[kenrexford]

At the point where Opener has bid 3♠, we expect Opener to have 3514 shape. Imagining the worst possible LTC hand, perhaps he can have ♠AJx ♥QJxxx ♦Q ♣Jxxx? That's pretty lousy as an opener (not inconceivable for some partners), a full 8 losers. But, with that hand, he'd surely bid 4♥ hoping to stop the bleeding.

With a basic seven-loser hand, partner would probably cuebid cooperatively, as you are unlimited. Your hand has an assured five covers, meaning that you are safe at the five-level and that you should be seriously interested, if it is tactically wise to be serious.

The focus suit of most problem here is clearly not hearts -- whoever kicks in with RKCB will know the answer to that problem. The problem is either with spades or clubs, it seems, and only partially so for spades. Spades is not a problem suit for you, as you know the suit is solid. However, spades will be a problem suit for partner, if he asks.

Clubs is a problem suit for both sides. Partner cannot know from any obvious cuebid that you have both key cards in his obviously broken suit. Plus, whether you use Aces-first cuebidding (partner lacks the club Ace) or more modern cuebidding (partner lacks two top cards in his own suit), partner cannot cuebid clubs himself. So, if you bid 3NT, he should not cue 4♣. If you cue 4♣, he will not know about the club Queen.

So, how to resolve this?

One fair option is to have Responder cuebid 4♣. This has two variations. First, if Opener's 4♦ call is Last Train, you accept. If 4♦ would be a void cue, Opener will bid 4♥, and Responder makes one last stab with 4♠ (if 4♠ is a cue here).

A second option is for Responder to use Serious 3NT, and then leave the auction. Serious interest must feature five covers. If Opener does not bite himself, then something is terrible wrong, and I'm out.

Which is best? The problem with Serious 3NT, IMO, is that you are allowed to have a trick source in diamonds for this call. The problem for me with 4♣...4♠ would be a strange RKCB, asking for Aces RKCB-style but with the spade king and queen being the other "key cards." (Typically done if Responder has the K-Q of hearts himself but needs to know about a missing spade honor.) However, for others, this might be the best auction. (I also think Fred might play that 4♠ asks Opener to do the asking, which would similarly kill this option.)

For me, then, it seems that the best auction is 4♣ by Responder, planning to accept if Opener bids 4♦, which I would take as Last Train.

[foo]

Quote

...Imagining the worst possible LTC hand, perhaps he can have ♠AJx♥QJxxx♦Q ♣Jxxx? That's pretty lousy as an opener (not inconceivable for some partners)...

What a slice of Velveeta (it's not even real cheese).

Anyone who opens this opposite you deserves the name "Center Hand Opponent."

If your partners do this to you on a regular basis, either
a= you're a teacher playing with novices, or
b= you're a pro playing with clients who are weak players, or
c= you need a better partner.

[foo]

Ken, Agreements like Last Train and Serious/Frivolous 3N are not something you can assume with partners. Certainly not outside a fairly serious partnership.

IHMO, you are stuck here using KISS.

1H-1S;2C-2D;2S pretty much says that Opener either has
a= D shortness or
b= 2-3 small [d]'s
and 3 card ♠ support.

Now
-3H;3S (Cooperating! Yay!) -4C;
IMHO pretty much nails down that Responder has nice ♠'s and that ♦'s is very likely the problem suit.
(If Responder had primary ♦'s, the auction would have been different.)

With a ♦ stiff or void, Opener knows not to be worried.
With 2-3 small ♦'s Opener knows to be plenty worried.

If Opener bids 4♥, that's kind of unilateral and sounds like a Sign Off.
4♦ strikes me as the natural, "I want to cooperate further, but here's The Problem from my POV" bid.
You don't have that option if 4♦ is Last Train (to Clarksville).

[mikeh]

Late to the thread, but the more recent posts leave me scratching my head.

1♥ 1♠ 2♣:

2♦ is 100% clear. Bidding 4♥ is giving up on bidding intelligently. Partner will not usually hold the hand for slam, but why not at least make some effort to find, for example, Axx AQxxx x KJxx.

2♠ by partner is often 3=5=1=4, but need not be. With, as an example, AJ Axxxx xx KJxx, I think you'd get a lot of support for a 2♠ bid in the expert community. 2♦ really is shorthand for: we are going to game, and my next call will identify my idea of the most likely strain. So opener's task is to make the cheapest descriptive bid, recognizing that some hands create problems.

Responder now carries through with the identification of strain via 3♥. This is a MILDLY slammish move... but it does not promise a huge hand (nor does it deny one).

Opener's 3♠ should now be a cue, over which we have an easy 4♣ bid.

There are differing schools of thought on the strength shown by a below-game cue bid. This is especially true in partnerships that do not use any variant of serious 3N or last train. Some (me included in such partnerships) believe that cues below game promise a hand with some (mild or better) interest: really horrible hands don't cue below game. Thus, for me, 3♠ denies a godawful hand, while not promising a big hand.

