cue bid with minimum ?

[Flame]

Suppose the bidding goes

1♠ - (2♦) - 3♦ (P)

4♠ - (P) - 5♣

5♦

 

3♦ showed support for ♠. 4♠ showed some extra.

5♣ is a cue bid showing a club control and slam interest

Is partner obligate to cue bid 5♦ with a ♦ control or is he showing atleast some slam interest ?

This is just one example i am looking for general rules not one solution.

There could be a case for saying 4♠ bid is very narow in strengh since opener could have cue bid with real extra, so when your strengh is know you must cue bid.

On the other hand i am not a big believer of the cue bidding in order to find a non controled suit, my expirence showed that you better not look for 2 losers suits, because its rare enough and even if it exist its many times better to just bid the slam and hope for "good" lead. I usually prefer my cue biddding to be a conversation of slam interest, so with a minimum hand i prefer bidding 5♠ and not cue bidding.

What do you think of this ?

[Apollo81]

When your overall hand strength is tightly defined then you are obligated to cuebid if asked. Example: 1♠-(2♦)-3♦-(p)-3♠-(p)-4♣

 

There are some auctions that ask for a specific holding in some suit. For instance, if responder had bid 5♠ instead of 5♣ in the auction you posted, opener would be obligated to bid on with a diamond control no matter how much he had overbid his hand so far.

 

If neither of the above apply, then I would say that you are not obligated to cuebid if you have a minimum.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Yes, Cue.

 

For whats it worth: Partner has a problem

and he asks you a question, if you dont cue,

you tell partner, that you know more about

the combined hand, and with the given seq.

that says he is an idiot.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

A useful rule, altho not used universally, is that cue-bidding below game is optional: it usually shows a willingness to co-operate in a slam move if partner is interested... or better... a refusal to cue below game is a complete denial of interest. However, the corollary of that rule is that once partner cues beyond game, you MUST cue in response, if possible.

 

So: cue below game is optional, cue above game is mandatory.

 

This rule has worked extremely well for me over many years.

[kenrexford]

One problem with this auction is that it seems particularly difficult to design rules to handle what I suspect to be an already-uncooperative auction. That is, unless 4♠ has some very specific meaning different from how it is specifically defined in the post.

 

1♠-2♦-3♦ was a start to an auction indicating limit raise or better values, I'm assuming, by virtue of Responder's later move past game. When Opener leapt to 4♠, he bypassed a world of potential cues that might have helped Responder when Responder was GF and slammish. You have already grabbed up a ton of space that could have been useful.

 

Presumably, such a jump should show extra strength with very non-slammish values. Hence, you will logically have a "minimum" for the "extras" bid. That is a very tight definition, it seems.

 

If Opener can then refuse to cuebid after 5♣ by Responder, especially refusing to cue a control in the opponent's suit, because he is "minimum," then you were not engaging in good partnership bidding when you jumped to 4♠.

 

Put another way. If Opener had a hand that would be deemed not a minimum after a jump to 4♠ and a 5♣ cue, why did he jump to 4♠ and bypass all that space? That would be poor and uncooperative bidding. So, assuming a competent Opener, his jump must logically be very tightly defined. There are no minimums or maximums for this bid, there are only locations of the values.

 

Hence, you cuebid.

[000002]

How to interpret this illustration?

 

AKJxxx

--

xx

Qxxxx

 

opposite:

 

Qxxx

AKx

KQ

Axxx

 

unlucky?

 

 

 

regards 000002

[kenrexford]

This pair of hands is interesting. Responder, IMO, should pass 4♠ unless he is certain that his RHO held junk for the 2♦ call. Judgment suggests that you will not find Opener with ♠A ♠K ♣K ♣Q, because RHO needed one of those clubs for his two-level overcall.

 

However, if you bid on...

 

The science:

 

Responder gains too little information if he cuebids 5♣ after Opener, for good reason, jumps to 4♠. The jump on this hand makes sense -- a non-slammish "extras" mess that nonetheless justifies a game move.

 

The 5♣ cue would gain no info, because the only cue likely would be a shortness cue, which helps nothing. 4NT gains little, as Responder will expect, anyway, the two top spades.

