[DrTodd13]

Scoring: IMP

---

You open 1♦. Partner responds 3NT. Are you interested
in slam? If so, how to proceed?

[pbleighton]

No, though since it's posted here I suppose I should be.

Peter

[awm]

This kind of hand is why I gave up playing 3NT as "13-15." There are pretty normal hands where slam is on ice:

Kxx
QJx
Qxx
AQxx

Jxx
Qx
AQxx
Axxx

KQx
QJx
AQx
Jxxx

The last hand is particularly embarrassing since 3NT will not even make on a club lead.

Of course there are also hands where slam does not make. But I think my hand has to be worth a try.

[cherdano]

I think you have to make a try. I will bid 5♣, which is a void splinter, of course

Since I see no reason why it should be splinter, I will just make a natural try with 4♥ and move to slam opposite a 4♠ cuebid, but sign-off in 5♦ otherwise.

3N won't be a better contract than 5♦ that often, so I think I risk very little by trying.

Arend

[whereagles]

Of course I want to slam try. I'll bid 4♦.

[mike777]

Great post.....at imps thanks
assuming I have not told my world class pick up partner 5c is void splinter...at best this is an under point slam with club wastage?

Given that can I agree to try and win the match on other hands?

I will bid 4H whatever that means and give up very fast.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

as always it depends on style, but since partner
will have 13-15HCP and no 4 card mayor, we have
a diamond fit, ... he may be 3-3-2-5, but with
really good clubs he may have bid 2C.
I.e. slam is possible, and I would make a move with
4D setting trumps and forward going,
playing IMP's you dont care if you play 3NT or 5D,
as long as both are making.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

I see I'm in a minority of one here

I'm expecting something like 5C(332) from partner. We have good source of tricks
in diamonds (though one or two losers is possible), but we also have 28-30 hcp, no 4 card major from partner, so no good source of tricks in the majors, and the clubs will have to be played from partner's hand, so AQ10xx = probably only one trick.

There are lots of hands where slam makes, but even more IMO where it doesn't, and I don't know how to find out what I need to know.

I'm still passing 3NT.

Peter

[brianshark]

I think I would punt 6♦ right away. *shrugs* I might miss 7 but I won't worry too much about it.

[fred]

brianshark, on Feb 6 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

I think I would punt 6♦ right away. *shrugs* I might miss 7 but I won't worry too much about it.

Agree with this.

Partner should not bid 3NT when he has a 5-card club suit for (at least) 2 reasons:

1) It is not hard to imagine having a 5-3 club fit, belonging in 6C, and not being able to get there anymore.

2) The 13-15 3NT response does not leave much room for careful slam investigation so it is not a bid you should go out of your way to make if there is a reasonable alternative.

I would never rebid 5C on any hand unless my partner and I had a clear definition of what this bid means because I can think of 4 not completely unreasonable interpretations of this call:

1) A self-splinter in support of diamonds

2) A self-splinter in support of diamonds that specifically promises a void

3) A fast arrival jump suggesting a big minor 2-suiter but not a lot of HCP

4) A picture jump - something like xx xx AKQxx AKJx

In the absense of an agreement about 5C, I think 4D is the technically correct bid, but it is unlikely to help much - partner should not cuebid a major suit King on this auction so he will probably continue with 5C or 5D. In either case you still won't have any idea what you can make and you will have given the opponents some information in the process.

So you might as well just bid what you think you can make while trying to keep the defenders in the dark in the hope that they will help you on opening lead if what you think you can make turns out to be wrong. For me this is 6D.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

fred, on Feb 6 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

In the absense of an agreement about 5C, I think 4D is the technically correct bid, but it is unlikely to help much - partner should not cuebid a major suit King on this auction so he will probably continue with 5C or 5D.

Why shouldn't partner cuebid a major suit king here Fred?

