[ASkolnick]

Axxx
AQxx
QJxx
x

Opponents silent throughout:

YOU
1♦* - 2♣ *Playing Precision, can be as few as 0 diamonds.
2♥ - 3♦
3♠ - 4♦
4♥ - 5♣
????

Your call?

Neopolitan Style Cuebids (Both Aces and Kings below game)

[helene_t]

5♥ is ok I think, maybe this should show AK but I don't think so.

[whereagles]

I have no clue what pard is looking for. Since I got nothing more to show, I'll just bid 6♦.

[hanp]

It would be good to have agreements about what 2H and 3S showed. I know what they show for me but I couldn't have this hand so it is hard to say what I would do now.

I'm thinking that you should sign off now.

[mikeh]

Since I am a limited hand, I think I have a good one, in context, but have nothing left to show (I am NOT cuebidding a club control on this auction) so I will bid 6♦.

I confess I am uncomfortable with the style (not the Precision part, but the 2♥ part) so may be drawing inferences unwarranted in real life.

[Apollo81]

I'd bid 5♦.

I've already cuebid twice (admittedly in an unusual order) when I could have bid notrump at some point, so partner knows I have extras and the major aces. I don't want to get to a slam off the ♦AK if partner has something like xx Kx T9xx AKQJx

[mikeh]

Apollo81, on Mar 25 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

I'd bid 5♦. 

I've already cuebid twice when I could have bid notrump at some point, so partner knows I have extras and the major aces.  I don't want to get to a slam off the ♦AK if partner has something like xx Kx T9xx AKQJx

Partner surely can't have that hand: he has gone slam hunting opposite a hand very limited in high card strength, with marked shortness in his suit. Once you show both major Aces, you cannot have great diamonds. Yes, you could hold Axx Axxx AKxxx x, I suppose, but he cannot be basing his slam tries on that assumption. Whatever he has, it is more slam suitable than the hand you postulate.

I must confess that not knowing what info partner has, from my sequence, and what options he had to take control, if any, make this issue more difficult than it would be if we knew our methods.

[hanp]

Since we do not know the methods, it isn't clear if we have shown club shortness. What would we do with Ax AQxx QJxxx xx? There 3S looks right to me.

[TimG]

3♠ could be a NT probe, but once we cue-bid over 4♦ doesn't that retroactively make it a cue-bid?

In Precision, does 1♦-2♣-2♥ deny 5 diamonds? (It does in Polish Club where opener must rebid 2♦ anytime he has 5.)

Something to consider is that partner presumably could have bid 4N over 4♠ to ask for keycards. Perhaps he did not want to hear an embarrassing two key-card response?

[JLOL]

I would never sign off. I think 6D is right.

edit: wow lots of signoffs. We have good trumps and aces what is the problem?

[JLOL]

Apollo81, on Mar 25 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

I don't want to get to a slam off the ♦AK if partner has something like xx Kx T9xx AKQJx

Why would partner be trying for slam with this hand opposite a limited hand with club shortness? This hand seems like a yarborough.

[Apollo81]

My point was that we've already shown extras because we didn't bid 3NT over 3♦ and we cuebid twice. I think it's a minimum hand given the context. If I was given this and the companion hand as an ATB problem I would have put 100% blame on partner.

[JLOL]

Apollo81, on Mar 25 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

My point was that we've already shown extras because we didn't bid 3NT over 3♦ and we cuebid twice. I think it's a minimum hand given the context. If I was given this and the companion hand as an ATB problem I would have put 100% blame on partner.

What was the other hand?

[Apollo81]

JLOL, on Mar 25 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 25 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

My point was that we've already shown extras because we didn't bid 3NT over 3♦ and we cuebid twice.  I think it's a minimum hand given the context.  If I was given this and the companion hand as an ATB problem I would have put 100% blame on partner.

What was the other hand?

there's a thread in "interesting bridge hands" by the same name

x J ATxxx AKJxxx

[keylime]

I bail at 5♦ here and for me, it's crystal clear to me that if slam is there, partner gets the blame.

Pard has shown a lot of minor cards, and opposite my singleton club my hand isn't quite as good as I thought it was at 3♦. I have a lot of major suit cards that needs to have coverage for, and if pard really has solid clubs, I think he would have not support belatedly at 3♦ either; I would have expected 3NT in passing.

I expect pard to have a minor two suiter, but not solid.

[ASkolnick]

You see, this is exactly reason I did post it in two different places instead of a "who is" to blame. The question is slightly different on both ends.

Post both hands simultaneously and you can easily result.
Post them separately and you can see that each hand may have a different perspective.

If you read Kantar's books (one of my favorites) on play and defense, they are done in a similar fashion. Similar questions (sometimes adjusted slightly) from both the defense and declarer's side.

[gnasher]

I'm surprised at the number of people who think they understand the auction well enough to be able to say what to do next. Personally, I don't think I can answer without knowing:
- How many diamonds I promised with 2♥
- How many diamonds partner promised with 3♦
- Whether 3♠ showed a spade control, or spade length, or a spade stop, or the lack of a spade stop
- Whether diamonds were already agreed when partner bid 4♦, and if so what we can infer from his failure to bid 4♣.

TimG, on Mar 25 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

3♠ could be a NT probe, but once we cue-bid over 4♦ doesn't that retroactively make it a cue-bid?

No. That argument sometimes applies if you make what is ostensibly a notrump probe, partner bids 3NT, and then you move. Here, however, it was partner's decision not to play in 3NT.

Suppose that you'd made a notrump probe of 3♠ on Jxx AKxx AQxxx x, and partner bid 4♦. Don't you think he probably wants you to cue bid hearts with this hand?

[keylime]

For me, 3♠ is stop showing. I don't play stop asking in these types of sequences because I'm a limited hand.

I would treat 2♥, without any prior agreement, as natural, not promising five diamonds.