[awm]

Scoring: IMP

---

You are playing 2/1. The auction so far:

1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 3♠
4♣ - 4♦
4♥ - 4♠
4NT - ???

What is going on? What would you bid next?

If you think 4NT is keycard (for what suit?) then your agreement is 1430.

[jdonn]

This is easy, 4♣ strongly agreed spades, the rest 'should' have been cuebids, and 4NT is keycard for spades. Obviously this hand has misbid badly over 4♣, mostly that it was way too good to sign off in 4♠.

[rogerclee]

Agree with jdonn, over 4C this hand is easily worth a 4N bid.

[Codo]

THis is simple?

Obviously 4 ♣ did not agree spades but asked for further describtion.

At least for south. And maybe there is even more then one player out there who is not use to Forum Standard.

SO I guess for South, 4 Diamond confirms Diamonds, and 4 NT is RCKB for Diamonds.

And I think that this is really obvious and simple.

[marcD]

This may not be simple but let's keep it simple : 4♣ agrees S so 4NT is keycard for spades. That would be my interpretation in a casual partnership .
The only way to address a possible misundertanding would be to bid a 5NT pick a slam but that could open a can of worms.

[kenrexford]

4♣ agreed spades. 4♦ makes sense only if it specifically is agreed as a general move (LTTC) without a heart control, which makes some sense here. I actually like the idea, if Opener is known to have shortness in diamonds (which he is not, though). The idea would be that, when only two cues are available, and the higher would be more useful as a true cue and the lower almost not useful at all, that the lower is LTTC (or a "cue" of general "elsewhere" cards). I digress.

I'd answer (spades trumps) -- 5♥.

[TimG]

Codo, on Oct 27 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

Obviously 4 ♣ did not agree spades but asked for further describtion.

At least for south. And maybe there is even more then one player out there who is not use to Forum Standard.

SO I guess for South, 4 Diamond confirms Diamonds, and 4 NT is RCKB for Diamonds.

And I think that this is really obvious and simple.

If responder thinks diamonds have been agreed, shouldn't he bid 5C instead of 4S?

[Codo]

TimG, on Oct 27 2008, 09:18 PM, said:

Codo, on Oct 27 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

Obviously 4 ♣ did not agree spades but asked for further describtion.

At least for south. And maybe there is even more then one player out there who is not use to Forum Standard.

SO  I guess for South, 4 Diamond confirms Diamonds, and 4 NT is RCKB for Diamonds.

And I think that this is really obvious and simple.

If responder thinks diamonds have been agreed, shouldn't he bid 5C instead of 4S?

With 4 Spade he showed his control, awaiting pds RKCB.
Why should he bypass 4 NT and deny his control?


If he thought Spades where agreed, why did he bid 4 Diamond and not 4 Heart, or 4 Spade if he is not allowed to cuebid shortness in partners suit?
I doubt that 4 Diamond as a kind of general slam try is a basic part of 2/1.

[pclayton]

4♣ agreed spades. I would have keycarded over that, but 5♣ is OK too.

Quote

Per Ken: 4♦ makes sense only if it specifically is agreed as a general move (LTTC) without a heart control, which makes some sense here.

They call it Last Train for a reason Ken. 4♦ absolutely shows a control, which we haven't got.

4♥ seems to say, "OK, you were confused about 4♣, but I'll cue bid anyway".

I'm amazed we still have a chance after 4♠. Obviously we should answer key cards now.

[TimG]

Codo, on Oct 27 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

TimG, on Oct 27 2008, 09:18 PM, said:

Codo, on Oct 27 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

Obviously 4 ♣ did not agree spades but asked for further describtion.

At least for south. And maybe there is even more then one player out there who is not use to Forum Standard.

SO  I guess for South, 4 Diamond confirms Diamonds, and 4 NT is RCKB for Diamonds.

And I think that this is really obvious and simple.

If responder thinks diamonds have been agreed, shouldn't he bid 5C instead of 4S?

With 4 Spade he showed his control, awaiting pds RKCB.
Why should he bypass 4 NT and deny his control?

If you must religiously bid any first or second round control, then perhaps you cannot bypass spades. But, opener is very likely short in spades and won't be much interested in the King. The Ace of Clubs is something that would seem to be of great interest to partner, however.

Perhaps I am out of touch, but I don't think RKC must be bid along the way to every slam.

[helene_t]

Agree with others that spades are trumps so I have two keycards.

[Codo]

I am not praising South bidding approach, it is just what I read into his auction.

And to solve this problem: "What to bid now?", it helps to know what South thinks what he had showed so far and to understand what North had shown so far. It really does not matter at all whether we like this approach or whether we use RCKB or spiral scan or not.

I really doubt that south thinks that North had shown Spade support, because in this case his 4 Diamond bid was simply to deep. (At least to me).

There are many possible scenarios:

1. 4 Club was agreeing Spades and 4 Diamond is a sort of: Showing extras without a control. Or 4 Diamond shows a "fragment".

2. 4 Club was kind of 4sf, asking for support, 4 Diamond showed this, they cuebidded a little bid and launched RCKB.

