[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

1♣ - 1♥
3♣ - ?

---

1. What now?

2. Suppose you temporize with 3♦ and partner bids3♠. What now?

[gnasher]

I'd raise 3C to 4C, initiating a cue-bidding sequence.

In the sequence 1C-1H-3C-3D-3S, I think 3S is fourth suit forcing. I realise that this view may not be shared by everyone.

Regardless of what 3S means, I'd now bid 4C, again hoping for some cue-bids, but now worried that I'd implied a less balanced hand, with more in the red suits.

[Cascade]

This depends on style.

Do you want 3♦ to be ambiguous - either a try for 3NT or an advanced cue - or simply a no trump try.

We prefer the unambiguous auctions and would raise to 4♣ immediately with slam interest and reserve new suits for hands that want to investigate other strains.

Having said that 3♠ is a curious bid after 3♦ if responder had diamonds and spades stopped then he would probably bid 3NT so 4th suit forcing would have limited mileage. I suppose you might bid 3♦ with diamonds and spades and four-small hearts. Or maybe a hand with half a spade stopper. On the other hand if 3♠ is not 4th suit then it is a cue in a hand that likes our diamond try. This too could be ambiguous which just adds to the problems of sorting out where we are going.

If 3♠ is fourth suit forcing then we usually play that we can still get out in 4minor if no stopper is found. This adds difficulty in slam auctions if we started with an ambiguous 3♦.

We are so badly placed over 3♠ having not agreed clubs on the previous round:

4♣ might be passed

4NT should be quantitative over a 4th suit bid

4♦ might be construed as a big two-suiter

maybe 4♠ is free but who knows what that shows

otherwise there is not a good way to agree clubs and explore for slam.

[matmat]

i like supporting with support.

[whereagles]

4♣ and cooperate in any slam/grandslam attempt.

[Fluffy]

3♠ is the best we could hear after 3♦, partner is likelly singleton heart and everything is fitting well.

Just bid 4♣ and go on to 6 if only 1 keycard missing.

[helene_t]

Without a good understanding with p (how do I find out if he has a stiff hear?) I would just blast 6N over 3♣ at matchpoints. 3♦ could lead to wrong-sided 6N.

Over 3♠ I bid 4♣ and if he then bids 4♦ I bid 6♣, otherwise 6N.

[Codo]

In a non regular partnership I would be very careful to try the apporach of 3 ♦ followed by 4 ♣.
I really would hate to meet a partner who thinks that 3 Spade was fourth suit and 4 Club denies a stopper and he is passing. Okay this is VERY unlikely, but I see no benefit from 3 Diamond anyway, so I support directly.
If at anytime I need to speed up the auction or am afraid of misunderstandings, I just bid 6 NT.

[brianshark]

I would assume 3♦ scrambling for 3N showing a ♦ stop, 3♠ asking and 4♣ denying. With that in mind, I'll bid a 4♣ directly.

[pclayton]

I don't like 3♦. I think it gives us an ethical problem later if pard hitches.

Many of my pards will open 1N with many 6322's, so I am on very solid ground with 4♣ here.

Most 3♣ rebids that I produced gives us an excellent play for slam.

[jdonn]

4♣ then keycard. I'll keep it simple.

[han]

1. 4C
2. Abstain, 3D is very poor imo.

[benlessard]

Quote

1. 4C
2. Abstain, 3D is very poor imo.

Agree i like to play 4C as keycard or at least kickback of some sort asking for Keyc for minors at 4Nt is pretty bad imo.

3D should be reserved for hand with 5H or when stopper are lacking or at least advance cue-bids. You have controls in every suit & a trump suit. Cue-bidding bidding 3D will not give you any interesting information. Keycard and asking for extra values will do the trick. Stiff K into your AQxx is still good so you want to know about overall values (and keycard of course)

[Echognome]

han, on Feb 26 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

1. 4C
2. Abstain, 3D is very poor imo.

As per 2. I agree that 3♦ is somewhat masterminding, however, I think we are fairly well-placed over most responses. My biggest concern was protecting my ♠K holding if need be. My problem with agreeing clubs now (and I typically prefer to show support) is that we are now only playing in clubs ever and not NT when it may be correct. I think your comment is an overbid when you consider that 3♦ is the cheapest bid and gives partner the most room to describe his hand one more round.

[Echognome]

benlessard, on Feb 26 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

Cue-bidding bidding 3D will not give you any interesting information. Keycard and asking for extra values will do the trick.

This is wow on two accounts.

1) I don't think 3♦ is a cuebid. If it was, I'd always make the bid.
2) I can't imagine how the partner describing his hand one more round will be only useless information.

[Apollo81]

han, on Feb 26 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

1. 4C
2. Abstain, 3D is very poor imo.

re (1): 4♣ would be NF in my book -- this is how I would bid a hand that wanted to bid 3NT but had no spade stopper and doesn't have the values for 5♣.

