[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

(P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - Dbl
(2♥) - P - (P) - 3♥
(P) - 4♦ - (P) - 5♣
(P) - ?

---

Your partner (me) has perpetrated this sequence with you. What does he have? What do you do?

[helene_t]

P could have shown a ♥ control with 4♥. I see no particular reason why he would hide a ♥ control. So 5♦. Of course if opps can be trusted he must have a singleton, but that's sometimes a strong assumption.

[cherdano]

Abstain.

[han]

Assuming that the double shows exactly 4 spades, partner can't have long clubs (because he has now shown gameforcing values). Hence partner is cuebidding in support of diamonds.

The 5♣ bid is very mysterious as a cue, because partner could surely has a heart or spade control. I don't buy Helene's argument that partner doesn't have a heart control, partner wouldn't be trying for slam with two small hearts (as we almost certainly have no heart control).

My only explanation is that partner has the king of spades as well as the AK of clubs. He didn't want to cuebid 4S because he knew that we would have been endplayed (we don't have a club control). Partner must also have a strong hand with at least 4-card diamond support. Without a spade control partner would cuebid 4H so that we could cue spades.

I think our hand is very good in context, nothing wasted in hearts, good trumps and the spade cards are likely useful. If I was confident that I understood partner's intentions then I would bid 6.

[FrancesHinden]

Assuming that 2C on the first round would have been forcing, I agree that 5C has to be a cue bid for diamonds.

This is a bit of a kenrexford thought (take it as a compliment or an insult as you wish!) but perhaps 5C should be a trump ask... 5D is to play in 5D, and he can't be cueing 5C without either major suit controlled, and perhaps he isn't confident that 4NT is RKCB in diamonds (I woudn't be) and anyway wouldn't help with things such as the J10 of diamonds. And he knows I don't have a high card heart control as I didn't bid 3NT.

I wonder if he's actually got something vaguely resembling

KQ10x
Ax
xxx
AKxx

(slam is on the diamond finesse)

or, better for us,

KQ10x
A
xxxx
AKxx

So I think I bid slam.

[paulg]

My only thought was whether to bid 5♠ on the way to 6♦, but I think I need better diamonds for this so I'll settle for the small slam.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Aug 10 2007, 02:13 AM, said:

My only explanation is that partner has the king of spades as well as the AK of clubs. He didn't want to cuebid 4S because he knew that we would have been endplayed (we don't have a club control). Partner must also have a strong hand with at least 4-card diamond support. Without a spade control partner would cuebid 4H so that we could cue spades.

Why wouldn't he cue 4♥ with a heart control, spade king, and ♣AK?

[P_Marlowe]

Echognome, on Aug 10 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - Dbl
(2♥) - P - (P) - 3♥
(P) - 4♦ - (P) - 5♣
(P) - ?

---

Your partner (me) has perpetrated this sequence with you.  What does he have?  What do you do?

Hi,

I take it you play 2C over the 1H intervention
as forcing.
5C is a cue, and responder will have 4 spades
+3 diamonds and a club control, but he is missing
a heart and a spade control.

My bid: 5D

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 10 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 10 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - Dbl
(2♥) - P - (P) - 3♥
(P) - 4♦ - (P) - 5♣
(P) - ?

---

Your partner (me) has perpetrated this sequence with you.  What does he have?  What do you do?

Hi,

I take it you play 2C over the 1H intervention
as forcing.
5C is a cue, and responder will have 4 spades
+3 diamonds and a club control, but he is missing
a heart and a spade control.

My bid: 5D

With kind regards
Marlowe

I sort of agree with you, except that partner _knows_ we do not have the A or K of hearts, because we would have bid 3NT with that last round.

[mike777]

so why does partner not rkc over 4d?
can partner really have 2 spade losers? He would cue 4H I assume.

QTxx
Ax
Kxx
AKJx

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on Aug 10 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

so why does partner not rkc over 4d?

Because 4NT would be natural?

[lordorange]

The hand is a beauty. Partner has doubled first to show values and Spades. Then he made a cue GF, showing a strong hand, with singleton or void in Hearts (confirmed by my holdings). My 4 Diamond bid has shown 5+D. He cued with 5 Clubs. Partner may be decided against the use of RKC because of the void.

Partner has taken over the captaincy of the bidding and is clearly looking for slam, maybe even a Grand. He's also asking me for values with his cue bid. (If partner holds DK, he knows I must have values elsewhere) I cannot take over the captaincy, by signing off in 5 or 6 Diamonds.

My bid therefore is 5 Spades ( a cue of course, if I had Spades, I'd have wasted already two opportunities to show them). I'll show him the Ace he was looking for and await further developments. Partner may bid 7 Diamonds......


I always have happy partners, but regularly disappoint them by overbidding.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 10 2007, 07:30 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 10 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

so why does partner not rkc over 4d?

Because 4NT would be natural?

How can that be? Why not bid a natural 4NT the last round instead?

[pclayton]

If you perpetrated this auction, I am absolutely convinced you don't have a good hand in clubs. I know you have 4 spades, a stiff heart (not a void; you didn't cue 4♥), diamond support and some clubs controls - but not 5 - else 2♣. Your concern seems to be spades.

You hold: Qxxx, x, Kxxx, AKQx. Even without the ♣Q I don't think you are making these noises, so I'm bidding 6♦.

[skjaeran]

pclayton, on Aug 10 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

If you perpetrated this auction, I am absolutely convinced you don't have a good hand in clubs. I know you have 4 spades, a stiff heart (not a void; you didn't cue 4♥), diamond support and some clubs controls - but not 5 - else 2♣. Your concern seems to be spades.

You hold: Qxxx, x, Kxxx, AKQx. Even without the ♣Q I don't think you are making these noises, so I'm bidding 6♦.

Good analysis, Phil.

[Echognome]

Laugh. I did perpetrate this mess. My problem arose in that I didn't know if Arend played nfb's here. When I asked him afterwards, sensibly he did not.

Once I made that mess, there was no real recovery. I actually didn't really care if partner took my 5♣ bid as natural or in support of diamonds (my hand was that good).

Anyway, for the curious at heart, my hand was:

♠KQxx ♥A ♦Kx ♣KQJxxx

6♣ is off if either the opponents manage their spade ruff or if (as I did in 5♣) lazily play clubs from the top. We did gain a swing on the board, but it was obviously undeserved. 6♦ is undefeatable.

Funny that Justin and Arend both figured out it was natural. I'm not sure I like the implications of that.

If I was confident of our agreements, then I would imagine, like most of the other posters, that my sequence would show a much different hand.

[skjaeran]

Echognome, on Aug 10 2007, 08:12 PM, said:

Anyway, for the curious at heart, my hand was:

♠KQxx ♥A ♦Kx ♣KQJxxx

6♣ is off if either the opponents manage their spade ruff or if (as I did in 5♣) lazily play clubs from the top.  We did gain a swing on the board, but it was obviously undeserved.  6♦ is undefeatable.

Funny that Justin and Arend both figured out it was natural.  I'm not sure I like the implications of that. 

If I was confident of our agreements, then I would imagine, like most of the other posters, that my sequence would show a much different hand.

Well, it says a lot about their knowledge conserning your.....uhm sanity (or lack thereof).

[han]

Echognome, on Aug 10 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

My problem arose in that I didn't know if Arend played nfb's here.

[skip]

I'm not sure I like the implications of that.

I think the implication is that you never read anything that Arend writes on this forum.

[whereagles]

This sounds like some 6-4, eventhough it probably shouldn't be so. I'll pass.