[peachy]

OleBerg, on Nov 21 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

effervesce, on Nov 22 2008, 02:01 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 21 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

effervesce, on Nov 22 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

5♠ is a bid asking you to roll a dice to decide what to bid next. Fortunately, the dice you hold is lucky enough to have the same answer on all the faces. If it's a specific king ask, 6♣. If it's asking for number of kings, 6♣. If it's asking you to pick between diamonds and clubs, 6♣.

Try again. It is not asking for kings, neither number nor specific. And diamonds has been set for thrumphs.

A cuebid? Geez, partner could have bid 4♠. Specific suit ask? If partner really meant that as a specific suit ask without prior agreement to using specific suit asks, he should be shot.

On 4♥, 4♠ would have been a normal cuebid.

You have not discussed 5♠, 5NT or 6♣, but you are sure that none of them asks for kings in any way, but that they are all inviting grandslam somehow.

Maybe not an ideal situation, but as it is a pick-up partnership you are stuck with it.

You keep telling that you know for sure 5S is not asking. What "WOULD" have been asking for specific or number of kings? Did you have a trump queen ask as part of RKC or not? Apparently you had discussed somethiong since you tell us that you had not discussed 5S, 5NT or 6C.

Anyway, I'm bidding 6D like everybody else since diamonds were set as trump. Hope we not losing 2 spades off the top.

[OleBerg]

Seems I am taking to many things for granted, so let me rephrase the question:

5♠ invites grand-slam in diamonds, but you have have not discussed what the difference is betweem 5♠, 5NT and 6♣.

You have however discussed, that 5♥ would have asked for the thrumph queen, and that you never ask for kings.

What do you bid now; 5NT, 6♣ or 6♦?

[kfay]

maggieb, on Nov 22 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

kfay, on Nov 22 2008, 12:39 AM, said:

FWIW I wouldn't have cuebid the ♥K because 1) my hand is a piece of junk, 2) when it comes to diamonds my hand is really a piece of junk.

I'd just bid 6♦ now.  If 5♠ isn't a K ask then I can't really think of what partner is asking me for but whatever it is, I don't have it.

Partner bid 4♦ and I have no waste in spades. On top of this I have a very strong side suit that should be very useful. I think cuebidding here was completely obvious.

Now like the others I bid 6♦, but I am a little nervous about it.

I don't really get this idea. Would our hand be worse if you threw the ♠K in it? It's hard to have wastage in spades when we have few HCP to actually waste. I'm being a tad facetious because I realize what it means to not be wasted in the opponent's suit but I really think when I cuebid partner starts to expect a lot more from me... which I don't doubt led to his decision to make some sort of grand slam try.

Furthermore the club suit could potentially be useful, sure, but I'd hardly classify it as a big suit when when partner hasn't expressed any interest so is probably short and we have maybe only 1 outside entry to help set it up. If partner has a stiff then we're really in trouble.

[skjaeran]

I play 5♠ as specifically asking for a 3rd round spade control.
Lacking that, I sign off in 6♦.

[OleBerg]

Hi all,

It seems most have not found this hand really interesting. I did.

I really believe this hand is worth another bid outside of 6♦.

Partner has shown solid diamonds, and thas guaranteed that we have all the aces. If partner has six solid diamonds (which is the least he could have), and a doubleton club, 7♦ is odds on. Considering what partner has shown, if we had ♣AKQxx, 7♦ would be a no brainer. So if we bid 6♣, reinviting, we should show a club-suit that is suited for grand, but not as good as AKQxx.

So in my opinion 6♣ is the right bid.

The full hand can be seen in the thread "I bid it, you play it."

[OleBerg]

Lobowolf, on Nov 22 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

In a cuebidding sequence (in my partnerships, anyway), both sides are in a cooperative mode; they're mutually exchanging information until someone knows enough to set the contract or at least give up on more, at least from his view.

In contrast, when someone bids keycard either earlier in an auction or by breaking off a cuebidding exchange, that partner is taking the lead role and essentially putting himself in the best position to judge what's going on, if he's given information (or in other words, he's assuming captaincy).  Partner's either asking or telling about spades in an effort to get to something above and beyond 6♦; per the fact that he's assumed control by bidding RKC, he should be asking.  My spades are worthless, so I'm bidding 6♦.

This may be true when you are headed for a small slam. When a grand is your aim, this changes things somehow. When the bidding approaches 4nt, somebody has to ask for aces, to make sure they are all there.

So on the actual hand; even though partner wanted to be in the cooperative mode, he had to ask for aces, as it would obviously be far from certain that we would do it, if he didn't.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Nov 26 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

So on the actual hand; even though partner wanted to be in the cooperative mode, he had to ask for aces, as it would obviously be far from certain that we would do it, if he didn't.

