How Good Are You?

[kfay]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxha10xxxdxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥-2♦

3♣-3♥

?[/hv]

 

2♦ is GF and 3♥ sets trumps.

 

Do you cue this sucker?

[Winstonm]

Yes, but more inclined if using some form of serious 3N bid. Without serious 3N, there is a slight risk that partner may take me for a better hand, but this minimum is about a slammish as any minimum could possibly be so it is worth the slight risk, IMO.

[mike777]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxha10xxxdxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥-2♦

3♣-3♥

?[/hv]

 

2♦ is GF and 3♥ sets trumps.

 

Do you cue this sucker?

200% cue this sucker..I would cue with less :)

 

4c cue not 3s

 

zero percent need for any type of 3nt bid.. me thinks :)

 

AGain I cuebid with less than this. Partner knows we open this hand or less.

If not then we should never bid one heart. :)

[sceptic]

I cant see why you should not, your pard has forced to game and sset ur suit, you had a chance to show more hearts (if you had them) but bid clubs, he never stopped the bidding by going to 4 hearts so he is still looking for info give him one last bit of info before shutting up after his (possibly expected clu or damond cue bid) if he bids 4NT then you can describe your hand and end at the 5 level, which he is happy to play over by bidding 3hearts not 4 hearts (imho)

 

3 spades for me

[the hog]

Excuse me but did I really overstate the value of my hand by at least an Ace with my odious 3C bid?

Well, I guess if I have already misbid so badly, I do hope that I am at least playing Frivolous or Serious 3NT. If not, I don't cue as my partner will expect a better hand.

So Mike777 would cue with less? Mike given some of your Roth-Stoneish posts, I am surprised you would even open this hand.

[mike777]

Excuse me but did I really overstate the value of my hand by at least an Ace with my odious 3C bid?

Well, I guess if I have already misbid so badly, I do hope that I am at least playing Frivolous or Serious 3NT. If not, I don't cue as my partner will expect a better hand.

So Mike777 would cue with less? Mike given some of your Roth-Stoneish posts, I am surprised you would even open this hand.

i play many systems.....

 

 

I assumed on this hand one heart is a legal system bid......I assume 3c is a legal system bid not showing extras....( i play this style with many pards) they assume i have some junky 11 pts so far..:)

 

I agree if playing r/s this in not close to 1h :)

 

btw I disagree with cueing 3s I would cue 4c easy....again I could have far less if I open lite.

[Winstonm]

did I really overstate the value of my hand by at least an Ace with my odious 3C bid?

 

I was being polite and trying to ignore this. :)

[kenrexford]

What to do next is a matter of partnership agreements after this point, as well as partnership agreements that have resulted in us reaching this point.

 

Hard to say, therefore.

 

Please consider adding in some parameters:

 

1. Is your 2/1 style such that 3♣ could be bid with a bare minimum?

 

2. Does the partnership use Serious 3NT (or 3♠), or frivolous 3NT (or friv 3♠), or neither?

 

3. Does the partnership use Last Train?

 

4. How sound are your openings?

 

5. Does partner's 3♥ call show something different (if so, what) than had he bid 4♥, and did he have any other options at this point to raise hearts (if so, what)?

 

Oh Yeah -- what kind of cuebidding do you use???

[han]

I'd cue, this hand has great potential opposite a fit.

 

I think some readers might find the initial post offensive Kevin.

[whereagles]

Don't agree with this 2/1 style, but given I did bid 3♣, I think I'll just bid 4♣ now.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Yes.

 

I have a nice club suit, and even the diamond length

may help.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kfay]

Playing in a large sectional team game on Saturday I cued this hand sitting South and quickly chalked up 13-some-odd IMPs when the other table raised 3♥ to game.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saxhkxxdaqxxxcqjx&s=sxha10xxxdxxcakxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♥-2♦

3♣-3♥

4♣-4♦

4♥-4♠

4NT-5♦

6♥[/hv]

 

In fact ♥QJ fell doubleton and with the ♦K onside we made 7.

 

The woman sitting at the other table who held my cards, while a client, was no slouch.

 

There's two reasons I'm posting this hand. #1 is that even though this hand is a 'minimum' in HCP, the controls are just so great that it looks way more slammish than quite a few other hands whose HCP's seem a bit more attractive.

 

By the way I really don't understand why people have a problem with the 3♣ bid... we do have a 5-card suit headed by the AK. Any other bid is a little over my head, but that's off-topic.

 

Another point is that I agree with Mike that this is a 4♣ cue rather than a 3♠ cue. The auction becomes much more attractive to partner because we know s/he's wondering about the club situation. Imagine what happens if we cue 3♠

 

3♠-4♦

4♥-... "@#$%"

 

The point is that partner is a bit in the dark here. While his Ax of spades looks great this looks a lot worse than:

 

4♣-4♦

4♥-4♠

 

in my opinion because partner can reasonably assume we're safe at the 5-level. But looking at my hand I know that partner can't cue 4♣ over 3♠ and so this information will be lost, so you don't want to just cue your lowest control but the control that partner WANTS to hear. This is an issue that is sometimes lost these days, I think, when people learn what a cuebid is and just start cuebidding singletons, kings and what-have-yous all over the place without much foresight for where the auction will go afterwards.

[whereagles]

By the way I really don't understand why people have a problem with the 3♣ bid... we do have a 5-card suit headed by the AK.  Any other bid is a little over my head, but that's off-topic.

Some people (me included) recommend not to go over 2♥ with a min hand, even if shapely. That's just it.

