Good hearts

[han]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sjxhakq109xxdcakxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1S - 2H

2S - 3H

4H - ??

 

What's your plan?

 

2S was a catch all. With a good hand for hearts partner could have cuebid 4m.

[rogerclee]

I am going to slam regardless of whether partner has a spade control, so it is only a question of whether I can accurately bid a grand without giving up too much information.

 

I think a 5C cue doesn't jeopardize the slam greatly, so I'll try that. If partner bids 5D, this is bad news and I'd probably give up. If partner bids 5S, I'll follow with 6D, which should be asking for the spade K.

[Cascade]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sjxhakq109xxdcakxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1S - 2H

2S - 3H

4H - ??

 

What's your plan?

 

2S was a catch all. With a good hand for hearts partner could have cuebid 4m.

I assume 2/1 and I am a self-confessed 2/1 non-expert.

 

This exact auction for us would be Non-Forcing at 3H.

 

However in similar auctions where we have repeated a suit and partner's new suit would be a cue below game we play cues are mandatory by a limited hand opposite an unlimited partner. This seems to work much better than cue-bidding only with a maximum - partner most often has a minimum.

 

On this auction this would mean that partner has already denied a diamond control and I can use Blackwood with impunity and confident that she must have a spade control.

 

Without this agreement and without some other specialized agreement I can only start cue-bidding at the five-level. My experience however is that hands with voids that start cue-bidding at the five-level are very difficult to bid to Grand-Slams.

[Guest Jlall]

6H

[han]

However in similar auctions where we have repeated a suit and partner's new suit would be a cue below game we play cues are mandatory by a limited hand opposite an unlimited partner. This seems to work much better than cue-bidding only with a maximum - partner most often has a minimum.

Interesting idea Wayne, although I'm not immediately excited about it. How does partner distinguish between a nice 16-count and a poor 11-count? (say both with 6 spades and 2 hearts)

 

Anyway, this was not what we played, partner would only cue here with a good hand (say a slam-suitable 14-count or better). Any sensible way to investigate the grand slam?

[Cascade]

I guess that is the hidden cost of bidding 2♠ on a wide range hand from a crappy minimum with five spades and say 5=1=3=4 distribution up to a hand unsuitable for a jump to 3♠. I am not entirely sure what that is. As I said I am no 2/1 expert. But I would imagine that 3♠ requires good spades and maybe 17-18 hcp.

 

In general though bids like the raise to 4♥ that take up a whole level of bidding to show a minimum are inefficient. Especially when partner has an above average hand, for example after opening the bidding, he will have a minimum much more often than extras. 11, 12 or 13 point hands occur much more often then 14, 15 and 16 counts. So essentially your system uses a whole level to tell partner what he would have guessed anyway. This is why a serious or frivolous 3NT is so good. Although I realize that cannot apply here since we do not have suit agreement. Perhaps though you can get some mileage out of Last Train. Although we get by without that.

 

Its the same principle as why the standard rebids after a Jacoby 2NT do not work well and many good pairs use modified responses. 1Maj 2NT; 4Maj showing a non-descript minimum is inefficient. Some of the common replacement responses put this common hand type as the first step 1Maj 2NT; 3♣ any minimum (perhaps balanced). This preserves bidding space to allow the unlimited 2NT bidder to initiate cue-bids.

 

I'm just guessing a bit but I would think in the situation in the opening post it was more common that the unlimited hand is interested in the presence or absence of a specific control than whether or not a limited partner is minimum or maximum for his bid.

[P_Marlowe]

4NT.

 

I am certainly playing at least 6H,

the only issue is, how to decide between

playing 6H or 7H.

 

4NT will tell me about KCs, the Ace of

diamonds can be used to discard a spade,

if needed.

 

If opener shows up with both Aces, I am

going to look for the king of spades.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

Like Cascade, I'd have preferred to start from somewhere else. Life is much easier if 2S shows a minimum (or some fairly specific non-minima), allowing opener to cue bid freely over 3H.

 

On the given auction, I can't construct an auction that would allow us to bid a grand slam with any confidence, so I'd just bid 6H.

