Logical Alternatives

[bluejak]

I would have thought AKQJx Axx xx QJx was as likely as AKQJx AKQ xx xxx - in fact more likely, since 17 counts are more likely than 19 counts, n'est-ce-pas?

 

Sure, slam might be on slightly worse than the position of the ♣A but it is also quite possibly rock solid. In which case 4♠ is a very poor bid indeed.

[lamford]

That can't be. There has to be a serious chance that partner has forgotten and thinks you have hearts. Which is in fact what partner had done.

I agree it is almost certain that partner has interpreted 3H as natural and game-forcing; he would surely have alerted otherwise. I would disallow 4S (not an LA). 6D is reasonable, as is 5NT (pick a slam) followed by 6S, asking partner to correct to 6NT with the AKQxx AKx xx xxx type of hand. But, as jallerton says, find out more about what they thought 3H showed - although it seems that the discussion was brief. I guess one polls players with the presumed methods that 3H shows this hand, and that 4H is a cue or picture bid. And I guess that the player lands on his feet.

[Cyberyeti]

I would have thought AKQJx Axx xx QJx was as likely as AKQJx AKQ xx xxx - in fact more likely, since 17 counts are more likely than 19 counts, n'est-ce-pas?

 

Sure, slam might be on slightly worse than the position of the ♣A but it is also quite possibly rock solid. In which case 4♠ is a very poor bid indeed.

I was suggesting what I did so as not to open the 17 5332 1N can of worms, hence I wanted at least 18.

 

AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx is not impossible here either where 4 is solid 5 very much isn't.

[jmcw]

I'm surprised that you have received so many strong opinions in reply to this thread. In my opinion, we can't give a sensible answer to these questions until we know what sort of 'fit' hand North thought 3♥ showed. Did North think that 3♥ showed shortage in hearts? What did North consider to be a typical minimum hand to bid 3♥ here?

 

Why would North think South had splintered when their agreements were that 3♥ showed a fit. By default a fit bid shows the suit bid and a ♠ fit.

North has misbid, he should have bid 3♦.

IMO 4 ♥ is a simple raise to game.

[mrdct]

Why would North think South had splintered when their agreements were that 3♥ showed a fit. By default a fit bid shows the suit bid and a ♠ fit.

North has misbid, he should have bid 3♦.

IMO 4 ♥ is a simple raise to game.

I think you need to reread the thread. At no point is there any suggestion that North may have or should have thought South had splintered.

[gordontd]

AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx is not impossible here either where 4 is solid 5 very much isn't.

It's impossible in my world: why would someone cue-bid KQJx opposite a singleton? (Remember we're considering it from South's point of view.

[Cyberyeti]

It's impossible in my world: why would someone cue-bid KQJx opposite a singleton? (Remember we're considering it from South's point of view.

Sorry you're right, but KQJxx, AKQJ, xx, xx has the same issue.

[bluejak]

I was suggesting what I did so as not to open the 17 5332 1N can of worms, hence I wanted at least 18.

 

AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx is not impossible here either where 4 is solid 5 very much isn't.

No-one has suggested that this pair is playing a 15-17 1NT, and even if they are to open a hand clearly too strong and unsuitable for 1NT is not necessarily relevant. Anyway, how about adding the ♥J?

 

We have a hand where to bid 4♠ with UI where the UI suggests bidding 4♠ nothing else must be an LA. Your suggestion seems to be because you can find one hand where slam is 50% or slightly worse there is no LA to 4♠, despite hands where slam is enormous - and as has been pointed out a solution is to bid 6♦.

 

As for AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

[Cyberyeti]

No-one has suggested that this pair is playing a 15-17 1NT, and even if they are to open a hand clearly too strong and unsuitable for 1NT is not necessarily relevant. Anyway, how about adding the ♥J?

 

We have a hand where to bid 4♠ with UI where the UI suggests bidding 4♠ nothing else must be an LA. Your suggestion seems to be because you can find one hand where slam is 50% or slightly worse there is no LA to 4♠, despite hands where slam is enormous - and as has been pointed out a solution is to bid 6♦.

 

As for AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

On every other thread I'm told to assume 15-17 5 card majors unless somebody says otherwise.

 

And you clearly didn't read the whole thread, I amended the hand you quoted.

