atb

[manudude03]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj8ha9dqt76ca974&n=sakt962hkj6da93cq&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp2cp2sp3sp4dp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Fairly basic 2/1 system. 3NT by North over 3S would have been a serious slam try. Assign the blame.

 

Both players arguments below:

North:- South's 3S shows a mild slam try. Once North bids 4D, South with 2 aces should give a cuebid.

South:- 3S is simply showing a non-descript hand with support. Once North bypasses 3NT, the hand isn't good enough to co-operate.

[Jinksy]

Maybe it depends on how serious your serious slam tries are, but why is someone with 3 keycards, 6ish HCP to spare for their bidding and at least 6 playing tricks criticising someone with 2 keycards, a jack spare for their bidding and about 3 playing tricks for not pushing harder for slam than they did?

 

Aces are useful cards, but they don't work miracles.

[helene_t]

I don't understand how 3♠ can be a mild try. What to do with a real slam try?

 

Agree with S.

 

Edit: Aqua, just to clarify: I have no issues with the 3♠ bid, only with the assumption that it is limited to a mil slam try.

Edited September 21, 2014 by helene_t

[Bbradley62]

What would 3♠ have shown over 2♣, rather than 2♠?

What would 4♥ over 4♦ have implied/shown that South doesn't have?

[manudude03]

What would 3♠ have shown over 2♣, rather than 2♠?

What would 4♥ over 4♦ have implied/shown that South doesn't have?

 

Expert standard. 3S would have set trumps. 4D/H by south would have been splinters.

[whereagles]

If 4♦ is non-serious, I think South has nothing to add. Easy 4NT by North after 3♠. I mean.. he's got solid extras, a 6 carder, a fitting club honor... what more do you need?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj8ha9dqt76ca974&n=sakt962hkj6da93cq&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp2cp2sp3sp4dp4sppp]266|200|

Fairly basic 2/1 system. 3NT by North over 3S would have been a serious slam try. Assign the blame.

Both players arguments below:

North:- South's 3S shows a mild slam try. Once North bids 4D, South with 2 aces should give a cuebid.

South:- 3S is simply showing a non-descript hand with support. Once North bypasses 3NT, the hand isn't good enough to co-operate.

[/hv]

Depends on partnership style but IMO North 70% South 30%.North can do more (e.g. bid 3N) but South can afford a 4♥ cue bid

[wank]

north has a serious cue

[aguahombre]

I don't understand how 3♠ can be a mild try. What to do with a real slam try?

True, but South nevertheless has a 3S bid..willing to cooperate with a serious slam try though not slammish on his own.

 

north has a serious cue

Exactly. If 3NT was "serious", North should have bid 3NT. If 4D was a serious Cue, or even close, South should cooperate with the heart cue.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj8ha9dqt76ca974&n=sakt962hkj6da93cq&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp2cp2sp3sp4dp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Fairly basic 2/1 system. 3NT by North over 3S would have been a serious slam try. Assign the blame.

 

Both players arguments below:

North:- South's 3S shows a mild slam try. Once North bids 4D, South with 2 aces should give a cuebid.

South:- 3S is simply showing a non-descript hand with support. Once North bypasses 3NT, the hand isn't good enough to co-operate.

 

20% n blame

20% south blame

60% rub of the green very tough hand.

 

 

3s=slam try

4s would be a dead minimum.

 

This hand is very very close but if 2s=6 not 5then with 3 keycards I would bid 3s. If 2s as often in the forums is only 5 I would bid 4s.

 

Over 3s if 3nt is serious slam try that is ok but the vast majority don't play that so.....4d now.

 

 

I think now 4h over 4d with 3 keycards. but again that south hand is pretty minimum for the bidding.

 

good hand to discuss with pard but I expect many n onexperts and some true experts to miss slam on this one.

[whereagles]

very tough hand? well, this is the sort of thing serious 3NT was made for.. it's very easy with that gadget

[kenrexford]

North is hopeless. South did not bid 4S, which means that South is not bare minimum. After 4D, 4H would show a club control. So, what can South have?

 

South could have a heck of a lot of red cards, which seems really nice.

 

South could have a minimum with primes, which also seems nice.

 

North bid anti system. But, North also lacks understanding of the nuances of the sequence. 100% North.

[yunling]

North underbid by a king. A good example for seriou/non-serious 3NT…

[beatrix45]

100% South, imo. North cue bid in ♦ (whether serious or non-serious is of no matter), so not showing a ♥ control in passing says "either I have no ♥ control" or "I have a terrible hand for slam". Of course, South had no such thing - two round suit aces and QJx in trumps. Really.

