[mike777]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

Ok, I was north obviously. I agree I have a 4D bid. How close is it to a 4S bid (Ken seems to think not close, han thinks it's close...)? Would losing the SJ make it a 4S bid? Turning the CQ into the jack? Turning the HK into the Q?

I would think if this is clearly a 4d call without intervention then it is still a 4d with intervention. However if you open lite and this is not clearly a 4d splinter then I think 4s is ok now. For me I can come up with several hands where partner opens and 4s has no play if partner opens lite.

I guess I would ask does partner open junky balanced 11 hcp hands with 5 spades 100% of the time.

As for south, if 4s shows decent 12 or 13 total pts ( ok I am a pt counter) south may move again. I assume north bids 3s with less decent 12.

Again for me anyway it just goes back to how bad (lite) a hand does south open very very often in first seat in this partnership.

[keylime]

Admittedly, I bid 3♥ followed by spades here, just to keep hearts in the picture. I don't like the direct bid of 4D, because I have a pretty nice hand in scope here. If they sac, pard will be much better clued in and I'm bidding five with this to take pressure off of the forcing pass situation.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

I agree I misevaluated this hand pretty badly but is my general view on what a 4D/4S bid should mean wrong/non standard?

I don't know. That's why I asked the question.

[pclayton]

Do we agree that 1♠ - (3♦) - 3♠ shows the top half of all single raises up to a weak limit raise? We wouldn't bid 3♠ on Jxx, xx, Kxxx, Qxxx would we? Change the hand a little and it qualifies for 3♠ IMO.

Starting from this premise, 4♠ should show an average limit raise up to a minimum GF. I don't think we have the luxury of throwing a typical LR into the 3♠ basket.

4♦ would include obviously better hands.

Or am I splitting hairs here?

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

I agree I misevaluated this hand pretty badly but is my general view on what a 4D/4S bid should mean wrong/non standard?

No you worded it exactly how I think of it

[neilkaz]

Phil's a bit more aggressive with the lower point of his ranges than I. I'll admit that I am not sure what's correct, but felt that you could stretch about 1 pt in evaluation (after factoring in to account anything positional things from the PJO)

So for me, 3♠ shows a very good single raise to an average limit raise, 4♠ shows a better than average limit raise to a minimum GF, and 4♦ would show a decent GF+.

Splitting hairs...yeah maybe..but really enjoying the discussion here and learning.

.. neilkaz ..

[mike777]

As a nonexpert for me:
1) If you open sound, or very sound this is an easy 4d responder hand or easy 100% game force hand. Partner opens sound!
2) if you open all balanced 11 or almost all 5-4 ten point hands this is a typical invite hand. IN this example/auction a typical 4s bid.

I guess I could even understand if partner argued this is a dead minimum game force hand, dead minimum, but really for me this would be a typical invite hand.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 30 2008, 09:04 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Apr 30 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

Jxxx KQxxx xx xx?

is that a 4S bid?

Or, rather worse from the point of view of a South who is considering a slam try, Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand. I always thought of a 4S bid as a good limit raise/bad GF hand and as 4D as a not-bad GF+. Bidding 4S on bad limit raise hands (and this example is like a queen weaker than that) seems like a bad idea?

I agree I misevaluated this hand pretty badly but is my general view on what a 4D/4S bid should mean wrong/non standard?

This is where I think context makes the difference. I think a one-under cue is stronger, like you suggest. However, a two-under, because of LTTC, is more flexible.

However, there are two admitted flaws to my thinking, at least that I spot immediately:

1. A flexible cue does not protect us well against a sacrifice to Responder's left as the next call. My rebuttal is that you either have more problems after the cue or more problems after the jump to game, and I'd rather handle the situation with the optimistic approach that there might not be interference.

2. I don't see many discussions here about the impact of the availability of LTTC as affecting how much turf the cue can cover. That suggests that a partner will not catch this meaning as "standard" unless it is discussed (GP that a descriptive call is more flexible the lower it is below game).


FWIW, I open incredibly light, and my regular partner does as well, but I seem to be on the extreme end of how much turf 4♦ covers. I don't see that as inconsistent.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 30 2008, 09:04 AM, said:

Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand.

No, nor would I - I was just adapting Frances's example to make it more of a problem opposite this South hand. I would, however, bid 4♠ with some quite weak hands containing five spades, like Jxxxx xx x KJ10xx or Jxxxx Qxxx x Kxx

It wasn't that easy to construct hands where 5♠ is in jeopardy facing the South hand, so maybe it's not so dangerous for South to move.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 30 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 30 2008, 09:04 AM, said:

Jxxx xx xx KQxxx

I would never have considered a 4S bid with this hand.

No, nor would I - I was just adapting Frances's example to make it more of a problem opposite this South hand. I would, however, bid 4♠ with some quite weak hands containing five spades, like Jxxxx xx x KJ10xx or Jxxxx Qxxx x Kxx

It wasn't that easy to construct hands where 5♠ is in jeopardy facing the South hand, so maybe it's not so dangerous for South to move.

I have always thought it was wrong to bid 4S on these weakish hands with 5 trumps in this auction (don't preempt over a preempt?). I have always bid 3 on those type of hands. I have also always passed with hands like Kxxxx Jxx xx Jxx. Is this wrong?

Whether I agree or disagree is not what prompted me to post.

I understand the motivation of not preempting over a preempt. However, something about the reasoning behind not bidding 4♠ with weakish hands, but bidding 4♥ on a different thread hand, seems backwards or inconsistent somehow. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusions, again. I am just scratching my head in trying to figure out how these two fit together on the basis of the articulated reasoning.

[kenrexford]

Boy! Quite defensive!

I actually was intrigued by the comments. Not from a standpoint of thinking that they were wrong. Rather, as I tried to state, because I thought that the conclusions seemed right but that your way of summarizing the thinking was a strange way of putting it. So, I sought clarification, as the way you articulated the two conclusions seems strange.

Again, and I say this like a person trying to sneak a toy from an angry kitten, by "inconsistent," I don't mean dumb or errant or crazy.

In the one situation, a troubling hand with an extremely high ODR and high general value forces the side expected to have boss trumps to make a decision that forces us to make a decision, and may well place us into the last-guess scenario. In contrast, the other auction features a decision to not make the same guess scenario jump, despite having boss trumps, again with a high ODR.

These two situations seemed, therefore, extremely similar in many respects. I was intrigued by the hearts-vs-spades situation and the weak-vs-strong ODR concept and was hoping to get your thoughts.

Not "calling out," at all. I also have noticed some situations that appear initially similar but handled in a way that seems inconsistent or backwards unless you delve deeper into the problem. These two surprised me, in that I seemed to agree but found my agreement troubling bexcause I could not put my finger on what made the difference.

[benlessard]

Quote

I think xxxx Kxxxx x AQx would still be a 4♦ call, but Jxxx Qxxxx x AQx or Jxxx Kxxxx x AJx would not. So, fairly close.

The best post ive read today.