[han]

Imagine a 2/1 auction like:

1H - 2C
2H - 3H
4D - 4NT
5H - 6C

5H showed 2 keycards without the queen. 6C can have two different meanings: It is either a try for 7 asking for a third round control, or it is a suggestion to play 6C. What should it be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

When a similar (but different) auction came up, the 6C bidder wanted to play there, opener jumped to 7H with xx in clubs, off the ace of hearts. Fortunately this was a practice bidding session.

[whereagles]

I play these bids such as this 6♣ as "bid 7 if you have some help in clubs". Dunno if it's the best, but it certainly is playable

In the same context, I like 5NT as "bid 7 if you have extras of any sort".

[pclayton]

We play a direct 6x as asking for 3rd round control. I don't think you can play 6♣ after raising hearts directly so early.

[Apollo81]

My partner and I play that such a bid is control asking unless it's a logical alternative slam.

I would not consider 6♣ a logical alternative given the 3♥ bid.

[Echognome]

This depends somewhat on your style. Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go. I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts. If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam. If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

[mikeh]

I would agree with those who say that 6♣ cannot be a suggestion to play there.

The issue is whether, on this type of auction, it is more useful to use 6♣ as a try for grand in ♥s or as an alternative contract. Whle neither use will arise with any frequency, it is easier to come up with a hand needing ♣ help for grand, and consistent with the auction, than it is to come up with a hand on which 6♣ will be appreciably better than 6♥... and yet would be bid the same way.

We can all see that, as an example, Ax KQx Kxx AKJxx needs the ♣Q to count 13 tricks... and finding out that partner had or did not have the ♠K would be irrelevant.

BTW, it is an interesting question as to what help opener ought to have: would xx be enough? Opener may be expecting to be able to ruff dummy's suit good, but responder may be needing to count on running the suit from the top to arrive at 13 tricks.

At a high level, opener should be able to distinguish the help he holds. 6♥ would be xxx or equivalent (as good as Jxx), while he has lots of room to distinguish between xx and Qx(x). I confess I have no agreement in any of my partnerships.

For me, a holding of Qx(x) is far more likely to be what partner is looking for: far more powerful, so I would only commit to the grand with that holding.

Maybe a slow 6♥ shows xx?

[mikeh]

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Feb 6 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

Hmm, this is part of the cuebidding style advocated by Fred in his articles on "Improving 2/1 GF". Cue in partner's 2/1 suit show A, K or Q, cue in our own 2/1 suit show 2 out of AKQ. Cues in other suits show A or K, and all cues are up the line. Of course you can create counter-examples, but quite often it is great for responder to know that partner has any helpful card in his suit. (If you have a suit of Jxxxx then you shouldn't have made a 2/1 in the first place )

I also don't see your problem in this specific auction. Of course there are hands that need specifically to know about diamond control AND can't bid 4♠ AND can't infer a diamond control from partner's slam cooperation, but your example of ♣KJxxx is an excellent example of a suit that is worth 4 tricks opposite Qx, but very little opposite xx, and it is not clear to me which will come up more often.

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would say it is a choice of slam or it may even to play.
You have 5S available to ask for specific kings, and you
have 5NT, what ever that means (e.g. pick a slam) and
you have 6D available as a general grand slam try.

How do you set clubs? Depending on your 2/1 flavour,
3C can be passed, and 4C kills a lot of room.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joshs]

I play:
A rebid of either players first bid suit at the 6 level, is always an offer to play even after rkc in another suit- unless another grand slam try has already been made. Yes it means that your grand slam bidding is less exact, but in exchange you get to the best small slam a lot more often.

So 1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-6H is an offer to play hearts instead of spades (partnership is probably missing the SQ, but responder has solid hearts, this bid is almost always passed)
While,
1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-5N-6C-6H is a grand slam try. If the player was merely interested in choice of slams they wouldn't have bid 5N to try for a grand....

Josh

[pclayton]

joshs, on Feb 6 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

I play:
A rebid of either players first bid suit at the 6 level, is always an offer to play even after rkc in another suit- unless another grand slam try has already been made. Yes it means that your grand slam bidding is less exact, but in exchange you get to the best small slam a lot more often.

So 1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-6H is an offer to play hearts instead of spades (partnership is probably missing the SQ, but responder has solid hearts, this bid is almost always passed)
While,
1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-5N-6C-6H is a grand slam try. If the player was merely interested in choice of slams they wouldn't have bid 5N to try for a grand....

