a cue-bidding sequence using common sense

[CSGibson]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq72hk64d74ckj52&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1hp2cp3cp3hp3sp4hp5cp]133|200[/hv]

 

First some background: You are playing with a forum regular with no discussion about cue-bidding or slam tries in general beyond 1430 with specific kings. You have not discussed serious/non-serious 3N, or anything else which would inform you as to the specifics of this auction. Do you agree with your sequence so far? What do you do now?

[fromageGB]

I wouldn't like to start with 2♣ without having agreements, and would prefer 1♠.

In the given sequence, after 3♠ you are committed to a club contract, I would have thought, and I would have bid 4♣, not being strong enough to go higher, let alone in a suit in which I do not have second round control.

In the sequence, after 5♣ I pass.

[JLOGIC]

2C is fine. 3H is fine.

 

After that it is tough with no agreements. Did 2C show 4+ or 3+ or 2+? With no agreements I would rule out 2+, I'm not sure if a random forum expert would expect 2C with 3343 or 2D.

 

Anyways, I would be surprised if partner raised clubs with 3, that seems like a silly way to bid to me. So I will assume I showed 4+ clubs and partner showed 4+ clubs. We do not know if partner would splinter with a min or not.

 

Over 3S I would probably have bid 4C. My hand is not horrible, and I also have good clubs in case we want to play 6C which is not unlikely to be better than 6H. I understand 4H though not playing any form of serious or non serious, someone has to limit their hand and stop cuebidding at some point.

 

5C seems like a bid to torture me. I have no idea why someone would make a bid like that undiscussed. It is open to interpretation I suppose, I would guess partner had no first round spade control, and thus a diamond control and first round club control. With a first round spade control I would expect 4S, with no first round spade control and no diamond control I'd expect pass, etc.

 

I would now bid 5S, I have a monster hand for a 4H signoff. I am confused what partners hand is to not splinter and then not bid keycard, but whatever hes doing I have a big one in context and would try for grand and probably accept grand slam tries.

 

5S is also a practical bid, even if we are misreading partners 5C bid, he cannot misread ours: We have first round spade control and a great hand in context of not cuebidding over 3S (aka in context of a minimum). That is exactly what we have. There is not really any chance partner has no diamond control given how strong our holdings are in the other suits, he would always have passed 4H since he cant have enough.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1H ( 5 card Majors ) - 2C! ( 4+♣, 2/1 GF for me )

3C ( 4+♣ ) - 3H ( 3 cards, now showing a double-fit )

3S ( 1st or 2nd Rnd Ctrl, could be shortness; says nothing about "Seriousness" ) - 3NT! ( surely NOT "to play" )

??

.. If 4C, this may be a "waiting" bid; so, you then bid 4H denying a ♦-Ctrl

.. If 4D cue, then Responder can bid 4S! ( 6 Ace kickback-RKC for ♥ & ♣: this is for Aguahombre )

...... ( 4D should be a Ctrl and NOT "last train" since a 4C bid was available )

[jogs]

I'm with fromage, start with 1♠. Would only bid 2♣ with 5 clubs and 4 spades. Since I disagree with the first call, the continuation makes no sense to me.

[Siegmund]

I would have started with 1S like several others.. But taking 1H-2C-3C-3H as given, in my world hearts are unambiguously trump, and over 3S I bid 4C. If we are in a strictly aces-first world, maybe I have to bid 4H; if so I am ending the auction at 5H over 5C since we seem to have two fast diamond losers.

[twoshy]

Could partner have Kx, AQJxx, Qx, AQxx? I don't think so, that would be at best on a finesse if we didn't have 4/5 of the A/Ks, with which we should cuebid (and I'd cuebid previously on your hand). So 5♠ for me.

 

I'm with fromage, start with 1♠. Would only bid 2♣ with 5 clubs and 4 spades. Since I disagree with the first call, the continuation makes no sense to me.

 

What are you talking about, you'd respond 2♣ on the same hand but 3=3=3=4, right? You'll still have the same problem of working out partner's hand and/or intentions. Thanks for sharing your insight.

[JLOGIC]

starting with 1s is absolutely hopeless

[CSGibson]

Justin - since partner was cue-bidding with 3♠, why would he cue bid the same control again with 4♠? Is this just a chance for him to hear about my hand in case I don't have a diamond control, rather than endplaying me into guessing what's going on with 5♣?

 

Also, would a direct raise to 5♥ over 4 suggest no diamond control by partner? That thought entered my head as a possibility, but I wasn't willing to entertain it much beyond the initial thought - it seemed to convoluted to make that assumption opposite a relative unknown.

