[Jlall]

jillybean, on Aug 11 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Aug 11 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

Quote

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]

Jlall, on Aug 12 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Aug 11 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Quote

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]

fred, on Aug 11 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

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]

Jlall, on Aug 11 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 11 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

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]

fred, on Aug 11 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 11 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 11 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

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.

[jillybean]

Justin, Ive obviously over reacted to your reply. Im sensitive and this is a scary place, there are no underlying issues. Sorry.

[Jlall]

jillybean, on Aug 11 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

Justin, Ive obviously over reacted to your reply. Im sensitive and this is a scary place, there are no underlying issues. Sorry.

No problem, thanks for apology.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

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.

I assume you mean this in a context where only one suit has been shown, not necessarily other sequences? E.g. in your 2/1 articles after 1h-2d-2h-3h, you advocated up-the-line cue bidding with 3s showing singleton/void/ace/king, and anything else denying spade control.

[fred]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 11 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Quote

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.

I assume you mean this in a context where only one suit has been shown, not necessarily other sequences? E.g. in your 2/1 articles after 1h-2d-2h-3h, you advocated up-the-line cue bidding with 3s showing singleton/void/ace/king, and anything else denying spade control.

Correct.

But the articles you refer to are very old. I no longer play much of what is written in them in my regular partnerships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Aug 11 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 11 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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

I did miss that this was Beginner-Intermediate, again. I never look at what forum group it is in, because I just check "view new posts" and look at the topics.

But, at least you are starting to sniff when I am in fact joking. I hardly would have expected Justin's 4NT to be a useful-space diamond-stiff indicator and 3♠ undiscussed to be assumed as a relay-splinter call. But, finding a way to reinterpret Justin's sequence this obscurely was too fun for me to pass up.

[ONEferBRID]

kenrexford, on Aug 11 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

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."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  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!

I find it far from a "perfect auction" to finally have Opener w/"extras" show Diam shortness with a 4NT! bid.

If Swedish2NT were used to show a limit raise+ (or better) w/4cd support,
the Diam shortness w/extras would be shown with a 3S! bid ! !

Now, look at all the room for "other moves" -- "close call " or otherwise .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Actually, in the future, anything ( eg. Bergen Raises) has to be better than the 3M-jump to show a 4 cd limit raise.

[vuroth]

pooltuna, on Aug 11 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

vuroth, on Aug 11 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

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.

I confess that I thought this was the standard treatment - that as a courtesy you showed control bids below game if you could.

In this case, 4NT gets you the info as well, but what if you held:

---

or

---

Now 4NT isn't as useful to me, and I'd sure like for partner to show which minor suit ace they have, if any, even if they don't think they have a useful hand for slam.

I'll agree with Fred that I don't recall all of this being laid out in 5 weeks to winning bridge. I find control-showing bids, when to use them and when not to, to be inherently confusing at the B/I level.

Maybe my biggest problem as a B/I is that, once I "learn" a new toy like control showing, I next need to learn when to use it and when NOT to. On this hand, it's a good lesson that a simple 4NT gets the job done.

V

[Codo]

I am quite sure that here in Germany for beg(int. players 3 Spade was a cuebid and that 4 Heart had denied any control in a minor.

This may not be the best way to evaluate slam, but I am quite sure that this is the way it is taught.

The "no shortness" cuebid is just made when you make a cuebid in partners suit, so 1 ♣ 1 ♥ 3 ♥ 4 ♣ shows Ace or king.


So maybe in Kathryns place there have been the same teacher.....

[kenrexford]

ONEferBRID, on Aug 11 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 11 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

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."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  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!

I find it far from a "perfect auction" to finally have Opener w/"extras" show Diam shortness with a 4NT! bid.

If Swedish2NT were used to show a limit raise+ (or better) w/4cd support,
the Diam shortness w/extras would be shown with a 3S! bid ! !

Now, look at all the room for "other moves" -- "close call " or otherwise .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Actually, in the future, anything ( eg. Bergen Raises) has to be better than the 3M-jump to show a 4 cd limit raise.

I was stuck with the limit raise bid and the 3♠ continuation. LOL