[rhm]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-13, 04:53, said:

I think that saying a poster who follows their local regulations perfectly is cheating because those regulations do not say what you think they should is completely out of order. Having played under both I personally find the the EBU alerting regulations significantly better than those of the DBV. You probably think that makes me a cheat too, right. You owe Cyberyeti an apology.

I said:

With all respect Sir, if you are playing in a region, where full disclosure is not an objective and you can have undisclosed agreements you are playing a different game.
Under the Bridge proprieties this is cheating.

I stand by it and see no reason for any apology for stating the obvious. Secret or hidden agreements are not part of this game.
The game breaks down if you do not believe in full disclosure and this is even true if you take advantage of not having to alert certain bids.
How you manage alerts and screens and how you make opponents aware of your agreements is complex and has many additional practical aspects I admit.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

I have tried a reality check and raised the issue what South should bid over 3♣ at Bridge winners:

http://bridgewinners...ng-problem-782/

To date there are 75 votes and 14 comments

10% voted for 4♠
18% voted for 3♠
56% (!) voted for 3♥, understood as a stronger invite than 3♠, which would also be my choice.

0% that is nobody voted for 4♦!
6% (!) of the votes were for 4♣!

It is my impression that many, who comment on this forum should try more strongly to approach ATB problems with less hindsight or they might benefit from a reality check on themselves.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

It is laughable that first set of coments I read there is people willing to show diamonds + spades but not knowing how!?, they are even suggesting double.

There is little difference between 3♥ or 4♣, a cuebid will get you to slam with north's hand and probably grand. I don't deny that 3♥ might be better, depends on how light partner tends to overcall.

 rhm, on 2013-February-12, 03:48, said:

Dubious and muddled thinking.

At the point of the 3♣ bid, how can South anticipate that there are zero losers in the majors and to boot North will fill the gap in diamonds as well?
As North, I would expect more than 3 little trumps and 2 bullets from a cuebid at this level after a simple one level overcall at all white.
Claiming that a jump to 4♠ is weak and therefor you should cuebid on any game invitational hand after a one-level overcall will either lead to no play slams or the cuebid will be almost meaningless to overcaller and you will miss many slams in spite of the cuebid.
(At the table with only one hand in view that is, double dummy such cuebids work perfectly of course)

Whatever 4♠ is, it must show something to deem it profitable to contract for ten tricks opposite a one level overcall.
For starters the club ace was not needed for slam and without it the South hand would have hardly have been worth a 4♠ bid let alone a cuebid.
If South is weak with long spades, almost impossible when you hold a strong seven card spade suit yourself, opponents will not let you play in 4♠ anyway.
For all North knows opponents might be cold for 7♥ after the 4♠ bid.
Accordingly North pass of 4♠ is dubious, reinforced by the fact that afterwards North bid 5♥ anyway.

I squarely blame North.

However, I would also not have overcalled 1♠ but 4♠ with the North hand.
That way I might have missed slam too, but at least I get compensation when the preempt works and conditions for that are excellent after RHO opened 1♥.
I feel strongly giving opponents room when holding such a hand is losing Bridge strategy and as this example shows the claim that going slowly will give you a better potential to find your own best contract is hogwash.

The bidding might have gone

---

Rainer Herrmann

Your option is 3♥ Rainer? glad you mentioned it so clearly when you wrote 16 lines defending north because 4♠ showed values:
or maybe you didn't mention it at all?

[rhm]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-15, 03:38, said:

It is laughable that first set of coments I read there is people willing to show diamonds + spades but not knowing how!?, they are even suggesting double.

There is little difference between 3♥ or 4♣, a cuebid will get you to slam with north's hand and probably grand.

[size=2]



Your option is 3♥ Rainer? glad you mentioned it so clearly when you wrote 16 lines defending north because 4♠ showed values:
or maybe you didn't mention it at all?

You are mistaken and apparently do not understand what I said nor what people, probably better than you are, say or imply at Bridge winnrers.

3♥ in this sequence is an invite to game, not to slam. If overcaller bids 3♠ you are done.
4♠ is acceptable (though not my choice). It is an overbid and not an underbid.
4♣ opposite a non vulnerable one level overcall is plain crazy!

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

This is what you wrote in reply to Free

 Free, on 2013-February-12, 02:28, said:

4♠ is not a strong raise, so you can't blame North for passing. South has a clear cuebid, so blame goes to South.

 rhm, on 2013-February-12, 03:48, said:

Dubious and muddled thinking.

It sure sounds from this like you are suggesting that bidding 3♥ here is bad. It seems now like this was based on a miscommunication. I have noticed this happens quite a lot in your bidding threads. As it is, I think there is plenty of support for 3♥ here too, although I suspect several play this as "invite or better" rather than specifically an invite, thus allowing the direct 4♠ raise to be weaker. The suggestion of 4m was specifically made within the context of overcalls being much stronger than normal. It is like suggesting that forcing to game with 9 hcp opposite a 1♣ opener is "crazy" without paying any attention that the 1♣ opening is Precision.