[fred]

Hannie, on Feb 6 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 6 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

In the absense of an agreement about 5C, I think 4D is the technically correct bid, but it is unlikely to help much - partner should not cuebid a major suit King on this auction so he will probably continue with 5C or 5D.

Why shouldn't partner cuebid a major suit king here Fred?

Probably I should have prefaced this statement with "in my opinion".

So far I am having trouble thinking of a concise way to articulate why I think this is the case.

In general the notion of cue-bidding a King when partner could well be short in that suit is something to be avoided if at all possible.

In this particular auction, in order to decide whether or not one should cuebid a King, it is helpful to make a decision about the nature of 4D. In particular, does 4D mean:

1) You must cuebid regardless of whether or not you like your hand
2) Only cuebid if you like your hand

If you believe 1) and if you cuebid Kings in response, that is a recipe for disaster in my view (again I am having trouble thinking of a good way to explain why this is the case).

If you believe 2) and if you can construct a hand for which you think it is necessary to say "you like your hand" even though you don't have a major suit Ace or some other forward going bid (like 5C) to make, then I suppose you would sometimes cuebid a King as a last resort.

But I am not sure that such a hand exists.

I am not certain of this, but I suspect it is best to adopt 2) in this auction (because of frequency for one thing, but also because this is the sort of auction where you want to bring judgment into the picture).

Sorry I can't provide a better answer at this time. I will think about it some more, but maybe someone else can try to explain this (or try to refute my point which could easily be wrong).

By the way - I thought of a 5th conceivable meaning for 5C:

Super Gerber

A somewhat obscure convention that can be used to ask for Aces when there is no other way to do so.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

Fred, I was also surprised by your thinking that responder should not cue-bid a major suit king. My reasoning that he should was partly based on my assumption for the 3N bid: I think 3N should show a very pure 3N hand, whose high-card values consist mostly queens and jacks, but certainly not of many aces. Hence while an ace is not impossible, opener should never expect one for a cuebid, and it is ok to cue a king.

Maybe I am being too optimistic about how specific partner's hand should be, as often...

[pclayton]

fred, on Feb 6 2007, 09:55 AM, said:

Hannie, on Feb 6 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 6 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

In the absense of an agreement about 5C, I think 4D is the technically correct bid, but it is unlikely to help much - partner should not cuebid a major suit King on this auction so he will probably continue with 5C or 5D.

Why shouldn't partner cuebid a major suit king here Fred?

Probably I should have prefaced this statement with "in my opinion".

So far I am having trouble thinking of a concise way to articulate why I think this is the case.

In general the notion of cue-bidding a King when partner could well be short in that suit is something to be avoided if at all possible.

In this particular auction, in order to decide whether or not one should cuebid a King, it is helpful to make a decision about the nature of 4D. In particular, does 4D mean:

1) You must cuebid regardless of whether or not you like your hand
2) Only cuebid if you like your hand

If you believe 1) and if you cuebid Kings in response, that is a recipe for disaster in my view (again I am having trouble thinking of a good way to explain why this is the case).

If you believe 2) and if you can construct a hand for which you think it is necessary to say "you like your hand" even though you don't have a major suit Ace or some other forward going bid (like 5C) to make, then I suppose you would sometimes cuebid a King as a last resort.

But I am not sure that such a hand exists.

I am not certain of this, but I suspect it is best to adopt 2) in this auction (because of frequency for one thing, but also because this is the sort of auction where you want to bring judgment into the picture).

Sorry I can't provide a better answer at this time. I will think about it some more, but maybe someone else can try to explain this (or try to refute my point which could easily be wrong).

By the way - I thought of a 5th conceivable meaning for 5C:

Super Gerber

A somewhat obscure convention that can be used to ask for Aces when there is no other way to do so.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I had considered Super Gerber too, and I don't think that interpretation is that far out of the mainstream. After all, wouldn't you like it for a hand like: x, AK, KQJxxxx, KQx?

If you don't choose 6♦, and opt for 4♦ (which was my first reaction without giving it much thought), there's some questions to discuss, along with Fred's "what does 4 major mean"?

1. What is a 4N rebid by responder? I would opt for it being a red flag showing lack of interest in ♦'s and a minimum: ♠KQx, ♥KQx, ♦xx, ♣QJxxx?

2. Over 4 major by responder, what is 4N by opener? Is it a retreat to NT, after showing mild slam interest with 4♦? Or is it keycard, which opener is enabled to bid after responder cops to a major suit control.

3. Over 4 major by responder, what is a subsequent 5♣ call? Could it be Last Train?

Personally, depending on your cue-bidding style (which I adopted from Fred's articles on 2/1 many moons ago), 4 major should be an Ace or King. I think its too difficult to tailor your cue bidding style (A/K? Aces? Shortness?) to suit different auctions.

I would also think that because 3N is such a narrow range, and because we have an implied fit, that 4 major is just about a 'mandatory' cue bid as you can get, unless responder has a hand like #1 above.

[fred]

Here is one thing to keep in mind about cuebidding Kings:

It doesn't work unless you can later have an effective Blackwood auction to make sure you don't bid a slam missing 2 Aces.

When a minor suit is agreed (implicitly or explicitly) at the 4-level, this is often difficult to accomplish, especially if your partnership sometimes uses 4NT as "not Blackwood" in cramped auctions like this one.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

Fred, I agree that the 4♦ bid is best played as "only cuebid if you like your hand", I appreciate your answer.

Of course, I tried to answer the question myself before asking it. I agree that opener is very likely to hold some shortness in this auction, but to my mind that doesn't mean that we shouldn't cuebid a king.

Maybe after 1D-3NT-4D it is most important to cuebid a concentration of strength rather than ace-up-the-line or 1st/2nd-round-control-up-the-line.

Then responder would cue 4S with KQx Qxx AQx Qxxx (I think this certainly qualifies as a good hand because of the diamond holding) and 5C with Kxx Qxx Qxx AQJx. In either case opener will be able to make a somewhat intelligent decision. For the actual opener both hands make slam excellent, but I'm more interested in the cuebidding question.

I would appreciate further thoughts on the subject Fred (and others). Cherdano and I recently discussed our agreements about cuebids. We agreed that we cuebid up-the-line when we have been able to pattern out earlier, but make more natural cuebids in auctions where we were not able to do this.

[Apollo81]

brianshark, on Feb 6 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

I think I would punt 6♦ right away. *shrugs* I might miss 7 but I won't worry too much about it.

Also agree with this. Even if we have a grand, odds are we can't find it by cuebidding.

[kenrexford]

I supose this must not be all that mainstream, but I was under the impression that, after one-of-a-minor is jump-raised to 3NT, any new suit call by Opener shows shortness. The assumption after 1♦-P-3NT is that showing a minor two-suiter is unnecessary or of limited utility because, as Fred pointed out, jumping to 3NT with a five-card club suit is probably a bad idea. If I have a minor two-suiter, and for some reason must show this, I'll can show the major shortness and then may bid 5♣ if partner signs off at 4NT or may bid 6♣ as a choice-of-slams bid. With lesser values, I'll let partner see how 3NT does.

Thus, I was surprised that, unless I missed it, no one bid 4♣, which I thought to be automatic on this hand.

Now, I hope that partner will not sign off (4NT/5♦) but will instead be able to cue 4♦ (two top trumps, interest). If he does, I will now bid 6♦.

If partner cues 4♠, instead, I'll expect one diamond loser -- partner must have at least one diamond honor to have interest, as he only has one of the top four major cards. I have 9 tricks opposite that 3-count. His interest must be based upon AK of clubs (not wasted tricks opposite a stiff/void), plus something else somewhere, or A of clubs, and KQ/QJ in the majors, 12 tricks. Thus, any cue MUST be interesting.

