slam?

[han]

AKx

AQ9xxx

Q10x

x

 

1H - (2S) - 3S - (p)

4C - (p) - 4H - (p)

??

 

What do you expect from partner and would you make another try?

[pbleighton]

I expect an invitational hand with 3+ hearts, or a little better.

 

You asked a question, he gave you an answer, pass. You're definitely not good enough to press on by yourself.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I expect an invitational hand with 3+ hearts, or a little better.

Invitational?

 

What would you bid if you declined his invitation?

[Echognome]

I bid 4♣ as a try. If I can't get 4♦ out of partner, there's no slam on in my book. If partner took 4♣ to be natural, then I need to make sure I agree with partner on the meaning. We'll discuss it between rounds.

[Free]

Easy pass for me. You make a try, partner signs off, so no ♦ cue between us. However, I'm not sure partner can interprete 4♣ like he should, can't he think this is a natural call?

[Quantumcat]

How can he think it's a natural call when hearts have been raised? Surely it has to be a cue. (And since it looks like you do 1st or 2nd round controls, obviously there are two diamond losers off the top)

[kenrexford]

This is a tough problem. If partner in fact does not have a diamond control, the five-level may well be unsafe (diamond 8 to the King, diamond Ace to the deuce, diamond ruff, for example).

 

The problem with assessing the auction, however, is that there are many unknowns.

 

First: What options did partner have, other than 3♠?

 

I'm imagining that 3♠ is a GF raise, with 3+ trumps, and that 2NT is an invitational 3+ raise, or that 3♠ shows spade shortness and that 2NT shows INVIT+. If not, that seems like a better agreement than 3♠ as invitational+, for the obvious reasons stated by another.

 

I'm also assuming that partner had options, like either fit-jumps or splinters (probably fit-jumps).

 

It may be that 3♠ is a "Splinter-Without-the-Jump," and 2NT then "Invitational or Better with Support," might be the best treatment.

 

As I don't know what you play here, this needs clarified. As you have not told us already, I suspect uncertainty, suggesting a need for discussion with partner.

 

Second, I don't know what your options were.

 

The key problem with this auction is the meaning of 4♣. Stating "cuebid" is insufficient, IMO. Did you have 3NT as a serious or non-serious alternative? If 3NT is "serious," is 3NT "serious" in this auction when Opener has a spade control (3NT being the only way for Opener to show one), or is that meaning less useful because 3♠ was a "splinter without the jump?" If 3NT is non-serious, then does 4♣ imply/promise a spade control (the converse agreement)? If 3♠ showed a spade control, in the form of shortness, then what is the nuance of the failure to bid 3NT?

 

As you can see, a large amount of what 4♣ "also shows" beyond a simple "cuebid" is governed by (a.) what 3♠ showed and (b.) what 3NT would have shown by you.

 

Third, what were Responder's options after 4♣?

 

The meaning of 4♣, itself governed by the meaning of 3NT by Opener and of 3♠ by Responder, tells us what 4♦ should show, plus agreements. If 4♣ says nothing about spades (or bypassing 3NT if non-serious), and if 3♠ also said nothing about spades, then 4♦ is probably more useful as a Last Train call than a simple cuebid. 4♦ would imply a lack of one of the two remaining controls (diamonds and spades), as with both Responder might bid on. However, maybe Responder needs more strength also. Maybe 4♦ simply shows a diamond control, and maybe implies no spade control. Maybe 4♦ shows a spade control, but suggests a lack of a diamond control. Who knows? You and partner should, but I cannot guess at all of this.

 

All that said, how I would play follows:

 

The 3♠ call, here, I like as a splinter without the jump; 2NT handles any limit+ without spade shortness. On this hand, that holding is likely (spades split 6-3-3-1 around the table).

 

3NT by me is serious. Because spade control is already shown, I don't need "serious" to mean "spade control." Had 3♠ been a general "GF raise," with no promise of a spade control, then "serious" would mean, contextually for me, "spade control."

 

When 3♠ means "spade control," I would bid serious 3NT if I wanted a club control in the form of an honor (Ace or King), because I doubt that partner has two stiffs. That's not the case here. So, as Opener, I'm bidding 4♣ with this hand when 3♠ is a splinter-without-the-jump.

 

Responder, in bypassing 4♦, to me denies a diamond control. If he had bid 4♦, in this specific auction, I'm not sure that this guarantees a diamond control. 4♦ would show one of two hands:

 

a. diamond control, but that may be it

b. no diamond control, but extras without clear direction.

 

When Responder does not have a diamond control, he nonetheless has enough for the five-level to be safe.