[Apollo81]

5♣, and then 6♥ over anything but 5♠, else 6♣, then 6♥ over 6♦

[ArtK78]

It would have been nice to bid 5♦ exclusion RKCB for SPADES over 2♠ if we could be sure that we could play in hearts at the 6 level.

 

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

 

Failing that, all we can do at this point is cue bid 5♣ and see where we go from there. It is going to be very hard to stay out of slam.

[jdonn]

It would have been nice to bid 5♦ exclusion RKCB for SPADES over 2♠ if we could be sure that we could play in hearts at the 6 level.

 

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

Of course and I considered it but I don't think it's right. There are too many holes to fill I mean what if partner has AK of spades and A of diamonds on top of it, but xxx of clubs?

[gnasher]

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

I do, I think.

 

On this hand, however, I think it would be inadvisable if playing 1430 responses. How would you cope with a 6S reply?

[pclayton]

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

I do, I think.

 

On this hand, however, I think it would be inadvisable if playing 1430 responses. How would you cope with a 6S reply?

I would play 6♦ as exclusion. Frankly I think its clear, but I don't like the call. Most play 0314 or 0123 responses to exclusion I think.

 

I'd probably opt for 5♣. A diamond cue is really bad news, although pard doesn't know the ♠AK / ♣Q (or shortness) are the key here.

[skjaeran]

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

I do, I think.

 

On this hand, however, I think it would be inadvisable if playing 1430 responses. How would you cope with a 6S reply?

I play 1430 responses, but revert to 0314 over exclusion. That's mandatory IMO.

[Guest Jlall]

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

I do, I think.

 

On this hand, however, I think it would be inadvisable if playing 1430 responses. How would you cope with a 6S reply?

I play 1430 responses, but revert to 0314 over exclusion. That's mandatory IMO.

ya

[Cascade]

Does anyone play 6♦ here as exclusion?

Yes but the hand is not quite good enough.

 

6♦ is sort of an all or nothing bid. If partner has the ♠A we will be in seven and in the worst case that will have zero play say opposite ♠AJ10xx or worse.

[mikeh]

5♣, and I don't understand why 5♦ should be construed as bad news.... if he makes that call, I bid 6♣ and he'll bid 7♥ on most hands on which that is a good contract: give him a bad hand such as A10xxxx Jx Axx Qx and we can see that the ♦A is good news, and surely (even tho he hates his hand) our sequence tells him that the ♣Q is golden.

 

If he bids 5♥, I bid 6... it may go down, especially if RHO doubles... but I'm not stopping out of slam here.

 

If he bids 5♠, I'll bid 6♣.. I won't bid 6♦ because he'll upgrade the wrong card: the ♦K... if he deduces that my non-keycard is on a void, he'd probably assume a spade void is at least a possibility.

 

So, strangely, my thought is that I really want a 5♦ call rather than a 5♠ call...

 

I think that there is a strong inferential argument that my bidding 6♣ promises a first round diamond control, but what I can't yet decide is whether this is consistent with my actual hand or something like void AKQ10xxx Axx AKx. In other words, is 6♣ looking for the ♦K or is it looking for the spade AK and the club Q?

 

I wish I was playing relay :o

[mike777]

6H

[Cascade]

I think that there is a strong inferential argument that my bidding 6♣ promises a first round diamond control, but what I can't yet decide is whether this is consistent with my actual hand or something like void AKQ10xxx Axx AKx. In other words, is 6♣ looking for the ♦K or is it looking for the spade AK and the club Q?

I am not so sure about the first round diamond inference but this is the problem with starting your cue-bids at such a high level.

 

You would bypass spades partner's suit with xx or void and how can partner possibly tell.

 

Maybe Justin's bash at 6♥ is better than all of this pseudo-science.

[han]

I couldn't see a good auction to a grand by cuebidding so I bid 4NT keycards. If partner had both aces I was going to bid 6C asking for a third round club control. Maybe even then we'd get to some pretty poor grands, so perhaps blasting to 6H was best.

 

Partner had only one ace but the absolute nuts:

 

AQxxx

J

K10

QJ10xx