[Fluffy]

♠KQ1062
♥KJ73
♦KQ7
♣Q


1♠-2♣ (GF, 3+ clubs)
2♥-2♠ (2♠ normally 3 cards)
3♦-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥-4♠


up to you, feel free to comment if you would bid differently.

[karlson]

I think I've done enough, I pass.

[aguahombre]

Everything from this end looks fine up until 3H...I patterned; but serious 3NT to show all my extra strength and nothing to cue would have been a better choice than 3S, IMHO.

so I cannot know what to do now. I hate dogging it, then continuing over a signoff --it reaks of one-sided bidding.

[cherdanno]

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

I think I've done enough, I pass.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse.
I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass.

[mike777]

Fluffy, on Mar 20 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

♠KQ1062
♥KJ73
♦KQ7
♣Q


1♠-2♣ (GF, 3+ clubs)
2♥-2♠ (2♠ normally 3 cards)
3♦-3♥
3♠-4♦
4♥-4♠


up to you, feel free to comment if you would bid differently.

rkc over 4d.......enough cue bidding. Please....

[kenrexford]

Obviously, what all of this means is somewhat critical to whether this auction is right or not.

I mean, was 3♦ a pattern bid? If so, then what have you already told partner that makes this hand different than a 4♣ call (presumably a splinter, I guess)? Knowing what partner expects at this point, as a difference, helps understand whether we have or have not told our tale. (Have I said anything about diamond control in this auction, or could I have 432 in diamonds?)

When I later bid 3♠, did this show two top spades? Was it waiting with extras? How did this further distinguish my hand from the initial 4♣ option?

What about when I bid 4♥? Was this pure Last Train? if so, I have to pass now, because I made my decision at that point. If partner hesitated even slightly, LTTC and then bidding is surely getting us an adjustment unless I have clear GRAND interest. If 4♥ was simply a cue, how did this even further distinguish my initial choice to bid 3♦ as a pattern bid, if that's what this meant, from 4♣?

(Also, did partner make a courtesy cue or a serious cue after my 3♠ cue? Would 3NT have been serious, frivolous, or something else?)

FMP, I would (obviously) have bid this differently in my own methods. My first cue would have been 3♣ (two of the top three spades and one of the top three clubs). This might later be distinguished from a 4♣ splinter because (a.) my diamonds are too good and (b.) my hearts are not good enough. My second cue would be the same (over 3♦ by partner, I'd skip 3♥ because my harts are not good enough to cue; over 3♥ I'd be inferentially promising a diamond control), though.

[karlson]

cherdanno, on Mar 20 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

I think I've done enough, I pass.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse.
I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass.

I was assuming 3♦ 100% pinpointed our club shortness, so partner would not necessarily make a club cue.

[kenrexford]

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 10:47 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 20 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

I think I've done enough, I pass.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse.
I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass.

I was assuming 3♦ 100% pinpointed our club shortness, so partner would not necessarily make a club cue.

I was thinking the same thing. If 3♦ was a pattern bid, then the remaining interesting feature in clubs is the Queen, not the shortness.

[peachy]

Despite missing all those trump honors and all those kings, partner STILL was interested in slam. This hand absolutely must continue. What is partner bidding on? Air?

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Mar 20 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

I think I've done enough, I pass.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse.
I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass.

I agree. Pards failure to cue clubs is probably good news. Plus pard is cooperating in our slam try.

Saying we've shown our hand isn't right. I think we'd bid the same up to this point without either pointed Q.

Its probably time to key card. I can't see what cuebidding again will accomplish.

[gnasher]

I assume that we're not playing either serious or non-serious 3NT, because if we were Fluffy would have said so.

In that case, can't partner have either Axx Axx Axx J10xx or AJx AQx Axx J10xx?

[effervesce]

Does anybody play cuebid in own suit shows two of the top three honors (my own preferred style)? In such a case failure to cuebid 4C would not deny the A or K of clubs (but denies AK). Though you could make a case that since we have shown a singleton in the club suit, failure to cuebid 4C specifically denies the A of clubs.

[ONEferBRID]

The K-rich hand should do the asking (4NT ).
If off 2 key cards ( ergo 2 Aces ) we play in 5S.
If 4D denied BOTH A and K of Cl, certainly the 5-level should not be at risk.

( Do you think Responder would go past game with the 4H bid over 4D missing the ♣A and K and not knowing of your shortness ?? ).

Nonetheless, I believe Responder has 3 key cards and we'd play in 6.

[cherdanno]

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 10:47 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 20 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

karlson, on Mar 20 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

I think I've done enough, I pass.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse.
I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass.

I was assuming 3♦ 100% pinpointed our club shortness, so partner would not necessarily make a club cue.

But if that's the case, he should not make two cuebids with a wasted ♣K, no hope of setting up clubs (he doesn't now about the Q) and no extras. (I assume he would still cue 4♣ with the ace.)

In any case, in this kind of auction it is easy for both sides to think "I have shown my values, so I will sign off". But in fact, when you add up both sides' shown values, you are pretty much assured the values for slam, and just both sides forgot to add them up.

[hanp]

I completely agree with Ken, we need to know what the bids mean before we can decide.

I would assume that we have shown short clubs and that partner therefore did not deny the club king (but did deny the club ace). Whether 4D showed or denied serious slam interest seems relevant.

[kenrexford]

hanp, on Mar 21 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

I completely agree with Ken, we need to know what the bids mean before we can decide.

I would assume that we have shown short clubs and that partner therefore did not deny the club king (but did deny the club ace). Whether 4D showed or denied serious slam interest seems relevant.

Yeah, we agree, but don't you know that this is how normal people cuebid? Make a few bids that purportedly say something about control in the suit that you bid, but not necessarily denying anything specific about any other suits, all as a means of going back and forth until someone decides for unspecified reasons to launch into RKCB?

Nothing a good hesitation or two won't help, eh?

[MarkDean]

kenrexford, on Mar 21 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

hanp, on Mar 21 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

I completely agree with Ken, we need to know what the bids mean before we can decide.

I would assume that we have shown short clubs and that partner therefore did not deny the club king (but did deny the club ace). Whether 4D showed or denied serious slam interest seems relevant.

Yeah, we agree, but don't you know that this is how normal people cuebid? Make a few bids that purportedly say something about control in the suit that you bid, but not necessarily denying anything specific about any other suits, all as a means of going back and forth until someone decides for unspecified reasons to launch into RKCB?

Nothing a good hesitation or two won't help, eh?

Man, that is so cynical.
But I totally agree.

[whereagles]

gonzalo, what do we know of pard's hand?

[Fluffy]

I have no clue of what do we know exactly, we don't play serious or frivolous wich obviously works on this hand, what we play is 3NT after a fit is stablished as a no shortness slam try, with 4x as shortness, however this applies after a major fit has been set at the 3 level, here 3NT might had been understood as to play.

I assumed he didn't had ♣A, or maybe he was showing ♦ shortness with a 3316 pattern, but he in fact didn't have anything close to that, he was trying to force my into blackwood so he could explain his hand perfectly, but I didn't.

He had

♠A9x
♥Axx
♦Axx
♣A109x


Slam is not amazing even with 4 aces opposite, in fact we won 11 (unfair) IMPs for staying out of this one.

[hanp]

Maybe discuss bidding sometime with this partner.