 

If Opener does not have the diamond control, but has enough to justify the five-level, he can bid 4♠, as "Last Train" in a sense, bidding around the problem. If Opener simply needed a diamond control or extras, but has a diamond control himself, he can bid 4NT. If Opener is weakish, he can bid 4♥ and allow Responder to bid (a.) 4♠ -- same bidding around the diamond hole -- or (b.) 4NT -- has the diamond control. Finally, either partner can bid Lackwood 5♦.

[pbleighton]

Invitational?

 

What would you bid if you declined his invitation?

 

Opps, asleep at the wheel :lol:

 

A GF heart raise, then. Without agreements (and i have none), it doesn't show any more information than that. My answer's the same, though. He declined your slam invitation, you don't have a big enough hand to go forward, pass.

 

Peter

[mike777]

AKx

AQ9xxx

Q10x

x

 

1H - (2S) - 3S - (p)

4C - (p) - 4H - (p)

??

 

What do you expect from partner and would you make another try?

No way am I passing. :lol:

 

 

Geez I could have so much less for one heart and partner game forced.

Will rkc now. I would have rkc last round. :) Sure we may have 2D losers, it has to exist and they have to find it.

I expect at a minimum a really nice 12 hcp hand with 3 hearts and that is a dead minimum.

 

He cannot be worse than"

xx...Kxx....Kxxx...KQJx

[inquiry]

It depends upon you agreements.

 

IF agreement was 3S was game forcing raise, nothing more, and you do not play serious or non-serious 3NT.

 

Without agreement that 4C cue-bid forces a 4D cue-bid, then I would try again. If 4D would have been Last Train, then I would try again. But if partner was forced to cue=bid a diamond control should he have one, clearly this is a pass. The fear is that he has something like S-void H-KJxx D-Jxxx C-AKQx where you could lose 2D and a diamond ruff off the top.

 

It is difficult to pass here I agree. With no specific agreements, 4H just shows min game force, so in that case I will cue-bid 4S.

[han]

We didn't have good agreements here, but neither of us thought that partner has to cuebid 4D. 4D by partner would show extras, so 4H just shows a fairly minimal gameforce.

 

Of course, with a gameforcing hand unsuitable for slam partner wouldn't have bid 3S but 4H, so partner does have something.

 

It would have been good to know whether frivolous 3NT was on. I thought it wasn't at the table, but now I think it should. Agree Arend? If so, then 4C showed serious extras and I would have had an easy pass of 4H.

[kenrexford]

I really don't get this style.

 

3♠ = "I have a fit, and something better than a minimum game raise."

4♣ = "I have a club control, and something that is better than a simple game raise, and I might be somewhat better than whatever hand is not a minimum but is frivolously not a minimum, but I'm not sure."

4♥ = "I have a minimum that is better than a minimum, or I don't have a diamond control but with a non-minimum; I definitely don't have enough to ask for Aces opposite a hand with a club control and something that is better than a simple game raise and maybe somewhat better than a non-minimum but frivolous hand, I think."

Pass = "Taking all of this information, I have no idea what you have, but this is clearly a hand with which I should pass."

 

It seems that you might do better with inverted step responses. 4♥ = 11-12, 4♦=13-14, 4♣=15-16, etc. At least then there would be something.

[Winstonm]

It is almost impossible to construct a hand for partner's bidding that isn't safe at the 5-level, only something like xx, Kxx, xxxx, AKQx. The question is whether partner's pass denies a diamond control.

 

In an unknown situation, I fall back on game before speculative slam. There is simply no way to safely move past 4H without clearcut understandings. And for all we know, the auction at the other table may have been 1h-2s-4h, and we push even if a borderline slam is on.

[helene_t]

I'm clueless. First, I don't see why this is a problem at all. It would be difficult if I had extras and no ♦ control, or vice versa, but this hand has neither. Pass wtp. I must have missed something.

 

Second, I sorta agree with Ken. What's the point of playing cuebids if in fact you don't play cuebids? Especially if a cue in an unbid suit can be either an ace or a king or shortness. Then it doesn't even help to locate collaborationg values.

[hotShot]

If 3♠ promises ♥ support, than 4♣ is a cue and 4♥ is the end of the auction, because the ♦ controls are missing.

 

If 3♠ is any strong hand and does not promise ♥ support, then 4♣ is a natural side suit and responder will now have to show his ♥ support. Obviously this is an inferior agreement, if 3♠ is not at least invitational to slam.

[pclayton]

Frivolous 3N should be on if you play it.

 

I don't think I have safety at the 5 level. Pass.

[pclayton]

Invitational?

