[louisg]

Playing a standard-based system with your favorite partner, your auction starts as follows:

1C-P-1D(1)-P
2H-P-3C(2)-P
4C(3)-P-4S(4)-X
P(5)-P-XX(6)-P

(1) Walsh-style
(2) Simply a preference, not necessarily real support if nothing else fits
(3) Sets trump
(4) Usually first round controls before second round
(5) 2nd round spade control
(6) 1st round spade control

You hold one of the following two hands:

(Y) x/AJx/AK/AKJxxxx

(Z) x/AQJx/A/AKJxxxx

In both cases, you can now infer that partner has real club support, since he chose to bypass 2NT while holding the spade A. You are therefore driving to a small slam, and have real interest in a grand.

With hand (Y), it would be nice to bid 5D now, suggesting the DK along with the red aces, and hoping that partner will realize the value of a hand like Axx/xx/Qxxxx/Qxx.

With hand (Z), it would be nice to bid 5D now, leaving room for partner to cuebid the heart King.

How would you resolve this (or similar) dilemmas in your favorite partnership?

By the way, if you strongly believe that either or both of these hands should be opened 2C instead of 1C then I sympathize with you, but save your breath and try to address the more general question please. Thank you.

[rogerclee]

I would bid 5♦ in either case. Opposite your first type of hand I think partner should bid 5NT, which suggests grand slam interest but nothing to cuebid. I can't construct any hands that would bid a grand slam over 5NT missing one keycard that would not have bid Blackwood instead of 5♦ on the last round. I can't get to a grand slam opposite your hand without the ♣Q, but I can live with that.

By the way, I would open the first hand 2♣ but not the second. This has less to do with the quality of the hand and more with the awkwardness of the rebid, but I could be convinced to open both of them 2♣.

[MFA]

I have never practiced the above cuebidding technique, but that it should be wise to bypass a 4♥ cuebid in this sequence with the ♥K seems pretty surreal to me.

[gnasher]

I don't think partner will cooperate with grand slam investigations on hand Y. He's going to assume that you have four hearts, so he'll think he needs ♦QJxxx or ♦Qxxxxx.

This sort of problem is the reason that the aces-first style of cue-bidding has gone out of fashion. It also makes a good case for opening 2♣ with a very strong one-suiter, which without special agreements are hard to show after opening one of a suit.

[DinDIP]

Even among those who favour an aces-first approach it is common to treat a K in partner's suit as an A: if partner has the other top honour partner will know what you have; if partner lacks both top honours, the K will provide the necessary control. This style usually works best by (1) continuing to treat 4N as RKC (or 4K as Kickback) -- some partnerships play that asking for KCs is no longer possible after (1)2 or more Qs -- and (2) agreeing that responses to the KC ask include KCs already shown by Qbidding (in contrast to those partnerships that deduct already shown aces from their KC response).

Such a style would have helped enormously here as O would know if responder had the HK or not. It's not all beer and skittles: if O had a hand where he needed to know about the SA but was unable to use a KC ask then knowing that responder has the HK may not be so useful (although, in this auction, it's very difficult to construct such a hand). (One answer to that problem is to agree that a return to trumps -- in this case 5C -- asks for control of the bypassed suit. What to do, however, when O needs not just that control but other useful values as well? Qbidding can be difficult.)

David

(David Morgan)

[skjaeran]

I've never even thought of applying aces_first_cuebidding, since italian style cuebidding has to be far superior. So I haven't got any insight at all about what a 5♦ cue would/should imply in this sequence.

However, I don't understand at all how it could be correct to cuebid 4♠ to show the ace holding the ♥K here. It's got to be more interesting for partner to know aobut a control in his side suit at the moment.

[louisg]

Quote

However, I don't understand at all how it could be correct to cuebid 4♠ to show the ace holding the ♥K here. It's got to be more interesting for partner to know aobut a control in his side suit at the moment.

Really? What about when opener has 2 small spades? After 4S he can clarify the extent of his ambitions (or just take control with RKCB), but after 4H he has to bid 5C regardless of the rest of his hand.

Quote

Even among those who favour an aces-first approach it is common to treat a K in partner's suit as an A: if partner has the other top honour partner will know what you have; if partner lacks both top honours, the K will provide the necessary control. This style usually works best by (1) continuing to treat 4N as RKC (or 4K as Kickback) -- some partnerships play that asking for KCs is no longer possible after (1)2 or more Qs -- and (2) agreeing that responses to the KC ask include KCs already shown by Qbidding (in contrast to those partnerships that deduct already shown aces from their KC response).

