[Lobowolf]

I may be missing something or just living in the 20th century here, but three extra queens, after we bid 3♥ and not 4♥ at our second turn?

[mike777]

kfay, on Feb 4 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

A few reasonable players have, for some reason, eschewed the action I took on this hand...

Scoring: IMP

2♣-2♦
2♥-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥-?

---

I would pass, I bid
2d=game force
3h=slam try
4d=slam try
pass I give up.

[rogerclee]

Uhh, we have a 9 count with 3 card support and no jacks!

[mike777]

I have to be honest I would expect my pard to just rkc.....4s over 4d if we have slam......I have made slam tries.

I grant I rely alot on rkc.

[gwnn]

pretzalz, on Feb 5 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

Am I the only one that just wants to respond 2N to 2C and be done with it?

Yes (but I like 2♠=8-10 balanced so in a way I am with you)

[mike777]

geez guys I thouht this deal was a really really easy one..hmmm......


we made not one but two slam tries..ol 2 and 1/2.....pard bids 4h......give up.

[hanp]

Mike would you bid differently with xxx xxx KQxx xxx?

[Codo]

What did the sequence show so far?

To me this had been easy, we are off the first two tricks in club, so I pass without a second thought.

Obviously many of you play a quite different system. Here partner showed enough strength for one slam move but not for a second, while my hand is more or less unlimited. In this case I would try 5 ♥ to show extras without another cue.

[wank]

if you're playing that p must bid go past 4h lest he denies a club control, you're going to go overboard a lot imo

[billw55]

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response. 2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

[kfay]

billw55, on Feb 5 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response. 2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

Problem is now we haven't agreed hearts until the 4-level! OOPS!!!

[pooltuna]

kfay, on Feb 4 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

A few reasonable players have, for some reason, eschewed the action I took on this hand...

Scoring: IMP

2♣-2♦
2♥-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥-?

---

you need to look at this from the 2♣ opener's point of view. (S)he knows once (s)he bypassed the ♣ suit it would look like 2 possible losers and (s)he knows you will be in a terrible position to move over the 4♥ game bid. Believe them and pass.

[dake50]

Do you have a 3NT =5-9, 4333, 0-1 control if 8,9(or near this canonical hand) ? That ends this description. Now just fit you/not, partner.

[Little Kid]

No way I'm passing, partner opened 2♣.

[kfay]

hanp, on Feb 5 2010, 03:55 AM, said:

Mike would you bid differently with xxx xxx KQxx xxx?

My thoughts exactly, Han.

Although, to be honest, I wasn't sure what my obligations were even with:

xxx xxx Kxxx xxx

[billw55]

kfay, on Feb 5 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

billw55, on Feb 5 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response.  2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

Problem is now we haven't agreed hearts until the 4-level! OOPS!!!

So what? Let's try gwnn's 2♠ to show 8-10 balanced:

2♣ - 2♠
3♥ - 4♥

My hand is in a very small box now, so partner can make good decisions going forward. Perhaps:

4♠ - 5♦

and now he can sign off in 5♥ with two club losers. Or he can use keycard over 4♥. Or he can pass if he was stretching to open 2♣.

[kfay]

billw55, on Feb 5 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

kfay, on Feb 5 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

billw55, on Feb 5 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response.  2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

Problem is now we haven't agreed hearts until the 4-level! OOPS!!!

So what? Let's try gwnn's 2♠ to show 8-10 balanced:

2♣ - 2♠
3♥ - 4♥

My hand is in a very small box now, so partner can make good decisions going forward. Perhaps:

4♠ - 5♦

and now he can sign off in 5♥ with two club losers. Or he can use keycard over 4♥. Or he can pass if he was stretching to open 2♣.

I'm not sure, not playing the system, but shouldn't the auction go:

2♣-2♠
3♥-4♦

hey... I'm blanced so I can't really have a diamond suit, right?

[billw55]

kfay, on Feb 5 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

I'm not sure, not playing the system, but shouldn't the auction go:

2♣-2♠
3♥-4♦

hey... I'm blanced so I can't really have a diamond suit, right?

Possibly, if opener will understand that 4♦ agrees hearts.

Either way, it seems that we get to 4♥ with partner knowing my hand better than after the nebulous 2♦ sequence.

[ONEferBRID]

kfay, on Feb 4 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

A few reasonable players have, for some reason, eschewed the action I took on this hand...

Scoring: IMP

2♣-2♦
2♥-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥-?

---

If paying "mixed cues", then 4♦ denies a ♣ control.
4♥ says: " Unfortunately, I have 2 quick losers in ♣, otherwise I would have gone 4NT ( RKC for ♥ ), or continued with cuebids.

[ I know, I know... RKC is for wimps ] .

[kfay]

Ok Well here was partner's hand:

---

Do you think he's obligated to bid more over 4♦? Wouldn't I certainly bid this way with xxx xxx KQxx xxx or xxx Qxx Kxxx xxx (and maybe even xxx xxx Kxxx xxx)?

So my thoughts were: Partner opened 2♣!!! I went on... at the other table they did not and they were +680.

Thoughts?

Make my ♣Q the ♠Q or switch partner's blacks and we're cold, on the lie of the cards on this hand we were cold... but is he supposed to bid more just because he has the ♣A? The auction was the same at the other table up to 4♥.