5 or 6?

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk32hkda953caqt32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2c(Precision)p2d(Enquiry)p2s(Min%2C%205+C%2C%204S)p2n(enquiry)p3d(Shortage)p3h(Perhaps%20an%20error%3F)dpp4c(Forcing)p5cp]133|200[/hv]

 

3H was a prod.

 

Swiss Pairs, MPs converted to VPs.

 

What do you call here?

[Endymion77]

Partner has no first round heart control and failed to cue bid 4♠ en route to 5♣ so what does he have? QJxx QJx K KJxxx? Anyway, you have to pass now.

[mcphee]

Frankly I do not see this auction as at all normal. What is this 2c bid to start?

[Endymion77]

Frankly I do not see this auction as at all normal. What is this 2c bid to start?

 

Precision (11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs/4M). In this particular case, opener showed 5 clubs, 4 spades and a singleton or void in diamonds.

[kgr]

Precision (11-15 hcp, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs/4M). In this particular case, opener showed 5 clubs, 4 spades and a singleton or void in diamonds.

And min with 2S according to alert on bidding?

and no first round control in H because no RDBL?

and more minimum because of bidding 5C over 4C?

Something like?:

QJxx

QJx

J

KJxxx

Or is this also possible, or should he cue 4S with it?:

Axxx

QJx

J

KJxxx

Partner already showed a min with 2S, so I think partner should cue an Ace over 4C.

=> Pass

[Fluffy]

there is no way I am playing less than 6♣ after diamond short in front.

[Endymion77]

there is no way I am playing less than 6♣ after diamond short in front.

 

Why would you want to play in 6♣ off both major suit aces?

[gszes]

this is a matter of partnership trust p has denied a first round heart control

AND a first round spade control. NM what else they have in their hand we

should not be in 6 as the virtually certain heart lead will make it easy for the

defense to find the other ace no matter which of them holds it. I agree with

FLUFFY that there is enormous slam potential here but the bidding indicates

we should stop in 5c----------------If your p let you down in the bidding work on

the problem but do not punish them for getting the bidding right.

 

 

 

PASS

[uhhlv]

You ve control in all 4 suits. And with the diamond shortness you should have enough for 6 clubs if you have all but one KC. I expect that the decision between 5 or 6 would be very easy if you have asked partner for aces.

You ve written, that 4 ♣ is forcing. I think with 4 ♣ you wanna ask for cues. Cause partner bids 5 ♣ it seems that partner has no ♥ and ♠ control. So a pass might be obvious. But there are players which don´t cue with absolutly minimum. If your partner is one of those players you have a problem now. But nevertheless your problem is self-made.

Everything would be easier if you can ask for aces with 4♣ or 4♦.

[rhm]

Why would you want to play in 6♣ off both major suit aces?

Because it would not occur to me to open

 

QJxx

QJx

J

KJxxx

 

HCP can be deceptive.

 

and I might refuse to control bid with

 

Axxx

QJx

J

KJxxx

 

5♣ does not deny the ♠A but simply shows a hand not slam suitable in context.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Because it would not occur to me to open

 

QJxx

QJx

J

KJxxx

 

HCP can be deceptive.

 

and I might refuse to control bid with

 

Axxx

QJx

J

KJxxx

 

5♣ does not deny the ♠A but simply shows a hand not slam suitable in context.

Agree with Rainer. But since partner might have opened with QJxx QJx K KJxxx, I think 4♣ was a bad idea - just ask for aces. For once, this is everything you need to know about his hand. (Of course, this is assuming that you are playing 4NT as 1430, not 0341.)

[gnasher]

After 3♦ I'd bid 4♦, which sounds more of a demand for partner to cue-bid.

[Endymion77]

5♣ does not deny the ♠A but simply shows a hand not slam suitable in context.

 

This is where our opinions differ, to me 5♣ absolutely denies the spade ace. Opener's hand is already limited and the cue bid is mandatory.

 

If partner wanted me to just bid game when I have the ♠A and ♣K why bother with 4♣ at all? I obviously have no ♥A and I've shown the diamond shortness already?