Isn't the whole point of the 3♦ bid to see whether our values are working or not? It looks like they are to me since partner probably has short hearts and not a stiff spade, so I would bid RKC now. Agree "very poor" is too dramatic

I would have either bid 4♣ over 3♣ or just bid RKC, I like my hand.

[Cascade]

Echognome, on Feb 27 2008, 08:24 AM, said:

han, on Feb 26 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

1. 4C
2. Abstain, 3D is very poor imo.

As per 2. I agree that 3♦ is somewhat masterminding, however, I think we are fairly well-placed over most responses. My biggest concern was protecting my ♠K holding if need be. My problem with agreeing clubs now (and I typically prefer to show support) is that we are now only playing in clubs ever and not NT when it may be correct. I think your comment is an overbid when you consider that 3♦ is the cheapest bid and gives partner the most room to describe his hand one more round.

It is going to be very hard to bid no trumps on this auction AND show your values AND show your club fit.

This is a much harder problem at MPs (which is the condition in the opening post).

After a 4♣ raise we play that an immediate 4NT from opener (partner) is an offer to play with a hand unsuited to slam exploration. One cue-bid and we now have both partner's cooperating for slam (forcing 4♣ and cue) and we can no longer play in No Trumps below six. We also play kickback so over 4♣ 4♦ is RKCB. If we choose to cue then a subsequent 4NT by either partner is a diamond cue.

This is only a problem at IMPs when we can make 9+ tricks in no trumps and 10 or fewer in clubs.

Trying to show everything suggests keeping the bidding low with a nebulous 3♦ but we found the auction becomes murky too easily and have settled for making a decision and going with an unambiguous route.

I guess there is still a choice here 1. 4♣ to agree clubs or 2. 3♦ followed by a quantitative 4NT over 3NT or 3♠.

[han]

Echognome, on Feb 26 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

han, on Feb 26 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

1. 4C
2. Abstain, 3D is very poor imo.

As per 2. I agree that 3♦ is somewhat masterminding, however, I think we are fairly well-placed over most responses. My biggest concern was protecting my ♠K holding if need be. My problem with agreeing clubs now (and I typically prefer to show support) is that we are now only playing in clubs ever and not NT when it may be correct. I think your comment is an overbid when you consider that 3♦ is the cheapest bid and gives partner the most room to describe his hand one more round.

Two reasons why 3D is poor:

1) For the rest of the auction partner will not have a clue what you have.

2) You may not be able to ask for keycards later with clubs as trumps.

Whether it is poor or very poor depends on expectations.

[Echognome]

han, on Feb 26 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

Two reasons why 3D is poor:

1) For the rest of the auction partner will not have a clue what you have.

2) You may not be able to ask for keycards later with clubs as trumps.

Whether it is poor or very poor depends on expectations.

1) So instead of bidding 4♣ this round, we bid it the next round. What is partner going to think we have?

1♣ - 1♥; 3♣ - 3♦; 3♥ - 4♣

or

1♣ - 1♥; 3♣ - 3♦; 3NT - 4♣

Both seem like auctions where we made an advanced cue. However, I do agree that they would tend to deny a spade card.

2) So what? Is it all that great to keycard for clubs, especially given that we aren't playing minorwood or kickback? I'm content enough to make noises cuebidding given the agreements. We don't have to always reach slam with keycarding, although it will certainly be tougher to reach grand if that is correct. I'm not worried about the latter.

I just don't think you are giving any merit to a bid that is going to let partner describe his hand for one more round. Partner's options over 4♣ seem to be cuebid or 4NT as an offer (and also something one would like to have discussed).

[Echognome]

Cascade, on Feb 26 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

It is going to be very hard to bid no trumps on this auction AND show your values AND show your club fit.

This is a much harder problem at MPs (which is the condition in the opening post).

After a 4♣ raise we play that an immediate 4NT from opener (partner) is an offer to play with a hand unsuited to slam exploration. One cue-bid and we now have both partner's cooperating for slam (forcing 4♣ and cue) and we can no longer play in No Trumps below six. We also play kickback so over 4♣ 4♦ is RKCB. If we choose to cue then a subsequent 4NT by either partner is a diamond cue.

This is only a problem at IMPs when we can make 9+ tricks in no trumps and 10 or fewer in clubs.

Trying to show everything suggests keeping the bidding low with a nebulous 3♦ but we found the auction becomes murky too easily and have settled for making a decision and going with an unambiguous route.

I guess there is still a choice here 1. 4♣ to agree clubs or 2. 3♦ followed by a quantitative 4NT over 3NT or 3♠.

Agree with pretty much all you said. I didn't have such agreements, so there's something to be said for just clarifying right away what your intent is with 4♣.

On the given hand I went with 3♦ and then bid 4NT.

Partner bid 5♦, so I just bid 6NT. I had no idea whether 5♦ was an offer or some blackwood response or some keycard response. (turns out he thought it was the latter for clubs..)