Guest Jlall Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 All of this relies, however, on what inferences can be derived from the opponents' cuebidding style. Hence, why I asked the question initially (but got no answers). That is because the opponents had never played together before. FWIW, I was the 4H bidders and did not have the CK because I assumed partner would not cuebid a stiff club after my 2C bid so we could still have a slam. Partner signed off and slam was STILL pretty good lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 All of this relies, however, on what inferences can be derived from the opponents' cuebidding style. Hence, why I asked the question initially (but got no answers). That is because the opponents had never played together before. FWIW, I was the 4H bidders and did not have the CK because I assumed partner would not cuebid a stiff club after my 2C bid so we could still have a slam. Partner signed off and slam was STILL pretty good lol. LOL! Well, that info would definitely be important. "What kind of cues do you use?""Ummmmmmmm........""Never mind." [small club] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 All of this relies, however, on what inferences can be derived from the opponents' cuebidding style. Hence, why I asked the question initially (but got no answers). That is because the opponents had never played together before. FWIW, I was the 4H bidders and did not have the CK because I assumed partner would not cuebid a stiff club after my 2C bid so we could still have a slam. Partner signed off and slam was STILL pretty good lol. LOL! Well, that info would definitely be important. "What kind of cues do you use?""Ummmmmmmm........""Never mind." [small club] I was also worried that my 4H bid would be interpretted by partner as showing a club control and we would get to slam off the AK of clubs, however my hand seemed too good to sign off in 4S as we might miss slam if partner had a stiff club. What is the kenrexford solution, to cuebid shortness in partner's suit or something else? My hand was like... AKJ9 of spades and Kx of hearts and maybe a little other stuff but those were the main features. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I was also worried that my 4H bid would be interpretted by partner as showing a club control and we would get to slam off the AK of clubs, however my hand seemed too good to sign off in 4S as we might miss slam if partner had a stiff club. What is the kenrexford solution, to cuebid shortness in partner's suit or something else? My hand was like... AKJ9 of spades and Kx of hearts and maybe a little other stuff but those were the main features. Let's see. You had something like ♠AKJ9 ♥Kx ♦Qx ♣Qxxxx? MAybe a Jack or two? Partner opened 1♥ and you bid 2♣. So far so good. Partner bid 2♠ and you bid 3♠. Also good, although the preemptioin sucks. The Flannery or no Flannery question pops up, as does the GP as to whether the 2♠ rebid otherwise shows something interesting. Anyway... Opener now bids 4♦. I'll assume Serious 3NT was in place. So, he does not have serious interest and he does not have a club honor, but he might have club shortness. All true. I would not cue shortness either. I would (picture) splinter into shortness possessed by partner, but that's not available here. So, you imagined something like ♠Qxxx ♥AQJxx ♦AJx ♣x, maybe. Fair enough. Partner might have just bid 4♠ the first time otherwise. As a result, you bid 4♥ LTTC. Good bid. You were worried that this showed a club control. I agree that it smells bad. This seems like where that Lackwood thing comes in handy, but you obviously did not have any agreement that detailed. But, partner would probably be right for a 5♦ or 5♥ cue when he lacks a club control, or could cue 5♣ with a nice-looking club stiff (contextually). So, if you trust partner, then the auction is perfectly good by "Rexford" style standards. I'd have the exact same solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 This seems like where that Lackwood thing comes in handy, but you obviously did not have any agreement that detailed. But, partner would probably be right for a 5♦ or 5♥ cue when he lacks a club control, or could cue 5♣ with a nice-looking club stiff (contextually). So, if you trust partner, then the auction is perfectly good by "Rexford" style standards. I'd have the exact same solution. Yes I also thought partner with a great hand in context and no club control would just cuebid 5 of a red suit and we could stop opposite xx clubs with 5 level safety. The apocalypse is now coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 This seems like where that Lackwood thing comes in handy, but you obviously did not have any agreement that detailed. But, partner would probably be right for a 5♦ or 5♥ cue when he lacks a club control, or could cue 5♣ with a nice-looking club stiff (contextually). So, if you trust partner, then the auction is perfectly good by "Rexford" style standards. I'd have the exact same solution. Yes I also thought partner with a great hand in context and no club control would just cuebid 5 of a red suit and we could stop opposite xx clubs with 5 level safety. The apocalypse is now coming. Like my Kool-aid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.