[han]

Scoring: IMP

(2D*)-3C-(4H)-??

---

2D showed both majors, weak. What is your call now. Also, what should 4S and 4NT be in this auction?

[pclayton]

5♦ for me.

4♠ should be a cue, but I'm not cuebidding an exposed king under the bidder. 4N is takeout, but pard shouldn't expect a 4 card differential; I think 3 is more typical.

Might have a perfecto 6 opposite: ???, ♥A, ♦A, ♣KQ.... but its tough to find.

[hrothgar]

Since this hand is showing up on a bidding forum, the correct bid MUST be 6N which will turn out to be cold when partner shows up with the Ace of Hearts and xx and Spades.

In reality, I have a sink suspicion that Diamonds is a better strain than clubs, however, I don't see a good way to have an intelligent auction.

[mikeh]

I suppose the meaning of 4♠ should depend on what shape is promised by LHO: if he could hold 4 poor ♠'s then I think we need 4♠ as natural: certainly, the defence I usually play to a flannery opening includes the ability to suggest ♠ as trump and it would (in my view) pay to include this possibility when the opps open to show weakness, as opposed to Flannery, which shows an opening hand.

Absent discussion, I would not inflict 4♠ on partner for this reason.

If LHO promised 5-5 or better, then 4♠ as a slammish hand makes sense.

Absent agreement, I make the practical bid of 5♣... even tho ♦ may well be superior, I cannot tell, and ♣ rates to be adequate. Yet another case of the best contract possible rather than the best possible contract.

4N, undiscussed, would not be this hand, altho the treatment Justin proposes has a lot of merit (as is often the case, keycard is not the optimum usage)

[hotShot]

I'll bid 5♦, because i don't think partner will see 4NT as "pick a minor".

[Walddk]

Since most people play Ekren's 2♦ as promising no more than 4-4 in the majors at these colours, I can't see why 4♠ should not be natural. Do you want me to pass 4♥ with

♠ AQJ10xxx
♥ x
♦ Axx
♣ xx

because I can't bid 4♠ naturally? You have 4NT available to show a two-suiter if you like. Similarly, 2MA in second seat over Ekren should be natural, constructive but non-forcing in my opinion.

Roland

[whereagles]

Slam requires pard to have 3 keys + club queen and he'll have the lead coming through the spade king. Rather iffy and there's not enough space for exploration. I'll settle for 5♣ (or 5♦ if pard can't play cards).

[mike777]

5D will take a risk and bid my 7 card suit.

[han]

The responses so far disapppoint me a bit, perhaps the hand isn't as interesting as I thought it was. When I had this hand I was playing with cherdano, and although we play together fairly frequently we have no agreeements to what 4S is. I agree with mikeh that it should be natural, and I was certainly not going to risk it.

I'm pretty sure that Arend would interpret 4NT as a 2-suiter, as usual when it someone's first call in a cramped auction (stole this from mikeh ). While Phil thinks that the 4-card difference is too much, I think that it is just fine. With 6-3 or 7-4 in the minors I would have an easy club raise. So maybe 4NT as the right bid.

In fact, I would expect clubs to play better than diamonds with the given hand more often than the other way around, but it is close imo. Still I chose to bid 5D. I think that slam prospects are fair, but not enough to just blast to slam. We also have no way to make a slam try (4NT followed by 5D would rather show the rounded suits than slam interest imo). I think that 5D suggests a better hand then 5C, so I expected that partner would more often raise over 5D when he has serious extras (and somewhat of a diamond fit).

As it was, partner had something like Qx Kxx A KJxxxxx, so 5C is definitely better than 5D, but the cards were friendly and both made. And bo hrothgar, I didn't post the hand because 6NT was the winning call .

[pclayton]

I agree that clubs rates to be a better fit than diamonds, if perhaps only marginally.

But I am more petrified of a spade lead through my K opposite mundane hands like: xx, x, Axx, KQJxxxx, where 11 tricks become at risk.

[han]

also a good point of course Phil.

[Double !]

It's nice to now know that 2D was Ekren's as opposed to some 5-5 hand and less than 10 hcp (both of which are not permitted in acbl mid-chart play, or so I have been told when I have tried to play the latter).

My personal approach to these situations is to not try to be brilliant. I am wondering where the spades are, and I suspect that spade king might not be worth very much. To bid 3C, IMO, partner should have a hand that would have a play for 3NT opposite a fitting club honor, a heart stopper, and perhaps a little more outside, or something of that ilk. Does that necessarily mean that we have a slam and that I might be stolen blind by not making a slam try? If there is a way to find out whether or not there are 2 quick losers on this hand, I would very much like to learn it. I am concerned that P would interpret a 4S bid by me as a club slam try showing the ace or a stiff, neither of which I have. Unless previously discussed, I am concerned that P would interpret 4NT as rkc. I'm under pressure, but I don't wish to take a minus score or have some bidding misunderstanding as a result. (Perhaps 4S should be rkc for clubs and 4NT be minor oriented slam try. This is an infrequent situation, IMO resolved only by partnership discussion.) So, I would likely bid an unimaginative 5C and let the experts tell me what I should have done.

DHL

[pbleighton]

5C, as mikeh says, it's practical. And at this vulnerability in the direct seat, pd should have a good suit, A10x in support should make excellent trumps. Pd didn't double, which limits his strength, and you have no outside aces. Might miss a slam, but probably not.

Peter

[hutchau]

4NT= Diams with secondary clubs....partner you chose
4S=cue agreeing clubs

[Blofeld]

I would certainly expect 4♠ to be natural unless the opening promised 5.

On the actual hand I'm bidding 4NT. I don't really know where we want to play, so I'll let partner help decide. Wouldn't really occur to me that 4NT could be keycard on this auction ... we're way too cramped.

Edit: I like Han's suggestion that 5♦ more strongly suggests slam than 4NT does, but can't quite bring myself to bid it.

[mikeh]

The fact that many posters (including me) play 4♠ as natural should be enough to stop anyone bidding it here: unless you have made a prior agreement, anyone bidding 4♠ has to expect a good chance that partner will pass: and it doesn't matter how clearly YOU think 4♠ should be a cue

[pclayton]

I think a sensible 'meta' agreement is that a call is natural if an opponent's call promised only 4, but its a cue if the call guaranteed 5. There's different flavors of a 2♦ call showing the majors, so we'd have to know our opponents agreements.

[han]

I think that meta-rule should be more specific. For instance, if the opponents open a minor (presumably showing 3+) then you'd like to have various cuebids available (e.g. Michaels cuebid, or a cuebid as advancer when partner opens).

[pclayton]

Hannie, on May 1 2006, 07:58 AM, said:

I think that meta-rule should be more specific. For instance, if the opponents open a minor (presumably showing 3+) then you'd like to have various cuebids available (e.g. Michaels cuebid, or a cuebid as advancer when partner opens).

Well, I suppose we can exempt out direct action