[kenrexford]

♠x ♥10xx ♦AQxxx ♣AKxx

Did I miss something here?

I opened 1♦.

Partner bid 1♠, so I rebid 2♣.

Partner bid 2♥, 4th suit GF, so I bid 3♣.

Partner bid 3♦, either slammish with diamonds or unsure about 3NT, so I bid 4♣, declining any NT invite, denying Qx or better in spades, denying a heart control, but showing two of the top three clubs, in case.

Partner bid 4♠. 4♥ would have systemically been RKCB, so 4♠ seemed to be a cue seeking slam, but unable to ask. The failure to bid 4♦ suggested the obvious lack of two top diamonds. 4♠ also obviously inferred a heart control.

So, I bid 4NT. This might be construed as showing two top diamonds (I have that), or primes in clubs (I have that), or a non-honor spade control (I have that). Plus, it is a good "hedge" bid in case 4♠ was simply offering spades if I held a bad doubleton.

Partner bid 5♣, which seemed to confirm the slam motive to his 4♠ call. After great deliberation, I bid 6♦, which may be aggressive.

Partner held ♠AKQJx ♥Jxx ♦Kx ♣Jxx

Am I off my rocker, or was partner?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Mar 28 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

Am I off my rocker, or was partner?

Both. Over 3♣, 3♦ was simply wrong without support. I have said before I like to play 3♥ as further 4sf (no 6 spades, no diamond support, leaves 3NT still in the picture, implied 3-4 hearts), but if that wasn't available then 3♠ seems like a very harmless lie. Over 3♥ the way I play I'm sure south should bid 3NT. Over 3♠ it's tougher since south could still be 5-5 with an actual heart stopper, but either 3NT or 4♠ will work out fine in this case.

As for you Mr, I would bid 3♥ over 3♦ to leave 3NT in the picture (not a 'cuebid', barf). And even if I accept all your descriptions, why bid 6 at the end? You have told it all, though granted it was a bit late to slow things down by then.

[ceeb]

There must be some flaw in the logic that compels 2♣, 3♣, and 4♣, all natural bids, on a four card suit. The partnership's firm rejection of NT is obviously, at least in hindsight, misguided. Therefore I suggest you had done enough NT denial with 3♣ and could have tried 3NT next time around.

As for your partner's 3♦ call, preference on a doubleton honor is a great and unselfish bid when partner (you) may be begging for preference. That's less than normally likely given that you in turn were begged by the 2♥ call to do something. And it's less than normally attractive when holding a self-sufficient major suit as an attactive alternative bid.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 28 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

Am I off my rocker, or was partner?

Both. Over 3♣, 3♦ was simply wrong without support. I have said before I like to play 3♥ as further 4sf (no 6 spades, no diamond support, leaves 3NT still in the picture, implied 3-4 hearts), but if that wasn't available then 3♠ seems like a very harmless lie. Over 3♥ the way I play I'm sure south should bid 3NT. Over 3♠ it's tougher since south could still be 5-5 with an actual heart stopper, but either 3NT or 4♠ will work out fine in this case.

As for you Mr, I would bid 3♥ over 3♦ to leave 3NT in the picture (not a 'cuebid', barf). And even if I accept all your descriptions, why bid 6 at the end? You have told it all, though granted it was a bit late to slow things down by then.

A couple of continuing "huh?" questions:

1. Is 10xx enough? I thought about 3♥ myself, but that seems really weak. Jxx or Qx and I'd bid 3♥. But, 10xx? Really?

2. What more would you want for a 6♦ call contextually? I cannot have anything of value in hearts (apparently, 10xx is too much). I cannot have a spade card at all. I cannot have better clubs (I did not bid 5♣ after 4♠). What I do have is primed clubs and the unknown diamond Queen, I thought. My initial thought was that I might need x-xx-AQxxx-AKxxx, but then I'd bid 5♣ after 4♠, wouldn't I? Could I have a weaker hand, like x-xxx-AJxxx-AKxx? Could I even be 4♦/5♣? I was not sure.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Mar 29 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

1. Is 10xx enough?  I thought about 3♥ myself, but that seems really weak.  Jxx or Qx and I'd bid 3♥.  But, 10xx?  Really?