[Fluffy]

Agree with Rainer. But since partner might have opened with QJxx QJx K KJxxx, I think 4♣ was a bad idea - just ask for aces. For once, this is everything you need to know about his hand. (Of course, this is assuming that you are playing 4NT as 1430, not 0341.)

After 3♦ I'd bid 4♦, which sounds more of a demand for partner to cue-bid.

Both this bids require further agreements since we never show club support, 2NT can be based on spade support or even long hearts.

[rhm]

This is where our opinions differ, to me 5♣ absolutely denies the spade ace. Opener's hand is already limited and the cue bid is mandatory.

 

If partner wanted me to just bid game when I have the ♠A and ♣K why bother with 4♣ at all? I obviously have no ♥A and I've shown the diamond shortness already?

I know it is a matter of style and I happen to believe the must cue bid style is popular but vastly inferior.

I want to be able to invite slam and I want to be able to warn against. People put too much stress on controls when the most challenging aspect of slams are tricks not controls.

If I bid 4♣ (which would be minorwood in my preferred system, but assume it is not) I am inviting not demanding. If I jump to 5♣ instead of 4♣, game will usually be challenging enough.

I also think you are interpreting too much into the 2♣-2♦-2♠ response and remark.

Even if opener could have bid something else with an exceptional good hand with 4 cards in spades within a precision context, surely the normal response response with 4 cards in spades will be 2♠.

In fact most systems of responses to precision 2♣ I have seen, the implication mentioned here is not even present.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mr1303]

The hand with QJxx Qxx Q KJxxx is an opening hand in our style. We rarely pass with 10 HCP.

[Endymion77]

In fact most systems of responses to precision 2♣ I have seen, the implication mentioned here is not even present.

 

No, the default is that 2♦ promises an invitational hand at least (11+) and you distinguish between a strong and a weak hand with 4 spades immediately. Obviously if you can have anywhere from a good 10 to a bad 16 when you open 2♣ and rebid 2♠, then a mandatory cue bid in this sequence won't work and should show extras.

 

If 4♣ is merely an invitation and you don't cuebid unless you accept the invitation, then 4♣ is wrong on the given hand. If you can't bid rkcb without agreeing clubs first, then 3♥ is wrong. Here's a suggestion for a playable scheme:

 

2♣ - 2♦

2♠ - 2NT (ask for shortness, GF as opposed to 3♠ which is invitational in spades)

3♦:

 

-- 3♥ (general force, looking for the best strain)

-- 3♠ (agrees spades, forcing to 4♠, demands cuebid with a weaker hand/'Serious 3NT' with a better hand)

-- 3NT (to play)

-- 4♣ - agrees clubs, slam invitational

-- 4♦ - rkcb for clubs

-- 4♥/4♠ - to play

[rhm]

The hand with QJxx Qxx Q KJxxx is an opening hand in our style. We rarely pass with 10 HCP.

My eyesight is bad, I can not even see 10 HCP (Rubens Kaplan values this as 9.0).

If 2♣ does not promise opening bid values, why do you claim it to be precision?

Maybe responder should invite game not slam?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nigel_k]

My eyesight is bad, I can not even see 10 HCP

Mine too, these things happen as we get older. Rose-tinted glasses will clear it right up though.

[gnasher]

Would QJxx Qx K KJ98xx be an opening bid?

[Endymion77]

Would QJxx Qx K KJ98xx be an opening bid?

 

Absolutely.

 

So what did opener have, after all?

[the hog]

there is no way I am playing less than 6♣ after diamond short in front.

 

Absolutely agree.

[PhilKing]

I'm bidding six. A couple of reasons:

 

1) If we play a mandatory cue-bidding style, I think I would have been informed.

 

2) I denied a standard set-clubs-and hear-a-cue-bid type of hand when I forgot to bid 4♣ on the previous round, so partner may believe I went down this route because I had a marginal try.

 

It rates to be decent or cold, and the chances that partner did not feel obliged to cue after we bid 3♥ are high.

[DJNeill]

6C. If my partner is random this is correct because he has to have the anti-perfecto not to make I think. If my partner is good, then this may be the wrong bid but it's a close one (and if good I would probably have more information about their tendencies but we were not provided anything).

[mr1303]

@Gnasher, yes.