[Cyberyeti]

Scoring: IMP

---

We were playing acol style with 4 card majors and a 4 card club. If you have special arrangements over a short club, then reverse the clubs and diamonds and try the auction over 1♦. I'm aware many people will just open a strong NT (in which case swap the A and J♦), and even many acol players will open 1♥.

Our agreement is not to cue a shortage in partner's suit till you've denied that control by not cueing it once. We don't distinguish between 1st and 2nd round controls when cueing.

We had a cow flew by moment in the ace ask department and arrived in 6♥ which made +1 for +1 IMP.

The question that arose was what does this auction mean:

1♣-1♥
3♥-5♣

I think I'd have got this right as exclusion keycard if partner had done it, but he didn't want to take the risk. This looks to be the easy route to the grand via 5♦ (0 or 3)-5♥-6♥(3 not 0, not A♣,K♠,K♦,Q♥)-7♥.

My question to other people is more general, what approach do other people take to cue bidding shortages in partner's first suit ?

[kenrexford]

I would agree with that sentiment.

As I play that a cue in partner's suit shows the Ace, King, or Queen, then a later cue having denied any of these three seems wildly more useful to show shortness than to show the Jack.

[P_Marlowe]

For us, a first cue in partners suit is never a shortage,
it always showes a top honor.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cascade]

I would play the jump to 5♣ as exclusion Key Card.

We play some other jumps in partner's suit as splinters e.g. 1♣ 1♠; 2♠ 4♣.

In most other situations an immediate cue in partner's suit shows a high card ...

... and a delayed cue a shortage.

In some situations at the five level because of partner's cue-bid rather than Key Card one can deduce the shortage (usually void) in partner's suit.

[gnasher]

In a consultative sequence, I think you should avoid making your first cue-bid a shortage in partner's suit, because you want him to be able to evaluate AQ or KQ sensibly.

In a sequence where I'm in control, that isn't an issue. I don't regard many auctions as falling that category, but a sequence where I bid Exclusion is obviously one of them. In this auction, 5♣ is clearly Exclusion if you play it, and void-showing otherwise.

I wouldn't have a problem with bidding Exclusion in partner's suit if I had a suitable hand. However, I don't. Why would I risk reaching slam opposite Ax A10xx xx AKQxx? Over 3♥, I'd bid 3♠; if partner bids 4♣ I'll bid 5♣, and if he bids 5♦ over that I'll bid 5♥, so that whatever happens next will be his fault.

[Jlall]

If 7 wasn't in play bidding 4D might be reasonable, but it hurts our chances of finding 7 well. I agree with gnasher since we can cuebid our way to 7 pretty easily when it's right and stay out of slam off the AK of diamonds otherwise.

[skjaeran]

5♣ is obviously exclusion IMO. But as others already commented, this hand isn't suitable, missing the ♦ control.