[kenrexford]

An auction stumped me. I think I know what I would want to be able to do, but I am interested in others' thoughts.

You open 1♠.

Partner makes a 2/1 GF 2♦, a call that initially might be suspect.

You bid 2♠.

Partner bids 2NT.

You bid 3♦.

Partner bids 3♥.

You bid 3♠.

Now, the questions. In answering these questions, consider and feel free to explain what nuances you have in the possible holdings for the 2NT and 3♥ bids as affecting choices now.

What would 4♣, 4♦, 4♥, and 4♠ show?

How many of these calls support spades? If more than one, how are the options distinguished? Conversely, which calls further the diamond cause, and, if more then one do this, how are these options distinguished?

[effervesce]

After 2NT, we play 3♥ as 6x3x, 3♠ as 6313 and 3♦ as 5x4x. Partner's 3♥ after your 3♦ is then initially assumed to be a cue for diamonds, 3♠ looks like two top honors in spades, 4♣ is therefore a cue, 4♦ shows no club control, 4♥ a 2nd cue without a club cue, 4♠ an offer to play in 4♠ given no club control.

[kenrexford]

effervesce, on May 28 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

After 2NT, we play 3♥ as 6x3x, 3♠ as 6313 and 3♦ as 5x4x. Partner's 3♥ after your 3♦ is then initially assumed to be a cue for diamonds, 3♠ looks like two top honors in spades, 4♣ is therefore a cue, 4♦ shows no club control, 4♥ a 2nd cue without a club cue, 4♠ an offer to play in 4♠ given no club control.

So, there is no manner to describe a maxi spade versus a mini spade suggestion?

[mike777]

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

An auction stumped me.  I think I know what I would want to be able to do, but I am interested in others' thoughts.

You open 1♠.

Partner makes a 2/1 GF 2♦, a call that initially might be suspect.

You bid 2♠.

Partner bids 2NT.

You bid 3♦.

Partner bids 3♥.

You bid 3♠.

Now, the questions.  In answering these questions, consider and feel free to explain what nuances you have in the possible holdings for the 2NT and 3♥ bids as affecting choices now.

What would 4♣, 4♦, 4♥, and 4♠ show?

How many of these calls support spades?  If more than one, how are the options distinguished?  Conversely, which calls further the diamond cause, and, if more then one do this, how are these options distinguished?

here are my nonexpert choices.

4c by responder is a cue, Diamonds are trumps.
4d=slam try in diamonds.
4h=kickback, rkc for diamonds.
4s=to play, spades.

I think 2nt infers extras but natural. 3h is forward going, values.

[effervesce]

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

effervesce, on May 28 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

After 2NT, we play 3♥ as 6x3x, 3♠ as 6313 and 3♦ as 5x4x. Partner's 3♥ after your 3♦ is then initially assumed to be a cue for diamonds, 3♠ looks like two top honors in spades, 4♣ is therefore a cue, 4♦ shows no club control, 4♥ a 2nd cue without a club cue, 4♠ an offer to play in 4♠ given no club control.

So, there is no manner to describe a maxi spade versus a mini spade suggestion?

We play this in a strong club 2/1 setting.

[cherdano]

Why could 2♦ be "initially suspect"?

[han]

Agree with Arend below (except that I would substitute 6-3 for 6-4).

[awm]

Well partner didn't raise 2♠ to 3♠. And he also didn't bid 3♠ over 3♦. So I don't think partner is really all that interested in playing in spades. The 3♥ bid should be a cuebid for diamonds. I think 3♠ is a cuebid (probably two top honors since we opened and rebid spades) agreeing diamonds.

So:

4♣ = cuebid for diamonds
4♦ = interested in diamond slam, but no club control (or redwood if you play that)
4♥ = kickback (if you play that) or 2nd round heart control with no club control
4♠ = this shows the other spade honor; it is probably still a slam try for diamonds denying a club control, but if opener holds six spades and no club control he may as well pass it

[cherdano]

I don't think 3♥ is unambiguously a cue for diamonds, it could be looking for a club stopper to play 3N. (No 2N does not promise a stopper in both unbid suits.) So 3♠ could be showing extra length or strength in spades (how else would we bid a 6-4 hand?), and 4♠ has to be to play.
I don't think responder can make any cue for spades at this point.

[gnasher]

Regardless of what spade and diamond lengths have been promised up to the 3♦ bid, in the first instance 3♥ is a game-investigatory bid. Responder has to be able to do something when he has ♥AQJ and ♣xxx.

3♠ shows better spades than had been shown before. Therefore a responder who was previously unwilling to commit to spades may now want to show a good hand with spade support.

As a trump suit has not yet been set. I would assume:
- 4♦ sets diamonds as trumps.
- 4♣ and 4♥ agree spades and show suitability, but don't promise extra values. There are two of them, so they are cue-bids.
- 4♠ agrees spades and denies the ability to bid 4♣ or 4♥.

Regarding the question of responder's values, I like to play that 1S-2x-something-3NT shows 15-17 balanced, so responder's 2NT is either a minimum or 18+.

[han]

gnasher, on May 29 2008, 03:15 AM, said:

Regarding the question of responder's values, I like to play that 1S-2x-something-3NT shows 15-17 balanced,

So do I.

Quote

so responder's 2NT is either a minimum or 18+.

I would bid 2NT with these two 16-counts:

x KQ10x AQJxx Axx

Kx AQx AQxxxx Jx

You?