2. What more would you want for a 6♦ call contextually?  I cannot have anything of value in hearts (apparently, 10xx is too much).  I cannot have a spade card at all.  I cannot have better clubs (I did not bid 5♣ after 4♠).  What I do have is primed clubs and the unknown diamond Queen, I thought.  My initial thought was that I might need x-xx-AQxxx-AKxxx, but then I'd bid 5♣ after 4♠, wouldn't I?  Could I have a weaker hand, like x-xxx-AJxxx-AKxx?  Could I even be 4♦/5♣?  I was not sure.

1. Yes, it's simply a natural bid. You have three hearts, and it's the only reasonable way to leave 3NT in the picture which could easily be the right contract.
2. I have no idea how to respond since I've never understood your cuebidding style and I'm sure I never will. Usually the posts explaining it are so long and strange I just skip or browse them. All I know is you bid a TON on a hand with almost no extra values and the least shape possible (some would say less than the least shape). I don't see how you can even dispute it given that you seem to not know what 4NT meant, although at that point you should really consider yourself 'bid out'.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 29 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

1. Is 10xx enough?  I thought about 3♥ myself, but that seems really weak.  Jxx or Qx and I'd bid 3♥.  But, 10xx?  Really?

2. What more would you want for a 6♦ call contextually?  I cannot have anything of value in hearts (apparently, 10xx is too much).  I cannot have a spade card at all.  I cannot have better clubs (I did not bid 5♣ after 4♠).  What I do have is primed clubs and the unknown diamond Queen, I thought.  My initial thought was that I might need x-xx-AQxxx-AKxxx, but then I'd bid 5♣ after 4♠, wouldn't I?  Could I have a weaker hand, like x-xxx-AJxxx-AKxx?  Could I even be 4♦/5♣?  I was not sure.

1. Yes, it's simply a natural bid. You have three hearts, and it's the only reasonable way to leave 3NT in the picture which could easily be the right contract.
2. I have no idea how to respond since I've never understood your cuebidding style and I'm sure I never will. Usually the posts explaining it are so long and strange I just skip or browse them. All I know is you bid a TON on a hand with almost no extra values and the least shape possible (some would say less than the least shape). I don't see how you can even dispute it given that you seem to not know what 4NT meant, although at that point you should really consider yourself 'bid out'.

To be technical, I had no confusion as to what 4NT shows. I noted that the call has no cost because partner, who might be confused or might be lost, cannot go wrong (I thought). LOL

For me, 4NT unambiguously is a spade control, not an honor (as I have already denied an honor). Hence, a stiff (or void) in spades.

As to whether I have bid the hand out, I'll provide a simple hand for partner, his problem, and why I bid 6♦.

He has set trumps at 3♦, plus the late cue. So, let's give him something nice like Kxxx in diamonds. He has cue'd spades, showing two top spades and contextually useful spades at that. So, let's give him the expected AKxxx. He has shown a heart control, so let's give him the Ace. How about, then, a rundown-looking ♠AKxxx ♥Ax ♦Kxxx ♣xx. 5♣ as LTTC (or, if he is confused, as tertiary club control) makes sense with this hand -- asking if I am primed-out for my sequence to date.

I win three major cards, five diamonds, and two clubs on force. The sole question, then, is whether my clubs are AKxx, which gives me a reasonable shot at 12 tricks (diamonds split 2-2 or the 13th club is to my right or partner has KJxx).

How about ♠AKxxx ♥Ax ♦J109x ♣Qx? Now I can ditch his heart loser, ruff a club in dummy, ruff my third heart in dummy, and maybe even make an overtrick on occasion.

♠AKxxx ♥Axx ♦Kxx ♣Qx? Again, 12 tricks.

What hand must partner have where 12 tricks is not in sight?