 

What would you bid if you declined his invitation?

 

Opps, asleep at the wheel :)

 

A GF heart raise, then. Without agreements (and i have none), it doesn't show any more information than that. My answer's the same, though. He declined your slam invitation, you don't have a big enough hand to go forward, pass.

 

Peter

Well, yes and no :)

 

3♠ could be a value raise to 4♥ on Kxx, ATxx, KTxx, xx. (Exact hand I had in our now infamous match). I think 3♠ includes certain hands that are a shade too light for an immediate forcing raise for instance.

[ArtK78]

3S "could" be a value raise to 4H based on less that game forcing values? I hope you have a firm agreement on that, because I would not be expecting anything less than a full game forcing raise to 4H.

[keylime]

If pard can't find a cuebid of 4D, then I'm bailing (if tho you cuebid Aces first then kings instead of the A or K style, this hand is harder to deal with potentially). I agree with Phil -> 5 level is not very safe on this construction.

[pclayton]

3S "could" be a value raise to 4H based on less that game forcing values? I hope you have a firm agreement on that, because I would not be expecting anything less than a full game forcing raise to 4H.

Wouldn't you bid 4♥ on a little shape, 4 trump, and a 7 count? I would.

[mikeh]

I'm with Phil in that 3♠ doesn't promise a huge hand: we are under pressure.

 

The common expert response to losing the ability to bid 2♥/limit raise/gf raise continuum, because we have been preempted past the cheapest raise, is to lower the miniumum for the 3♥ call... it becomes a good 2♥ raise, especially if based on 4 trumps. Lowering the minimum means that we lower the maximum as well: otherwise the range of 3♥ becomes too wide to permit opener any semblance of judgement. This means that good limit raises have to gf via 3♠... unless you want to use 4♥ as the good limit raise. However, that is problematic, expecially in hearts, because the auction is not necessarily over: we'd like our 4♥ bid to be well-defined lest 4th seat bid 4♠. So we would usually use 4♥ as a good playing hand, not very strong on hcp, and 3♠ as a good limit raise or better.

 

Using this style, which I think is quite popular in NA, we definitely lack 5 level safety when partner bids 4♥... and this is true regardless of whether we play 4♦ as Last Train.

 

As others have posted, there is no compelling reason not to place partner with wasted club values: indeed, his 4♥ call strongly suggests that... it virtually guarantees that if we play LTTC.

 

If we miss a good slam here, then I think that the odds are high that I will not approve of his 4♥ call.

 

I don't play 4♦ by partner as huge: it would have announced a non-sign-off hand, not a bust... and that is true in the partnerships in which we play LTTC and in those where we don't.

 

If you need significant extras, in your partnership, to bid 4♦, then either bid again here or change methods.. I suggest the latter, since you are reduced to guessing at this point in the auction. :ph34r:

[Halo]

Simple for me, partner has excellent clubs and hated my 4C cue bid. I'm passing.

[jdonn]

I disagree on the meaning of 3♠, it should be a sound game forcing hand. Some 'good limit raise' that has to stretch should bid 4♥ not 3♠. On the given auction I would just bid keycard over 3♠, we have no way to find out how well the hands fit anyway since the 4♣ bid is completely ambiguous (does partner love or hate KQJx of clubs?) Even if we were (unlikely) off AK of diamonds they would have to lead it, so I'm sure not telling them to. I agree that on the given auction, if you bid 4♣ it seems to be because you wanted some sort of cooperation from partner to bid beyond game, so given that it would be inconsistent not to pass.

 

Maybe I misunderstand you Phil, what do you mean by 'a little shape'? Maybe an example or two?

[han]

I realize that I haven't told yet what happened at the table.

 

My understanding of 3S was as jdonn says: a sound gameforcing hand. I thought I had too much to pass so I bid 4S. Arend bid 5C, I bid 5H and Arend kicked it in, thinking that perhaps all I needed was a diamond control.

 

These were the hands:

 

[hv=d=&v=&n=sh10xxdajxxxcaxxxx&s=sakxhaq97xxdq10xcx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Not the worst slam I have been in, but the diamond king was offside and hearts 4-0 onside but I didn't have enough entries to take 3 finesses or trump coup.

 

We have since decided to frivolous 3NT here too. So I would still bit 4C, showing serious extras, partner would cue 4D and I might bid 4H. Arend could pass that, or bid 4S and we would stop in 5H.

[pclayton]

Maybe I misunderstand you Phil, what do you mean by 'a little shape'? Maybe an example or two?

x, AQxx, xxxxx, xxx

 

or

 

x, Axx, KJxxx, xxxx

 

Seem right.