[Cascade]

Jlall, on Aug 30 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

Seems like east can just bid keycard

and get to a slam missing the ♦ AK

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Aug 30 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I disagree with most and think west has a bid part of the blame.

Partner showed clubs with 3 clubs, and you failed to raise him because you though 3♦ was something conventional that you can show with 3♠ instead.

Next he showed a slam interest hand with 6 spades, and you have ♠Ax, ♣AQ9x in his suits!. Passing was very bad judgement IMO.

I agree.

I don't really understand the 3♣ bid.

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

I don't really understand the 3♣ bid.

you haven't been tooless before , you just hope that partner bids 3♠ next so you can start cuebidding, or that he raises clubs and then you at least can make cuebids, and blackwood on a suit you can rectify later into spades.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Aug 30 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

I don't really understand the 3♣ bid.

you haven't been tooless before , you just hope that partner bids 3♠ next so you can start cuebidding, or that he raises clubs and then you at least can make cuebids, and blackwood on a suit you can rectify later into spades.

What is the name of this convention?

[Jlall]

Cascade, on Aug 29 2009, 08:26 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 30 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

Seems like east can just bid keycard

and get to a slam missing the ♦ AK

And still make it! Amazing!

Bleh not sure why I respond to troll bait.

[Cascade]

It seems very sloppy to ask for aces with a weak suit when there are good alternatives. Although not knowing the methods since the OP just included this wonder bid of 3♣ without explanation I do not know what methods were in play.

It seems to me that if you do not have a forcing way of showing a six-card major in order to initiate cue-bids nor some specialized sequence then a jump new suit should be a cue-bid and not a splinter.

Justin I am going to report your posts everytime you get personal and insulting. Hopefully eventually either you will stop this antisocial behaviour or the administrators will ban you.

[gnasher]

To have an uninformative auction to slam without checking for diamond control isn't sloppy: it's a valid attempt to gain IMPs by making slam even when we're off two tricks. If they don't cash the diamonds the slam will probably be cold.

The downside is that we have to give LHO a chance to double either 4♣ (Gerber) or 4♥ (transfer). When he doesn't, it becomes more likely that RHO will lead a diamond. Also, people do lead aggressively against slams, so they may well lead a diamond from the ace or king. They may even underlead ♦A, expecting me to have the king.

I'd show spades and initiate cue-bidding. If I can't do that at a sensible level, then (1) I dislike the methods. (2) I suppose I'd just Gerber my way to 6NT. 6NT is more likely to attract a passive lead than 6S. (3) If you forced me to invent a suit, I'd bid diamonds as a lead-inhibitor.

Edit: the cue-bidding approach also makes it easier to get to seven when it's right. Even Meckwell would struggle to get there via RKC if opener has AJx xx AKxx Axxx. If 1NT-2♥;2♠-3♠ initiates cue-bidding, on a good day we might manage:
1NT-2♥
2♠-3♠
4♣-4♥
5♦-5♥
6♥-7♠

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-August-30, 02:13

[Cascade]

That depends what you mean by valid.

Lets assume we get to slam and are missing the ♦ AK (the cases were we get to slam by this gamble and have diamond controls are largely irrelevant since we most likely would get there any way). If we are not getting to slam after keycard then we are finding one key-card missing and bailing - I dislike that approach even more.

Nearly 1/4 of the time the person on lead will have the ♦ AK so barring a major accident we are down immediately.

Some of the rest of the time there will not be 12 tricks e.g. ♠ AJxx ♥ QJx ♦ QJx ♣ Axx - whatever happens. Probably a reasonably small chance.

I would estimate around 1/3 of the rest of the time perhaps more you will get a diamond lead. I would not expect a trump lead on an uninformative auction. Responder thinks there will be 12 tricks and so we better get ours fast.

Therefore I would expect this sort of gamble to fail well over half of the time.

That might be a valid gamble in some circumstances - state of the match etc - but in general I don't think it is a good and therefore valid gamble.

Certainly when I have managed to get to a bad slam which we could have avoided by checking for appropriate controls it almost always doesn't often seem after the fact like partner or I made a valid attempt to win IMPs.

[Wackojack]

gnasher, on Aug 30 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

the cue-bidding approach also makes it easier to get to seven when it's right.  Even Meckwell would struggle to get there via RKC if opener has AJx xx AKxx Axxx.  If 1NT-2♥;2♠-3♠ initiates cue-bidding, on a good day we might manage:
1NT-2♥
2♠-3♠
4♣-4♥
5♦-5♥
6♥-7♠

Yes, if you play 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♠ as game forcing slam interest, this is possible. This is my agreement most of my f2f partners. (1NT-3♠ invitational) Unfortunately we were playing the "fashionable" 1NT-3♠ = 1445 or 1454, so 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♠ is no longer an option as it is invite only. Incidentally I assumed my partner's bid of 3♣ was a 4 card suit and did not recognise it as a creative way of setting the trump suit so that cue bids could be made below the 4♠ level. Yes perhaps I should have cued 5♦ over 4♠.

About 2 months ago in a post I questioned the value of the 1NT- 3M bid to show a singleton with 4 in the other major, calculating that this may never come up in my bridge playing life. Nevertheless I have adopted this method with one on-line partner as it is "BBO Advanced" and immediately its shortcomings are exposed compared with the simpler methods I use with my f2f partners.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

Therefore I would expect this sort of gamble to fail well over half of the time.

That might be a valid gamble in some circumstances - state of the match etc - but in general I don't think it is a good and therefore valid gamble.

