[VM1973]

 gwnn, on 2011-August-31, 14:23, said:

VM it doesn't work that way. Just because you have an ace more than an opening bid, it doesn't make it your fault*. Opposite most 4♠ raises, you don't make slam, so your pass was percentage.

You need to accept that sometimes in bridge both sides make the percentage call and end up in the wrong contract. This will happen especially when both sides are on the top or on the bottom of their respective ranges.

*are you suggesting that all hands that are an ace over a minimum opening should bid over 1♠-p-4♠? That is very far from the truth.

You just can't leave the party in peace, can you?

The question is not whether I make slam opposite most 4♠ calls, the question is if I am safe at the 5 level opposite most 4♠ calls and the answer, I believe, is yes. That answer means, to me, that I owe it to myself and to my partner to make a forward going, exploratory bid. You will note that I didn't say, "I have an ace more than I promised, so I must bid 6."

I will note, however, that if my partner had held:
♠Axxxx
♥xxxxx
♦-
♣xxx

then I think that hand has reasonable play for 13 tricks opposite mine.

[gwnn]

The question is indeed whether you can make slam often enough opposite 4♠ bids to justify looking for slam. Of course if you don't have 5-level safety, you shouldn't look for slam at all. However, 5-level safety is not a sufficient condition to be looking for slam. My criterion is good, provided you have a suitably defined notion of "most". For example, if you have a hand that makes:
5♠ 80% of the time (we assume 4♠ makes always, which is not quite true)
6♠ 10% of the time (we assume we accurately find slam all those hands, which is not quite true)
In this case we would have 5-level safety, but we shouldn't make a slam try. You win 11 imps 10% of the time but lose 10 imps 20% of the time.

I don't understand this comment on "can't leave the party in peace". It sounds like you think everyone had a nice time here and I came here and ruined it for you. I think if you think this is what is going on, you are wrong. You started a thread, there were numerous nice and helpful replies, and then you came back and told us that after you thought it over, you think you bear the blame. You didn't say "after reading your nice replies and thinking it over", or "thank you", or anything. You said that you don't buy into this "no blame" train of thought, but if you'd read some of the ATB threads, there are almost none that get to this particular conclusion. There are usually a lot of blame flying by, sometimes getting to the point of far exceeding 100%, e.g. 200%N, 100%S. So I think you should note that this is a rare occurrence here and people are usually very very happy to throw around blame even if perhaps there is none to be assigned.

[gwnn]

VM1973, I know you didn't directly say that every hand that has an ace above minimum must make a slam try over 1♠-p-4♠, but it sure sounded like a very important factor in your reasoning. I am sure you wouldn't make a slam try with all those hands, but please, if you write a post that looks like a reasoning, and gives only one reason why your pass is wrong, please don't blame me for assuming (slightly presumptuously) that that reason is your only reason.

[xxhong]

I actually think 3H as a fit showing jump is probably the closest bid to show the nature of this hand. If partner bids 4C, you can bid 4D and later 5D.

 VM1973, on 2011-August-25, 14:24, said:

---

Assess blame for the failure to reach 6.

[VM1973]

 gwnn, on 2011-September-01, 01:53, said:

VM1973, I know you didn't directly say that every hand that has an ace above minimum must make a slam try over 1♠-p-4♠, but it sure sounded like a very important factor in your reasoning. I am sure you wouldn't make a slam try with all those hands, but please, if you write a post that looks like a reasoning, and gives only one reason why your pass is wrong, please don't blame me for assuming (slightly presumptuously) that that reason is your only reason.

Well, you know, at one time I was playing with a very good partner (life master several times over) and I had an auction that went like this:
...................Me
1♥-DBL-Pass-1♠
2♥-Pass-Pass-Pass

Now it turns out that 2 hearts wasn't a great place for us. I didn't think it was my fault - after all, I had 5 spades and 6 points so I was, I thought, very minimum and I also felt that I had showed my hand with my first bid. However, my partner told me that I should have bid again because my first bid didn't show any points at all - zero. He said, and I remember this very clearly, "Anytime you have an ace more than you promised, you should take another call." Now maybe he was wrong or maybe it was a generalization that doesn't apply in all situations, but I will tell you that as a rule of thumb I have yet to see it go wrong.