In order to get to the bottom of this as an ATB, I think the question that needs to be asks is what 4♠ means on this sequence without giving a hand. It is quite possible that the 2 players involved had a disagreement about that. In that case, the correct scapegoat is probably lack of system. Perhaps Hanoi can tell us what agreements (if any) were in place for 3♥ and 4♠ at South's first turn.

[Fluffy]

 rhm, on 2013-February-15, 03:47, said:

You are mistaken and apparently do not understand what I said nor what people, probably better than you are, say or imply at Bridge winnrers.

3♥ in this sequence is an invite to game, not to slam. If overcaller bids 3♠ you are done.
4♠ is acceptable (though not my choice). It is an overbid and not an underbid.
4♣ opposite a non vulnerable one level overcall is plain crazy!

Rainer Herrmann

I've read all the coments and don't find anyone who I know, so can't say they are any good. But what it is more important, I don't find ANYONE suggesting the definitions you make of the 3 bids. You claim to have support from 75 votes, but in reality you have nothing like that, you are inventing the definiton and asigning it to the voters when none of them said so.

I don't see anyone comenting that 4♠ shows values, since that is something only you think, you even think that everyone in the world, who plays it as preemptive should alert to you. Becuase your understanding of the bid, who is unique in the world, is standard, and the rest of the world is playing artificial.

I see a lot of votes for 3♠ though, that gives me a fair idea of the level of the crowd.

[rhm]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-15, 04:25, said:

I've read all the coments and don't find anyone who I know, so can't say they are any good. But what it is more important, I don't find ANYONE suggesting the definitions you make of the 3 bids.

To make it clear:
If there is a choice of cuebids and only one of them is below three of our major suit fit, that has to be the game invite.
(If that does not make sense to you we can give up this discussion)
It can be stronger, but only if cuebidder bids on over a sign-off. However, if he does, he promises a control in the suit.
From responders hand if one would think the hand is a slam invite, it would not occur to me to bid 3♥, simply because South controls clubs but not hearts.
The fact that the South hand has no control in hearts but in clubs makes it clear that the 3♥ bid is considered a game invite and not a slam invite.
I consider that pretty standard and also implied by the comments even if that goes over your head.

Quote

You claim to have support from 75 votes, but in reality you have nothing like that, you are inventing the definiton and asigning it to the voters when none of them said so.

I never did so. I said I prefer the majority vote of 3♥ myself and I see little support for 4♣ or 4♦.
Nothing else I said.

Quote

I don't see anyone comenting that 4♠ shows values, since that is something only you think, you even think that everyone in the world, who plays it as preemptive should alert to you. Because your understanding of the bid, who is unique in the world, is standard, and the rest of the world is playing artificial.

I see a lot of votes for 3♠ though, that gives me a fair idea of the level of the crowd.

There is a general principle that you do not preempt over an opposing preempt.
Whether it should apply here can be argued, except that I also said I deem it improbable that South was preempting when I look at a seven card suit myself headed by AKJ and even if I were not sure what South had in mind, I would not pass because opposite a preempt there is zero chance for us playing 4♠ doubled or not and with a void in hearts it cannot be right to pass in this case either.
It is obvious from the actual South hand that this South did not meant his 4♠ bid a preempt.

However, if you do have the agreement in this scenario:

 ggwhiz, on 2013-February-12, 13:50, said:

When my pard bids 4♠ in an auction like this I just hope to get out for down 2.

I agree, I would like to get alerted about it. Nothing else I claimed.
I do not think that this is an universal agreement about this sequence, neither did the actual South player. .
Knowledge would affect my way of defending against it.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

Lol Rainer, you are claiming to deduce how people intended 3♥ because of the hand they have on a weak field full of people bidding 3♠, double and 3♦. Now that is crazy.


The big problem is that you think that a cuebid must be inviting to something, either game, or slam. This is simply not true.

A 4♣ cuebid is a useful tool to let partner make an informed decision next round. It just states that we have the upper hand, and that it makes no sense to let the opponents play undoubled at the 5 level, making pass forcing.

4♦ helps partner make an informed decision at the 5 level as well, just that it doesn't set up a forcing pass situation. Wichever is best here is debatable. I prefer 4♦ to have a higher ODR.

[gnasher]

I think South's hand is only worth 3♥, planning to pass 3♠. I don't want to reach 4♠ opposite AQxxx Kx xxx xxx.

I don't think a 4♣ cue-bid would be a slam try: it just shows a hand that is bidding 4♠ to make and wants to set up a forcing pass. It's rare that you want to make a slam try after an opponent has opened at the one-level.

I don't think 4♠ shows any great strength. I'd bid 4♠ with Qxxx Axx QJxxx x, on the assumption that someone can make something at the four-level, and leaving them to guess whether to compete to 5♣.