If he signs off at 4NT or 5♦, I'll leave well-enough alone.

If I really wanted to seek the grand, then I suppose I could bid 5♣ Exclusion after 4♣-4♦. Partner will of necessity bid 5♥(RKCB) or 5♦(1430). If I now bid the next-step up, he will show the spade King (5♠-5NT or 5♥-5♠). If I then bid 6♣ as a grand slam move, he will at least accept when holding KQJ-QJx-AQx(x)-xxx(x).

[DrTodd13]

I think that 4♥ should be a cue-bid inviting a 4♠ cuebid. I think that 4♦ is a general slam try and doesn't deny having a ♥ or ♠ control...after all how could you be interested in slam without major controls here. So, 4♦ would ask pd to evaluate his hand for a ♦ slam. 4♥ would just ask to give you information and you'll make the decision. 4N after the 4♠ cue-bid I think would be RKC because I think that 4♦ or 4♥ sets the trump suit.

Now, add in this wrinkle. You are either up 15 or down 15 and this is the last board of the match. 6♦ much more likely if you are down 15 but what do you do if you are up 15. Does that alter your decision?

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Feb 6 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

I supose this must not be all that mainstream, but I was under the impression that, after one-of-a-minor is jump-raised to 3NT, any new suit call by Opener shows shortness.  The assumption after 1♦-P-3NT is that showing a minor two-suiter is unnecessary or of limited utility because, as Fred pointed out, jumping to 3NT with a five-card club suit is probably a bad idea.  If I have a minor two-suiter, I'll show the major shortness and then may bid 5♣ if partner signs off at 4NT or may bid 6♣ as a choice-of-slams bid.

Thus, I was surprised that, unless I missed it, no one bid 4♣, which I thought to be automatic on this hand.

Now, I hope that partner will not sign off (4NT/5♦) but will instead be able to cue 4♦ (two top trumps, interest).  If he does, I will now bid 6♦.

If partner cues 4♠, instead, I'll expect one diamond loser -- partner must have at least one diamond honor to have interest, as he only has one of the top four major cards.  I have 9 tricks opposite that 3-count.  His interest must be based upon AK of clubs (not wasted tricks opposite a stiff/void), plus something else somewhere, or A of clubs, and KQ/QJ in the majors, 12 tricks.  Thus, any cue MUST be interesting.

If he signs off at 4NT or 5♦, I'll leave well-enough alone.

4♣ 'automatic'???

Responder will almost always be 3=3=4=3 or 3=3=3=4 on this auction. Opener could easily be 5=5 or 5=4 or even 4=4 in the minors with a hand interested in slam in the better minor suit fit, if one exists.

So 4♣ as natural just has to be 'automatic'. Thinking that, with ♣s, one conceals the suit initially and then somehow 'shows' the suit via a choice of slams 5N or a pass or correct 6♣ is fantasy.

As for the cue-bidding style, I share Fred's perspective, but also have trouble articulating why a major suit cue by responder, showing a K or A rather than specifically an A, over our hypothetical 4♦ is 'wrong'.

I should add: in the style I prefer, when we have a 4-level cue-bidding sequence, in support of a minor, 4N is never keycard. It will mean, depending on context, either that '... we can play 4N if you like' or 'I have too much to signoff in 5 minor and yet have no convenient feature to show you at a safe level'.

On this sequence, 1♦ 3N 4♦ 4♠ (as an example) 4N by opener would strongly suggest that he needs a ♣ control for slam. It would be a forward-going move, not an attempt to signoff.

But 1♦ 3N 4♦ 4N would tell opener that responder had zero interest in slam: had lots of soft values.

BTW, I would play that 4♦ demands a major cue with a major ace, but not a 5♣ cue unless holding a spectacular hand, in context. I am not entirely convinced that this makes sense, but surely 4♦ is not slam-force... and the partnership should not, in my view, be forced out of notrump for all time, merely by the 4♦ call.