[gwnn]

I would always bid 2♠ there with 5 spades and any excuse (a queen or a singleton, anything). The two situations aren't similar at all. Defending 2♥ is bad bad. It almost always pays to bid 2♠ over 2♥ and the same goes for bidding 4♠ over 4♥ (of course, this means that the 2♥ or 4♥ bids are made by normal, earnest people, trying to play there).

For the same reason takeout doubler should bid 2♠ over 2♥ on any hand with 4 spades (unless he is strong enough for 3♠ or 4♠). Defending 2♥ is a big no-no.

[mikeh]

As gwnn pointed out, the situation which provoked your partner to offer a 'rule' isn't at all analgous to the situation of the OP.

The issues surrounding competing for a partscore are different from issues surrounding slam bidding in uncontested auctions, and rules that assist in one area may have no utility in the other.

To turn to your proposition that opener, on the OP, has an Ace (or more) extra and thus should move: I think there is an undetected assumption underlying your argument....which is that when partner bid 4♠ he was promising that you would likely make 4♠ if you held a reasonable minimum.

Now, with his hand, that would be a fair assumption for him to make, altho it is trivial to construct good opening hands on which 4♠ fails.

But the point is that 4♠ doesn't promise or even suggest that your side will make 4♠. Of course there is hope that it will, and expectation that it will often make, but the 4♠ call is not only a bid of game but also, and importantly, an attempt to preempt the auction.

Thus holding an Ace or even a little more doesn't justify going to the 5-level. Partner may well and often will be bidding in the hope that you will buy the contract for down 1 or 2 when they have a game available.....your possession of extra values simply makes his decision even better. Imagine how you and he would feel if, just when you hold enough that they can't make anything and you make 4♠, you drive to 5♠ down 1

I fear you have fallen into the very common trap of analyzing your bidding decisions based on knowledge of the actual hands.

And please don't take offence at this, but the fact that you think that a 'life master several times over' is a 'very good player' says more about your inexperience than it does about the skill level of your partner. Becoming a life master, several times over, is not exactly a challenge in today's ACBL. Now, the player in question may in fact be a very good player, but my experience suggests that there is little correlation between the number of masterpoints and bridge ability, at least in the range of say 500-1500 mps. The club where I play has many players in that range, and not one of them is 'very good' (I don't think any of them read this forum )

I find it ironic that you seem to accept the advice of this life master yet refuse to accept advice from players who are (I suspect) at least as far advanced compared to him or her as he or she is to you.

[VM1973]

 mikeh, on 2011-September-01, 14:20, said:

As gwnn pointed out, the situation which provoked your partner to offer a 'rule' isn't at all analgous to the situation of the OP.

The issues surrounding competing for a partscore are different from issues surrounding slam bidding in uncontested auctions, and rules that assist in one area may have no utility in the other.

To turn to your proposition that opener, on the OP, has an Ace (or more) extra and thus should move: I think there is an undetected assumption underlying your argument....which is that when partner bid 4♠ he was promising that you would likely make 4♠ if you held a reasonable minimum.

Now, with his hand, that would be a fair assumption for him to make, altho it is trivial to construct good opening hands on which 4♠ fails.

But the point is that 4♠ doesn't promise or even suggest that your side will make 4♠. Of course there is hope that it will, and expectation that it will often make, but the 4♠ call is not only a bid of game but also, and importantly, an attempt to preempt the auction.

Thus holding an Ace or even a little more doesn't justify going to the 5-level. Partner may well and often will be bidding in the hope that you will buy the contract for down 1 or 2 when they have a game available.....your possession of extra values simply makes his decision even better. Imagine how you and he would feel if, just when you hold enough that they can't make anything and you make 4♠, you drive to 5♠ down 1

I fear you have fallen into the very common trap of analyzing your bidding decisions based on knowledge of the actual hands.

And please don't take offence at this, but the fact that you think that a 'life master several times over' is a 'very good player' says more about your inexperience than it does about the skill level of your partner. Becoming a life master, several times over, is not exactly a challenge in today's ACBL. Now, the player in question may in fact be a very good player, but my experience suggests that there is little correlation between the number of masterpoints and bridge ability, at least in the range of say 500-1500 mps. The club where I play has many players in that range, and not one of them is 'very good' (I don't think any of them read this forum )

I find it ironic that you seem to accept the advice of this life master yet refuse to accept advice from players who are (I suspect) at least as far advanced compared to him or her as he or she is to you.

