Big Hand, plus a fit!

[mike777]

Geez folks I open lite but even I expect partner very often to have at least:

Kxxx...xx...Axxxxx..Kx.

Since on this example partner cannot have 2 keycards for spades, let's give him at least:

xxxx..Qx....AJxxxx..Kx

or

xxxx...Qxx...AJxxxx...K

 

and on both of these example hands I would have bid 4S over 2S by responder, fast arrival, minimum. With that in mind if opener has rebid 3s over 2s he must have more than the above.

 

Partner does not always have to have less on this bidding. B).

I would not open with:

Kxxx...xx...Kxxxxx...Kx

 

I do expect 2d to promise 6D since he can rebid 2s and not show extra's with 54 hands even:

xxxx...xx...AKxxx...Kx

[mikeh]

I am indeed. What if a diamond control is the only thing responder is worried about? Over 4♣, 4♠ denies a red suit control in "my" school. How else is responder to know if opener has:

 

10xxx

QJx

AKJxx

x

 

or

 

KQJx

QJx

Jxxxx

K

 

A 4♦ cue bid with the first hand doesn't suggest that we must get to slam if we are not off 2 key cards; it's merely being co-operative below game level.

 

Roland

I love that construction of KQJx QJx Jxxxx K B) .

 

The non-mandatory cue bid style does NOT say that the voluntary below-game cue bid is a STRONG slam try: it merely announces that, in context of the bidding so far, bidder has a non-minimum: compare this to above-game cue bidding, in which control showing is mandatory.

 

 

With either of Roland's hands, I would 'sign-off' in 4♠ over 4♣.

 

At the risk of causing Roland to spend several minutes generating another specific and rare hand, I suggest that it is difficult (I would not say impossible) to construct a hand with which responder, over a 4♠ signoff, will miss a good slam or, conversely, get too high in search of slam. Note that in the examples given by Roland, he suggests the 4♦ cue (on the first) is 'needed' so that responder knows if his side lacks a ♦ control. Also note this cue creates the very problem that led to this thread, while the non-mandatory style has us playing safely in 4♠ on both hands.

 

Opposite 10xxx QJx AKJxx x, responder needs a very good hand indeed to move over 4♠ (no 4♦ cue), but he may have that hand, and, if so, he can move... AKxx Ax Qx AQxxx: would anyone pass 4♠ with this hand? And note that with this control-rich, good trump suit hand, slam is far from cold. Note also that responder cannot hold this hand opposite Roland's KQJx QJx Jxxxx K. Indeed, one cannot easily construct a hand on which responder would move over 4♠ here without a ♦ control, because responder will have weak trumps... a minimum seems to be A10xx AKx x AQJxx

[Echognome]

Here's the full hand:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s6432hqtdakj95ck5&w=sqhj86542dt874c96&e=skjt5h973d32ct872&s=sa987hakdq6caqj43]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1NT - 2♣

2♠ - 4♣

4♦ - 4♥

4♠ - AP[/hv]

 

This was the actual auction. It wasn't very insightful, so I thought I'd try to give a reasonable auction for Strong NTers. In our auction 4♣ was RKCB for ♠ and 4♥ asked for the ♠Q. I'm not sure how I should have proceded after 2♠.

 

As you see, 13 tricks are available in NT and it's quite a reasonable contract. Note the importance of both minor suit jacks. However, I thought it difficult to avoid the 4-4 spade fit. I didn't post both hands to ask how to bid them as I figured no one would end up in spades!

[Walddk]

Roland

Roland you made my day :P

My pleasure Roland :P

 

... and when Arend has digested his disappointment, perhaps he will tell the wondering forum members how he makes 7 outstanding cards split 3-3.

 

Roland

[Finch]

If 2♠ is game forcing then some people may play that the raise to 3♠ shows at least some extras ( with an unsuitable rock minimum bid 4♠), in which case it is clear to bid 6NT.

I don't think partner can ever raise 2S to 4S on this sequence, because we might not have 4S. Unless we are playing 2/1 FG (which wasn't specified), responder has to find a forcing bid on hands such as

 

AKx

x(x)

Ax(x)

KQxxx(x)

 

So we should only raise to 4S if we are happy to play in a 4-3 fit.

 

As a slight side note, I don't play this sequence as game forcing (I don't play any of 1D - 2C - 2D - 2M, 1m - 1M - 2m - 2oM as FG) but I do play a simple raise of the major by opener as forcing: if responder has a genuine suit you may as well play in game, if he doesn't he has game forcing values.

[Finch]

FWIW my feeling on 'compulsory' cue-bidding is somewhere between mikeh's and Walddk's: as opener I would cue 4D on about 80% of hands with the DA - basically any hand where I am not horribly unsuitable.

[winkle]

Here's the full hand:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s6432hqtdakj95ck5&w=sqhj86542dt874c96&e=skjt5h973d32ct872&s=sa987hakdq6caqj43]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1NT - 2♣

2♠ - 4♣

4♦ - 4♥

4♠ - AP[/hv]

At least you went plus. If partner had the SQ this would've been even more painful.

 

As you say if you show everyone both hands no one would end up in spades, but I think there is a lesson in there somewhere.

[han]

Vey nice hand Matt. I wasn't alive when mandatory cuebids were popular, so I think that 6NT is clearly right (though not easy).

[mikeh]

FWIW my feeling on 'compulsory' cue-bidding is somewhere between mikeh's and Walddk's: as opener I would cue 4D on about 80% of hands with the DA - basically any hand where I am not horribly unsuitable.

I actually think that we are closer than you believe, Frances. I co-operate with a cue bid unless I really do not like my hand, based on the auction to date... so I would expect to cue about 80% (or more) of the time.... thus on the actual hand, I would cue (altho it would be very close) because I would like my ♣ holding: this and my good ♦'s would persuade me to cue notwithstanding the poor trump. I'd make one cue and then leave the running to partner unless he forced me to cue (by cue-ing above game).