[effervesce]

Ditto han. It's more useful to use 2NT as a shape ask, rather than showing a min or 18+.

[gnasher]

han, on May 29 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

I would bid 2NT with these two 16-counts:

x KQ10x AQJxx Axx

Kx AQx AQxxxx Jx

You?

3♥ on the first one definitely. The second one looks a bit like a balanced 18-count anyway, so I might bid 2NT. Maybe that means I don't really want to play it quite as restrictively as I said.

[han]

I'd rather bid 2NT on a wider variety of hands and only bid 3H with more distributional hands that are seriously interested in playing in diamonds, even if partner has a minimal balanced hand. I prefer to play that 3H promises 6 diamonds.

Apologies for hijacking the thread. However, the precise agreements for 2NT do affect what later calls might mean.

My first reaction to the original question was that 4C and 4H are cuebids for spades. After all, responder can set diamonds unambiguously with 4D but cannot show slam interest in spades. But then I realized that with a doubleton spade responder would often bid 3S over 3D. Still, if I had slam interest in diamonds then I would bid 4D at the table to avoid ambiguity.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on May 29 2008, 01:38 AM, said:

Why could 2♦ be "initially suspect"?

At this point, it is not.

[kenrexford]

Interesting.

The hands:

Scoring: IMP

---

The question presented to me was what Opener should bid after:

1♠-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-2NT-P-
3♦-P-3♥-P-
3♠-P-4♠-all pass

I thought Opener had a greater problem than that viewed by his partner (who presented the problem), because I thought that Responder, with the spade King, the prime heart, and great diamonds, should have made a strong spade raise at this point. When asked what that should be, I was not sure, which of course is not a good answer. There seem to be many options.

[gnasher]

han, on May 29 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

x KQ10x AQJxx Axx

A more compelling example would be x Kxxx AQJxx AQ10 - bidding 3♥ on this feels awful, and 3♣ also has problems.

han, on May 29 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

I'd rather bid 2NT on a wider variety of hands and only bid 3H with more distributional hands that are seriously interested in playing in diamonds, even if partner has a minimal balanced hand. I prefer to play that 3H promises 6 diamonds.

That might be taking a good thing too far. Wouldn't you like to be able to bid 3♥ with Qx AQ10x AKJxx xx ?

[mike777]

kenrexford, on May 29 2008, 08:00 AM, said:

Interesting.

The hands:

Dealer: West Vul: ???? Scoring: IMP

♠ AQxxxxx ♥ x ♦ Kxx ♣ Ax ♠ K ♥ Axxx ♦ AQJxx ♣ Qxx

The question presented to me was what Opener should bid after:

1♠-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-2NT-P-
3♦-P-3♥-P-
3♠-P-4♠-all pass

I thought Opener had a greater problem than that viewed by his partner (who presented the problem), because I thought that Responder, with the spade King, the prime heart, and great diamonds, should have made a strong spade raise at this point.  When asked what that should be, I was not sure, which of course is not a good answer.  There seem to be many options.

tough hand, but I thought the bidding was fine until 4s, I would have tried 4d over 3s. Partner will note no rkc by me and no 4c cuebid.

Now partner can use Kickback, 4h assuming you play that and then 5H and find K of spades.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 29 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Interesting.

The hands:

Scoring: IMP

---

The question presented to me was what Opener should bid after:

1♠-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-2NT-P-
3♦-P-3♥-P-
3♠-P-4♠-all pass

I thought Opener had a greater problem than that viewed by his partner (who presented the problem), because I thought that Responder, with the spade King, the prime heart, and great diamonds, should have made a strong spade raise at this point. When asked what that should be, I was not sure, which of course is not a good answer. There seem to be many options.

Silly question...

What's the minimum length that you require for a 2/1 in Diamonds (I seem to recall that you make a 2/1 in a fairly short club suit. I'm not sure of the extent to which this extends to Diamonds)

In a similar vein, does a 2♠ rebid promise five or six Spades?

Simply put, I'm somewhat confused if/when either side has suggested an actual trump suit...

In theory, the 3♦ rebid might suggest a sixth Spade. However, I don't think that West has shown seven cards to the Ace Queen

[kenrexford]

No silly questions. I'll explain my thoughts:

1♠ = normal opening, but light end of the spectrum of styles.
2♦ = initially, might be a convenience bid, almost an advance cue of sorts. Might be.
2♠ = shows (never promises with me) 6+
2NT = waiting. The failure to raise spades means that the diamond suit was real. With 1444, would likely start 2♣, so almost assuredly 5+ in diamonds.
3♦ = normal
3♥ = cue or probe, I thought. Uncertain direction at this point. Responder thought 3♥ was implicitly at least somewhat a power bid, but I disagree.
3♠ = natural

At this point, my first reaction was for Responder to bid 4♦ (Mike and I agree), but this is because of a perhaps strange view (Mike might not share THIS view, LOL):

4♣ = diamonds are the thing (a flag?)
4♦ = true cue (HHxxx in diamonds; H = A/K/Q), spade support
4♥ = weaker diamonds, but LTTC spades
4♠ = signoff suggestion

Responder (a usual partner of mine) thought that 2NT guaranteed a stiff (probably true), that 3♥ showed extras (don't agree), and that 3NT over 3♠ is the bid with a small stiff in spades (hence 4♠ showed the A/K/Q -- I don't think I agree).