Well, I accepted his advice at the time because I was young and didn't know much and I just sucked up information like a sponge. The reason why I still accept it because it's never been proved wrong.

Now as for why I don't fawn all over the big name people here as you both seem to do is because I make a distinction between the opinion of an expert and expert opinion.

Expert opinion is something you pay for and it's not something that is offered off the cuff for free in an Internet forum. Even the best experts could make an off the cuff statement that later turns out to be wrong, ill-considered or gets retracted.

That just goes to show you that you get what you pay for.

Now as for the hand in question, it's clear that slam was possible and that I missed it. Surely I cannot expect my partner on the power of a mere king and some shape to contract for slam. As a matter of fact, my hand had substantial extras. No matter how you calculate it (LTC, MLTC, ZPs, Bergen's Rule of 20, BUM RAP +531) I had at least two kings better than an opening bid. Now kings are usually worth a trick and aces are usually worth more than a trick but at the table I decided that I didn't have enough because I assumed that my partner couldn't have the values for an opening bid (having passed initially) and now that I look at his hand and run some calculations it's clear that I was wrong. It *is* possible for a passed hand to reevaluate to an opening bid.

[mikeh]

 VM1973, on 2011-September-01, 14:59, said:

Now as for why I don't fawn all over the big name people here as you both seem to do is because I make a distinction between the opinion of an expert and expert opinion.

Expert opinion is something you pay for and it's not something that is offered off the cuff for free in an Internet forum. Even the best experts could make an off the cuff statement that later turns out to be wrong, ill-considered or gets retracted.

That just goes to show you that you get what you pay for.

LOL

[han]

Agree with mikeh, that was a curious post.

[whereagles]

 xxhong, on 2011-September-01, 11:17, said:

I actually think 3H as a fit showing jump is probably the closest bid to show the nature of this hand.

Strongly disagree. A fit jump shows a suit good for discards. Here you can transform your hearts into xxxxx and slam STILL is hot. The strength of this hand lies on the long spades and the diamond void.

Current bidding systems have no way to show this sort of hand because it's rare that such hands will produce a slam. If something, a splinter might come close but other than a specialized bid like, say, 3NT showing a void and weak hand, you simply have to live with missing this slam.

[Cyberyeti]

 han, on 2011-September-02, 07:38, said:

Agree with mikeh, that was a curious post.

Yeah, agree with VM to some extent though, I know some experts whose opinion I value much more at the beginning of the evening than at the end, particularly in non serious events.

[xxhong]

Well, that's your definition of fit showing jumps. The major difficulty for a passed two suiter to show the great support and the shape is that 2/1 is not forcing. If you can't play 2H as one round forcing, you have to have a way to bid a two suiter with a great support and fit showing jump is the only solution. Bridge bidding is not only about source of tricks, it's often a matter of the shape, especially when you have found a great fit, because in that case, source of tricks may not really matter much, shape and potential good cross-ruffing situation is.

 whereagles, on 2011-September-02, 07:44, said:

Strongly disagree. A fit jump shows a suit good for discards. Here you can transform your hearts into xxxxx and slam STILL is hot. The strength of this hand lies on the long spades and the diamond void.

Current bidding systems have no way to show this sort of hand because it's rare that such hands will produce a slam. If something, a splinter might come close but other than a specialized bid like, say, 3NT showing a void and weak hand, you simply have to live with missing this slam.

[phil_20686]

 VM1973, on 2011-September-01, 14:59, said:

Now as for why I don't fawn all over the big name people here as you both seem to do is because I make a distinction between the opinion of an expert and expert opinion.

Expert opinion is something you pay for and it's not something that is offered off the cuff for free in an Internet forum. Even the best experts could make an off the cuff statement that later turns out to be wrong, ill-considered or gets retracted.

FYI: There are a number of players on this forum who are Experts by any reasonable definition. A number of players who have played at international level. Below that, there are at least 10 more players on the forums who could expect to be doing well in national level tournaments. Then at least another twenty who are good enough to be amused by equating "life master" and "good player".

Seriously, show some respect to the people who offered you opinions on the hand. At least two of the people who have posted on this thread are the big names. Possibly more that I just don't know their RL personas.