[jdonn]

Oddly enough, even though I don't think the hand is good enough for 3♣, if I did bid it I would cuebid 4♣ next anyway. It has really good slam potential.

[ArtK78]

I agree with the cue bid.

 

I would not be particularly proud of bidding this slam. It is less than 50%. If you pick up the trump suit for one loser, you need the ♦K onside. And there will be times when you do not pick up the trump suit for one loser - more often than picking up the trump suit for 5 winners. And, of course, there are the chances of a club ruff to add into the mix, however small.

[mike777]

I agree with Art this seems to be an under 50% slam.

 

But to the main theme which is if you rebid shape not strength after a 2/1 as in this thread and partner makes a slam try, my partners tell me I must cuebid if I have something more than a dead minimum or a subminimum opening bid. This hand is more than a dead minimum 1h opener so I must cue. This style also means that responder having a balanced 16 hcp and only 3 card support is minimum for his bidding. Tough hand.

 

I wanted to add that it has been mentioned often here in the forums that this is a minority style for most expert players. It has been stated most experts show strength of hand first, in this example by rebidding the 5 card major after a 2/1.

 

So the bidding might go:

1h=2d

2h=3h(slam try)

4c=4d

4h=??

[Cascade]

I would have thought that if partner agrees trumps at the three-level then a cue below game is compulsory. There are many hands where the right cue will allow partner to take control but it you think you can show some discretion and bypass a cue then partner will not think that he can venture the five-level.

 

If you combine mandatory cues with serious/frivolous 3NT or similar or LTTC then you can achieve significant slam exploration below four of your trump suit.

[kenrexford]

Another point is that I agree with Mike that this is a 4♣ cue rather than a 3♠ cue. The auction becomes much more attractive to partner because we know s/he's wondering about the club situation. Imagine what happens if we cue 3♠

 

3♠-4♦

4♥-... "@#$%"

 

The point is that partner is a bit in the dark here. While his Ax of spades looks great this looks a lot worse than:

 

4♣-4♦

4♥-4♠

 

in my opinion because partner can reasonably assume we're safe at the 5-level. But looking at my hand I know that partner can't cue 4♣ over 3♠ and so this information will be lost, so you don't want to just cue your lowest control but the control that partner WANTS to hear. This is an issue that is sometimes lost these days, I think, when people learn what a cuebid is and just start cuebidding singletons, kings and what-have-yous all over the place without much foresight for where the auction will go afterwards.

Here's the problem with your logic, as I see it.

 

We have just agreed hearts after each side has bid a minor. You cuebid 4♣ because you think that partner wants to know that you have club control, and that cuebidding 3♠ will induce a 4♦ call, one that bypasses your ability to cuebid clubs.

 

First of all, as a general rule, the most important control in any slam auction is that in the unbid suit. One can reasonably guess that there is a likelihood that the person who bids a suit probably has the Ace or King of that suit, especially as the lack of the Ace or King of that suit might be a good reason to avoid bidding that suit if another option presents itself. Your approach was the only approach to make cuebidding that control (spades) impossible below game.

 

Second, your decision somewhat suggests the lack of a spade control. Had partner not held the Ace of spades himself, he might have just signed off after 4♣. Of course, this is a nuance that you could correct by cuebidding 4♠, but then are you strong enough to force the five-level? This is, in a sense, the tails side of the coin of bypassing the one most important cue -- the fourth suit cue.

 

Third, the premise is all wrong. Why would partner bypass 4♣ to cuebid 4♦ if he needs a club control? He would bid 3NT, whatever that means, presumably. If 3NT is an offer to play in this sequence, then there is a partial problem, but then his 4♦ call should ask about the club control, logically, such that you would not "sign off" after 4♦, because you have the club control.

 

This, of course, begs a question. Why would 4♦ ask for a club control after a 3♠ cue but not ask for a spade control after a 4♣ cue? Well, redundancy, for one. If you have two ways to show both black-suit controls (3♠ and accept 4♦ or 4♣ and accept 4♦), then you have a dumb approach. One of these should ask for the missing control and one should ask something else. The strange thing is that partner's 4♦, after your 4♣, does not show a diamond control -- it shows a spade control. Because bypassing 3♠ infers an inability to cue spades, then Responder, who must have at least one control to be interested, better have that control as a spade control or there is no sense to cuebidding at all. If he lacks a diamond control, however, what is he to do? Cuebid 4♠ and bypass game? No -- he "cuebids" 4♦ to show the necessary control (spades) but a need for the control no one has yet shown (diamonds). Strange, but important as a principle.

 

An approach wherein one would "cuebid" 4♣ instead of 3♠ is, IMO, a style that is not truly cuebidding. 4♣ would only make sense if meant as somewhat natural. "I have some slam aspirations, and I like my clubs." This is, in a sense, a simple, natural slam try. That's not a cuebid.

 

There may be merits to that approach. If that is the approach, then 4♦ would seem, strangely, to seek a spade control. A "Last Train" bid, if you will, in response to a natural slam try. But, again, then you would not pass 4♦, because you have it -- the fourth suit control.

[skjaeran]

I'd cue 3♠ now.

 

4♣ would 100% deny a spade control for me. If partner bypasses 3NT (which would be serious for me), I'd pass 4♥ or sign off over 4♦.

[1eyedjack]

Am I the only one who thinks that North is worth another try over a simple 4H bid by South? (1H-2D-3C-3H-4H...)

 

May be it is a style issue that depends on your expectations of a 3C bid.