 

Thus, somewhat unlucky, if Responder guesses to bid the slam.

 

It would have been nice if the partnership used a tool I like, namely that a "cuebid" above game is not a cuebid, but a strange RKCB-type asking bid. (6KCB is similar but not useful here because the middle responses (2w/o; 2w) are too high.)

 

Using this approach, 5♣ would be "RKCB" such that Opener shows the club King and Queen as the lesser key cards instead of the spade Ace and King.

 

Opener's answer would be, on this hand, insufficient for Responder, wou would sign-off at 5♠.

 

If Opener held ♠A ♠K ♣K ♣Q, the magic hand, he would not answer, as that would be silliness. With a minimum but every card obviously needed by partner, Opener would blast into slam.

 

If Opener held ♠A ♣K ♣Q, but not ♠K, his answer would be 5NT, which forces the slam, so hopefully the finesse works.

 

In the end, I'd say judgment should rule the day. Give up science when the chances are way too remote and the auction way too delicate.

[dake50]

4S some extra= just accepting an invite. Any 1+ trick extra would cue.

What's 5C? At least 1+ trick short to cue on this auction. SQxxx HAKx DKx CAQxx just could.

Use Marshall Miles rule: 1st slam try must have 1+ trick extra, counter cue 1/2 trick extra. Didn't 4S deny 1/2 trick extra?

[000002]

to up 2 poster:

 

[hv=n=sakjxxxhxdxxxckxx&s=sqxxxhakxdkqcaxxx]133|200|this is typical hand to say there are another thing exist in the defacto/virtual theory,y?[/hv]

 

 

how did u explain this cold slam?

 

 

 

regards 000002

[kenrexford]

to up 2 poster:

 

[hv=n=sakjxxxhxdxxxckxx&s=sqxxxhakxdkqcaxxx]133|200|this is typical hand to say there are another thing exist in the defacto/virtual theory,y?[/hv]

 

 

how did u explain this cold slam?

 

 

 

regards 000002

With this hand, Opener should not jump to 4♠. If it wildly different from the failing slam in several respects.

 

1. There is no poor trick source/problem suit (clubs)

2. The third diamond is a better feature -- it may well be opposite a stiff or void. A doubleton is often opposite a doubleton.

3. If a stiff exists, a third diamond is more likely to result in two ruffs, not one. That's more tricks. As it is, the third diamond produces a trick opposite KQ that was not available when Opener was xx. That card is the 12th trick.

4. As you can see, 1-3-3 pattern makes better use of values in the short suit than 0-2-5, as alternative values.

5. Qxxxx needs internal values; Kxx needs internal values (club Q) or external values (here, side heart King) to cover the losers. Thus, it is a much stronger position for slam.

6. Simply put, then new hand has four controls, not three, with much more flexibility and much less fit-dependence.

 

Thus, with the latter hand, then 6133, I'd bid 4♥, a splinter, on an aggressive day, or 3♥, general game try with slight extras, possibly prep cue, on a milder day.

 

ALl that being said, the new example is not cold. As overcaller bid at the two-level with at best Q-J of hearts and Q-J of clubs on the side, he may well have AJ10xxxx in diamonds. It is likely to make six, but not cold.

[000002]

i am little busy now, i will reply each when i'm free.Now i answer u the 2 important question:

 

what is 3♥ meaning?

 

 

1♠****2♦****3♦*****p

3♥

 

as we know, 3♦ is 11total upper,so 3♥ bidder is 11-13p if it's invitational bid.

since we should signoff 3♠ with poor 11-12,which hand has to invite game with 11-12 only?

 

the upper 6133 is a example,but is it another typical hand exsit in?

2)6322 with good key suit,illustrate:AKxxxx / Kxx/xx/xx

3)5431 with good control,take instance: Axxxx/x/xxx/AQxx

4)5332 with short ♦, poor bones ,for example: AKxxx/QJx/xx/Qxx

5)5521 with poor side key suit,something like: AKxxx/A/xx/xxxxx

 

which one did u select?

 

what is cuebid on 5?