[kenrexford]

100% South, imo. North cue bid in ♦ (whether serious or non-serious is of no matter), so not showing a ♥ control in passing says "either I have no ♥ control" or "I have a terrible hand for slam". Of course, South had no such thing - two round suit aces and QJx in trumps. Really.

4H doesn't show a heart control.

[P_Marlowe]

50/50

 

Basically they have a disagreement, what 3S means.

 

You can argue, that one agreement is better, closer to standard, whatever, in the end,

they disagreed on the meaning.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[beatrix45]

4H doesn't show a heart control.

Just out of curiosity, what would 4♥ show in your world and why?

[kenrexford]

Just out of curiosity, what would 4♥ show in your world and why?

 

 

This is an often misunderstood aspect of cuebidding, a false paradox, perhaps.

 

Consider the context (ignoring the actual hands, because North bid weird). North's cuebid of 4♦ bypassed 4♣ and therefore should have denied a club control. If the purpose of this type of cuebidding is solely to avoid bidding slams off two cashers in one suit (the Ace-King and concede down one), then 4♦ showed a diamond control but denied a club control.

 

Now, to Opener. Opener has three relevant holdings and one irrelevant holding. If Opener has no club control either, he has no slam interest and will sign off. As the one irrelevant holding, Opener could have no club control but a heart control. So what? Why show a heart control if you have no club control? So, bidding 4♥ to announce that subtle nuance would be pointless.

 

The only two situations where slam is possible, then, are hands with a club control but no heart control, or hands with both clubs and hearts controlled.

 

There is only one cuebid left -- 4♥. For Opener to bid 4♥, as a slam probe, he MUST have a club control. Otherwise, bidding 4♥ would be stupid. So, the one thing we know for certain is that 4♥ shows a club control.

 

Then, the question is whether 4♥ should also show what you might superficially think -- that Opener has a control in the suit he bids. Seems obvious? Not really. If Opener has control of hearts AND clubs, bidding 4♥ is somewhat pointless, as he could just bid 4NT to ask for Aces. Technically, 4♥ could be used as "I have control, but I still doubt due to strength." That is not dumb.

 

However, this leaves Opener with no good option if he has club control, but no heart control. Sure--he could bid 5♣. But, this creates a dumb problem, not only for bypassing 4NT but also for forcing the 5-level.

 

Because of this, the general consensus is that 4♥ here, which must show a club control by force of logic, only shows that control and, instead of also showing a heart control but doubt, shows a lack of a heart control, which is the doubt. This keeps us below 4♠ and below 4NT when this usually matters.

 

A blended option is to have 4♥ ambiguous about heart control, bidding 4♥ with either general strength doubt OR heart control problems. This is playable. However, with this blended approach, 4♥ does not PROMISE a heart control -- it just would not DENY a heart control.

 

 

 

 

[aguahombre]

very tough hand? well, this is the sort of thing serious 3NT was made for.. it's very easy with that gadget

Yes, of course. The things the OP partnership need to get squared away are IMO:

 

1) Lose the idea that the 3S bid itself was slammish. It merely should establish the trneitherump fit -- the prototype situation where neither hand is yet limited and serious/non-serious 3NT establishes or denies real slam interest by Opener.

 

2) Decide whether 3NT is "serious" or a cue is "Serious". Either one can be agreed, but pick one or the other.

 

3) Define the other one..the "non-serious" choice... as willing to cooperate if Responder has slam interest --- as opposed to a real dog opening bid.

 

If the above were in place, North should have gone "serious" with all that stuff -- even the stiff queen opposite a 2C response has potential for slam. If South then cooperates with "serious" via cue or LT, slam is launched.

[beatrix45]

This is an often misunderstood aspect of cuebidding, a false paradox, perhaps.

 

Consider the context (ignoring the actual hands, because North bid weird). North's cuebid of 4♦ bypassed 4♣ and therefore should have denied a club control. If the purpose of this type of cuebidding is solely to avoid bidding slams off two cashers in one suit (the Ace-King and concede down one), then 4♦ showed a diamond control but denied a club control.

 

Now, to Opener. Opener has three relevant holdings and one irrelevant holding. If Opener has no club control either, he has no slam interest and will sign off. As the one irrelevant holding, Opener could have no club control but a heart control. So what? Why show a heart control if you have no club control? So, bidding 4♥ to announce that subtle nuance would be pointless.

