[SchTsch]

Scoring: MP

---

Only you and partner bidding:
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 4♥
4♠ - 5♣
?

How do you plan to bid this?

[mike777]

I pass 4H

1) 2d promises an a or k...k here.
2) 4H denies anything else including a queen.
3) I think bidding over 4H is just an insult to partner.


Pass 4H.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

first of all, I would suggest, that we rewind
the auction, bid 4NT over 4H.
What ever you play, you should be able to find
out about the Queen of Hearts and the King of
spades.

What do we know:
#1 partner has support, but was not strong enough
to bid 3H, if he had the Queen of Hearts and the
King of spades, he should.
#2 he has no shortage, else he could have made a
splinter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SchTsch]

mike777, on Sep 3 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

I pass 4H

1) 2d promises an a or k...k here.
2) 4H denies anything else including a queen.
3) I think bidding over 4H is just an insult to partner.


Pass 4H.

Maybe, but pard can still have:
xxx
xxxx
xxx
Qxx
doesn't he?

[mike777]

SchTsch, on Sep 3 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

mike777, on Sep 3 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

I pass 4H

1) 2d promises an a or k...k here.
2) 4H denies anything else including a queen.
3) I think bidding over 4H is just an insult to partner.


Pass 4H.

Maybe, but pard can still have:
xxx
xxxx
xxx
Qxx
doesn't he?

no partner cannot have that hand for me.

[SchTsch]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 3 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

Hi,

first of all, I would suggest, that we rewind
the auction, bid 4NT over 4H.

Sure, my pard bid 4♠ but you can choose any other method.

Just to clarify, on 2♣ we bid good suits (e.g. KJ10xx) not aces.

[SchTsch]

mike777, on Sep 3 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

no partner cannot have that hand for me.

And how do you bid that hand? 3♥ and signoff in every subsequent bid?

[P_Marlowe]

SchTsch, on Sep 3 2007, 10:06 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Sep 3 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

Hi,

first of all, I would suggest, that we rewind
the auction, bid 4NT over 4H.

Sure, my pard bid 4♠ but you can choose any other method.

Just to clarify, on 2♣ we bid good suits (e.g. KJ10xx) not aces.

Ok, if 4S was ace asking (?!), than thats fine,
but since you did not alert it, I took it, as cue
bidding. And cuebidding is pointless, you have
the cues.
If it is Ace asking, fine, but it would be great to
know, what 5C means.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

SchTsch, on Sep 3 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

mike777, on Sep 3 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

no partner cannot have that hand for me.

And how do you bid that hand? 3♥ and signoff in every subsequent bid?

Over 3H you can again start with the keycard seq.
Of course you know, you play at least 6H, which means
you dont need to worry about by passing 5H.

It is a matter of partnership agreement, if 6H is still
an option after a 4H, for me it is, for Mike it is not.
But one thing is for sure, after 4H, I am not looking
for a grand anymore.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SchTsch]

4♠ was a cue.
5♣ also.

[SoTired]

What does 2D show? What does 4H show? Let's assume: 2D=waiting. 4H = no outside ace, king, void or singleton.

Then 4S seems like a good bid. 5C shows 3rd round club control. Now I can bid 6H because responder is unlikely to have the perfect hand to make 7.

[Free]

SchTsch, on Sep 3 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

4♠ was a cue.
5♣ also.

Why would you ever cuebid at such a high level? Your methods got you really high, and apparently your partner can have anything from a rubbish 4 card fit to a good hand. I would just "Blacky" instead of cues, and hope that my trump-Queen-asking and King-asking methods are good enough to figure out what partner has...

[SchTsch]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

Why would you ever cuebid at such a high level? Your methods got you really high, and apparently your partner can have anything from a rubbish 4 card fit to a good hand. I would just "Blacky" instead of cues, and hope that my trump-Queen-asking and King-asking methods are good enough to figure out what partner has...

pard has rubbish. he cannot have anything that looks even similar to a good hand.

[Free]

Ok, so what do you hope to hear by cuebidding?