Why couldn't partner just cuebid 4♠, then we bid 5♣, he bids 5♥, we bid 6♣? I don't understand why you feel he had to stop cuebidding, and instead bid keycard when his follow up was totally unclear.

It sounds like you want 5♠ to mean "go back to cuebidding now", which just doesn't make sense after he chose to stop doing so.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Nov 26 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 26 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

So on the actual hand; even though partner wanted to be in the cooperative mode, he had to ask for aces, as it would obviously be far from certain that we would do it, if he didn't.

Why couldn't partner just cuebid 4♠, then we bid 5♣, he bids 5♥, we bid 6♣? I don't understand why you feel he had to stop cuebidding, and instead bid keycard when his follow up was totally unclear.

And during all those bids, it would be quite clear that we held all the aces? And the given hand would have the stamina for three cuebids on a 10 count opener with only one ace?

Quote

It sounds like you want 5♠ to mean "go back to cuebidding now", which just doesn't make sense after he chose to stop doing so.

Well, more like "going back to cooperative mode". This is what both players were in agreement about. I think it makes quite some sense. Some of the arguments for this is in my reply to Lobowolf, but I may add, that it seems quite awkward to me, to define the continuation as some specific kind of asking bids, when so few bids are available. For instance there is not enuogh steps for a specific king ask.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Nov 26 2008, 08:51 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 26 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

So on the actual hand; even though partner wanted to be in the cooperative mode, he had to ask for aces, as it would obviously be far from certain that we would do it, if he didn't.

Why couldn't partner just cuebid 4♠, then we bid 5♣, he bids 5♥, we bid 6♣? I don't understand why you feel he had to stop cuebidding, and instead bid keycard when his follow up was totally unclear.

It sounds like you want 5♠ to mean "go back to cuebidding now", which just doesn't make sense after he chose to stop doing so.

I also don't get why we couldn't have just kept cue-bidding. Partner already knows we have a 6-card club suit. If he has solid diamonds, the major suit aces and a doubleton club he can also work out how the play will go in 7D.

As others have said, I don't really care what 5S meant, I have a sub-minimum unsuitable opening bid and I sign off in 6D.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 26 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 26 2008, 08:51 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 26 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

So on the actual hand; even though partner wanted to be in the cooperative mode, he had to ask for aces, as it would obviously be far from certain that we would do it, if he didn't.

Why couldn't partner just cuebid 4♠, then we bid 5♣, he bids 5♥, we bid 6♣? I don't understand why you feel he had to stop cuebidding, and instead bid keycard when his follow up was totally unclear.

It sounds like you want 5♠ to mean "go back to cuebidding now", which just doesn't make sense after he chose to stop doing so.

I also don't get why we couldn't have just kept cue-bidding. Partner already knows we have a 6-card club suit. If he has solid diamonds, the major suit aces and a doubleton club he can also work out how the play will go in 7D.

This may be redundant, but is it really obvious for the 10-count opener with one ace, to keep on cuebidding? If it is, does partner promise 4 aces with his 5♥-bid?

Quote

As others have said, I don't really care what 5S meant, I have a sub-minimum unsuitable opening bid and I sign off in 6D.

Well this was actually the point I was trying to make. Our hand is hardly worth an opening, and we have already cuebid in 4♥. But, as partner discloses information about his hand, which he does, our hands suitabilety for a grand improves immensely.

It is much better than say:

♠ Q1098
♥ KQ2
♦ 5
♣ AJ1098

In the sequence we should be able to diagnose, that all partner needs is a source of tricks.

And our club suit might be that source. Like earlier noted, with AKQxx of clubs 7♦ is obvious, so 6♣ should be something like this.

[FrancesHinden]

OleBerg, on Nov 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Well this was actually the point I was trying to make. Our hand is hardly worth an opening, and we have already cuebid in 4♥. But, as partner discloses information about his hand, which he does, our hands suitabilety for a grand improves immensely.

It is much better than say:

♠ Q1098
♥ KQ2
♦ 5
♣ AJ1098

In the sequence we should be able to diagnose, that all partner needs is a source of tricks.

we can't have this hand, it's not a 3C bid over 2D.

but we seem to be having the same discussion again.

if all partner wanted to make grand slam was the AK of clubs, he shouldn't have diverted himself into blackwood unless he had some way of making a specific king ask.

Quote

This may be redundant, but is it really obvious for the 10-count opener with one ace, to keep on cuebidding?

Assuming that 4D set trumps, and that we play mixed controls (first or second round) then yes, 4D should demand that we keep cue bidding until partner gives up.

Quote

If it is, does partner promise 4 aces with his 5♥-bid?

Of course he does, he's gone past 6D how can we have an ace missing? Unless you think that your 5C bid didn't necessarily show the ace of clubs (which I disagree with, even playing italian type cue bidding).