[han]

Kxx
AQ109xxx
K
Ax

Bidding all by us, IMPs.

1D - 1H
1S - 3H*
3S - 4C
4D

3H was gameforcing and shows a good suit (with a mediocre 6-card suit we go through fourth suit). 3S, 4C and 4D were cuebids. What's your call?

[whereagles]

4NT seems normal. The real question would be if all keys are there, but I guess that's part 2 of the problem

[dave_w]

4NT. Partner didn't have to start cue bidding (he could have raised to 4[hearrts] with a bad hand) and I want to make bidding 7♥ easy. (I'll bid it opposite the 3 key cards playing partner for the Spade or Diamond Queen). I can't imagine that 6♥ isn't good if partner has his bidding (ie the cue bid of 3♠).

[Fluffy]

4♠ will let partner evaluate ♠Q as a trick?, I don't think so, it would be foolish to cuebid a shortness in this spot actually, but this is too subtle IMO. Don't solve problems that might not arise anyway, you won't be able to explain ♦K and 7th heart if partner takes control. So 4NT it is.

[dake50]

Was partner forced to Q-bid? Even with H-x/void?
Or with H-Kx/Jx he is encouraged to Q-bid?
That matters with how comfortable I am to key ask.

[hrothgar]

My primary concern is the quality of partner's trump support.

I'm bidding 5♥

[kenrexford]

Surely the explanation of the auction is incomplete, as others have suggested. First, are the cuebids Aces-first or Italian? Second, was serious or frivolous 3NT available, or if not, what would 3NT show? Third, was 4♦ a true cue or LTTC?

Plus, what are your options next?

As an example, if I were to have this cue auction, Opener's 3♠, in the face of my spade King, would mean that we have the Ace-King-Queen of spades. My 4♣ cue would have been non-serious, Opener's 4♦ cue is not a true cue, but instead LTTC. In that event, I might want to cue back 4♠ (if that is a cue), because I am not sure which way this thing is going. Partner knows that my hearts are good, such that I have "already cue'd them."

If 3NT would be frivolous, then 4♣ was serious and 4♦ a true cue, which means that we also have solid diamonds.

If, however, 3♠ only assured me of the spade Ace (Aces first, or Italian controls only without two of top three), and if 3NT would have been frivolous, that makes a difference, as well. The permutations are seemingly endless.

Thus, I'd suggest more definition than "these were cues."

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2011-November-15, 07:53, said:

are the cuebids Aces-first or Italian?

Comment 1: You have the King of Spaces and King of Diamonds
Comment 2: Partner bid both Diamonds and Spades naturally.
Comment 3: Regardless of what the agreement is, its probably safe to assume that partner has the Ace of Spades and Ace of Diamonds.

[phil_20686]

This doesnt seem like a problem hand to me. Wheel out keycard and see what happens. If partner shows 3 Ill bid 5N and partner might be able to bid grand or 6c in which case Ill bid grand.

The most likely problem is partner has the Q of diamonds, and doesnt know whether to bid grand or not, but not sure how I can find that out. Am open to the suggestion that one should just lump the grand, at worst there is a decent chance of 4-3 diamonds, and might have enough entries to ruff them out or ruff down Qxx or take a trump finesse opposite K8 for an extra entry.

Think I have convinced myself that its right to bid grand if partner shows 3, but not totally sure. WOuld probably bid 5N and shrug if the grand was good.

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on 2011-November-15, 07:57, said:

Comment 1: You have the King of Spaces and King of Diamonds
Comment 2: Partner bid both Diamonds and Spades naturally.
Comment 3: Regardless of what the agreement is, its probably safe to assume that partner has the Ace of Spades and Ace of Diamonds.

If they were italien you are assumed to hold a control in a suit bid naturally, so partner would have promised AQ in spades. Not sure about later cues.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-15, 08:20, said:

If they were italien you are assumed to hold a control in a suit bid naturally, so partner would have promised AQ in spades. Not sure about later cues.

I played Blue Club for several years and I have played Blue Club with some very knowledgeable players.
This one is news to me...

I'm at work right now, but I am pretty sure that I can find examples at home that run contrary to this opinion.

(Where's Guido when you need him)

[han]

This is an area where we do not have clear agreements yet, so besides knowing what to do with this hand I am hoping for more definition.

4D could be last train, 3S is a cue. We cuebid controls indiscriminantly.

We do not have an agreement here about whether cuebids are forced or not. We don't play serious/non-serious here, though it would make some sense to do so.

[han]

Since most bid keycards, I'll give partner's hand:

AQxx x A109xxx QJ.

6H has chances but it's not a fantastic slam.

I think that partner would pass hrothgar's 5H.

[gnasher]

6NT doesn't need any more than the hearts coming in for no loser. That's more than 50%:

♥K onside with trumps 3-2: 1/2 * 68 = 34
♥Jx onside: 68 / 2 * 2/5 = 13.6
♥J singleton: 28 / 5 = 5.6
♥K singleton onside: 28 / 2 / 5 = 2.8

That comes to 56%.

6♥ is a bit worse than that, because of the risk of a ruff, but it's probably still over 50% in practice.

[han]

Oh I'm happy to hear that. We were in 6H but I thought it was a bit less than 50%. Unfortunately we went down.

[whereagles]

han, on 2011-November-15, 08:59, said:

Since most bid keycards, I'll give partner's hand:

AQxx x A109xxx QJ.

Excuse me.. not trying to be a results merchant, but isn't pard supposed to bid 3NT over 3H with that hand?

(Mind you, I would probably have bid 4NT even if I knew pard could have such a hand )

[Fluffy]

I Think good 6 card suit means you support with stiff honnor or doubleton, but that is partnership agreement

[benlessard]

The main point is partnership agreement about good/great suit vs near/solid suit. A great suit need xx or stiff H in support imo, and a near/solid suit major allow you to give up on 3nt and play 3nt as Bad/good.

reaching slam when AQTxxx vs stiff J
avoiding slam when AQTxxxx vs x

is possible but it need fine tuning. IMO These are the type of hand that are very rewarding/costly in the long run , long trumps with hole vs shorter but stronger trumps.

[MrAce]

Han can u please help me to understand this bidding ?

You say 3♠ was a cue, i would assume that pd should have some sort of ♥ support in order to encourage you for slam, unless of course your 3♥ showed a rock solid ♥ suit.

But anyway, if 3♠ is a cue, what would he bid with a 6-5 ♦-♠ combination ? Because u may have a broken ♥ suit as you did, and Hxx ♦ or ♠, why are we comitting to ♥ suit so early as if pd showed a solid suit ? (disregard if 3♥ showed a solid suit)

Imo opener's only cue that implies a ♥ fit should be 4♣ since it doesnt make sense for him to bid his 4 card ♣ at 4 level.

But then again i dont know your system, perhaps u have another way to describe 6-5 hands, however i still find your pd's choice of cuebidding with singleton in your suit a little confusing.

[han]

We didn't have a clear agreement, except that 3H is a strong suit. I think this suit qualifies, we didn't have time to talk about it yesterday but I suspect my partner agrees. One of the questions we have to figure out is whether 3S and 4D are cues or not, and how mandatory it is for partner to cue.

I didn't know that 3S and 4D were cuebids at the table, but I didn't want to make you guess.