[han]

dboxley, on 2012-May-29, 17:21, said:

[temporary insanity part skipped] But the point is I shouldn't want to make a slam try at all, if we miss a slam then I am blameless.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that instead of making winning calls you should try to make calls that you can't be blamed for afterwards in case they turn out badly?

[phil_20686]

han, on 2012-May-30, 02:15, said:

I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that instead of making winning calls you should try to make calls that you can't be blamed for afterwards in case they turn out badly?

I think he is saying that his partner is scholastically insane, and therefore he cannot be expected to correct for it.

If his partner was reliable insane then you might be able to correct for it some of the time.

[han]

OK, I thought he might be saying that the ultimate goal of playing bridge is to be blameless in the postmortem.

[jillybean]

edited

The 4♠ bid does not belong in this forum.

[han]

I do not agree with you jillybean, and besides, I hope that you were joking?

Many expert partnerships do not have good agreements about what a jump to 4S means here. Playing it as this kind of hand (long broken spade suit, minimal hand) is not so unreasonable, but perhaps playing it as a very strong 7-card spade suit in a minimal hand is better. Perhaps the best agreement depends on the hands you open 4S with (or 4D, if you play namyats).

Seems like a good discussion for this forum.

[jillybean]

Without agreements 4♠ is a terrible bid, I'm not joking. No expert would bid like this.
OTOH, how do you play 4M after 1M 2m* is an excellent question.

[Fluffy]

han, on 2012-May-30, 04:42, said:

OK, I thought he might be saying that the ultimate goal of playing bridge is to be blameless in the postmortem.

I am tired of hearing people that they cannot bid something because partner won't think they have the hand they have. The ultimate goal for bidding is to reach the best possible contract, not to let partner know what we have.

[jogs]

jillybean, on 2012-May-30, 06:07, said:

Without agreements 4♠ is a terrible bid, I'm not joking. No expert would bid like this.
OTOH, how do you play 4M after 1M 2m* is an excellent question.

1M - 2m, 4M

What does 4M show with no bidding from opponents?

On the OP auction opponents interfered. Now what's the likelihood of you holding the big hand? Definitely less than 3% chance. Probably less than 1%. While the likelihood of the North hand is high.

[Phil]

han, on 2012-May-30, 05:53, said:

Seems like a good discussion for this forum.

I agree. It's such an unusual bid, and such a space hog, that it should be extremely well-defined.

1♠ - 2x -3♠ should also be clarified. My partnerships define it as a semi-solid suit that can play for one loser opposite a void. I personally think that KQJT is a better suit for the call than AKQ. The hand should also contain extras. KQJTxxx, Axx, Ax, x (+) seems right. 2♠ / 3N can be NS/Serious depending on agreement, and 4 level cues are Serious / NS.

Therefore, 1♠ - 2x - 4♠ can be defined as the same suit quality as 3M without extras: KQJTxxx Axx x xx.

[Phil]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-30, 06:08, said:

I am tired of hearing people that they cannot bid something because partner won't think they have the hand they have. The ultimate goal for bidding is to reach the best possible contract, not to let partner know what we have.

I think thats what Han is saying.

"I didn't want to make that call because I was afraid it would be: a) unilateral, b) you wouldn't figure it out, c) we hadn't discussed that specific sequence. Accordingly, we played our cold grand slam in game".

"..."

(Wins the post mortem. Loses the partner).

[Cthulhu D]

Phil, on 2012-May-30, 08:47, said:

I think thats what Han is saying.

"I didn't want to make that call because I was afraid it would be: a) unilateral, b) you wouldn't figure it out, c) we hadn't discussed that specific sequence. Accordingly, we played our cold grand slam in game".

"..."

(Wins the post mortem. Loses the partner).

Shouldn't the actual case where it's 'bad' be "I couldn't make that bid because I needed you to decide between X and Y based on facts ABC and bid Z would give you the wrong information to make that decision, so I tried Delta instead on the hope that it would." If partner doesn't have to make a decision later, you can lie as much as you want if it gives you the infomation you need to make the correct decision.

[jogs]

Phil, on 2012-May-30, 08:42, said:

I agree. It's such an unusual bid, and such a space hog, that it should be extremely well-defined.

For fast arrival players it is well-defined. It is a hand poorly suited for slam.

[dboxley]

han, on 2012-May-30, 02:15, said:

I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that instead of making winning calls you should try to make calls that you can't be blamed for afterwards in case they turn out badly?

I am assuming you mean "correct calls" instead of "winning calls" since the latter implies that you have wires on all the hands. I also assume that your question is rhetorical but I will try to answer it anyway. Actually, when an undiscussed situation arises, that is exactly what you should try to do. That means that you trust your partner to have done the most logical thing. If you do otherwise then you either don't trust your partner (and that is a capital offense) or you don't know what the most logical thing is. In this situation I didn't trust my partner, I thought he/she might have the DK as well as the HA and a club card.

I wouldn't have posted the hand had I realized that there would be readers out there who were just waiting to pounce on any phrase that might possibly be questionable.

[Free]

jogs, on 2012-May-31, 10:47, said:

For fast arrival players it is well-defined. It is a hand poorly suited for slam.

Not only for fast arrival players. And to be more exact, it's a hand poorly suited for slam and willing to play only 1 strain (so it implies that there's no support for ♦s). South has no more business bidding here.

[manudude03]

I play 4S as specifically a 7 card suit that will likely play for 1 loser at most opposite a void (and often solid), and no outside control (something like KQJ9xxx Qx Qx QJ given the lack of the ace). In that context, both 4S and 5S are crazy. 50% each for me (though maybe distributing 100% blame isn't enough)

[ByChechi]

I would say 4♠ if my hand is : ♠KJ9xxxx ♥- ♦Kxx ♣AJx .

4♠/N is very bad - where i going if my P has not spades?....
Now must 2♠.

Also is good PASS or REDBL according to the understanding with my P.
Curious to see what will happen after 2♦REDBL/N....

[bluecalm]

Don't jump to game after 2/1, it's terrible unless you define it as exact hand, say QJTxxxx xx Ax Ax and never do it with anything different
That being said, S has the easiest pass ever after 4S.

Quote

Playing it as this kind of hand (long broken spade suit, minimal hand) is not so unreasonable, but perhaps playing it as a very strong 7-card spade suit in a minimal hand is better.

Yeah, w/e but it has to be very well defined. It seems that hands with very strong spades and nothing on the side are good candidate.
AKQxxxx Qx Jx xx etc.