Spot all the errors

[jdonn]

One thing Ken, though I know what you mean I disagree with your use of the term "advance cuebid" in this context. To me, that means I make a bid which is not defined as a cuebid, but then on my next bid support partner to show that my previous bid was a cuebid. On this auction, you are arguing that (maybe? definitely?) 4♥ and the other four level bids are specifically defined as cuebids. They aren't advance cuebids, they are just cuebids :)

 

I still don't think what Ken is suggesting is either unusual or idiosyncratic. There are many slowish 2/1 auctions in which responder can cuebid for opener without explicitely supporting the suit. For example

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 3♣

3♠ 4♦

Or for another example, the given auction but with responder bidding 4♣ over 3♠. So really the only question is whether 4♥ is likely enough to be the best game that bidding it should be natural. If you believe so then ok. If you believe not, then a cuebid for spades would be the obvious meaning (as what makes those other examples cuebids is the obviousness that the bid strain is unlikely to be where we belong). Maybe on Ax Kx Axxxxx QJx, if you believe responder bidding his own suit in a cuebidding auction shows a better suit (as many would). If you disagree then fine, but it's not so strange or exotic that it should be blasted.

 

JT, I think it's hard to disagree that 6♥ was an awful bid, even if you take 4♥ as natural (since for sure it would still just be a three card suit). That's why it's not really an issue :)

[kenrexford]

One thing Ken, though I know what you mean I disagree with your use of the term "advance cuebid" in this context.

It's funny that you disapproved of that term. I almost wrote down that this term is not my term, because I also disapprove of that term. However, because the "others" used that term (improperly, I agree), I used it. :)

[helene_t]

One thing Ken, though I know what you mean I disagree with your use of the term "advance cuebid" in this context.

It's funny that you disapproved of that term. I almost wrote down that this term is not my term, because I also disapprove of that term. However, because the "others" used that term (improperly, I agree), I used it. :)

I never heard the word "advance(d) cue" used in this context. It seems to me that it renders the term completely meaningless. Is any cue-bid an advance(d) cuebid, then? Or is it because it's the cue that sets trump? Or is it because it is just a proposal to play in spades? Or is it because it may have bypassed a control in a minor suit, for whatever reason (maybe the ace of hearts an only a minor king)?

 

jdonn's defintion is the one I learned as well.

[cherdano]

Give East x AQx Axxxxx Kxx. Over 3S its pretty clear that 3N is not right unless opener has significant extras (you have no tricks) or if opener's spades are running, in which case 4S is probably as good a spot. The problem is you have no idea which is the correct major (partner can have 4 small hearts after all). So personally I would have assumed that 4H was something like the hand I gave above, and asking partner to pick a major.

That's exactly what I thought 4H should show.

(And for the record, I think rebidding anything but 2N on this hand is very bad.)