gwnn, on 2010-October-27, 11:55, said:
Hi rhm,
Could you tone down on your attitude in future posts, thank you. I know I'm not supposed to take everything personally but it looks like your post makes me an expert wannabe who is not an intelligent partner. In a previous post you made a few similar insults, albeit not directly to me, but in a post that was a response to my post (something along the lines of "these advanced arguments are probably wasted on most people").
Opposite that hand, opener would bid 4♠ as a reply to 4♦ (the 4♦ bid did not make his hand all that better) and responder doesn't need to carry to slam. His 4♠ does not deny a heart control. I'm not saying that responder must cuebid all the time (which impression you appear to have formed about me) - if all opener needs for slam is a heart control, he should bid over 4♠.
As I see it for good features, responder has:
-the club King, which will help opener a lot
-the heart Ace, aces are never bad for slams
-no jacks at all
-if partner has the ace of diamonds the KQ will be helpful, if not, at least they're stopping the suit no matter which side the ace is (obviously not worth 5 points in this case though)
I think 4♦ is a nice and helpful bid because it tells partner that you have at least a little slam interest and it shows a control. It is by no means a statement that "partner, if we're not off two keycards we should bid slam". It is a very cheap bid with a relatively low cost. There is still room for quantitative auctions, like the aforementioned ... 4♣-4♦; 4♠-pass. Opener showed a minimal slam interest type hand and responder showed 1 sign of life but then stopped. I don't think this simple philosophy of bidding is clearly as bad as you make it out to be. Sigh.
edit: let me add that I now think that the "strongly dislike the 4♠ bid" part was an overbid. I don't think 4♠ was so bad, but I don't like it.
Hi Qwnn,
I have reread my original post and I do not really understand what upsets you. I have quoted you, but I have not addressed you personally. If you still take it personally that was not my intention, neither did I want to offend you.
You said: "strongly dislike the 4
♠ bid, why are you not showing your controls? You have a nice hand 14 even , so what if you don't have so much in spades."
I happen to believe 4
♠ was a good bid and I explained why.
There is no question that for slam purposes the
♣ King and the
♥ ace are useful cards.
We agree so far. But South has already forced to game and the rest of the South hand is of very dubious value and he has unusually weak trumps. I believe it is a sound principle that you do not bid the same values twice and if your hand has gone down in value you do not encourage your partner any further.
Fact is none of the other honors in South hand contribute to the trick taking potential of North South and South should know this at the time when North cue-bid 4
♣.
For slam only these two key-cards are relevant.
If my partner invites cue-bidding I believe my first duty is to check, whether my hand looks suitable for slam in the light of what I have already disclosed about my hand. Trump quality (hard to detect by cue-bidding) as well as trick taking potential and honor location are main criteria for accepting. You did ask, why is South not showing his controls. I do not bent over backwards not to cue-bid when invited, but this hand simply does poorly on all these criteria. Saying that this hand, given the previous bidding, "doesn't have so much in spades" is a nice understatement if you are evaluating for slam.
Now would you force to game opposite an opening bid with just the king of
♣ and the ace of
♥? Why should North have any problems to bid the slam if this is all he needs, when South has forced to game?
More general: I do not like to contribute, when 10 people before me have already given a very similar view, because I consider this "me too" is not very enlightening, hardly very original.
This may give you the impression, that I disagree with your view often, which I do not. In fact I like and respect your opinion and I agree mostly with it.
In this threat the poster asks: What are your comments on the actual auction?
Almost all blamed South and you gave one of the strongest comments, why you think South bidding was nuts.
I happen to disagree here and therefor I quoted you and I stand my ground.
And to my knowledge I never said "these advanced arguments are probably wasted on most people"
What I said in a different threat was : Not that I expect many to understand these arguments in advanced hand evaluation.
This was made in the context, whether to open
♠xx/
♥KQJxx/
♦xx/
♣KQJx all red at IMPs and I would bet at least 95% of all posters would open this hand 1
♥.
I admit this is provocative, nothing wrong with that in a discussion forum. But it is not an abuse.
Nevertheless, if I offended you I feel sorry
It was not my intention.
If you do not like my views, just ignore them, but I hope not.
Rainer Herrmann