[uva72uva72]

My link

Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual

This hand did not influence my result in the set, but North's cue bid with a Queen and two Jacks is a pretty stark example of not having your bid. What does North have that a direct raise would not show (the raise having the added benefit of a degree of pre-emption)?

[cloa513]

uva72uva72, on 2015-July-15, 21:25, said:

My link

Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual

This hand did not influence my result in the set, but North's cue bid with a Queen and two Jacks is a pretty stark example of not having your bid. What does North have that a direct raise would not show (the raise having the added benefit of a degree of pre-emption)?

North has way more it should have over your bidding sequence. Its more annoying that West passes the second time- its a clear cut 3♠. The failure in play is all your own fault- clear cut to lead spades and keep leading them.

[uva72uva72]

cloa513, on 2015-July-16, 05:10, said:

North has way more it should have over your bidding sequence. Its more annoying that West passes the second time- its a clear cut 3♠. The failure in play is all your own fault- clear cut to lead spades and keep leading them.

Your analysis of my defense is, of course, correct. I must lead a ♠ at trick one (or, perhaps, exactly one high ♣ followed by a ♠) . Otherwise, the contract is no longer beatable. While you say this is "clear cut," none of the 11 defenders of 4♠ contracts in this tournament found the ♠ lead.
Unless you are completely discounting what is contained in the notes (8-10 total points for the cue bid), North does not have "way more than it should have." As for my bidding sequence, discounting the ♦Q, I am squarely in the 14-18 total point range specified by the notes.

[iandayre]

Agree of course that the description of the delayed cue bid is wrong. But, Partner did not make a negative double, which would have occurred with 4 Hearts and 8+ points. We have all played with GIB enough to know that it makes negative doubles when it has the appropriate values, but that descriptions of cuebids - especially delayed ones - are highly suspect.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2015-July-16, 14:18, said:

Agree of course that the description of the delayed cue bid is wrong. But, Partner did not make a negative double, which would have occurred with 4 Hearts and 8+ points. We have all played with GIB enough to know that it makes negative doubles when it has the appropriate values, but that descriptions of cuebids - especially delayed ones - are highly suspect.

When did North have an opportunity to make this negative double?

[iandayre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-July-16, 20:07, said:

When did North have an opportunity to make this negative double?

Good question upon a second look LOL.