So, as I understand it, you think that to intentionally follow a route that might lead to slam missing ♦AK is a poor gamble, and therefore ill-judged. Why does that make it "sloppy" to follow this strategy?

[athene]

I think Cascade missed the point about JLall's decision simply to keycard for spades.

Yes, if you are off the ♦AK, you are probably losing imps by bidding slam [i.e. it will make less than 50% of the time].

But that's not the point.

Your main equity from the 'crude' approach comes from keeping the auction simple and getting to slam when all the 'disciplined' / 'scientific' / whatever bidders are fiddling around with strange distortions like 3♣ and not getting anywhere and the slam is cold.

You are accepting that you might end up in slam off ♦AK diamonds. That will sometimes - even often - cost you. But you get a good proportion of that back when you actually make the slam anyway.

That's all that "making 6♠ off ♦AK" does - it just helps out your percentage.

[Jlall]

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 12:41 AM, said:

Justin I am going to report your posts everytime you get personal and insulting.  Hopefully eventually either you will stop this antisocial behaviour or the administrators will ban you.

Oh no! Is that a threat?!?!?!

Lol @ you calling me anti social over and over. That is the funniest thing you ever say, and you say a lot of ridiculous things

Where did I get personal and insulting? I call em like I see em, most regular forum posters here also think you troll routinely, and that most of your posts are simply contrarian/trolling for the sake of it. It is not like I just create these beliefs out of nowhere. It is obvious from your posting history.

I am sure the moderators will love you clicking the report button every time you are called a troll though. I am sure they are really likely to do anything about that! Will you report me if I say you are not an expert bridge player, and your posts are generally terrible in quality also? Sorry, I am free to say that! Mommy and Daddy can't protect you from that!

Troll away

[Winstonm]

I had a bed like this once. You know, a

Quote

Troll away

bed.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Aug 30 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 12:41 AM, said:

Justin I am going to report your posts everytime you get personal and insulting.  Hopefully eventually either you will stop this antisocial behaviour or the administrators will ban you.

Oh no! Is that a threat?!?!?!

Lol @ you calling me anti social over and over. That is the funniest thing you ever say, and you say a lot of ridiculous things

Where did I get personal and insulting? I call em like I see em, most regular forum posters here also think you troll routinely, and that most of your posts are simply contrarian/trolling for the sake of it. It is not like I just create these beliefs out of nowhere. It is obvious from your posting history.

I am sure the moderators will love you clicking the report button every time you are called a troll though. I am sure they are really likely to do anything about that! Will you report me if I say you are not an expert bridge player, and your posts are generally terrible in quality also? Sorry, I am free to say that! Mommy and Daddy can't protect you from that!

Troll away

Hmmm a little thin-skinned. Do you think he would last a week at http://groups.google...s.bridge/topics?

[Winstonm]

Cascade wrote,

Quote

It seems very sloppy to ask for aces with a weak suit when there are good alternatives.

What good alternatives are you talking about? The post stipulates you are playing Texas and Jacoby transfers - direct 3-level showed 3154. The point of the post is that you DON'T have good alternatives with this system in play.

[aguahombre]

I was going to say something stupid about using Gerber, then asking for kings.

So, I deserve to rat myself out for even thinking about that, since pard would leap to 7NT with AX QXX KQJTXX AX. Silly partner would think we have all the aces when I ask for Kings. While confessing, I admit agreeing with Cascade for a minute about slam missing the Diamond controls, until I realized JLAL wasn't trying for perfect science, just a likely good result.

[ONEferBRID]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 5♠
?? 

---

I find the Meckwell treatment interesting.

Since Texas and then a 5-level new suit is Exclusion,
I find it quite novel to make a "simple transfer" and then
5C/5D/5H/5S = RKC "replies" as if 4NT were asked by Opener.

We have noted that "normal" blasting might get you to slam off the♦ A K.

However, the Meckwell "reply" of 5S ( 2 + sQ ) still leaves Opener in a dilema.
He does have the Diam K, but if he makes the decision to go to 6S, they
could very well be off the ♥ A K if Responder held the following 15 pointer:

♠ K Q T 9 8 5
♥ 8 5
♦ A Q J
♣ K 4

[Winstonm]

aguahombre, on Aug 30 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

I was going to say something stupid about using Gerber, then asking for kings.

So, I deserve to rat myself out for even thinking about that, since pard would leap to 7NT with AX QXX KQJTXX AX. Silly partner would think we have all the aces when I ask for Kings. While confessing, I admit agreeing with Cascade for a minute about slam missing the Diamond controls, until I realized JLAL wasn't trying for perfect science, just a likely good result.

I nominate this as "post of the year". It is really refreshing to see honest comment like this.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Aug 30 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

So, as I understand it, you think that to intentionally follow a route that might lead to slam missing ♦AK is a poor gamble, and therefore ill-judged.  Why does that make it "sloppy" to follow this strategy?

It is sloppy when there are good alternatives.

In other words if it is avoidable to not check for a control in this suit or to get information to that affect.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 30 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

So, as I understand it, you think that to intentionally follow a route that might lead to slam missing ♦AK is a poor gamble, and therefore ill-judged.  Why does that make it "sloppy" to follow this strategy?

It is sloppy when there are good alternatives.

In other words if it is avoidable to not check for a control in this suit or to get information to that affect.

Why would anyone do that if they wanted to be in slam missing ♦AK, because they judged that doing so would on average gain IMPs?

And why on earth do you think it "sloppy" to make such a judgement? I can understand that you might think it poor judgement, but I don't see any reason to suggest that it's careless.