PhilKing Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 So I assume holding ♠AK10 ♥65 ♦AQ2 ♣AJ532 you would not get to 7NT after hearing partner bid 5♣ over your 4♠ control bid? Enlighten me! As for analysis, it's more an interpretation. With weak hearts and a desire to play in 4, I can always double first. Over a preempt we don't play WJS. You can play "sand wedge RKCB" after cue bidding past 4NT. Here you bid 4♠ cue (4NT for me since 4♠ is kickback)-5♣-5♠(sand wedge). It's called sand wedge, since it's a recovery shot. Partner responds as if to key card. Oh, and West 200% - 100 for missing small slam and another hundred for the grand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 We want 4H to have 7 or 8 hearts and no outside primes, but at least it should show or deny something to be jumping around about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 West bid plausibly under natural methods. What you seem to ignore is that with 4♥ showing 6+ and at most one loser in the suit, East knows slam is likely with no further information. The 5♣ cue bid you propose showing the Queen is not essential to get to 6♥. If West doesn't have the ♥A, then there are cover cards available for the side suits. So a viewpoint that West has bid well within a known paradigm exists. It's East that should have done more. 6♦ on the way to 6♥ is a strong invitation to 7 with useful cover cards. West should expect the ♣Q is valuable, that partner has AKxxx in Clubs, and should bid 7♥ or NT. East can always correct to 7N. If you expect partner to jump to 4♥ on length only and garbage, then I can understand your viewpoint, but then the ♣ cue bid becomes even more risky...and you have no mechanism to show a really good ♥ suit.The main point that you seem to be repeatedly missing is that the cue of the club card is made all the more obvious precisely because the trumps are solid. Hence, you could understand 5C as a club card with good trumps, if that helps the understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMoe Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 The main point that you seem to be repeatedly missing is that the cue of the club card is made all the more obvious precisely because the trumps are solid. Hence, you could understand 5C as a club card with good trumps, if that helps the understanding.We actually agree here - I was however suggesting that West's not bidding 5♣ is not a reason to fault West and only West. East dropped the ball by forgetting to add to 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalldonn Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I don't mind giving East some blame since slam seems likely no matter what you think 4♥ means. In fact I think I was one of those who voted 75% West (I think it's more than that but less than 100). However, East (arguably) misjudged, but West misbid (and then misjudged too). There is a huge difference. Steve, 4♥ just does not mean what you think it means. I don't know any other way to put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 In general im willing to bid 4H and miss some slam since it stop a raise by LHO and avoid some 5 level FP situation. But solid H +stiff S + Qx in partner suit is way too much. xxxxAxxAKJxxx and slam is cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMoe Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I don't mind giving East some blame since slam seems likely no matter what you think 4♥ means. In fact I think I was one of those who voted 75% West (I think it's more than that but less than 100). However, East (arguably) misjudged, but West misbid (and then misjudged too). There is a huge difference. Steve, 4♥ just does not mean what you think it means. I don't know any other way to put it.I would expect 4♥ to show something like x KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I would expect 4♥ to show something like xx KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass.This is funny. You give East some blame for the final pass, while providing an example hand for West that seems more like what you would expect, apparently not realizing that the slam is in serious jeopardy opposite that hand. On the spade lead, you now need clubs splitting 3-3, which is anti-percentage. Of course, you would also need to remove a diamond to get to 13 cards. Lucky break having the club Queen, too. I see you spotted the spade problem and corrected it to fit the argument. But, now you have the problem of why West with good trumps, the spade stiff, and the club Queen does not cue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalldonn Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I would expect 4♥ to show something like x KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass.So you have gone from west 100% to east 100% to something in the middle, and from 4♥ showing an opening hand with six hearts to less than an opening hand with seven hearts. Are you sure you aren't Mitt Romney? :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMoe Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 So you have gone from west 100% to east 100% to something in the middle, and from 4♥ showing an opening hand with six hearts to less than an opening hand with seven hearts. Are you sure you aren't Mitt Romney? :)Now look who's being mean... ;) Unlike Romney I at least provided details... :blink: My "advocacy" was hypothetical in an attempt to point out that convicting only West "beyond reasonable doubt" is severe and misguided. I think East has so may assets West cannot expect all of them by the time bidding gets to 4♠. I thank you for correcting my notion that 4♥ was not horribly wrong. I still think the worst sin in bidding is when one partner can count tricks for game or slam and fails to act, often out of pessimism or fear. x KQJxxxx xxx Qxxx KQJxxxx x Qxxxxx KQJxxxx Kx x xx KQJxxxx Kxx xQx KQJxxxx x xxx only the last appears horrible but not impossible for slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I thank you for correcting my notion that 4♥ was not horribly wrong. I still think the worst sin in bidding is when one partner can count tricks for game or slam and fails to act, often out of pessimism or fear. x KQJxxxx xxx Qxxx KQJxxxx x Qxxxxx KQJxxxx Kx x xx KQJxxxx Kxx xQx KQJxxxx x xxx only the last appears horrible but not impossible for slam. I'm not sure partner should sign off on many of those. When he does, perhaps he has, of all things, a hand that can't make slam. ♠Qx ♥QJTxxxxx ♦Kx ♣x Sometimes we pass out of trust rather than fear, and lack of trust is the original bridge sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 Sometimes we pass out of trust rather than fear, and lack of trust is the original bridge sin.A question from the peanut gallory to the pulpit: please explain to us sinners how we are supposed to trust partner's decisions when she cannot trust the bids upon which she is making those decisions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 A question from the peanut gallory to the pulpit: please explain to us sinners how we are supposed to trust partner's decisions when she cannot trust the bids upon which she is making those decisions? Sinner, you are on the road to damnation (at least from the ox opposite). Ignore his bids and he ignores yours more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.