cue or not ?

[benlessard]

[hv=d=s&s=sakxxhxxxdqxxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1C-----1H

1S-----4C (splint)

???

[dicklont]

No, there is no cue below game.

[jdonn]

If partner had responded 1♦ I would but not now. He would need a lot like Qxxx AKQxx KTx x, and even that is hoping for some fair breaks.

 

Of course I would have rebid 1NT though, never 1♠ with this shape.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&s=sakxxhxxxdqxxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1C-----1H

1S-----4C (splint)

???

4♠

[shyams]

This may sound crazy but I feel the urge to cue 4♦! Yes, I know I do not have 1st/2nd round control; but once I cue, the opps are equally in the dark about it. Their natural lead will most likely be a club or a trump.

 

Yes, I realise partner still needs to put down a strong hand etc; but there is no harm investigating.

[Siegmund]

If I had a cuebid to make I'd make it.

 

Qxx even in a suit partner has bid doesn't count as one of those for me.

[kenrexford]

First, I agree wholeheartedly with Josh that 1NT seems obvious, but some people bid 4-card majors in their style, so whatever.

 

In this actual auction, I would sign off, for one major reason.

 

Partner has forced me into an auction where cues mean controls. Had there been only one cue available between the splinter and game, the cue would be Last Train, and this hand would be appropriate for Last Train. However, in this sequence, partner's call makes both red-suit calls look like true cues, and that suggests that he needs true cues.

 

If the partnership happened to have an agreement where 4♦ was a true cue and 4♥ simply LTTC, and had discussed this, then 4♥ would be my call. Or, if 4♦ was strangely LTTC, same. Either one seems remote.

 

Contrast this auction with partner's option of a 4SF 2♦ (presumably), prior to agreeing spades. That would have allowed more fine-tuning calls. If partner did not want a perfecto, or a non-perfecto with a diamond or heart cue available, he should have avoided 4♣ for this alternative option, I think.

 

I mean, think how nice the auction could have been:

 

1♣-P-1♥-P-

1♠-P-2♦-P-

2♥-p-2♠

 

Nice start. Partner checks on my heart length before setting spades as trumps. If I had fewer hearts, we'd end up agreeing spades at the three-level, but with that extra info available.

 

After 2♠, in my personal methods I could "cue" 3♠ to promise two of the top three spades, deny two of the top three clubs, deny a diamond control, and deny a heart card. Partner could perhaps cue 3NT as serious, allowing me to cue the club Ace. so much better.

 

Other plausible auction types would also give partner more intel. The point, though, is that partner's choice of two routes to invite slame should have taken into account my likely problem. If I have no solution, then partner's call choice suggests that I don't try to manufacture one. he boxed me in for a reason.

 

If I am wrong, because partner doesn't think that way, then we will discuss this as an interesting learning hand.

[cherdanno]

The controls are nice, but the ♣A is misplaced, our clubs are too short (meaning we can't ruff a red suit loser), the ♦Q is misplaced, and we have the dead holding in partner's suit. Yes I know I have some duplication of values in the previous sentence but still I don't think the 3 keycards make up for that. Switch the red suits and it is an easy 4♥ I think.