[zasanya]

Scoring: IMP

1♦-1♥
3♥-4♣
4♦-?

---

You are playing 2/1.You have already cued ♣ denying ♠ control.
Does your hand warrent a further move slamward?

[inquiry]

absolutely, In fact, I am thinking about possible grand slam

[vuroth]

These things always confuse me so.

Am I showing first round control, or merely first OR second round control?

Does partner's willingness to show in diamonds mean that we don't have 2 quick losers in spades, or might we still?

Even if I decide that partner has spade help, what next? 4NT if it's keycard seems like it will help, but if it's not? 5♥? 6♥ and hope?

V

[kenberg]

After this strong auction I cannot see partner passing 4H if he holds the ace of spades. If he holds Kx we are already down to a 50% slam. So I just bid 4H.

I would expect partner to reason as follows: If partner did not want me to move past 4H when I hold the ace of spades, he should not have bid 4C.

I guess advanced partnerships sort this a little better by use of the serious or non-serious 3NT, but there is no reason to think that this is being played here. I would revert to the more fundamental logic I describe.

[han]

Strongly disagree that partner won't pass 4H with the ace of spades.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

After this strong auction I cannot see partner passing 4H if he holds the ace of spades. If he holds Kx we are already down to a 50% slam. So I just bid 4H.

I would expect partner to reason as follows: If partner did not want me to move past 4H when I hold the ace of spades, he should not have bid 4C.

I guess advanced partnerships sort this a little better by use of the serious or non-serious 3NT, but there is no reason to think that this is being played here. I would revert to the more fundamental logic I describe.

Assuming we are playing first or second round control cuebids, 4♦ already showed a spade control. Bidding 4♥ now should mean "please bid on if you have extras".

I would expect partner to pass 4♥ with Ax Kxxx AQxxx Qx.

[kenrexford]

This would be a lot stronger of a sequence if 4♣ either showed or denied serious slam interest as well. If I had this auction, my 4♣ call would have been a non-serious move, and bidding on would be 100% obvious. But, then I might have bid 3NT myself with this hand...

[han]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

I would expect partner to pass 4♥ with Ax Kxxx AQxxx Qx.

I play that 1D.. 3H denies a 1NT opening.

[jdonn]

zasanya, on Oct 14 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Does your hand warrent a further move slamward?

Yes

I would just bid blackwood now. Even on the slight chance we have a grand, I don't think it's easy to find out from here that the spade situation is ok.

[mike777]

zasanya, on Oct 14 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦-1♥
3♥-4♣
4♦-?

---

You are playing 2/1.You have already cued ♣ denying ♠ control.
Does your hand warrent a further move slamward?

yes rkc now...stop worring about pard having xx in spades

[kenberg]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

After this strong auction I cannot see partner passing 4H if he holds the ace of spades. If he holds Kx we are already down to a 50% slam. So I just bid 4H.

I would expect partner to reason as follows: If partner did not want me to move past 4H when I hold the ace of spades, he should not have bid 4C.

I guess advanced partnerships sort this a little better by use of the serious or non-serious 3NT, but there is no reason to think that this is being played here. I would revert to the more fundamental logic I describe.

Assuming we are playing first or second round control cuebids, 4♦ already showed a spade control. Bidding 4♥ now should mean "please bid on if you have extras".

I would expect partner to pass 4♥ with Ax Kxxx AQxxx Qx.

I concede that this makes sense to me. I hadn't thought of it, but I agree.

[effervesce]

I RKCB now. Your hand is an absolute monster for the bidding so far, and partner may pass 4♥ thinking he's already shown a good hand and already cooperated with a slam try.

[the hog]

This is worth KC now.

[TimG]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Assuming we are playing first or second round control cuebids, 4♦ already showed a spade control. Bidding 4♥ now should mean "please bid on if you have extras".

I would expect partner to pass 4♥ with Ax Kxxx AQxxx Qx.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that holding

♠xx ♥KJxx ♦AKQxx ♣KQ

opener would not cue-bid over 4♣? Or, are you saying that he wouldn't cue-bid a second round diamond control without control of spades, too?

[rogerclee]

TimG, on Oct 15 2008, 05:36 AM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 14 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Assuming we are playing first or second round control cuebids, 4♦ already showed a spade control. Bidding 4♥ now should mean "please bid on if you have extras".

I would expect partner to pass 4♥ with Ax Kxxx AQxxx Qx.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that holding

♠xx ♥KJxx ♦AKQxx ♣KQ

opener would not cue-bid over 4♣? Or, are you saying that he wouldn't cue-bid a second round diamond control without control of spades, too?

Yes, opener should not cuebid (showing interest in slam), since he knows that slam cannot legitimately make (they are off two spade tricks).

[skjaeran]

Since I've denied a spade control, 4♦ from partner shows a spade control, since without it he'd sign off in 4♥.

I'll just KC now. I'm more concerned about a possible grand than not making six.

[zasanya]

Scoring: IMP

1♦-1♥
3♥-4♣
4♦-4♥
?

---

On both tables South bid 4♥.Now does North hand warrent a further move slamwards?

[awm]

The north hand is pretty huge here. Partner has shown a club control (very likely the ace, could be singleton I suppose) and a good enough hand to cuebid (so probably including ♥A). Most likely partner bid only 4♥ over the diamond cue because of a poor spade holding. I think the spade void (i.e. we have no losers in spades even if partner has a truly lousy holding like xxx) combined with the potential source of tricks in diamonds makes the north hand a mandatory bid over 4♥. How could this hand be any better and not have forced game after hearing 1♥?

I wouldn't have bid 4♥ with the south hand either though; sixth heart is too big of a card for that. South hand sounds more like xxxx AQxxx xx Ax or the like (still a fine slam opposite north hand, but would not be so great a slam if north had singleton spade instead of void).

[TimG]

rogerclee, on Oct 15 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

TimG, on Oct 15 2008, 05:36 AM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 14 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Assuming we are playing first or second round control cuebids, 4♦ already showed a spade control. Bidding 4♥ now should mean "please bid on if you have extras".

I would expect partner to pass 4♥ with Ax Kxxx AQxxx Qx.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that holding

♠xx ♥KJxx ♦AKQxx ♣KQ

opener would not cue-bid over 4♣? Or, are you saying that he wouldn't cue-bid a second round diamond control without control of spades, too?

Yes, opener should not cuebid (showing interest in slam), since he knows that slam cannot legitimately make (they are off two spade tricks).

Oh, I see, you bid 1st or 2nd round controls in order regardless of whether they are 1st or 2nd or high card or shortness controls, so 4C denied any control in spades.

[vuroth]

The "1st OR 2nd" seems to have its advantages. I'm cautious about playing it undiscussed, though.

How standard is it? I looked at BWS (for example), but couldn't really tell.