 

1s-(2d)-3d-(p)-4s,5S ask the control ♦ based on 4nt can probe trump key card,that means 5♣ lack ♥ control and 5♥ lack ♣ A/K,what is 5♦ meaning now?

 

 

 

regards 000002

[kenrexford]

I'm getting a little confused, but I think I'm understanding some of this.

 

3♥ is of uncertain nature. As the sole available bid between 3♦ and 3♠, it is, when a mere game try-back, a bid that covers a world of possibilities. So, it is a punt, asking for something more, whatever that is.

 

When 3♥ is later proven to be a slam move, made by someone who would not accept a sign-off at 3♠, or when Opener follows up after Responder proves his 3♦ call to be more amitious than simply game invitational, it is the ensuing auction that proves the character of the 3♥ call. As there are numerous possible auctions after 3♥, describing each is a bit difficult.

 

How these options tailor my thinking about a direct leap to 4♠ is equally difficult, as a 4♠ call could be viewed as "showing" something not suitable for handling via a 3♥ start, or via any other of many options (3NT, 4♣, etc.). However, it seems more workable to define 4♠ and then have the many other options mean "not right for a leap to 4♠." However, the paradox is that the definition of 4♠ really is tailored by the former approach -- it shows something not suitable for another option.

 

The definition I would expect is not precise. However, I would expect a hand with unusual shape but poor controls. The actual example of AKJxxx-v-xx-Qxxxx is a good example. Low controls, high fit-dependence, weird void location, poor doubleton. All ugly values. So, the "definition" is more artistic, perhaps. A similar type might be an abundance of quacks, perhaps ♠QJxxxxx ♥K ♦Qx ♣QJx or ♠AQJxxx ♥QJxx ♦xxx ♣v?

 

These are weird hands, where gut instinct says that game should be bid, but description is miserable and slam not palatable.

 

Contrast these hands with the more mundane but describable ♠AQxxx ♥Kxx ♦x ♣AQxx or ♠QJxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣AKx. These latter hands will fit into typical types. Type A might be the balanced semi-maximum (just under a 1NT opening. Type B might be shapely with decent controls. Type C might be a sixth trump and generally balanced. Type D might be super-strong, with independent slam interest. Using this typing, A, B, and C are hands that offer catering possibilities for a strong Responder and can usually be described fairly well, as opposed to freaks.

[kenrexford]

The latter issue is intersting. If, after the 4♠ jump, 5♠ would invite slam if diamonds are controlled, this implies control in all other suits.

 

5♣ would seem to show a club control and a need for a heart control only or a need for two red controls. After 5♦ from Opener, 5♥ would be last train. After 5♥ from Opener, Responder knows what to do.

 

5♥ would show a heart control, infer a lack of a club control and a lack of a diamond control. So, this cue would seem to ask Opener to bid slam if he has clubs and diamonds controlled.

 

5♦, then, would show a diamond control, denying a club control. If Opener lacked a club control, he signs off. With a club control and a heart control, Opener could bid the slam. So, Opener's 5♥ would strangely show a club control but deny a heart control. This sounds inconsistent, except that this would be a five-level last train bid, not showing but asking.

 

To recap:

 

Needing both red controls, Responder bids 5♣. Needing both minor controls, Responder bids 5♥. Needing clubs and hearts controlled, Responder bids 5♦.

 

Needing just a diamond control, Responder bids 5♠. Needing just a heart control, Responder bids 5♣. Needing just a club control, Responder bids 5♦.

 

Thus, this scheme allows Responder to handle any two holes or any one hole.

[000002]

i find we have many consistant view after reading 11/12th post,so i reply simply.

our central difference is :

 

i insist on what 4♠ leap is nucleus and Mister ignore it as a sensible selective favoritism on the table.

 

we must distinguish nether 2 auction to discover this bouncing 4♠ :

A)

1s---(2d)---3d---p

3h---p---3n---p

4c?

:)

1s---(2d)---3d---p

4c?

 

B is cuebid with 15counts+ or 1+more trick as someone ever pointed;

A is s/v,did u oppose?

 

the basic is what is 3♥ contain,especially, what is responder 's obligation to stop on 3nt.