This means that 4♦ by opener continues to show interest: ie, opener has not bid himself out. I suspect that a holding of stiff K in ♦s and only 1 key card would mean that I, for one, would not dream of cue-bidding 4♦. I would bid 4♥, knowing that I had already shown a modicum of interest, via my 3♠ call.

Even if we play mandatory (or almost mandatory) cue-bidding below game, surely no real player would bid 4♦ (which could well be a first round control since opener has not bypassed the suit earlier) with a bad (in context) hand.. which he clearly had?

Over 4♦, if it was last train, we bid 4♥: we have already made two slam moves... the first by our 4SF then 3♥ sequence and the second by our 4♣ cue.

If 4♦ was not last train, but a real cue.. then my hand is golden, and I'd cue 4♠... I wouldn't keycard, but I recognize that I probably use keycard less than most.

I think the problem with the real-life auction was that opener didn't know when to shut up... 4♥ over 4♣ is not a weakness bid... it is simply a denial of sufficient values to warrant a second try for slam opposite a responder who has shown, so far, only mild interest. If responder has a big hand (say an extra keycard), then he will not pass the signoff, and slam will not be missed.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Responder now carries through with the identification of strain via 3♥. This is a MILDLY slammish move... but it does not promise a huge hand (nor does it deny one).

If this is MILDLY, what is 4♥?

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Jun 11 2007, 11:08 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 11 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Responder now carries through with the identification of strain via 3♥. This is a MILDLY slammish move... but it does not promise a huge hand (nor does it deny one).

If this is MILDLY, what is 4♥?

The sequence of FSF then a jump to 4♥ over 2♠ seems to me to be not especially useful, so I would play it as a hand that has depreciated in value after 2♠. Maybe KJ10x Kxx QJx Kxx... willing to play 3N if partner bids 2N, but not once partner shows either 3=5=1=4 (or more pronounced shape) or a 2=5=2=4 with no ♦ card. So the sequence tends to show that the FSF bid was based on doubt about strain rather than certainty of strain and doubt about level.

[Stephen Tu]

I really don't understand all the people rebidding 2♣ on 3514 minimums. I believe the vast majority of better players would raise directly to 2♠ on such hands. After the 4SF 2♦, opener with a stiff diamond should be able to jump to 3♠. 2♠ should be awkward hands with a doubleton.

[david_c]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 11 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I really don't understand all the people rebidding 2♣ on 3514 minimums. I believe the vast majority of better players would raise directly to 2♠ on such hands. After the 4SF 2♦, opener with a stiff diamond should be able to jump to 3♠. 2♠ should be awkward hands with a doubleton.

Yep. I'm expecting a doubleton for 2♠.

[mikeh]

david_c, on Jun 11 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jun 11 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I really don't understand all the people rebidding 2♣ on 3514 minimums.  I believe the vast majority of better players would raise directly to 2♠ on such hands.  After the 4SF 2♦, opener with a stiff diamond should be able to jump to 3♠.  2♠ should be awkward hands with a doubleton.

Yep. I'm expecting a doubleton for 2♠.

I'm not, and I very, very much doubt that it is playable to require opener to jump to 3♠ to confirm 3 card support.

1. Assume responder has 5+♠s or is otherwise interested in ♠s despite only holding a 4 card suit. Just how is he to convey that ♠s are agreed, other than by bidding 4 (or more)♠ or by hauling out keycard.. none of which may make the slightest sense. If you suggest a cue bid...read...

2. Assume responder prefers either ♥s or ♣s as trump. How can he set ♥s? 4♥ is out, since that has to be passable....or is it forcing.... and bear in mind that both players are relatively unlimited in strength: opener could be minimum (in context) and so could responder or responder could be looking at 19+ hcp! And if you would like a bid, such as 4♣, to agree ♠s as trump... well, if you respond 2♣ on gf 4=4 blacks, as advocated on a recent thread, you may be able to play this...unless you are dealt 5=4 in the blacks, of course, in a situation where the 4=4 fit plays a trick better than the 5=3 (a common scenario). So you HAVE to play that responder's return to one of opener's suits over 3♠ sets trump....so how do you set ♠s below game?

No, the answer is that one either agrees that the 2♠ preference promises 3 (I reject this) or that it could be either 2 or 3...playable because we still have lots of bidding space in which to clarify the holding if it becomes important... and if responder fits neither of opener's suits and cannot commit to notrump, then the 5-2 fit we end up in may be the best spot anyway.

[Fluffy]

What I expect is partner bidding 3♠, not 2♠ over 2♦ with most of the hands that makes slam.

To david and Stephen: You might not believe, but there are some people out there who never ever raise with 3 cards.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 09:50 AM, said:

Quote

...Imagining the worst possible LTC hand, perhaps he can have ♠AJx♥QJxxx♦Q ♣Jxxx? That's pretty lousy as an opener (not inconceivable for some partners)...