[kenrexford]

I agree with almost everything Justin posted above, except for the final conclusion. I take partner at his word. He seems to be cuebidding in a way to isolate a diamond problem, and I lack a diamond control. Maybe he has KJ-AQJxx-QJ-AQxx. Maybe he has void-AQJxxx-QJ-AQxxx. Whatever. But, I really want to sign off. Now, IMO, there SHOULD probably be the ability to use 5D as slam last train, showing extras without a diamond control, perhaps, but I just sign off now. And, to underline one point of agreement, 1S is hopeless.

[the_clown]

I think partner is interested whether or not I have ♦ control so I am bidding 5♥. If he wanted to invite he would have bid 5♥ or just asked for keycards. I agree I have a very good hand for my bidding, but since my partner had taken control of the auction, I will just tell him whether I have ♦control or not.

[Yu18772]

I like 2♣ and would cue 4♣, but in any case, imo - in the simple world of undiscussed cuebidding partner shows a real slam interest if we have a ♦ control.

I dont have one, so sign off in 5♥. If partner shows what Justin said - it might be right but it is not simple.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

[32519]

I see the hand differently to what others have already said.

 

Not having discussed Serious / Non-Serious 3NT, I would interpret 3♠ as a singleton or void, slam interest with a double suit fit. 4♥ denies any ♦ controls, yet North pushed on past 4♥, surely indicating a ♠ void and the needed ♦ control.

 

I would bid 5NT now as “pick a slam.”

[ByChechi]

I play 1♥-3♦ as game try(13+HPC) in short (xx-) collor ....

Now I think my P search control ♦ - 5♥!....

But after 3♣/P , i will say 3♠ , following up with ♥.

.....maybe we have 7cl , NOT 7he..... :)[hv=pc=n&s=saq74hk75d74ckj65&n=s5haqj84da62caqt4]133|200[/hv]

[rhm]

I agree with almost everything Justin posted above, except for the final conclusion. I take partner at his word. He seems to be cuebidding in a way to isolate a diamond problem, and I lack a diamond control. Maybe he has KJ-AQJxx-QJ-AQxx. Maybe he has void-AQJxxx-QJ-AQxxx. Whatever. But, I really want to sign off. Now, IMO, there SHOULD probably be the ability to use 5D as slam last train, showing extras without a diamond control, perhaps, but I just sign off now. And, to underline one point of agreement, 1S is hopeless.

I would expect in both of your examples that a good player would bid 5H, which unambiguously asks for diamond control, though I would have splintered with the second hand over 2C.

Bidding anything else in such a context (like 5C or 5D) is hopeless. A good player should not have these hands and should have control of diamonds.

I agree with Justin that 5C is a torture bid. Maybe he holds void-AQJxxx-Kx-AQxxx and wants to see whether we can bid 5D, but I would not have the nerves bidding like that in an unfamiliar partnership. .

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

I would expect in both of your examples that a good player would bid 5H, which unambiguously asks for diamond control, though I would have splintered with the second hand over 2C.

Bidding anything else in such a context (like 5C or 5D) is hopeless. A good player should not have these hands and should have control of diamonds.

I agree with Justin that 5C is a torture bid. Maybe he holds void-AQJxxx-Kx-AQxxx and wants to see whether we can bid 5D, but I would not have the nerves bidding like that in an unfamiliar partnership. .

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Pray tell why 5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control, when a lot of folks would bid around a hole and thereby be in their minds unambiguous? ♥ We are talking, I believe, about an undiscussed situiation.

 

Also, people tend to not splinter with voids. Not all, but many.

[gszes]

1h 2c

3c 3h

 

this has set hearts as the trump suit. If we reach slam level we

can offer clubs as an alternative to hearts or nt but until then we

are playing hearts. The remainder of the bidding must be viewed

through this prism. w/o serious/nonserious 3n after 3s we have to

"cuebid" 4c. Failure to do so may doom any grand slam exploration

before we even get started. There is no reason to stop cue bidding

below game level just because you are minimum. Just do not cue

bid beyond game with a min if not cuebidding is a reasonable

alternative.

 

 

I disagree with 4h over 3s

 

opener is now making 1 last slam try (they must have dia control

and are denying 1st round spade control) asking us if we have

anything "interesting" spade A is indeed interesting and since we

failed to cue bid 4c our club K is also "interesting" I would cue bid

5s and let p choose which slam we play. If we miss 7 our missed

opportunity to bid 4c might be the reason.

