BBO Discussion Forums: a cue-bidding sequence using common sense - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

a cue-bidding sequence using common sense I wish I had more common sense

#1 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,816
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2012-June-05, 10:11



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?
Chris Gibson
0

#2 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,618
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2012-June-05, 10:32

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.
0

#3 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-June-05, 10:52

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.
1

#4 User is offline   TWO4BRIDGE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,142
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 2012-June-05, 10:53

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 )
Don Stenmark
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall

" Don't know anything about ZAR points, except that I don't need to know any more. " ....655321

" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
0

#5 User is offline   jogs 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 2011-March-01

Posted 2012-June-05, 17:31

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.
1

#6 User is offline   Siegmund 

  • Alchemist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,547
  • Joined: 2004-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lost in Idaho, trying to get back to Alaska

Posted 2012-June-05, 19:06

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.
0

#7 User is offline   twoshy 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 2011-March-10

Posted 2012-June-05, 19:09

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.

View Postjogs, on 2012-June-05, 17:31, said:

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.
1

#8 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-June-05, 19:55

starting with 1s is absolutely hopeless
1

#9 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,816
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2012-June-05, 20:07

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.
Chris Gibson
0

#10 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Unanimously Voted Best Bridge Theorist of the Year by BBO
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,939
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2012-June-05, 20:56

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.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
1

#11 User is offline   the_clown 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 515
  • Joined: 2010-December-02

Posted 2012-June-06, 00:32

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.
0

#12 User is offline   Yu18772 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 2010-August-31
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 2012-June-06, 01:09

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.Posted Image
Posted Image Yu
Yehudit Hasin

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
0

#13 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,429
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-June-06, 01:10

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.”
0

#14 User is offline   ByChechi 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 2011-March-26

Posted 2012-June-06, 02:03

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..... :)

0

#15 User is offline   rhm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,051
  • Joined: 2005-June-27

Posted 2012-June-06, 04:22

View Postkenrexford, on 2012-June-05, 20:56, said:

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
0

#16 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Unanimously Voted Best Bridge Theorist of the Year by BBO
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,939
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2012-June-06, 05:24

View Postrhm, on 2012-June-06, 04:22, said:

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.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#17 User is offline   gszes 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,754
  • Joined: 2011-February-12

Posted 2012-June-06, 06:44

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.
0

#18 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,429
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-June-06, 06:50

View Postkenrexford, on 2012-June-05, 20:56, said:

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 ).
0

#19 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Unanimously Voted Best Bridge Theorist of the Year by BBO
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,939
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2012-June-06, 07:03

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).
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#20 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,429
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-June-06, 08:00

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.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users