3. 4 Club was a kind of forcing, Partner showed 3 Diamonds, Opener said: Okay, I still prefer Hearts to Diamonds. And Responder: Then I want to play Spades, I have at most one Heart and Opener stops in 4 NT to play.

4. 4 Club is pattering out a 0544 or 0553 and partner wants to play Diamonds in this case.

I think there are more possibilities beyond my imagination.

I just hope that my partner will choose the same approach as I will and I am sure that this South had not .

[pclayton]

Codo, on Oct 27 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

1. 4 Club was agreeing Spades and 4 Diamond is a sort of: Showing extras without a control. Or 4 Diamond shows a "fragment".

Roland, why would you ever cue bid a fragment if spades are agreed as trump?

Quote

2. 4 Club was kind of 4sf, asking for support, 4 Diamond showed this, they cuebidded a little bid and launched RCKB.

Asking for support of what?

Quote

3. 4 Club was a kind of forcing, Partner showed 3 Diamonds, Opener said: Okay, I still prefer Hearts to Diamonds. And Responder: Then I want to play Spades, I have at most one Heart and Opener stops in 4 NT to play.

This doesn't make sense to me. 3♠ unambiguously shows 6. Any hand that wants to play 4N bids 3N the previous round.

Quote

4. 4 Club is pattering out a 0544 or 0553 and partner wants to play Diamonds in this case.

10 years ago I would have expected this hand. We never made anticipatory cue bids at the four level. This would be a useful agreement if I held void AKQxx AKQx Jxxx. Lately, the need for showing two ways to get to 4♠ takes priority over the rare 0=5=4=4 hand. I would not expect a 0=5=5=3 however.

Bidding theory changes. You just have to hope your partner is on the same wavelength.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Oct 27 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

4♣ agreed spades. I would have keycarded over that, but 5♣ is OK too.

Quote

Per Ken: 4♦ makes sense only if it specifically is agreed as a general move (LTTC) without a heart control, which makes some sense here.

They call it Last Train for a reason Ken. 4♦ absolutely shows a control, which we haven't got.

4♥ seems to say, "OK, you were confused about 4♣, but I'll cue bid anyway".

I'm amazed we still have a chance after 4♠. Obviously we should answer key cards now.

I think you are, respectfully, missing an inference here. When you only have two cuebids available between a general cue (4♣ -- says nothing about clubs) and game in our suit (4♠), then cues do not have to follow the strict rules they would normally follow. If they do, then Responder has only two options -- show a diamond control or show nothing but general interest (if 4♥ is LTTC). That seems like a wild waste of space.

If you do not want to call 4♦ a "Last Train to CLarksville," then call it a non-committal "quantitative" cue (and call 4♥ a real "I have a heart card" cue), kind of like "Serious 3NT."

If (and a big "if") Opener had shown, for example, an assured 5431 shape with booth minors and spade support, then 4♦ as a diamond cue and 4♥ as a LTTC cue makes sense, right? Then, why does it not make sense to have 4♦ as a general cue and 4♥ as an actual cue, just because of the order?

If Opener had shown a reliable 3514, for instance, then I would even buy the idea that a 4♦ cue by Responder implies a club control rather than a diamond control, because of the useful space principle (or maybe even "good trumps").

Of course, this nuance is entirely fictitious and only makes sense if discussed, but objecting because "Last Train means the Last Bid" seems silly.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Oct 27 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

THis is simple?

Obviously 4 ♣ did not agree spades but asked for further describtion.

At least for south. And maybe there is even more then one player out there who is not use to Forum Standard.

SO I guess for South, 4 Diamond confirms Diamonds, and 4 NT is RCKB for Diamonds.

And I think that this is really obvious and simple.

Is that player who is not used to forum standard also not used to bridge?

[RichMor]

Could someone please explain what they think the diference is between:
1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 3♠
4♣ (cue for Spades)

and

1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 3♠
4♠

?

Thanks,
RichM

[jdonn]

Using 4♣ is a better 4♠ raise. For example, ATx AKQxx AKxx x would bid 4♣, but Qx KQJxx AKQx Kx would bid 4♠.

[awm]

Hmm, I will just mention that:

(1) In a previous thread, I suggested that rebidding spades in an auction like 1♥-1♠-3♦ guaranteed six. This was met with vehement disagreement, including (if I recall) from jdonn. The suggestion was that with a 5134 shape you have no clear rebid.

(2) In a previous thread by Franceshinden with a similar but different auction, there was some discussion of a 4♣ "fourth suit" bid. There was a great deal of disagreement as to whether this was "extras without clear direction" or "extras with a three-suited hand." No one suggested that it might be an unambiguous strong raise of partner's last-bid suit.

[han]

Adam, I would be interested to see both previous threads, especially the one where jdonn bids 3S with 5134 shape in this auction. I would also like to know how different but similar the other auction was.

[jdonn]

han, on Oct 27 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

Adam, I would be interested to see both previous threads, especially the one where jdonn bids 3S with 5134 shape in this auction. I would also like to know how different but similar the other auction was.

He remembers wrong, I don't believe I posted in that thread at all, at least not about that issue. At least, I think I didn't.