[skjaeran]

Partner's 4♥ showed 4c support and denied any controls (A/K/shortness).
I agree with 4♠. 5♣ now showed 3rd round control, which is great. I still need the trump queen or a 5th trump for this to be a good slam. I'd continue with 5♦ now, and expect partner to jump to 6♥ with the ♥Q or extra lenght.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Sep 3 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

Partner's 4♥ showed 4c support and denied any controls (A/K/shortness).
I agree with 4♠. 5♣ now showed 3rd round control, which is great. I still need the trump queen or a 5th trump for this to be a good slam. I'd continue with 5♦ now, and expect partner to jump to 6♥ with the ♥Q or extra lenght.

I agree, almost.

4♠cannot be ace-asking. That's bizarre. I agree.

4♠ shows a cue and asks for cues of tertiaries. The sole question I would have is what 4NT by Responder would show. It could show a tertiary in trumps, in which case 5♣ shows a club tertiary but denies five hearts or the heart Queen. Or, it could show a tertiary in spades (the unbiddable cue), leaving to ability to show trump values directly.

If 4NT would show a trump tertiary, then 5♦ would seem to ask for a diamond tertiary. If 4NT would show a spade tertiary, then 5♦ would seem to ask for a trump tertiary (the more important of the missing tertiaries most often).

This begs another question. Opener bypassing 4♠ to bid 4NT should not ask for the already-denied spade control. So, it seems that structuring here should be logical.

IMO, the best method would be for 4NT after 4♠ to show a spade tertiary, because that's the only way to get spade information reasonably. Then, 5♦ would be LTTC, asking for the most useful info, namely heart tertiary.

The question lurking is what 4NT, 5♣, 5♦, and 5♥ starts would be geared toward handling. Each seems to cover a problem not easily handled by the 4♠-start approach.

[pclayton]

Quote

QUOTE (skaeran @ Sep 3 2007, 11:16 AM)
Partner's 4♥ showed 4c support and denied any controls (A/K/shortness).
I agree with 4♠. 5♣ now showed 3rd round control, which is great. I still need the trump queen or a 5th trump for this to be a good slam. I'd continue with 5♦ now, and expect partner to jump to 6♥ with the ♥Q or extra lenght.

I agree, almost.

4♠cannot be ace-asking. That's bizarre. I agree.

4♠ shows a cue and asks for cues of tertiaries. The sole question I would have is what 4NT by Responder would show. It could show a tertiary in trumps, in which case 5♣ shows a club tertiary but denies five hearts or the heart Queen. Or, it could show a tertiary in spades (the unbiddable cue), leaving to ability to show trump values directly.

If 4NT would show a trump tertiary, then 5♦ would seem to ask for a diamond tertiary. If 4NT would show a spade tertiary, then 5♦ would seem to ask for a trump tertiary (the more important of the missing tertiaries most often).

This begs another question. Opener bypassing 4♠ to bid 4NT should not ask for the already-denied spade control. So, it seems that structuring here should be logical.

IMO, the best method would be for 4NT after 4♠ to show a spade tertiary, because that's the only way to get spade information reasonably. Then, 5♦ would be LTTC, asking for the most useful info, namely heart tertiary.

The question lurking is what 4NT, 5♣, 5♦, and 5♥ starts would be geared toward handling. Each seems to cover a problem not easily handled by the 4♠-start approach.

Tertiary = Q or doubleton?

I really like most of the ideas in this post, especially the uses of 4N. A long, long time ago, 4N was used frequently as a cue bid in the trump suit when key card was impossible or illogical.

[han]

Agree with skaeran.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Sep 3 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Tertiary = Q or doubleton?

Yes, but...

If 2♦ was "GF and waiting," showing at least two Queens, then the cues seem to be pin-pointing the Queens (not doubletons), since "one King" is not possible after the 4♥ call (except an internal control, but we know that's not the case).

This makes an interesting result, in that denials of Queens isolate where the Queens must be, in this specific example.

[Fluffy]

I agree with SoTired, Will try 6♣ as a possible contract.

I wouldn't open 2♣.