What a slice of Velveeta (it's not even real cheese).

Anyone who opens this opposite you deserves the name "Center Hand Opponent."

If your partners do this to you on a regular basis, either
a= you're a teacher playing with novices, or
b= you're a pro playing with clients who are weak players, or
c= you need a better partner.

C'mon! Don't you have a sense of humor? Haven't you seen some of the trash two supposedly competent world competitors claim to be openers in real auctions? LOL

You obviously forgot Option #4: My partners sometimes have a heightened opinion of their prowess as declarers.

[pbleighton]

Quote

What a slice of Velveeta (it's not even real cheese).

Anyone who opens this opposite you deserves the name "Center Hand Opponent."

If your partners do this to you on a regular basis, either
a= you're a teacher playing with novices, or
b= you're a pro playing with clients who are weak players, or
c= you need a better partner.

This depends entirely on the system you are playing. Pllaying a 2/1 or SA with *normal* openers, this isn't an opener.

Playing a light opening system, it is.

Peter

[kenrexford]

Well, you certainly would not cooperate in ANYTHING if partner started slamming and you opened up Velveeta. LOL

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on Jun 11 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

This depends entirely on the system you are playing. Pllaying a 2/1 or SA with *normal* openers, this isn't an opener.

Playing a light opening system, it is.

Peter

It's awful close....

♠AJT♥QJT98♦Q ♣JT98

I'd open that any seat except 4th, any vul.

♠AJ9♥QJ982♦Q ♣JT52

I'd be seriously tempted.

♠AJ2♥QJ432♦Q ♣J432

I wouldn't be interested.

Do you disagree?

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2007, 04:35 PM, said:

Well, you certainly would not cooperate in ANYTHING if partner started slamming and you opened up Velveeta. LOL

Maybe yes, maybe no. Keep in mind partner is slamming expecting you to have this piece of cheese.

[jdonn]

When I first read this problem then after
1♥ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
2♠ 3♥
3♠ 4♣
4♦
I said I would sign off, but then thought about it more and almost immediately decided that is wrong and I should proceed toward slam. My hand is HUGE opposite that bid, whatever it means (since it surely shows interest of some kind). 100% of my highcards are working, in fact there is not so much as a wasted jack, and in particular the club queen is gigantic. I challenge anyone to show me a hand partner could have consistent with that bidding (in particular, that would bid 4♦ instead of 4♥) where slam isn't good, keeping in mind that if we are off a diamond and the heart queen we will stop in 5 after blackwood. The only downside would be reaching 5♥ needing 3-2 hearts to make if partner lacks the queen, and most hands I could think of where he didn't have it involve 4♦ being a big overbid.

Let's put it another way. The 'perfect minimum' example for partner that people keep quoting is Axx AQxxx x KJxx. If partner has that, can he really do more over 4♣ than 4♦ followed by respecting our decision? It seems to me that obviously he can't.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 11 2007, 04:57 PM, said:

I challenge anyone to show me a hand partner could have consistent with that bidding (in particular, that would bid 4♦ instead of 4♥) where slam isn't good, keeping in mind that if we are off a diamond and the heart queen we will stop in 5 after blackwood. The only downside would be reaching 5♥ needing 3-2 hearts to make if partner lacks the queen, and most hands I could think of where he didn't have it involve 4♦ being a big overbid.

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx, if he'd cue 4♦ with that.

Or, ♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx. That sucks, too.

A 4♠ cuebid might lead to a salvation auction.

Add in worse:

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx.

Now, we need hearts 3-2 and the club hook working. Opener has a six-loser hand.

[cherdano]

I agree with Ken, if opener can't do hand evaluation and is counting losers then I will just bid 4♥ over 2♣.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx, if he'd cue 4♦ with that.

Lol. He is barely if at all even worth the 3♠ bid.

Quote

Or, ♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx.  That sucks, too.

Just how many cuebids should partner be making on a 10 count exactly? The 4♦ bid shouldn't be made on momentum, minimums can't just keep cuebidding ad infinitum, especially when they have shown the main features of their shape already.

Add in worse:

Quote

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx.

Now, we need hearts 3-2 and the club hook working.  Opener has a six-loser hand.

Just give him the jack of clubs and slam is fine.

Meanwhile, your examples all range from possible to obvious raises to 2♠ as opener's rebid anyway.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Jun 11 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

I challenge anyone to show me a hand partner could have consistent with that bidding (in particular, that would bid 4♦ instead of 4♥) where slam isn't good

I had to take the challenge hehe, but I didn't come to any good answer, closest I found

♠AJ
♥QJxxx
♦Ax
♣Jxxx

Wich is a 1NT rebid sadly


There is actually one:

♠A(J)x
♥Q(10)xxx
♦A
♣K(J)xx

not like a good slam, but if you never move for slam because you might be losing 2 trump tricks when partner has the keycards outside trumps then you won't ever play slams.