From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Date: 11 Dec 1992 12:04:40 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec11.163305.20323@news.eng.convex.com> graham@convex.com (Marv Graham) writes:

>>>>>   Hand 1: Unfavorable, South deals.

>>>>>   N:     S: A Q x x x         Opponents passing throughout:
>>>>>          H: A Q
>>>>>          D: x x x             1H    1S
>>>>>          C: x x x             2D    3C
>>>>>                               3S    4S
>>>>>   S:     S: K x x             All pass
>>>>>          H: K J T x x x
>>>>>          D: A K x x           Making 7.
>>>>>          C: --


>>Marv Graham writes:
>>>>At the risk of many flames for STUPID BID OF THE MONTH, I would 
>>>>prefer 3 diamonds to 3 clubs as the second bid for North.  
>>>>Followed by 4 hearts over the 3 spade bid.

I rather like 3H as responder's second bid, since I try not to raise
partner's second suit with less than 4-card support.

>>>All this said, I think south is to blame.  S/he should know that this
>>>is a problem sequence, and make the safety bid of 3H (instead of 3S).
>>>If north rebids 3N, pulling to 4S shows exactly this distribution.  If north
>>>doesn't rebid 3N, south knows there isn't much wastage in clubs
>>>and can drive to slam.

North with pass up the known 8-card spade fit with AQxxx xx xxx AQx?
Why not just bid 3NT over 2D?  Several people have made this comment
and I don't understand it at all.

>>I don't agree with those comments. Assuming that 3C is artificial and 4
>>suit forcing (which I suppose is a standard agreement among decent players),
>>the point is: what does 3C shows or asks?

>Somewhere - back in the dim, dark past of this thread - I think the Don Varvel
>(who proposed the problem) stipulated that 4th suit forcing was not being used
>by the partnership whose bidding he gave.  My 3D suggestion was based on that
>ground rule.  Given that rule, I think 3C wins most of the blame.

If we're assigning blame we must consider the conditions of contest.
If we're deciding how good players playing together should bid this
hand, using their favorite agreements, that's an entirely different
matter.  Both have their place on the net.

This hand was played on okbridge.  My partner flashed a "convention
card" that looked something like this:
SA 5CM 15-7 Sta JXfer Ger -X3S RKC

We had played together once before, for less than 10 hands.  All I
remembered was that the name was familiar.  I would have tried to avoid
using 4SF if asked, but it definitely was *not* on the (short) list.
It's almost as widely abused as Blackwood.

So the conditions of contest are that South has no idea whether 3C
is 4SF or not and rather hopes it isn't.

I'm inclined to believe the reason for this mini-disaster is that
North and South were playing different systems without realizing it.
It's one reason I prefer Precision to SA on okbridge: SA is essentially
undefined.  The only thing worse is "Nature" (presumably "Natural") 
on which some players from a certain island nation insist.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge