Plan the Auction

[han]

One good rule that I learned from a friend -- never zoom to sign off if your answer would be "two with the Queen." Cuebidding does not promise "two with the Queen" or better, but a zoom, fast-arrival signoff denies that good.

I like that rule, at least in the context where we have already denied serious extras. In fact, I like the rule so much that I could almost say it is common sense.

[joshs]

Here were the actual hands, and my "bad" auction:

 

[hv=n=sqjxxxhkxdajxxcxx&s=sakxxxhqjtxdkqckq]133|200|[/hv]

 

1S-2N-3C(min,11-14ish)-3D(relay)-3H(no shortness)-3S(waiting)-4S-5C-5D-5S and Marc thought I was demanding him to bid 6 with a heart control, and I thought I was merely inviting. I honestly think that I should have passed 4S since Marc would have likely qbid with 2 aces having already limited his hand.

 

Of course on this hand rkc would have kept us out, but doesn't quite solve all my problems.

 

I was afraid that if the auction went:

1S-2N-3C-3D-3H-4C-4S-5D-5H-5S

 

I might be implying some need for trump help. We sadly were not on firm enough grounds on this auction. It comes down to what hands will bid 3S and what hands will Qbid immediately....Probably, in the context of our normal agreements, 3S should be a mild slam try (in the context of the auction) and Qbidding a serious slam try and 3N natural since non-serious is not needed when 3S is available there for that purpose.

[ArtK78]

Once again, I am mystefied.

 

Over your version of Jacoby 2NT, partner showed a minimum hand with no shortness. You then bid 3♠ waiting, which presumably requires partner to cue-bid (despite all the discussion on this in the previous posts, what other meaning can 3♠ have in this context?). He refuses to do so, instead he bids 4♠. So, he has shown a minimum with no shortness and then refused to cue-bid, so he should have NO FIRST ROUND CONTROL. Nevertheless, lacking 3 first round controls yourself, you carry on towards slam.

 

Now, you have a 20 count, so even with a minimum opening partner must have one first round control. Yet he refused to bid it. Certainly he would have cue bid a control if he had TWO first round controls (Even if the 3♠ bid did not require a cue bid from partner, wouldn't he do so with TWO first round controls?).

 

Having said that, lets go back to the 5-level. You bid 5♣, which is a dubious proposition at best. Pard now bids 5♦, admitting that he does, indeed, have a first round control. What is the purpose of 5♥? Haven't you done enough at this point? If partner really has a hand that can produce a slam, won't he know it by now?

 

Yes, RKCB would have kept you out of 6♠. But your auction should have kept you out of 5♠. Instead, you still got to 6♠.

 

Totally mystefying.

[joshs]

Once again, I am mystefied.

 

Over your version of Jacoby 2NT, partner showed a minimum hand with no shortness. You then bid 3♠ waiting, which presumably requires partner to cue-bid (despite all the discussion on this in the previous posts, what other meaning can 3♠ have in this context?). He refuses to do so, instead he bids 4♠. So, he has shown a minimum with no shortness and then refused to cue-bid, so he should have NO FIRST ROUND CONTROL. Nevertheless, lacking 3 first round controls yourself, you carry on towards slam.

 

Now, you have a 20 count, so even with a minimum opening partner must have one first round control. Yet he refused to bid it. Certainly he would have cue bid a control if he had TWO first round controls (Even if the 3♠ bid did not require a cue bid from partner, wouldn't he do so with TWO first round controls?).

 

Having said that, lets go back to the 5-level. You bid 5♣, which is a dubious proposition at best. Pard now bids 5♦, admitting that he does, indeed, have a first round control. What is the purpose of 5♥? Haven't you done enough at this point? If partner really has a hand that can produce a slam, won't he know it by now?

 

Yes, RKCB would have kept you out of 6♠. But your auction should have kept you out of 5♠. Instead, you still got to 6♠.

 

Totally mystefying.

Art you are misreading something. No one cuebid 5H in our actual auction, and partner having 0 aces was not possible as he opened 1S and I had the 20 count with only 1 ace. If the partnership is missing 3 aces, then we have at most 28 points, hence partner has an 8 count, with 0 aces and no shortness. hence partner has at least 1 ace. The main question is should he be quebidding with:

 

xxxxx Kxxx Ax Ax (slam is very good)

or

JTxxx Ax AJxx xx (slam is slightly worse than 50-50 double dummy, but they sometimes lead a heart away from the K)

or

JTxxx Kxx Axx Ax (slam is great)

 

 

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

[ArtK78]

You are correct. I misread the post.

 

Nevertheless, I cannot believe that partner would bid 4♠ over 3♠ with any hand that had 2 aces. If that is the case, what is the point of bidding 3♠? Is it a transfer to 4♠?

 

If you assign it some specialized meaning, that is fine. But in the absence thereof, partner will make a cue bid with 2 aces (and probably with one).

[joshs]

You are correct. I misread the post.

 

Nevertheless, I cannot believe that partner would bid 4♠ over 3♠ with any hand that had 2 aces. If that is the case, what is the point of bidding 3♠? Is it a transfer to 4♠?

 

If you assign it some specialized meaning, that is fine. But in the absence thereof, partner will make a cue bid with 2 aces (and probably with one).

I mostly agree. My 3S then bidding on over 4S was inconsistant. I should either bid 3S and respect 4S or start Qbidding immediately, to focus on the heart issue.

[kenrexford]

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

This part scares me, frankly. You need cards. You continue to need cards, and yet you want even more shape definition?

 

If a 2NT call initiates a series of shape asks from which you cannot escape, then perhaps a different start would have made sense. I personally would have started this hand with a 2/1 2♣ call, but only because this would be possibly semi-artificial with trump support and because 2NT Jacoby is not available for this type of hand.

 

Just to contrast, follow the actual auction on these hands:

 

1♠(minimum opening it turns out)-P-2♣(GF, possibly art'f.)-P-

2♦(natural, but sometimes a fragment)-P-2♠(spade fit, GF, not right for a picture jump)-P-

2NT(poor trumps -- not two top honors)-P-3♣(two of the top three clubs)-P-

3♥(heart control, not two top diamonds)-P-3♠(two of the top three spades)-P-

4♦(not serious, does not hold the third top club, Ace or King of diamonds)-P-???

 

Responder now knows that Opener has no club honor, the diamond Ace, and the heart Ace or King. So, he bids 4♥ LTTC, seeking "more." "More" is clearly present if Opener has two top hearts, one of which is the Ace, and the spade Queen. The spade Queen and the heart Ace might be more. The spade Queen and the heart King is very slightly more. Opener needs to make a judgment call as to how much "more" justifies him taking charge and how much more should be buried pending Responder making one last stab. IMO, heart King plus spade Queen is reserve-only values, justifying a signoff.

 

But, that approach is not necessary here if the partnership can ever get out of pattern bidding. You can pattern bidding yourself to death, but you will never learn about any honors that way.

[jdonn]

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

This part scares me, frankly. You need cards. You continue to need cards, and yet you want even more shape definition?

While I agree with your point, still you have 3NT (and higher) to focus on cards, which I believe should be enough. Though I don't see any point in finding out partner's doubleton with 5332, there will be hands it's very useful to find out partner is some 5422. Sometimes the 4-4 fit on the side is the only suit that even makes slam, and I think good bidders with good agreements should be able to work out those situations if they know partner's shape. Other times it simply helps you evaluate your hand, like (assuming you agree to show it only if the four card suit has an honor) something like that makes Kx in partner's side suit huge.

 

I'm not saying he should use a shape ask on the given hand though. Other than heart shortness, nothing about partner's shape will matter. KQ doubleton is either a loser or not regardless of how many partner has in the suit, and that's it.

[kenrexford]

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

This part scares me, frankly. You need cards. You continue to need cards, and yet you want even more shape definition?

While I agree with your point, still you have 3NT (and higher) to focus on cards, which I believe should be enough. Though I don't see any point in finding out partner's doubleton with 5332, there will be hands it's very useful to find out partner is some 5422. Sometimes the 4-4 fit on the side is the only suit that even makes slam, and I think good bidders with good agreements should be able to work out those situations if they know partner's shape. Other times it simply helps you evaluate your hand, like (assuming you agree to show it only if the four card suit has an honor) something like that makes Kx in partner's side suit huge.

 

I'm not saying he should use a shape ask on the given hand though. Other than heart shortness, nothing about partner's shape will matter. KQ doubleton is either a loser or not regardless of how many partner has in the suit, and that's it.

Well, if 3NT focuses on cards, and 3♠ is a further shape ask, that's better. At least you have a method to ask about cards. But that makes your 3♠ call cruddy (unless this was not yet discussed).

 

For what it is worth, I also use a lot of shape asks in Jacoby 2NT sequences. However, my main point was that if a Jacoby 2NT sequence is pre-determined to involve a lot of quantitative shape asks, and quantitative shape asks will not provide the information that you need, then you should not have started the sequence with Jacoby 2NT. If, however, you need cards and can at a reasonable point in the pre-determined sequence convert to cuebidding, such that your auction is prepared, then bid Jacoby 2NT.

 

Your auction seems flawed because of a lack of preparation or because of a diversion away from that plan at a critical moment.

[CSGibson]

Ok, the way I'm reading this, 2NT is game forcing, 3 clubs is showing a minimum.

 

3 diamonds asking shortness, and implying that you want to explore slam if there is shortness.

 

3 hearts saying no shortness.

 

And 3 spades is now not a mandatory cue-bid situation? ok, fair enough, everyone has their methods, but it still shows serious slam interest, so partner should perk up with controls, even with his crappy spade suit. This is even better if you use 3NT to show 2/3 tops in spades, as partner will be comfortable that you know his suit is crap when he bypasses the trump cue.

 

4 spades is definitely sign off, even over your 20 count, since you need 5 controls for this to be a slam you have to be in, and 4 to make it on a finnesse (using standard Ace = 2 controls, King = 1).

 

(Sorry if this repeats anyone's post, but I didn't stop among the daisies to read it all.)

[joshs]

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

This part scares me, frankly. You need cards. You continue to need cards, and yet you want even more shape definition?

 

If a 2NT call initiates a series of shape asks from which you cannot escape, then perhaps a different start would have made sense. I personally would have started this hand with a 2/1 2♣ call, but only because this would be possibly semi-artificial with trump support and because 2NT Jacoby is not available for this type of hand.

 

Just to contrast, follow the actual auction on these hands:

 

1♠(minimum opening it turns out)-P-2♣(GF, possibly art'f.)-P-

2♦(natural, but sometimes a fragment)-P-2♠(spade fit, GF, not right for a picture jump)-P-

2NT(poor trumps -- not two top honors)-P-3♣(two of the top three clubs)-P-

3♥(heart control, not two top diamonds)-P-3♠(two of the top three spades)-P-

4♦(not serious, does not hold the third top club, Ace or King of diamonds)-P-???

 

Responder now knows that Opener has no club honor, the diamond Ace, and the heart Ace or King. So, he bids 4♥ LTTC, seeking "more." "More" is clearly present if Opener has two top hearts, one of which is the Ace, and the spade Queen. The spade Queen and the heart Ace might be more. The spade Queen and the heart King is very slightly more. Opener needs to make a judgment call as to how much "more" justifies him taking charge and how much more should be buried pending Responder making one last stab. IMO, heart King plus spade Queen is reserve-only values, justifying a signoff.

 

But, that approach is not necessary here if the partnership can ever get out of pattern bidding. You can pattern bidding yourself to death, but you will never learn about any honors that way.

Ken its clear I don't care about pattern here when I have the Q of every side suit. I was musing about the best use of space here. There is a lot of space between 3H and 4S to work out high cards. But there are many hands which I do care about shape (e.g is partner 5332 5422 or 6322 or 7222). The one thing I absultely don't care about is what method works best on the given hands. I am interested in what bids/sequences should mean. For instance, is my actual sequence a demand to bid slam with a heart control? Is there a sequence which shows the lack of a heart control but isn't a demand? What hands should cue-bid over 3S in my actual auction? What is the difference between 3S and 3N (and is 3N natural?). And so on....

 

Its nice that you have a 2C bid on a 2 card suit available on this rare hand with 5 card support. Personally if I held Qxxxxx Axx Ax Ax opposite we would be in a grand slam after you 2/1 in clubs, and then show 2/3 tops in clubs and admit to the AK of spades and a red king. Its nice that the sequence worked on the actual hand (so should any sequence if I didn't run a red light later in the auction) but I don't think its partnership bidding...

[kenrexford]

Its nice that you have a 2C bid on a 2 card suit available on this rare hand with 5 card support. Personally if I held Qxxxxx Axx Ax Ax opposite we would be in a grand slam after you 2/1 in clubs, and then show 2/3 tops in clubs and admit to the AK of spades and a red king. Its nice that the sequence worked on the actual hand (so should any sequence if I didn't run a red light later in the auction) but I don't think its partnership bidding...

If you have that hand, you should not be the one asking questions at the high game -- you would be answering questions.

 

Whatever my 2♣ call showed is immaterial, although it is noteworthy that you would not play me for KQJx in clubs when I need not by partnership agreement have that hand. But, suppose that I might have that. So what?

 

With the hand you suggested, you would want to asnwer questions. Do you not think that I can count to 13 if I know that you have three Aces and a spade Queen? If I need that sixth spade, do you not think that I know how to bid 5NT?

 

It does not run afoul of "partnership bidding" for a call in my methods to not mean the same thing as a call in your methods.

 

Case in point. I'll bet that you might open 1♦ with xxx in diamonds when 4432 pattern, right? Well, I could easily call that bad "partnership bidding" because I like to play that 1♦ promises a four-card suit, and that I must be unbalanced if I have only four or five of them. That makes my 1♦ opening more meaningful when I open it, but that makes my 1♣ opening less meaningful. Neither is poor partnershop bidding -- each has definition and purpose.

 

My 2♣ call in a 2/1 GF auction is more ambiguous because my 2NT is more defined. I want the higher bid to be tighter. Your 2♣ call has more definition, at the expense of a more vague 2NT. Why should I not call 2NT poor partnership bidding? I have a case in point, where your technique put you in a slam off two aces, which helps my cause well. LOL.

 

Structurally, I'd hope that you could see that the lowest possible call ideally should be the most ambiguous option and that your approach (the standard approach) violates this principle.

[awm]

It seems like you have plenty of space over 3♥ here. I'd suggest something like:

 

(1) 3♠ is primarily a shape ask. This is the hand type where you want to be in slam opposite the right 5-4 hand, or you're looking for a sixth trump. Probably natural followups are okay (3NT is 5332, 4x is a four-card side suit, 4♠ is a sixth trump) but if you don't care about memory load you can probably do a little better.

 

(2) 3NT is non-serious (reverse this if you usually play serious). This is basically a quantitative slam try. If partner likes his hand within the context of what he's shown then he should cue, otherwise he can bid 4♠ and you will normally respect it.

 

(3) 4-suit is a cuebid (reverse this if you usually play serious). This forces partner to cue if he has a cue to make, says you don't really care if his hand is a pile of junk as long as he can control one or two key suits.

 

Presumably hands where responder has shortage he wants to show might've made a different call over 1♠ or over 3♣.

[kenrexford]

It seems like you have plenty of space over 3♥ here. I'd suggest something like:

 

(1) 3♠ is primarily a shape ask. This is the hand type where you want to be in slam opposite the right 5-4 hand, or you're looking for a sixth trump. Probably natural followups are okay (3NT is 5332, 4x is a four-card side suit, 4♠ is a sixth trump) but if you don't care about memory load you can probably do a little better.

 

(2) 3NT is non-serious (reverse this if you usually play serious). This is basically a quantitative slam try. If partner likes his hand within the context of what he's shown then he should cue, otherwise he can bid 4♠ and you will normally respect it.

 

(3) 4-suit is a cuebid (reverse this if you usually play serious). This forces partner to cue if he has a cue to make, says you don't really care if his hand is a pile of junk as long as he can control one or two key suits.

 

Presumably hands where responder has shortage he wants to show might've made a different call over 1♠ or over 3♣.

This type of a situation is why I believe that non-serious is sometimes problematic. Don't you want to make the absolute most space available for the non-serious side to cue, to better help the serious side?

[mikeh]

 

 

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

I understand the thinking, but if you want to use 3♠ as shape-asking, I suggest that you revamp your responses to J2N altogether rather than develop a shape ask that only applies when opener has a balanced minimum.

 

I would be afraid that using 3♠ as shape asking is going to bump cuebidding too high. You are, in shape-asking, going to cater to as many as 9 possible shapes (5332s, 5422s, and 6322s). Even with nesting responses, you are going to be at the 5-level before you can begin to differentiate between QJxxxx xx Axx Ax and Qxxxx AKx Ax xxx, and I suspect that it would be relatively easy to construct sequences where you are simply too high, especially on different slam-interested responding hands.

 

Frankly, if you are going to all this trouble out of concern about shape, switch methods to using 2♣ responses to 1Major as artificial gf, with relay responses (I can send you a very good scheme B) )

 

More pragmatically, my view is that using 3♠ as a request that opener evaluate his slam-suitability in context is far easier than asking for shape and then hoping to find out whether he likes or dislikes his hand. The key is the 'in context'.

[joshs]

 

 

Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

I understand the thinking, but if you want to use 3♠ as shape-asking, I suggest that you revamp your responses to J2N altogether rather than develop a shape ask that only applies when opener has a balanced minimum.

 

I would be afraid that using 3♠ as shape asking is going to bump cuebidding too high. You are, in shape-asking, going to cater to as many as 9 possible shapes (5332s, 5422s, and 6322s). Even with nesting responses, you are going to be at the 5-level before you can begin to differentiate between QJxxxx xx Axx Ax and Qxxxx AKx Ax xxx, and I suspect that it would be relatively easy to construct sequences where you are simply too high, especially on different slam-interested responding hands.

 

Frankly, if you are going to all this trouble out of concern about shape, switch methods to using 2♣ responses to 1Major as artificial gf, with relay responses (I can send you a very good scheme :) )

 

More pragmatically, my view is that using 3♠ as a request that opener evaluate his slam-suitability in context is far easier than asking for shape and then hoping to find out whether he likes or dislikes his hand. The key is the 'in context'.

The point was:

what is the advantage of using 3S as "how do you like your hand?" compared to using 3N as "how do you like your hand?" and if 3S is "how do you like your hand, what is 3N". Also, since the space issues are different over hearts and over spades, is it worth it to be optimal over spades, if you can't do the same thing over hearts.

 

I think there are a number of structures suggested in this thread:

a. 3S how do you like your hand

3N natural

b. 3S trump Q bid

3N how do you like your hand

c. 3S Do you have extra shape anywhere (3N=some 5332, 4CDH=natural, 4S=6Spades)

3N how do you like your hand

 

and so on.

I was playing a, but I like both b and c better but note that these schemes don't work over hearts since you have 1 less step available.

 

Note: A lot more definition can be given in the various sequences if you allow run ons. For instance in one partnership, I have jumps to 4M available over 2N and over 3D

One was used to show a 7222 dog min

The other to show a 6322 dog min including the trump Q (which loses value after a 10 card fit comes to light)

And then I can later show 6322 min without the trump Q...

 

There really is lots of space in the sequences.