ATB

[Fluffy]

Ooops I missread the explanation of 4♣.

[Mbodell]

This problem has really polarizing results with many people being near 100% N with others near 100% S. I wonder if there is consistent differences like between those who regularly play a strong club system (and thus have certain assumptions and inferences in their mind) and those who don't. Or between US players and Europe players again with different default assumptions and inferences.

 

I'm amazed at those who think S midbid badly on this hand. I think S's bids were exactly what I'd want to see (being a US based player who regularly plays a strong club system).

[rhm]

This problem has really polarizing results with many people being near 100% N with others near 100% S. I wonder if there is consistent differences like between those who regularly play a strong club system (and thus have certain assumptions and inferences in their mind) and those who don't. Or between US players and Europe players again with different default assumptions and inferences.

 

I'm amazed at those who think S midbid badly on this hand. I think S's bids were exactly what I'd want to see (being a US based player who regularly plays a strong club system).

I am from Europe and play a lot of different systems including natural ones but have a preference for strong club systems. I even designed one of my own, which I still play with my wife.

Nevertheless I doubt that this has anything to do with the polarizing results nor are there different assumptions and inferences.

 

To me there are two groups:

One camp believes in automatic control bidding with a captain and a robot and think out comes the right contract at the end. If surprisingly the contract is not right, it makes no sense to blame a robot, ergo the captain is at fault.

This camp also believes that 90% of successful slam bidding consist of finding out whether the required controls are present in the two hands. That's why they insist that South has to control bid 4♦ and anything else should deny the ♦ ace. If you ask them how the captain is supposed to find out whether the robot has ♦Axxxx or ♦AQJxx the answer is utter silence.

 

The other camp believes hand evaluation and judgment by both sides is paramount, at least as long as no hand has been limited to a close range. Even then the suitability of the hand for a high level contract frequently matters and refusing to cooperate in cue-bidding can mean either of two things: No control, which can be shown conveniently or a hand unsuitable for exploring slam in the light of the bids previously made.

I am firmly in the second camp.

 

To those in the first camp I recommend to read Roy Hughes book "Building a Bidding System." It is a very good book anyway. It explains in detail the ingredients required for slam and what is most important.

The above pair of hands is quite instructive. The control situation is quite satisfactory for slam. Unfortunately there are no 12 tricks. Is this North fault? He seems to me to have a lot of tricks and his KT in partner's suit, who has forced to game, argues for more.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mtvesuvius]

Read my lips:

 

South will move over last train with AQJxx and pass if they have Axxxx. South is not a robot, they can use judgement too. Simple!

[ArtK78]

I am from Europe and play a lot of different systems including natural ones but have a preference for strong club systems. I even designed one of my own, which I still play with my wife.

Nevertheless I doubt that this has anything to do with the polarizing results nor are there different assumptions and inferences.

 

To me there are two groups:

One camp believes in automatic control bidding with a captain and a robot and think out comes the right contract at the end. If surprisingly the contract is not right, it makes no sense to blame a robot, ergo the captain is at fault.

This camp also believes that 90% of successful slam bidding consist of finding out whether the required controls are present in the two hands. That's why they insist that South has to control bid 4♦ and anything else should deny the ♦ ace. If you ask them how the captain is supposed to find out whether the robot has ♦Axxxx or ♦AQJxx the answer is utter silence.

 

The other camp believes hand evaluation and judgment by both sides is paramount, at least as long as no hand has been limited to a close range. Even then the suitability of the hand for a high level contract frequently matters and refusing to cooperate in cue-bidding can mean either of two things: No control, which can be shown conveniently or a hand unsuitable for exploring slam in the light of the bids previously made.

I am firmly in the second camp.

 

To those in the first camp I recommend to read Roy Hughes book "Building a Bidding System." It is a very good book anyway. It explains in detail the ingredients required for slam and what is most important.

The above pair of hands is quite instructive. The control situation is quite satisfactory for slam. Unfortunately there are no 12 tricks. Is this North fault? He seems to me to have a lot of tricks and his KT in partner's suit, who has forced to game, argues for more.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

There is a great deal of truth to what Mr. Herrmann says. Personally, I am in the first camp referred to by Mr. Herrmann - the captain/servant (I prefer servant to robot) model.

 

Having said that, I don't know if either approach is going to achieve success in the various alternative South hands - the actual hand or the two slam hands that Mr. Herrmann and I have provided as examples - all of the time.

 

It is hands like these that provide good results for those employing relay methods. Of course, relay methods often break down in competitive auctions such as the one set forth in the OP.

 

Where we differ is that while Mr. Herrmann states quite accurately that there were adequate controls for slam and that North's hand is very powerful and suitable for slam, he fails to note is that North's hand is very inflexible. Along with South's ♦A, North can count 10 tricks. North needs two additional tricks. Those two tricks could come from the QJ of diamonds, if South holds them, or significant club or heart values. In the case of significant club or heart values, one may need to be able to establish the slam going tricks and have an entry to the South hand to enjoy the tricks. No matter which approach one uses it can be difficult if not impossible to determine with any certainty whether South has the values needed for slam. So bashing for slam in the hope that South will provide the two needed tricks is not likely to be right.

 

The only real clue that North has is that South limited his hand with his 3NT bid while at the same time announcing that some of his values were in clubs. This makes it less likely from North's perspective (but not impossible) that South has the magic QJ of diamonds or any other holding that will produce the needed 2 tricks.

 

Would South have bid 3NT on the same hand that he held with a diamond suit of AQJxx as opposed to Axxxx? Possibly. Would he then pass a 4♠ rebid by North over South's 4♦ cue bid? Also possible.

 

Having thought this through more carefully than previously, I would bid 4♥ over 4♦ on the North hand. If South holds significant useful cards other than what he has already promised he should continue beyond 4♠.

[MrAce]

...........If you ask them how the captain is supposed to find out whether the robot has ♦Axxxx or ♦AQJxx the answer is utter silence........

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I thought Adam and some others replied to this question. Either you are too busy to listen to the sound of your own wheels or if you disagree with their suggestion, then say so and explain why please.