 

The only two situations where slam is possible, then, are hands with a club control but no heart control, or hands with both clubs and hearts controlled.

 

There is only one cuebid left -- 4♥. For Opener to bid 4♥, as a slam probe, he MUST have a club control. Otherwise, bidding 4♥ would be stupid. So, the one thing we know for certain is that 4♥ shows a club control.

 

Then, the question is whether 4♥ should also show what you might superficially think -- that Opener has a control in the suit he bids. Seems obvious? Not really. If Opener has control of hearts AND clubs, bidding 4♥ is somewhat pointless, as he could just bid 4NT to ask for Aces. Technically, 4♥ could be used as "I have control, but I still doubt due to strength." That is not dumb.

 

However, this leaves Opener with no good option if he has club control, but no heart control. Sure--he could bid 5♣. But, this creates a dumb problem, not only for bypassing 4NT but also for forcing the 5-level.

 

Because of this, the general consensus is that 4♥ here, which must show a club control by force of logic, only shows that control and, instead of also showing a heart control but doubt, shows a lack of a heart control, which is the doubt. This keeps us below 4♠ and below 4NT when this usually matters.

 

A blended option is to have 4♥ ambiguous about heart control, bidding 4♥ with either general strength doubt OR heart control problems. This is playable. However, with this blended approach, 4♥ does not PROMISE a heart control -- it just would not DENY a heart control.

 

Etaion Shurdlu. Like it or not, bridge bidding is a language. No matter how good or bad your ideas may be, you can't just make it up as you go along as it pleases you. The 2/1 approach goes to extreme efforts to create an extra round of bidding for cue bidding or some other form of slam investigation. I certainly cannot say that coded responses and/or relays might not someday turn out to be useful and accepted by everyone, but right now you gotta sprechen die lingo.

 

 

[Trinidad]

Etaion Shurdlu. Like it or not, bridge bidding is a language. No matter how good or bad your ideas may be, you can't just make it up as you go along as it pleases you. The 2/1 approach goes to extreme efforts to create an extra round of bidding for cue bidding or some other form of slam investigation. I certainly cannot say that coded responses and/or relays might not someday turn out to be useful and accepted by everyone, but right now you gotta sprechen die lingo.

Beatrix,

 

Ken Rexford is certainly known for revolutionary ideas in cuebidding.

 

However, the explanation that he gave above is not revolutionary whatsoever. It is the standard way to cuebid when you use mixed cuebids (i.e. cueing second and first round controls). As Ken points out, it is all based on the straightforward idea that you stop searching for a slam when you know that there can't be one: You sign off in game when a suit is not controled and, therefore, if you do not sign off in game, you control the suits that partner denied.

 

This principle is not different from game bidding. If you know that you should be in a partscore, you stop investigating game. Therefore, if you are investigating game, you have to have the values for it.

 

Rik

[rhm]

Beatrix,

 

Ken Rexford is certainly known for revolutionary ideas in cuebidding.

 

However, the explanation that he gave above is not revolutionary whatsoever. It is the standard way to cuebid when you use mixed cuebids (i.e. cueing second and first round controls). As Ken points out, it is all based on the straightforward idea that you stop searching for a slam when you know that there can't be one: You sign off in game when a suit is not controled and, therefore, if you do not sign off in game, you control the suits that partner denied.

 

This principle is not different from game bidding. If you know that you should be in a partscore, you stop investigating game. Therefore, if you are investigating game, you have to have the values for it.

 

Rik

Maybe so.

But North did not cuebid 4♣ even though he had club control, did he not?

So North was not using mixed cuebids.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

North did not manage the hand well and clearly has a serious try.

[rhm]

very tough hand? well, this is the sort of thing serious 3NT was made for.. it's very easy with that gadget

If it was so easy why the misunderstanding then?

This is what you always hear from people falling in love with a crutch, contrary to what happens at the table.

 

For us simple souls the answer is easy:

 

You do not start cue bidding unless you are suitable for slam and partner opposite an unlimited opening is supposed to cooperate below game unless his hand is very unsuitable for slam.

So South has no reason not to bid 4♥ with two bullets and the queen of trumps since he can still pass 4♠.

 

Seems to me a very easy to bid slam without this serious / non-serious nonsense.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

Maybe so.

But North did not cuebid 4♣ even though he had club control, did he not?

So North was not using mixed cuebids.

 

Rainer Herrmann

But, by Beatrix's comments , she was.