 

You seem to think the UI suggests 4♠, I don't. We're trying to prove different things. I'm trying to prove that 4♠ is a LA because partner is quite likely to have the A♣ a card he's denied without UI by bidding 4♥, so a slam may well be better than the authorised auction suggests (partner may also have a skeleton of AKQxx, Axxx, xxx, x or similar which he may have denied without the UI depending on cue style, add frosting cards to taste).

 

You're trying to prove that there are LAs to 4♠. I agree there are.

[pretzalz]

I agree it is almost certain that partner has interpreted 3H as natural and game-forcing; he would surely have alerted otherwise. I would disallow 4S (not an LA). 6D is reasonable, as is 5NT (pick a slam) followed by 6S, asking partner to correct to 6NT with the AKQxx AKx xx xxx type of hand. But, as jallerton says, find out more about what they thought 3H showed - although it seems that the discussion was brief. I guess one polls players with the presumed methods that 3H shows this hand, and that 4H is a cue or picture bid. And I guess that the player lands on his feet.

 

And yet, from what we've been told about partner's hand, it seems clear that he didn't interpret it as a SJS. The most likely conclusion from the snippets leaked is that opener has something like AQJxx Axxx x Axx and interpreted 3H as a weak jump shift[which at least around here people neglect to alert in excess of 95% of the time]. In this context it is bidding <b>more</b> than 4S that might be prohibited... Which sort of speaks to the absurdity of also suggesting that 4S should be prohibited.

[bluejak]

On every other thread I'm told to assume 15-17 5 card majors unless somebody says otherwise.

You are certainly not. I cannot remember anyone ever suggesting this and it is not the way in these forums. Many of the problems cited here come from jurisdictions where a weak 1NT is the norm.

 

What has been said a number of times is that you should assume all relevant details are in the OP. If there is something that you think relevant that is not mentioned in the OP too many people make assumptions: you should ask the person who posted it to tell you.

[Cyberyeti]

You are certainly not. I cannot remember anyone ever suggesting this and it is not the way in these forums. Many of the problems cited here come from jurisdictions where a weak 1NT is the norm.

 

What has been said a number of times is that you should assume all relevant details are in the OP. If there is something that you think relevant that is not mentioned in the OP too many people make assumptions: you should ask the person who posted it to tell you.

Sorry, I have had exactly this said to me and that I'm being obtuse not knowing this several times so it is a particularly sore point, even where the OP is from the UK. And when I say "these forums" I mean the GBK, IBH and A/E sections of the BBO forums as well as the laws bit.

[blackshoe]

David and I moderate the IBLF (four forums). The other parts of the BBO forums are somebody else's bailiwick, and so far as I know no one has established any criteria for posting "rulings" type question there. In fact, we would rather they didn't, because among other things we don't have moderator powers in those forums and so can't much move such postings here, even if here is the appropriate place.

 

You might also consider, when you get "advice" on rulings in those other forums, on balance the person giving the advice is less likely to know what he's talking about than if you see the advice here.

Edited September 28, 2011 by blackshoe
change one word

[bluejak]

Sorry, I have had exactly this said to me and that I'm being obtuse not knowing this several times so it is a particularly sore point, even where the OP is from the UK. And when I say "these forums" I mean the GBK, IBH and A/E sections of the BBO forums as well as the laws bit.

Well, when I say "these forums" I mean the four IBLF forums, not other BBO forums, RGB, BLML, OKB, or the Dutch, French or lesser Antilles Laws forums.

 

If the OP does not say the system then we do not assume it is strong 1NT and five - nor do we assume it is weak 1NT and four. We assume it is not relevant.

[mycroft]

I'm surprised nobody suggested the old-fashioned 5♠. I realize that 4NT has the advantage of rightsiding 6NT against the missing club ace, but that only works if you can take 11 pointed tricks or if partner has the (wasted) ♥K to go with the ace. I can see people not wanting to allow 5♠ because it wakes up partner to which suit we're looking for trumps in, and saves you from bidding slam off the two black aces; but it just seems reasonable from my end.

 

The failure to Alert is interesting - because I would have expected an Alert, given the discussion in the car, no matter which way partner took it (not sure if hearts *and spades* is Alertable Way Down South, but I can't see why it wouldn't be). I forgot that 3♥ shows hearts and spades (rather than not-hearts and spades), partner forgot that it showed anything but hearts. I can't see it waking up me to the fact that I've misbid *and* partner's misAlerted.