We have this agreement with respect to partner's main suit, but not with respect to a second suit, especially when that second suit may have been manufactured.

[skjaeran]

louisg, on Mar 22 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

Quote

However, I don't understand at all how it could be correct to cuebid 4♠ to show the ace holding the ♥K here. It's got to be more interesting for partner to know aobut a control in his side suit at the moment.

Really? What about when opener has 2 small spades? After 4S he can clarify the extent of his ambitions (or just take control with RKCB), but after 4H he has to bid 5C regardless of the rest of his hand.

The same applies over 4♠, when he doesn't know that his side suit is solid. So that's neither better nor worse....

[louisg]

skaeran, on Mar 22 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

louisg, on Mar 22 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

Quote

However, I don't understand at all how it could be correct to cuebid 4♠ to show the ace holding the ♥K here. It's got to be more interesting for partner to know aobut a control in his side suit at the moment.

Really? What about when opener has 2 small spades? After 4S he can clarify the extent of his ambitions (or just take control with RKCB), but after 4H he has to bid 5C regardless of the rest of his hand.

The same applies over 4♠, when he doesn't know that his side suit is solid. So that's neither better nor worse....

Say you are responder with ♠Axx ♥Kx ♦xxxxx ♣xxx. The bidding goes:

1♣-1♦
2♥-3♣
4♣-4♥
5♣

Do you bid again? Does partner have ♠xx ♥AQJ ♦K ♣AKQxxxx, or ♠xx ♥AQJ ♦A ♣AKxxxxx? Had you bid 4♠ however, partner with the second hand would know that slam was at worst on a finesse, and might be better.

[skjaeran]

louisg, on Mar 23 2009, 03:59 AM, said:

skaeran, on Mar 22 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

louisg, on Mar 22 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

Quote

However, I don't understand at all how it could be correct to cuebid 4♠ to show the ace holding the ♥K here. It's got to be more interesting for partner to know aobut a control in his side suit at the moment.

Really? What about when opener has 2 small spades? After 4S he can clarify the extent of his ambitions (or just take control with RKCB), but after 4H he has to bid 5C regardless of the rest of his hand.

The same applies over 4♠, when he doesn't know that his side suit is solid. So that's neither better nor worse....

Say you are responder with ♠Axx ♥Kx ♦xxxxx ♣xxx. The bidding goes:

1♣-1♦
2♥-3♣
4♣-4♥
5♣

Do you bid again? Does partner have ♠xx ♥AQJ ♦K ♣AKQxxxx, or ♠xx ♥AQJ ♦A ♣AKxxxxx? Had you bid 4♠ however, partner with the second hand would know that slam was at worst on a finesse, and might be better.

But why wouldn't partner cuebid 4♦ instead of bidding 4♣ with the second hand - anticipating the problem?

[louisg]

skaeran, on Mar 23 2009, 05:40 AM, said:

louisg, on Mar 23 2009, 03:59 AM, said:

skaeran, on Mar 22 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

louisg, on Mar 22 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

Quote

However, I don't understand at all how it could be correct to cuebid 4♠ to show the ace holding the ♥K here. It's got to be more interesting for partner to know aobut a control in his side suit at the moment.

Really? What about when opener has 2 small spades? After 4S he can clarify the extent of his ambitions (or just take control with RKCB), but after 4H he has to bid 5C regardless of the rest of his hand.

The same applies over 4♠, when he doesn't know that his side suit is solid. So that's neither better nor worse....

Say you are responder with ♠Axx ♥Kx ♦xxxxx ♣xxx. The bidding goes:

1♣-1♦
2♥-3♣
4♣-4♥
5♣

Do you bid again? Does partner have ♠xx ♥AQJ ♦K ♣AKQxxxx, or ♠xx ♥AQJ ♦A ♣AKxxxxx? Had you bid 4♠ however, partner with the second hand would know that slam was at worst on a finesse, and might be better.

But why wouldn't partner cuebid 4♦ instead of bidding 4♣ with the second hand - anticipating the problem?

Not sure if you are really suggesting that partner jump to 4♦, or if you meant to type 3♦ instead, but to me 3♦ would suggest real support (suggesting a trump suit with something like 1=4=3=5). A jump to 4♦ is not clearly defined, but without specific agreement I'd be very hesitant to assume that partner would take it as a "cuebid".

[skjaeran]

I meant 4♦, as I wrote. And that'd definitely be a cuebid for me.