[bd71]

---

Playing basic 2/1. Who (if anyone) is at fault here?

[andy_h]

100% South. North has a decent hand and should cue over 3H however that wasn't the problem which propelled the auction up to 6H. When North doesn't make any noise over 3H, South with only 1 keycard has an easy pass. North didn't need to have 5-5, say he has 5422 and a min 12 count AQxxx A10xx Qx xx and the five level is in jeopardy. As a side random question, why did South cue 5C as opposed to 4S?

[Free]

I'd blame South 50% for the reasons Andy gave, and North 50% but that depends on agreements. For example, can South be very strong? North could've bid a frivolous 3♠ or 3NT instead of taking up the entire cuebidding level with 4♥.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I'm going to work backwards on the blame:
5C .... No 4NT because Responder was worried about a Diam Ctrl.
....... But then why not a 4S cue ?

4H .... Why not a courtesy 4D cue ?

With either one of these actions, 4NT could have been bid to find out about the missing 2 key cards.

Then again, on a good day North would hold the trump Ace and the finesse would be ON !

[hotShot]

What would 4♣, 4♦ or 3♠ have shown after ♥ was introduced and raised?
South forced to game and North just bids it. I would take that as "no extras".


I blame South.

[kenrexford]

South gets the blame for the poor contract.

North gets the shame for an idiotic 4♥ call.

However, I suspect that South's blame may be mitigated if South has knowledge that North signs off a lot with a five-loser player hand for no apparent reason other than complete lack of understanding of the game.

[han]

Agree with Rexford.

[rhm]

kenrexford, on 2010-December-01, 07:27, said:

South gets the blame for the poor contract.

North gets the shame for an idiotic 4♥ call.

However, I suspect that South's blame may be mitigated if South has knowledge that North signs off a lot with a five-loser player hand for no apparent reason other than complete lack of understanding of the game.

We seem to be looking at 2 different hands.
If your losers consist of trump losers and aces, 5 losers are a lot and some correct loser count upwards when primarily first round controls are missing.
From North's perspective he is missing 3 aces, the ♥queen and the ♠king. Unless partner holds 4 of these 5 key cards slam is probably odds against and if South does hold 4 key cards he will continue over 4♥.
There are experts out there, for example Frank Stewart, who think cue-bidding is not mandatory and is to be discouraged, if you are not suitable for slam.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

I don't know Frank Stewart personally, but I think he writes well. As far as I know, he has been mentioned on these forums once before, by Jillybean, as a reference for passing on a hand where the rest of the world would have bid. Probably for Frank Stewart, this is a very minimal opening hand, and he probably would not have opened a mere 13-count such as AQJ10x K10xx Kx xx. So probably it makes perfect sense for Frank Stewart not to cuebid on a hand like this, a cuebid for him would truly show a monster.

For the rest of us, this is a very sound opening that became even better when we found the 5-4 heart fit. Not cuebidding would indeed be idiotic, as Rexford said.

[Fluffy]

4♥ mistake is a judgement error, 5♣ mistake is simply wrong, so I give south more blame

[rhm]

han, on 2010-December-01, 08:12, said:

I don't know Frank Stewart personally, but I think he writes well. As far as I know, he has been mentioned on these forums once before, by Jillybean, as a reference for passing on a hand where the rest of the world would have bid. Probably for Frank Stewart, this is a very minimal opening hand, and he probably would not have opened a mere 13-count such as AQJ10x K10xx Kx xx. So probably it makes perfect sense for Frank Stewart not to cuebid on a hand like this, a cuebid for him would truly show a monster.

For the rest of us, this is a very sound opening that became even better when we found the 5-4 heart fit. Not cuebidding would indeed be idiotic, as Rexford said.

To assume that a top player like Frank Stewart, who has no Roth-Stone tendencies, only does not open all rubbish hands, would consider the North hand a borderline opening is an insult. In fact the North hand might bid game over a single ♠ raise, since little is needed in the majors for game.
However, hand evaluation for slam is different. First round controls and trump quality take a much more profound role.
I just mentioned Stewart as an example, that there are many experts, who do not consider automatic control bidding the right philosophy. Judging from his recent publications, Rodwell is also in this camp and nobody can claim he would not open fairly weak hands.
Just because lesser so called experts claim this philosophy "idiotic", I am simply not convinced they know the game better.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

rhm, on 2010-December-01, 07:59, said:

We seem to be looking at 2 different hands.
If your losers consist of trump losers and aces, 5 losers are a lot and some correct loser count upwards when primarily first round controls are missing.
From North's perspective he is missing 3 aces, the ♥queen and the ♠king. Unless partner holds 4 of these 5 key cards slam is probably odds against and if South does hold 4 key cards he will continue over 4♥.
There are experts out there, for example Frank Stewart, who think cue-bidding is not mandatory and is to be discouraged, if you are not suitable for slam.

Rainer Herrmann

Actually, I think we must be looking at two different games.

North has a playable slam (probably on a hook) opposite South having the diamond Ace and the heart Ace-Queen.

South should NOT venture into the five-level, IMO, with three Aces and nothing more, which makes the slam come in on a 2-2 heart split OR a spade hook/drop (depending on line).

The problem with your analysis for me is that you seem to lack either methods or judgment, with all due respect.

4H would be more like AJxxx-QJxx-Kx-xx. If you would open that (I would), then there is QUITE the gap between that seven-loser 1 key card mess and the actual 5-loser (adjust as you want) two key hand.

Keep in mind that 3H presumably showed something extra, at least in THIS partnership, such that my dead-nbang minimums are probably too weak (strangely). Plus, if you have last train and LTTC available, it is quite easy to resign after one cue of at least 3S, eh?

[MARNICk]

I like 3s-4c-4d-4nt here. Why skip 3s when it can have no cue ... ofc 6-5/6-5 poss ,but P just keeps on cueing and we shldn't get too high w 5-3h or 6-2 s. I'd say that 4!h only really little < 4d ,cuz 4!d also pretty uninformative + gamblish opposite partners average hand.