an appropriate place to present a convention like this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Just curious, am I way off in thinking that generally the first suit bid below game after a fit is found in this manner is naturalish is a normal treatment?

 

I am thinking also of an auction like 2C 2D 2S 3S

As far as I can tell, it is very normal among the leading players in our part of the world. FWIW I am a strong believer - there is even a (hardly necessary) statement to this effect in my system notes.

 

Not sure about the rest of the world, but I suspect this treatment is not mentioned in (for example) the chapter on cuebidding in "5 Weeks to Winning Bridge".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

heh ok, thanks.

 

I guess if you are 100 % sure your partner will cuebid an ace/king over 3S no matter what, then you should pass 4H (I guess this is obvious). However I would contend that since the five level is safe like 95 % of the time, and partner is so unlikely to have no ace or king for their limit raise when we have this powerhouse, you might as well make the game easier by asking for aces. If you are playing wtih a fellow beginner/intermediate, sometimes they'll make a mistake, or perhaps they have read somewhere the same thing I was taught and didn't think they had to cuebid an ace no matter what. There must be some chance you are on different pages, and if we think there is a 95 % chance partner has an ace or king, and there's a 95 % chance that the 5 % of the time he doesn't have an ace or king we are safe at the five level anyways it makes a lot of sense to me to just blackwood. Maybe you will get burned .25 % of the time, but there is a much greater chance partner has erred or that you are on a different page in the bidding than that.