[kenrexford]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-13, 09:14, said:

cf Frances's reply.
Holding XX-AKQxxxxx-x-Kx 3♥ comes to mind, intending to jump to 5...

Holding xxx AKQxxx xx Kx I certainly think 4♥ is an apt description. With weaker hearts, we can start with double or 3 ♥ I think xxx AQxxx Kx Kx is a perfect 3♥ bid - some might even find it a touch rich! We want 4♥ to show a self-sufficient suit.

So, in order to find a grand slam that needs a 3-2 split in trumps and either clubs splitting 3-3 or 4-2 with the Queen doubleton or a diamond finesse, all assuming that you also catch partner with solid trumps, you are willing to force West to not show an obviously important club Queen, even if he also has solid trumps? Besides, if opener needs that King and not simply the Queen, he has the option of more cuebidding anyway, if your proposed holding is even possible.

I want to vote this as worst analysis ever even more.

[lalldonn]

I mean, Ken should at least be nicer. It was very creative of someone to find a way to not blame west at all. I don't know if I could have done it even if my post was intended as a spoof.

[SteveMoe]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-13, 08:36, said:

The final reason is that 4H is a hugely descriptive bid, particularly if opps bid more spades. If you have a normal 4H bid, say, xx KQJ10xxx Qxx x and you bid 4H, the next hand bids 4S, and partner doubles you know it's right to pass. If you bid 3H, natural and forcing and it continues 4S x you don't know what to do, because you have so much less defence than partner might expect. If you double (planning to bid 4H next) and partner doubles 4S you are pretty much forced to bid. It's all about describing your hand accurately and quickly.

Frances, I found (serendipity) corroboration from an interesting source. Thought you'd like to see the quote:

ACBL Bridge Bulletin October 2012 p 53.
My Bridge and Yours - by Frank Stewart
<last paragraph>
"As an aside, I liked my partner's jump to 4♦, which started us on an easy road to slam. Many players would have "saved space" with 3♦, but for slam bidding, one descriptive jump is more effective than several delicate minimum forcing bids -- so wrote the great theorist Edgar Kaplan."

[SteveMoe]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-13, 09:38, said:

if your proposed holding is even possible.

I want to vote this as worst analysis ever even more.

The gist here is that West has a perfectly natural description of a solid suit worth game opposite partner's putative balanced weak NT opener (12-14). The cue bid of the ♣ queen is certainly creative but not without risk. (I have used this tactic before).

Bridge bidding is about communication. I am simply pointing out that a rational explanation exists in a natural dialect that can avoid certain risks.

[SteveMoe]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-13, 09:38, said:

So, in order to find a grand slam that needs a 3-2 split in trumps and either clubs splitting 3-3 or 4-2 with the Queen doubleton or a diamond finesse, all assuming that you also catch partner with solid trumps, you are willing to force West to not show an obviously important club Queen, even if he also has solid trumps? Besides, if opener needs that King and not simply the Queen, he has the option of more cuebidding anyway, if your proposed holding is even possible.

I want to vote this as worst analysis ever even more.

West bid plausibly under natural methods.

What you seem to ignore is that with 4♥ showing 6+ and at most one loser in the suit, East knows slam is likely with no further information.

The 5♣ cue bid you propose showing the Queen is not essential to get to 6♥. If West doesn't have the ♥A, then there are cover cards available for the side suits. So a viewpoint that West has bid well within a known paradigm exists. It's East that should have done more. 6♦ on the way to 6♥ is a strong invitation to 7 with useful cover cards. West should expect the ♣Q is valuable, that partner has AKxxx in Clubs, and should bid 7♥ or NT. East can always correct to 7N.

If you expect partner to jump to 4♥ on length only and garbage, then I can understand your viewpoint, but then the ♣ cue bid becomes even more risky...and you have no mechanism to show a really good ♥ suit.

[PhilKing]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-12, 19:43, said:

So I assume holding ♠AK10 ♥65 ♦AQ2 ♣AJ532 you would not get to 7NT after hearing partner bid 5♣ over your 4♠ control bid? Enlighten me!

As for analysis, it's more an interpretation. With weak hearts and a desire to play in 4, I can always double first. Over a preempt we don't play WJS.

You can play "sand wedge RKCB" after cue bidding past 4NT.

Here you bid 4♠ cue (4NT for me since 4♠ is kickback)-5♣-5♠(sand wedge).

It's called sand wedge, since it's a recovery shot. Partner responds as if to key card.

Oh, and West 200% - 100 for missing small slam and another hundred for the grand.

[aguahombre]

We want 4H to have 7 or 8 hearts and no outside primes, but at least it should show or deny something to be jumping around about.

[kenrexford]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-13, 13:17, said:

West bid plausibly under natural methods.

What you seem to ignore is that with 4♥ showing 6+ and at most one loser in the suit, East knows slam is likely with no further information.

The 5♣ cue bid you propose showing the Queen is not essential to get to 6♥. If West doesn't have the ♥A, then there are cover cards available for the side suits. So a viewpoint that West has bid well within a known paradigm exists. It's East that should have done more. 6♦ on the way to 6♥ is a strong invitation to 7 with useful cover cards. West should expect the ♣Q is valuable, that partner has AKxxx in Clubs, and should bid 7♥ or NT. East can always correct to 7N.

If you expect partner to jump to 4♥ on length only and garbage, then I can understand your viewpoint, but then the ♣ cue bid becomes even more risky...and you have no mechanism to show a really good ♥ suit.

The main point that you seem to be repeatedly missing is that the cue of the club card is made all the more obvious precisely because the trumps are solid. Hence, you could understand 5C as a club card with good trumps, if that helps the understanding.

[SteveMoe]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-13, 14:44, said:

The main point that you seem to be repeatedly missing is that the cue of the club card is made all the more obvious precisely because the trumps are solid. Hence, you could understand 5C as a club card with good trumps, if that helps the understanding.

We actually agree here - I was however suggesting that West's not bidding 5♣ is not a reason to fault West and only West. East dropped the ball by forgetting to add to 12.

[lalldonn]

I don't mind giving East some blame since slam seems likely no matter what you think 4♥ means. In fact I think I was one of those who voted 75% West (I think it's more than that but less than 100). However, East (arguably) misjudged, but West misbid (and then misjudged too). There is a huge difference.

Steve, 4♥ just does not mean what you think it means. I don't know any other way to put it.

[benlessard]

In general im willing to bid 4H and miss some slam since it stop a raise by LHO and avoid some 5 level FP situation. But solid H +stiff S + Qx in partner suit is way too much.

xxx
x
Axx
AKJxxx

and slam is cold.

[SteveMoe]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-13, 15:23, said:

I don't mind giving East some blame since slam seems likely no matter what you think 4♥ means. In fact I think I was one of those who voted 75% West (I think it's more than that but less than 100). However, East (arguably) misjudged, but West misbid (and then misjudged too). There is a huge difference.

Steve, 4♥ just does not mean what you think it means. I don't know any other way to put it.

I would expect 4♥ to show something like x KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass.

[kenrexford]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-13, 22:47, said:

I would expect 4♥ to show something like xx KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass.

This is funny. You give East some blame for the final pass, while providing an example hand for West that seems more like what you would expect, apparently not realizing that the slam is in serious jeopardy opposite that hand. On the spade lead, you now need clubs splitting 3-3, which is anti-percentage. Of course, you would also need to remove a diamond to get to 13 cards. Lucky break having the club Queen, too.

I see you spotted the spade problem and corrected it to fit the argument. But, now you have the problem of why West with good trumps, the spade stiff, and the club Queen does not cue.

[aguahombre]

xxx

[lalldonn]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-13, 22:47, said:

I would expect 4♥ to show something like x KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass.

So you have gone from west 100% to east 100% to something in the middle, and from 4♥ showing an opening hand with six hearts to less than an opening hand with seven hearts. Are you sure you aren't Mitt Romney?

[SteveMoe]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-14, 02:25, said:

So you have gone from west 100% to east 100% to something in the middle, and from 4♥ showing an opening hand with six hearts to less than an opening hand with seven hearts. Are you sure you aren't Mitt Romney?

Now look who's being mean... Unlike Romney I at least provided details...
My "advocacy" was hypothetical in an attempt to point out that convicting only West "beyond reasonable doubt" is severe and misguided. I think East has so may assets West cannot expect all of them by the time bidding gets to 4♠.

I thank you for correcting my notion that 4♥ was not horribly wrong. I still think the worst sin in bidding is when one partner can count tricks for game or slam and fails to act, often out of pessimism or fear.

x KQJxxxx xxx Qx
xx KQJxxxx x Qxx
xxx KQJxxxx Kx x
xx KQJxxxx Kxx x
Qx KQJxxxx x xxx

only the last appears horrible but not impossible for slam.

[PhilKing]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-14, 12:39, said:

I thank you for correcting my notion that 4♥ was not horribly wrong. I still think the worst sin in bidding is when one partner can count tricks for game or slam and fails to act, often out of pessimism or fear.

x KQJxxxx xxx Qx
xx KQJxxxx x Qxx
xxx KQJxxxx Kx x
xx KQJxxxx Kxx x
Qx KQJxxxx x xxx

only the last appears horrible but not impossible for slam.

I'm not sure partner should sign off on many of those.

When he does, perhaps he has, of all things, a hand that can't make slam.

♠Qx ♥QJTxxxxx ♦Kx ♣x

Sometimes we pass out of trust rather than fear, and lack of trust is the original bridge sin.

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-14, 12:47, said:

Sometimes we pass out of trust rather than fear, and lack of trust is the original bridge sin.

A question from the peanut gallory to the pulpit: please explain to us sinners how we are supposed to trust partner's decisions when she cannot trust the bids upon which she is making those decisions?

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-14, 13:16, said:

A question from the peanut gallory to the pulpit: please explain to us sinners how we are supposed to trust partner's decisions when she cannot trust the bids upon which she is making those decisions?

Sinner, you are on the road to damnation (at least from the ox opposite).

Ignore his bids and he ignores yours more.