 

BTW,it's zero percent i think if we cue 5♦ without ♥/♣ control,the mere hand look seems :

AKxx/QJx/AQ/QJxx.

following the normal jumpy opening and RHO minor 2/1 overcall,either upper 18counts is the land of abundance.

 

 

regards 000002

[kenrexford]

In a contested auction, the only route I would accept as a route to 3NT, when a major fit is held, is when Responder focuses NT over the fit initially. In other words, after the cue raise, 3NT is no longe a viable contract and, therefore, serious 3NT. This is needed to enable good slam bidding in support of the major.

 

3♥ could be any number of initiations. It may be a general GT, in which case, after 3NT by Responder (Serious), Opener will cue cooperatively. If 3♥ was actually the first cue of what was planned as a strong auction, Opener will be well-placed if Responder is also serious. In either event, 4♣ is a cue, with "captaincy" undetermined, in the sense that Opener might move on even if Responder does not. I'm not sure what "s/v" means.

 

A direct 4♣ bypassed 3NT and, accordingly, is purely cooperative without a heart control. By force of accepting the game try aspects of the case, Opener is not minimum.

 

5♦ is a possible bid as described. Make the hand even stronger, like ♠AKQx ♥QJxx ♦A ♣QJxx, and what else can you do?

[000002]

In a contested auction, the only route I would accept as a route to 3NT, when a major fit is held, is when Responder focuses NT over the fit initially.  In other words, after the cue raise, 3NT is no longe a viable contract and, therefore, serious 3NT.  This is needed to enable good slam bidding in support of the major.

 

3♥ could be any number of initiations.  It may be a general GT, in which case, after 3NT by Responder (Serious), Opener will cue cooperatively.  If 3♥ was actually the first cue of what was planned as a strong auction, Opener will be well-placed if Responder is also serious.  In either event, 4♣ is a cue, with "captaincy" undetermined, in the sense that Opener might move on even if Responder does not.  I'm not sure what "s/v" means.

 

A direct 4♣ bypassed 3NT and, accordingly, is purely cooperative without a heart control.  By force of accepting the game try aspects of the case, Opener is not minimum.

 

5♦ is a possible bid as described.  Make the hand even stronger, like ♠AKQx ♥QJxx ♦A ♣QJxx, and what else can you do?

In other words, after the cue raise, 3NT is no longe a viable contract and, therefore, serious 3NT.

 

if it's game force,i agree that s-3nt is better.

it's many possibility exist in game-try,natural 3nt has more frequence happened to cause a game swing,compare with slam.

 

 

I'm not sure what "s/v" means

 

singleton/void.

many 9cards trump fit bring a high efficiency slam,and need aptitude to show it.

if we have 25 total perfect counts and 9trumps,we have seldom chance to lack of control in one suit. we are habit to think the cuebid is very important,but is it real crux to show on 3level/4level/5level and 4nt,does it too many cuebid exist in?

 

A direct 4♣ bypassed 3NT and, accordingly, is purely cooperative without a heart control.

 

if a direct 4♣ hint lack of ♥ control,what is difference between responder's 4♥/4♦ cue? serious is a good handle but we'll lose too many shapely slam.

 

 

5♦ is a possible bid as described.

 

since we donot exactly describe what is jumpy 4♠ till now,we can not define which hand is good enough to over bid secure 4level.balanced 19hcps is a general show but it's rare apparently,we ought not to arrange a 1/million hand to handle it.

 

 

regards 000002

[kenrexford]

Actually, the problem with this auction, IMO, concerns a lack of ideal tools directly after the 2♦ call. Many experts will use a 2NT call, coupled with the 3♦ cue, to distinguish types and thereby gain a level of complexity and texture. Add in fit-showing jumps and the like, and Responder will have more options, which will cater to better options for Opener.

 

I have heard that Meckwell, who use 2NT and 3♦ both to show fits (not appropriate for a jump action), had some uncertainty as to what should distinguish 2NT from the cue-raise (3♦). The four hand types handled through these two bids would be 3-card, 4+, limit, and GF. Thus, for instance, 2NT might be 3-card limit+ and 3♦ 4-card limit+, or 2NT might be 3+ limit and 3♦ 3+ GF.

