cuebidding with minimums

[Fluffy]

♠K83

♥A

♦Q10653

♣Q863

 

1♠-(2♥)-3[HE)-(pass)

4♣-(pass)-??

 

 

No serious or frivolous 3NT apply here (for us), would you cue 4♥ or bid 4♠?

[bluecalm]

And what did 3♥ mean ?

Usually you have some kind of system to distinguish between GF and invitations.

Cuebid is automatic if I showed an invitation. If I showed inv+ or GF+ then it matter of agreements. I prefer playing that cuebid is not obligatory here but I have too little experience with wide range openers to be confident about this situation.

[andy_h]

Could I have bid 4S the last round?

[pooltuna]

♠K83

♥A

♦Q10653

♣Q863

 

1♠-(2♥)-3♥-(pass)

4♣-(pass)-??

 

 

No serious or frivolous 3NT apply here (for us), would you cue 4♥ or bid 4♠?

 

Cue bid?!?!?!?! help partner, who has already cuebid?!?!?!...ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! What do you think this is;... a partnership?? :D

[Fluffy]

3♥ = inv+

[andy_h]

Sorry I mis-read. I thought the guy had pre-empted 3H and we could have shown a 9-12 ish raise with a 4S jump. I don't think I would cue-bid. We have minimum in high cards and the Ace is in our shortage so I will sign off - there has to be line where we are just courtesy cueing or else we don't know what kind of extras we have (or lack thereof) and we'd be playing at the 5level. I would cue-bid however if my Ace was in another suit say diamonds so Kxx x AQxxx Qxxx.

[jillybean]

In my partnership we cue 4♥ here.

[gnasher]

In sequences where we've agreed a major but both players are unlimited, I think that the first player to initiate cue-bidding at a given level shows extra values, but cooperation at the same level doesn't.

 

In this sequence, opener's cue-bid shows extras, and responder should bid 4♥, not promising more than an invitation. If either player were to to go past 4♠, that would show more strength than they'd already promised.

 

Maybe it's time to discuss making use of 3NT?

[bluecalm]

In this sequence, opener's cue-bid shows extras, and responder should bid 4♥, not promising more than an invitation. If either player were to to go past 4♠, that would show more strength than they'd already promised.

[/Quote]

 

This agreement has this problem that if it goes:

 

4♣ - 4♥

4♠

 

Responder doesn't know if opener bid 4♠ because he hasn't any more extra value or because lack of diamond control makes slam impossible (so if responder has extra value he doesn't know if he could go beyond 4♠)

In general it's a big problem when both players are unlimited. Usually a sign that the system has bad design.

[gwnn]

This agreement has this problem that if it goes:

 

4♣ - 4♥

4♠

 

Responder doesn't know if opener bid 4♠ because he hasn't any more extra value or because lack of diamond control makes slam impossible (so if responder has extra value he doesn't know if he could go beyond 4♠)

In general it's a big problem when both players are unlimited. Usually a sign that the system has bad design.

if all responder needs is a ♦ control, he can bid 5♣ or 5♥. Of course that means we're on the 5 level, not ideal.

[bluecalm]

if all responder needs is a ♦ control, he can bid 5♣ or 5♥. Of course that means we're on the 5 level, not ideal.

 

We are different in a sense that I consider being on 5level in game hand as major disaster.

It's not that all responder needs is ♦ control. He may have significant extras but not slam force by any means. Now as partner invited a slam by cuebidding first he would like to cooperate but unfortunately we have no idea what was the reason for opener bidding 4♠. If one of the hands is limited then it's not that big of a problem because we know to what opener invited a slam.

If our hand is inv+ then we have no idea if opener has major powerhouse or just light slam invite which he considered obligatory to cue bid with because we might have been very strong for 3♥.

[gnasher]

We are different in a sense that I consider being on 5level in game hand as major disaster.

If merely being at the five-level is a major disaster, what do you call it when you reach the five-level and actually go down?

[aguahombre]

In sequences where we've agreed a major but both players are unlimited, I think that the first player to initiate cue-bidding at a given level shows extra values, but cooperation at the same level doesn't.

 

In this sequence, opener's cue-bid shows extras, and responder should bid 4♥, not promising more than an invitation. If either player were to to go past 4♠, that would show more strength than they'd already promised.

 

Maybe it's time to discuss making use of 3NT?

 

If making use of 3NT has already been discussed, then this could be changed to:

 

When we've agreed a major but both players are unlimited, there are the following choices ---

 

--Opener can decline the invite.

--Opener can accept the invite by bidding 4S.

--Opener can show show a little extra with a cuebid, which says "if YOU have GF, we should explore slam. This is not the same as a "courtesy" cue if we were already in a game force at the 3-level.

--Opener can bid 3NT to say "I am interested in slam opposite your invite".

 

Or, your agreement could be to reverse the meanings of the cue and of 3NT. (Notice I don't dare to use "serious, non-serious, frivolous, etc"; those terms are used and abused enough.)

[jogs]

4♠. 3♥ was already an overbid. Should promise limit raise or better with four card support.

I like 1♠ - (2♥) - X to show limit raise or better with only three card support. In a contested auction nobody cares about the minors.