Cuebidding Problems

[kaitlink]

My partner and I are learning to play 2/1, and we had this come up the other day in a team game. I had

 

♠KT8 ♥AQJxxx ♦xxx ♣A

 

and my partner opened (at vulnerable vs not)

 

1♠-2♥

3♣-3♠

4♣-4♥

4♠-?

 

We agreed that 3♣ showed a non-minimum opener. Was 4♥ the right bid? (I thought it was a cuebid, not natural). What should I do over 4♠?

[Cascade]

I would raise to 5♠ highlighting the lack of diamond control and inviting slam.

 

Perhaps you can cue-bid 5♣ but someone is going to have to make a decision at some point.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3S set the trump suit, and it also showes a hand with (some) slam

interest.

Hence 4C and 4H are cue bids, both showing obviously values.

Depending on agreement opener could have bid 3NT (serious 3NT),

which would have showed real slam interest, the consequence being

that limits openers hand.

 

The 4H cue also denies a diamond control, partners 4S bid, said that

he does not move beyond 4S, and since you have a min for your

bidding so fae, I would pass.

 

In the context of serious 3NT, pass is clear cut, if you dont have this

agreement, it is a matter of personal style, but I would still pass.

Not playing serious 3NT => the 4H cue should also show real slam

interest.

 

Add. remark: If opener did have a diamond control, than it may have

been a better idea to bid 4D (because you can assume, he has a club

control).

Given that he is 5-4, you could also agree that a cue in the 3rd suit

(not partners suit !!!) showes a shortage.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

5♠, for the reasons explained by Wayne.

[bill1157]

I would raise to 5♠ highlighting the lack of diamond control and inviting slam.

 

Perhaps you can cue-bid 5♣ but someone is going to have to make a decision at some point.

but might that not suggest 2nd round control in ♦ and ask for trump quality?

I think pass at this point (partner having bid 4♠) is right. On these forums you see so many ATB cue bidding sequences where neither partner will let it drop and they end up too high, even after it is clear that slam is unlikely.

Here you might even be held to 4 if pd also has 3♦'s

 

Bill

[kenrexford]

Hi,

 

3S set the trump suit, and it also showes a hand with (some) slam

interest.

Hence 4C and 4H are cue bids, both showing obviously values.

Depending on agreement opener could have bid 3NT (serious 3NT),

which would have showed real slam interest, the consequence being

that limits openers hand.

 

The 4H cue also denies a diamond control, partners 4S bid, said that

he does not move beyond 4S, and since you have a min for your

bidding so fae, I would pass.

 

In the context of serious 3NT, pass is clear cut, if you dont have this

agreement, it is a matter of personal style, but I would still pass.

Not playing serious 3NT => the 4H cue should also show real slam

interest.

 

Add. remark: If opener did have a diamond control, than it may have

been a better idea to bid 4D (because you can assume, he has a club

control).

Given that he is 5-4, you could also agree that a cue in the 3rd suit

(not partners suit !!!) showes a shortage.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Agree.

 

Here's a good rule to keep in mind. The person who bids game, which sure sounds like a sign-off, is the person charged with making aggressive moves if he has the obvious hole covered.

 

In other words, 4♠ sure sounds like a signoff motivated by the lack of any diamond control, right? You can have a combined 33 HCP, but missing A-K in diamonds is killer for slam consideration. So, partner sounds like he is signing off.

 

But, you think, "Maybe we still have enough, but partner could not bid past game with his stated values."

 

If partner has a hand with slam prospects in this sequence, with a diamond control, he makes the decision whether to enter the five-level, and his decision rules. If he is aggressive, and that costs, so be it. If he has a diamond control and is passive, so be it. But, it is his call when a clear hole has emerged in the discourse.