 

IMO, the "best" course may be for 2NT to show 3-card limit+, and 3♦ 4-card limit+, as this would better facilitate the idea that notrump is not an option after 3♦ but is an option after 2NT. Or, reverse the meanings. In any event, one of the two options should leave 3NT as assuredly fit-showing and the other as notrump optional. Perhaps reverse is best, as you may want to maximize space for slam-approach auctions, such that 3♦ is the route to 3NT.

 

I understand the idea that it may be important to have an ability to ensure that a cue is read as a shortness cue, such as 4♣, for the distributional slam. The technique you seem to be endorsing is that 3♥ always starts a shortness sequence, which might be a good idea. I could live with that, if it was agreed.

[000002]

I accept the concept which 2nt or 3nt-leap can be combined to described the responder's hand,if it's precondition,3♦-Q guarantee balanced hand.

it is advantage to help us probe the puzzle:why responder can pull secure 4♠ with his "flat" hand?

 

what is 4♠ leap?

 

since u live with the openner's s/v describe is a possible arrange,now we can debar it from 4♠ leap.5332/6322/5422/7222 is total chance;

since we have discussed that 3nt is natural waiting,we can debar good trump suit from 4♠ leap.qxxxx is the maximum strength;

as mentioned in upside example,we never debar an natural side suiter exist in leap.5-5/6-4 is necessary to deal with.

now we can define this jumpy 4♠ is 3 possibility:

1)balanced regularity

2)poor trump

3)double suiter

 

3rd is the most necessary to solve, among it,we had to give up something.

if we can untie 5-5/6-4 double suiter as natural under 4♠,i would take 2nd condition as criterion,the reason is they are homology between 1st and 2nd:with 13-14balanced hand, abandon 3nt immediately often imply a poor key suit.

but,i admit, 5422 can make an exception.

 

we can not untie ♠+♥ even though 4♥ leap showing s/v is repeat,citing:

1s-2d-3d-p

3h-p--4c-p

4h?

this 4♥ is cuebid,or s/v,or natural.direct jumpy 4♥ can remedy one only.

there are more pressing in ♠+♣.

 

 

i think we have to select one--unless an master expose it with a relay system to solve.

IMO,nether 2hand is standward jumpy 4♠:

 

xxxxxx

AKx

xx

Ax

 

xxxxx

AQ

A

Qxxxx

 

 

 

regards 000002

[kenrexford]

All this makes sense.

 

Ultimately, however, one concern I frequently have is with auctions or techniques that force HCP analysis too strongly into suit contract development, especially when opne partner might not be balanced. The leap to 4♠ as a balanced quantitative cause problems for a Responder who is unbalanced and needs to know the location of values. A hand is not "balanced" opposite an unbalanced hand unless the quality/degree of honors is each suit is equal. Thus, for instance, Kxxxx-Kxx-Kx-Kxx or Axxxx-Axx-Ax-Axx are balanced, but Axxxx-Kxx-Qx-Axx is very unbalanced, in a sense. Give partner a short club, Ax in hearts, and AKJxx in diamonds, and this hand fits well. Change responder's holding to Kxx in diamonds, stiff heart, and KQJxx in clubs, and this hand fits poorly.

 

These "balanced" hands often need more working out than distributional hands, strangely.

[000002]

i am pleasure to read post wrote by u.

 

illutrate:

AKxx

xxx

xx

AKQJ

This hand is good enough to bid 5♣ and can avoid a latent dangerous as below:

Qxxxxx

KQJ

KQ

xx

the way is responder back 5♥ as last train following opener's 5♦,to require opener's average(up) control quality for slam.opener must accept it with his possible holding--:

xxxxxx

AQx

KQ

xx

 

this way cause a inference that 4NT is a little futile/redundant . if responder need 2 A he always can start from cuebid but no need asking bid.

 

if 4NT can be handled as a cuebid waiting,that means direct 5♣ is an natural invitation,and 5♦/5♥ can be arranged as......

 

i am pleasur to discuss with u,good regards.

 

 

000002

[kenrexford]

4NT is redudant, unless internal controls are still in question of course. :rolleyes: