[Bbradley62]

---

Should the explanation of 4♥ include denying ♦A?

Edit: Removed hand because it was irrelevant to the discussion.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2015-February-03, 09:47

[manudude03]

It would only deny the ♦A if 4♣ forced a cuebid in return, but I don't think it does.

[Bbradley62]

I would understand if the description of 4♥ indicated a minimum hand for the previously-announced range, as an attempted sign-off even with ♦A, but it doesn't.

[cloa513]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-01, 21:41, said:

I would understand if the description of 4♥ indicated a minimum hand for the previously-announced range, as an attempted sign-off even with ♦A, but it doesn't.

Not necessary minimum HCP but rather less than 24 8421 points.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2015-February-03, 00:04, said:

Not necessary minimum HCP but rather less than 24 8421 points.

You're completely making this up, but... if that's the way GIB is designed, the description of 4♥ should say so.

[1eyedjack]

Not that GIB plays it but would 4D be LTTC in a human partnership?

[iandayre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-01, 19:48, said:

---

Should the explanation of 4♥ include denying ♦A?

Edit: Removed hand because it was irrelevant to the discussion.

It would for me. I have shown extras and partner has shown interest. No reason not to make a below-game cuebid.

As for Jack's question, in my experience LTTC is seen more in print than real life. I have never agreed it and I have never had anyone alert it against me.

[georgi]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-01, 19:48, said:

---

Should the explanation of 4♥ include denying ♦A?

Edit: Removed hand because it was irrelevant to the discussion.

More likely denies ♠ cuebid. If we are about to lose two spades, ♦A won't help if opener show it.

And 4♦ should more likely promise ♠ cuebid than ♦.

[iandayre]

georgi, on 2015-February-07, 14:46, said:

More likely denies ♠ cuebid. If we are about to lose two spades, ♦A won't help if opener show it.

And 4♦ should more likely promise ♠ cuebid than ♦.

Utter nonsense. 4D shows the Ace of Diamonds, period. If partner moves to slam without a Spade control and we lose 2 quick tricks there, it's his error. If I don't cue diamonds and partner has 2 quick losers there, how can he move to slam when it's correct?

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2015-February-07, 16:12, said:

georgi, on 2015-February-07, 14:46, said:

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-01, 19:48, said:

Should the explanation of 4♥ include denying ♦A?

More likely denies ♠ cuebid. If we are about to lose two spades, ♦A won't help if opener show it.

And 4♦ should more likely promise ♠ cuebid than ♦.

Utter nonsense. 4D shows the Ace of Diamonds, period. If partner moves to slam without a Spade control and we lose 2 quick tricks there, it's his error. If I don't cue diamonds and partner has 2 quick losers there, how can he move to slam when it's correct?

I agree with Ian... And the programmer shouldn't be giving answers like "more likely"; you should be telling us what the system, in fact, is... And either way, the description provided for the bid should tell us what the bid shows or denies. According to the description provided, the bid shows/denies absolutely nothing.

[1eyedjack]

Maybe GIB really does play LTTC, and 4D just shows continued slam interest without promising anything else specifically.

[uva72uva72]

If recent experience is any indication, you can't draw any inferences from the robot's cue bidding. If it bypasses ♦s to cue bid ♠s, you can't conclude that it doesn't have the ♦A, even if the notes say that's the case. It can even have AK and skip over the suit in cue bidding.

[Stephen Tu]

georgi, on 2015-February-07, 14:46, said:

More likely denies ♠ cuebid. If we are about to lose two spades, ♦A won't help if opener show it.

And 4♦ should more likely promise ♠ cuebid than ♦.

4♦ as last train showing a spade control is reasonable if playing Italian style cue bids, where first/second round controls are bid up the line.
But GIB doesn't play that! Supposedly it will bid 4c even with KQx spades, A of clubs. In an ace first system I think 4♦ just has to show diamond ace.

I wouldn't mind if GIB switched to cue bidding 2nd round controls up the line, but IMO it has to do one or the other. It can't sign off 4♥ just because uncontrolled spades if partner is going to bypass all hands without the ace even holding guarded K or singleton.

[Bbradley62]

uva72uva72, on 2015-February-08, 01:25, said:

If recent experience is any indication, you can't draw any inferences from the robot's cue bidding. If it bypasses ♦s to cue bid ♠s, you can't conclude that it doesn't have the ♦A, even if the notes say that's the case. It can even have AK and skip over the suit in cue bidding.

Agreed. But those are errors in the coding, and one major purpose of this forum is to point out those errors and get them corrected.

[iandayre]

uva72uva72, on 2015-February-08, 01:25, said:

If recent experience is any indication, you can't draw any inferences from the robot's cue bidding. If it bypasses ♦s to cue bid ♠s, you can't conclude that it doesn't have the ♦A, even if the notes say that's the case. It can even have AK and skip over the suit in cue bidding.

I'd modify your statement a bit. You can take inference when GIB does cue bid. It has extras and it's almost always safe to go for slam - assuming you haven't overbid up to that point. It's the negative inferences from failure to cue bid that can't be taken safely.