[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2014-February-06, 10:26, said:

This is either the funniest post here in years or reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the game combined with monumental intellectual dishonesty.

Having read Free's posts in the past, I assumed humor...much along the same lines as the infamous jump to 6 in a previously unmentioned 4-card suit.

I know I would have gone belly-up on this board, but would have had company in a decent event. Would have chosen to open North, would have certainly gone beyond our limit with the South hand.

Maybe, just maybe, we could stop in 4NT...but this would take inspiration from both of us to get there and stay there.
Much more likely we would get to the point where North figures to have V AXXXX QXX AJXXX or V AJXXX XXX AJXXX at worst...and just rely on the respective red King being in West.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2014-February-06, 12:23, said:

Say RHO had bid 3♦, rather than 3♣, and that partner had bid 3N (which means he has a different hand, of course). Would we want 5♣ to be exclusion? I doubt it. Note that I'd think 5♦ would, in this auction, be exclusion but only because I don't have a pre-agreed meaning for that call. The only caveat I have on that use of 5♦ (after rho bid that suit) is that I'd be a little worried about which suit is trump. Responder has no way of setting hearts! Pulling 3N to 4♥ is non-forcing, so with slam interest in hearts, what is he to do? He can't bid 4♣ as a cue and hope to bid 4♥ next, since that would be another cue rather than natural.

I had not thought of 5♣ after a 3♣ overcall and 5♦ after 3♦ as different since I do not play any form of Gerber but I can certainly agree in treating them differently if you have such a Super-Gerber agreement. It was a more a case of not knowing any general standard for a jump cue after 3NT from partner and not finding anything more appealing than XRKCB.

I disagree that Responder did not have a forcing way to set hearts though. They could have made a cue bid after the overcall, or even just jumped directly to 5 of their suit, if all they wanted to do was set hearts and ask for key cards outside. There is also no alternative way of setting spades as trumps in a forcing way here so my feeling is that this is unmistakeably agreeing spades, similar to an autocue.

The question of whether it should show a void or ask as XRKCB is quite different. I tend to like void-showing jumps below game quite a lot but find them much less useful above game. There is often a way to bid around the shortage on slam try hands but no alternative way of asking the specific question. But I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-07, 06:34, said:

I disagree that Responder did not have a forcing way to set hearts though. They could have made a cue bid after the overcall, or even just jumped directly to 5 of their suit, if all they wanted to do was set hearts and ask for key cards outside. There is also no alternative way of setting spades as trumps in a forcing way here so my feeling is that this is unmistakeably agreeing spades, similar to an autocue.

my point was that, having shown spades, responder has no forcing heart call after 3N. That begs the question, of course, as to whether, woth long, strong spades and a good heart fit, responder should perhaps suppress the spades over the pre-empt. That is another question altogether, altho definitely one responder should internally answer before making his first call.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2014-February-06, 12:23, said:

We clearly haven't established suit agreement. So the question is whether it is safe to infer suit agreement. To answer that, we look at whether we have any agreements about 5♣. If we have no agreements, then we go to default principles.

I do have a generic rule that covers auctions in which one partner has bid a natural 3N, suggesting we play there, and the other partner is unlimited.

4N becomes a quantitative ask. 4♣ is either natural and forcing (obviously only when we may wish to play in clubs) or a cuebid (when it is clear that we aren't playing in clubs), and this means we have no clear way to ask for Aces/keycards. This means that in all my partnerships, we use a jump to 5♣ as 'supergerber'...it is ace asking. I think this is a pretty common expert treatment: I believe I first read about it in the Bridge World MSC some 30 years ago or so, so it isn't some esoteric agreement I or my partners cooked up.

Since 3N was a suggestion to play, and responder was unlimited, it seems to me that using 5♣ as Ace asking is a plausible option, and that means that my default analysis would lead me to conclude that it wasn't exclusion.

I am not, in saying that, arguing that simple ace asking is the best use, or that it is better than exclusion. I am saying that I have an agreement in place that assigns a meaning to 5♣ and that I don't have any default rule that the fact that an opp pre-empted changes the meaning. Nor do I see anything in the fact that RHO pre-empted that renders it illogical to suppose that I could ever have a hand on which I wanted to ask for Aces. Indeed, I suspect that such a hand is more common that the type of freak I hold on this thread.

Good for your partnership if your default agreements are good enough to ensure you are on the same page after a 5♣ bid.
But I disagree with your suspicion that this is the optimal agreement. I don't recall the last time I used Gerber, and in general you don't seem to be a big fan of it either. I don't see how it can become more important in a cramped auction where RHO preempted. I think the hands where we want to try for slam with a club void are more common than the ones where all we need to know is the number of aces in partner's hand. In addition, the latter type of hands can probably get by most of the time starting with 4♣.

My guess is that it would be superior to restrict your 5♣ default agreement to non-competitive auctions.

N.B.: I also think 5♣ as showing a spade slam try with a club void is superior to exclusion on this auction.

[HighLow21]

cherdano, on 2014-February-06, 08:15, said:

Are you actually suggesting South should double?

Possibly... the auction could go in one of any number of directions. What I'm saying is that, given that E will bid 3♣, best results on the hand is likely 3♣ doubled. I doubt it's going to be played there, but it beats game.