[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

1♠-2♣
3♠-?

---

You're playing SAYC. What now?

[han]

I'd bid 5S. I don't think this is a trump ask, we haven't agreed spades yet. My regular SAYC partners ( ) will figure out that I have a good spade raise without a red suit control.

[whereagles]

That's an old problem. Some people solve it by forgetting about 4♦ and 4♥ as natural and using them as cues in support of spades. Without that semi-gadget, bid 4NT and hope for the best.

[jdonn]

Agree with agree with 5♠.

[Codo]

I play that 4 ♣ now would ask about club support, so I "must" bid 5 Spade too.
But I had choose this bid in normal Sayc too. 4 Club is the only alternative, but there are no bids from pd which helps you in your descission between 5,6 and 7 Spade.

[skjaeran]

Agree with 5♠. Since this denies any red suit cuebids it should be pretty clear for partner what kind of hand I've got.

[whereagles]

I'm surprised everybody's bidding 5♠. I'm not saying the bid is wrong or something. I even think it's perfect if pard understands it, but is that a certainty?

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Nov 1 2007, 07:05 AM, said:

I'm surprised everybody's bidding 5♠. I'm not saying the bid is wrong or something. I even think it's perfect if pard understands it, but is that a certainty?

Partner should understand it. 5♠ as a general invite without side controls should be standard for this auction.

[kenrexford]

Wow. I often times want to make slam tries on problem hands posted here but learn how dangerous it is to make calls where the five-level is not safe. Yet, here we are all willing to bid at the five-level with a broken trick ssource, only two trumps, and a very late entry possibility on the side.

Partner would esily, with SAYC, have something like ♠AQ10xxx ♥AKQ ♦xxx ♣Q, right? So, how safe is this five-level decision?

Plus, I agree that 5♠, although fairly clear to me as a fit-jump, seems prone to mistake.

I also agree that 4♦ and 4♥ seem like fair cues in support. However, I would imagine that 4♥ should be an ambiguous cue, akin to Last Train, not promising anything other than the lack of a diamond control.

Of course, I may be wanting better techniques than are available. If I have nothing available, I suppose the 5♠ is my forced call. However, I really want 4♥ as my call.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Oct 31 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

Of course, I may be wanting better techniques than are available. If I have nothing available, I suppose the 5♠ is my forced call. However, I really want 4♥ as my call.

Yeah, you want to be playing what I play - swap opener's 3H and 3S rebids. Now you ca bid 3S over 3H to agree spades...

As that's not very helpful in the current problem, I quite like 4C (natural) here. Yes, your spade support is a bit good for it, but seems to describe where most of your values are.

[han]

I thought about 4C and 4H as alternatives for the reasons given by Frances and Ken. However, as I jokingly remarked, I know that a regular partner of mine would never misunderstand 5S so I still think it is the better than the ambiguous 4H. By starting with 4C you can't show your excellent (in context) spade support at the 4-level anyway so I don't think it solves anything.

[whereagles]

By the way, I just realized this. You can define responder's reverses as artificial, good spade raises, because there's little need for those bids as natural.

1♠ 2♣
3♠ 4♦ (or 4♥)

1♠ 2♦
3♠ 4♥

1♥ 2♣
3♥ 4♦

1♥ 2♦
3♥ 3♠

These could all be artificial raises, as opener won't usually have a second suit. Note that

1♥ 2♦
3♥ 4♣

1♠ 2♦
3♠ 4♣

would not be reverses, so they're good 55s. You'd still be a bit stuck if it were

1♠ 2♥
3♠

now 4m, which aren't reverses, show good 55s and you might want to bid 4♥ as natural. Obviously, rebids of responder's suit would be natural, slammish if minor. Another consequence is responder would need to bid a 65 with 6 in the lower-ranked suit starting with the 5 suiter.

[han]

I think everybody would take 4red in this auction as a slam try in spades. The problem is that we have little useful cards in the red suits. YOu could, as Ken suggests, use 4D as last train, not necessarily showing a cuebid in hearts but denying a cuebid in diamonds.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Oct 31 2007, 06:41 AM, said:

I'd bid 5S. I don't think this is a trump ask, we haven't agreed spades yet. My regular SAYC partners ( ) will figure out that I have a good spade raise without a red suit control.

I like this approach. In an auction like this, pard should look at his trumps and his outside controls and figure out what 5♠ is asking.

[firmit]

Maybe this is a stupid comment - but here it goes.
Opener jumps in his original suit - does he not almost establish trumph? except when responder bids 3NT?

What is wrong about 4♣? It is obviously forcing, so what denies opener from cue-bidding? What's the worst that could happen? If opener bids the expected 4♦ and responder bids 4♠ - is it not clear to opener that responder has slam interest without heart control?

[awm]

I usually play that 3♠ sets trumps, even in an SAYC context (opener's 2♠ rebid is forcing after all). So cuebidding 4♣ is fairly easy.

Even if 3♠ didn't set trumps, I agree with firmit that 4♣ followed by 4♠ is hard to misunderstand.

[han]

If your agreement is that 4C is a cuebid in support of spades then the problem is solved. I know this wasn't Kevin's agreement when this came up.

Assuming that partner reads your 4C as natural, it is very unlikely that she will bid 4red. Most likely she will bid 4S or 5C. Now you probably have to bid 5S and you are not better off (admittedly, not worse either). If she does bid 4red (what would that mean?) and you bid 4S then I imagine that would be interpreted as a hand with long clubs and a stiff spade, looking for the best game.

[helene_t]

firmit, on Nov 1 2007, 12:26 AM, said:

Maybe this is a stupid comment - but here it goes.
Opener jumps in his original suit - does he not almost establish trumph? except when responder bids 3NT?

This is not a stupid question. Mike Lawrence writes in his 2/1 workbook that you have to discuss with p if 3♠ promises a solid suit. I suppose this is the same question as whether it sets trump (I might be wrong). If you play 3♠ as setting trumps the price you pay is that 2♠ (and maybe 4♠) rebids become heavier loaded.

Lawrence's discussion should apply to SAYCish styles as well since in both styles,
1♠-2♣
2♠-3♣
would be NF.

As it happens, SAYC has chosen to play the 3♠ rebid as merely showing values (16+). It may not be a good SAYC-rebid with a moth-eaten suit, but I don't think that it sets trumps in SAYC.

[kfay]

Playing this hand I held:

---

my partner settled for 4♠ with the problem hand and I just passed. Is this hand worth another call over that? I don't really think so... 5♠ would have been nice. I could easily bid 6♠.