[32519]

I agree with almost everything Justin posted above, except for the final conclusion. I take partner at his word. He seems to be cuebidding in a way to isolate a diamond problem, and I lack a diamond control. Maybe he has KJ-AQJxx-QJ-AQxx. Maybe he has void-AQJxxx-QJ-AQxxx. Whatever. But, I really want to sign off. Now, IMO, there SHOULD probably be the ability to use 5D as slam last train, showing extras without a diamond control, perhaps, but I just sign off now. And, to underline one point of agreement, 1S is hopeless.

 

If this analysis of yours turns out to be correct (the ♦ issue), then I would think that partner has the Ace or King of ♦ and is searching for the other top honour in search of a grand slam (either ♥ or ♣).

[kenrexford]

Look, we are trying to figure out contextually the mind of a partner with whom we have no agreements, including no agreements on what 3NT would have meant. This is a somewhat random exercise, to a degree. However, assuming that partner must have a diamond control to be interested seems bizarre, because it is not necessary. Moreover, the auction is clearly one where a spade splinter would have been difficult (would have to jump to 4♠, which sounds like something other than a splinter perhaps). So, if partner can have a hand with short spades, slam interest, and no diamond control, whioch he can have, I do not understand this insistence that he must have a diamond control (and maybe even might be looking for a grand).

[32519]

I fully agree that 4♠ after 3♥ would be ambiguous. In the actual bidding sequence up to that point, is it?

1. Kickback for ♥?

2. Exclusion for ♥, void in ♠?

3. Splinter bid?

4. Something else?

 

North was forced to make a “temporising” bid. 3♠ for me is still a cue-bid promising first or second round control in ♠. North still has slam ambitions.

 

Over 4♥ North pushed on to 5♣. Why would he want to play in game in a minor versus game in a major? You have to take an extra trick for an inferior score. Freely bidding on over 4♥ probably shows first round control in ♠. With South holding the Ace it must surely be a void?

 

What must South do now? The first bid of 4♥ has already denied a ♦ control. If North’s ♦ control is the King and not the Ace, you don’t want to be in a ♣ slam with the ♦ lead through the North hand. Having said that, South can bid 5NT as “pick a slam” or bid the ♥ slam directly (not the ♣ slam).

 

Pays your money and makes yer pick.

[gnasher]

Pray tell why 5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control, when a lot of folks would bid around a hole and thereby be in their minds unambiguous?

 

5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control because there is no other meaning for it in common use. The fact that some people believe that some other sequence also asks for a diamond control doesn't affect the meaning of this one.

[kenrexford]

5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control because there is no other meaning for it in common use. The fact that some people believe that some other sequence also asks for a diamond control doesn't affect the meaning of this one.

 

Yes, there is. Asking for good trumps is a common understanding, as well. Granted, RKCB seems to handle that as well, but not with a void.

 

On a different deal, give partner something like ♠-- ♥Jxxxxx ♦Ax ♣AKQxx. He cues the spade control, but we do not cooperate. He wanted to bid Exclusion, but he was not sure that would be on. So, he bids 5♥ as Invitational Josephine.

[fromageGB]

starting with 1s is absolutely hopeless

2♣ is fine and my bid too with a regular partner, but without agreement on continuations I think it liable to be taken to be a 5 card suit or longer. I would then take 3♣ as insisting on clubs as trumps. Once you go down this line it could get irretrievable when you have different interpretations of the bids.

 

It all hinges on that "no discussion on anything". I think 1♠ is safer.

[Fluffy]

Yes, there is. Asking for good trumps is a common understanding, as well. Granted, RKCB seems to handle that as well, but not with a void.

 

On a different deal, give partner something like ♠-- ♥Jxxxxx ♦Ax ♣AKQxx. He cues the spade control, but we do not cooperate. He wanted to bid Exclusion, but he was not sure that would be on. So, he bids 5♥ as Invitational Josephine.

 

If partner has a problem with trumps he bids 5♦ to show it.

[rhm]

Pray tell why 5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control, when a lot of folks would bid around a hole and thereby be in their minds unambiguous? ♥ We are talking, I believe, about an undiscussed situiation.

 

Also, people tend to not splinter with voids. Not all, but many.

Because for a long time the standard meaning of raising a major freely to the 5 level has been asking for control of the unbid suit or if opponents have bid in their suit.

I am surprised that you do not know this. Examples that this is standard treatment among experts can be found in the MSC of the BW.

 

Rainer Herrmann