Josh

This is a much different auction than Han's. In Josh's, spades were never supported, in Han's, hearts were supported early.

I think Josh's agreement is sensible, if you don't have trump agreement early on.

On a side note, I think the auction: 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4N should be key card for hearts, not spades. This is akin to the strong jump shift sequence of 1x - 2y - 2/3 anything - 4N which is key card for responder's suit.

[han]

I don't remember the actual hands, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with sensible hands where responder wants to play 6C. How about these:
How about these hands:

Jxx
AJxxx
AKx
xx

KQx
Kxx
x
AKQxxx

The specific auction wasn't so important to me, but these hands seem reasonably consistent with the auction.

[Apollo81]

Hannie, on Feb 6 2007, 11:01 PM, said:

I don't remember the actual hands, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with sensible hands where responder wants to play 6C. How about these:
How about these hands:

Jxx
AJxxx
AKx
xx

KQx
Kxx
x
AKQxxx

The specific auction wasn't so important to me, but these hands seem reasonably consistent with the auction.

That North hand is so far from a 2♥ rebid...

I guess you didn't rebid 2NT since it shows extras or something....if I was for some reason prevented from bidding 2NT then I would bid 2♦

Of course if it is your style to bid that 2♥ on a crappy 5 card suit, then I guess 6♣ is a logical alternative.

[FrancesHinden]

Once responder has taken control via Blackwood, I don't think he can suddenly change horses and ask partner's opinion. If he wanted to offer clubs or hearts, I think he needed to jump to 6C over 4D.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Feb 6 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild

What 6♣ means should probably be discussed, but my inclination is toward choice-of-slams, for the reasoning suggested previously.

That said, the question was brought up as to the problem with cuebidding the club Queen while holding the diamond control. This is a recurring problem -- the two-touching-controls scenario. Last Train in some cases resolves this problem, as suggested. However, sometimes it does not.

For this reason, one thought process that helps. Serious 3NT, if used, or perhaps the negative inference from Non-Serious 3NT, can "solve" the issue. In many instances, the inference to a Serious 3NT call is that it infers "more stuff" than can be shown by simply cuebidding out. If one cuebid will tell the tale, or two that will be possible, then cuebid. If not, such as the touching-cues problem, use 3NT. Partner will suspect touching controls.

A simple example. Suppose spades are trumps. If, at the point where you can bid 3NT, one cuebid (maybe 4♦) will tell your tale, bid 4♦. If two cuebids will be needed, 4♣ and 4♥, and partner will need to cue 4♦ (or is very likely to cue 4♦), then cue 4♣ as prepared to cue 4♥ and, again, tell your tale. If, however, the two cues necessary to tell your tale are 4♣/4♦ or 4♦/4♥, you are stuck unless you use 3NT.

This "I'm stuck" practical definition of a Serious 3NT cue, once understood, has extreme value in many problem auctions. Here, Opener failed to cue 3♠, so he holds no spade control. The only touching cues are 4♣/4♦. He cued 4♦, directly denying a club honor. Had he cued 4♣, it would infer lacking a diamond control also, because he would normally bid 3NT with a club honor AND a diamond control, as this is the "unbiddable" holding.

When this inference arises, when it is a strong or weak inference, is difficult to articulate, but you know it when you see it.

[the hog]

Opener has already denied A K or Q of C by failing to bid 4C.

[the hog]

mikeh, on Feb 7 2007, 07:06 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild

With slam interest opener would bid 3NT serious. 4D shows a moderate hand without a C card, but with A or K of D.

[mikeh]

The_Hog, on Feb 7 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 7 2007, 07:06 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild

With slam interest opener would bid 3NT serious. 4D shows a moderate hand without a C card, but with A or K of D.

I'm puzzled by this comment. I saw nothing in the original post that supports this inference. If 4♦ bore this meaning, I would have expected it to be announced. If it didn't, then your argument is fallacious.

[the hog]

Ok Mike, I came to this post late. You are right in that the original poster did not suggest that possibility, and having read many of his posts before, I am surprised that this is not part of what he plays. However it makes sense to me and this is what it would mean in my partnerships. Yes, this has no bearing on the original post.

[kenrexford]

As the cuebidding style was not defined in any manner at all, the question seems ultimately doomed to inability to answer. If this, then this. If that, then that. "It depends" must be the sole answer.