[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

1♥:3♥* 10-11 4 card
3♠:4♥
?

---

[Jlall]

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

[pooltuna]

jillybean, on Aug 11 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♥:3♥* 10-11 4 card
3♠:4♥
?

---

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]

Jlall, on Aug 11 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

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

[Fluffy]

4NT no second choice

[cherdanno]

pooltuna, on Aug 11 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 11 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♥:3♥* 10-11 4 card
3♠:4♥
?

---

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]

vuroth, on Aug 11 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

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]

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.

[Jlall]

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.

[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]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 11 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

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]

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.

[jillybean]

Jlall, on Aug 11 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

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]

Quote

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]

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". 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]

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

[jillybean]

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.

[Jlall]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 11 2009, 04:47 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". 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-w...tionary/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.