[Cascade]

---

IMPs

2♣ one round force
3♦ extra values forcing (not solid suit)
4♥ cue

Luckily down only one. With 6♦ making.

[mfa1010]

East should insist on his solid suit. It can be no surprise to him that his club losers sometimes have to be discarded on winners in the majors. 100% east. He should bid 4♦ over 3NT. Then 4♥-5♣ and east can respect partner's decision after that - he has shown a mountain.

[Fluffy]

If diamonds need a club ruff to be set then east won't have entries to run them, playing in clubs is wrong.

So 4♦ rather than 4♣ is right.

The 4♥ bid is nuts, 5 weak clubs have no business cuebidding, if 4NT is to play then bid it.

[rhm]

Bidding weak suits with strong hands in constructive sequences is a good way to court disaster.
I am not a proponent of MAFIA (majors always first) but here I definitely would treat the ♥ suit as equal in length to the ♣ suit and have bid 1♥ in response to 1♦.
I also would not have cuebid in response to 4♣. It is unlikely that East now has 4 cards in ♣. West can see all his honors are opposite East short suits. 4♥ was highly optimistic. Either 4♦ over 4♣ or 4NT (if understood as a sign-off) would be my choice.

Accordingly I would give the majority of blame to West. East should have preferred 4♦ to 4♣.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

I have sympathy for all concerned, tho that doesn't mean there isn't blame to go around.

West's 2♣ call is questionable...yes...he has an opening hand, but he has a stiff in partner's suit, a borderline opening hand, and a horrible mismatch in his long suits. Put another way: if clubs are to be trump at the 5 level or higher, he almost certainly needs partner to hold 4+ and hence East can and will bid them at some point....even AKQ doesn't make this a no-loser fit 30% of the time (roughly).

So I would bid 1♥ as west.

I gather than 2♦ by east was passable (if so, I hate the methods), so 3♦ is forced.

3N is obvious.

I don't think it clear to pull 3n as east. I surely don't think that it is clear to bid either minor.....4♦ would be a stronger slam move than the hand warrants, given that we have already shown approximately this suit and overall hand value, and 4♣ is no better.....as others have observed, if we need to ruff a diamond, we may have no entry to run the suit, and if diamonds are solid, we shouldn't be suggesting clubs.

I wouldn't reach 6♦....I'd be in 3N.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2010-November-01, 10:59, said:

4♦ would be a stronger slam move than the hand warrants, given that we have already shown approximately this suit and overall hand value

I don't think this is true in Wayne's methods.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on 2010-November-01, 15:52, said:

I don't think this is true in Wayne's methods.

Why do you say that? (I don't necessarily disagree)

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2010-November-01, 15:52, said:

I don't think this is true in Wayne's methods.

I suppose a lot depends on one's 2♣ requirements: for me, pulling 3N, after jumping in diamonds, would suggest a hand closer (than I see this one) to a 2♣ call. Maybe Ax Kxx AKQJxxx x (obviously, I am speaking of a pull to 4♦ rather than to 4♣...the latter maybe x Kx AKQJxxx AJx?)

But, I don't play the methods, so you may be correct.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on 2010-November-01, 16:44, said:

I suppose a lot depends on one's 2♣ requirements: for me, pulling 3N, after jumping in diamonds, would suggest a hand closer (than I see this one) to a 2♣ call. Maybe Ax Kxx AKQJxxx x (obviously, I am speaking of a pull to 4♦ rather than to 4♣...the latter maybe x Kx AKQJxxx AJx?)

But, I don't play the methods, so you may be correct.

I think a pull to 4♣ may be based on less than a pull to 4♦ given that the former is based on a double fit.

[cherdano]

Oh, I meant to say that I am guessing that 3♦ did not yet show a suit this good. That's my guess because it seems to be true in most Non-American non-2/1 methods.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on 2010-November-01, 17:10, said:

Oh, I meant to say that I am guessing that 3♦ did not yet show a suit this good. That's my guess because it seems to be true in most Non-American non-2/1 methods.

I thought the hand has a about a trick more than minimum.

[ninja89]

1♥ is preferable to 2♣, as others have noted. After the 2♣ start, 3♦ and 3NT are normal. I think 4♣ is a much better bid than 4♦. How does partner evaluate Kxx Axx xx KQxxx for slam if opener doesn't bid 4♣ now? Opener's later 5♣ cue does not sound like the ace. The argument of "show a good suit by bidding 4♦" doesn't make much sense, since any bid over 3NT (except perhaps 4NT) implies an excellent ♦ suit... opener is not trying to say that he had a splinter raise the first time by bidding 4♣. The only way I see opener having 4♣ is when he is 74 in the minors; with 64, splinter-then-4♦ expresses the hand. (I fear I'm missing something... it's a bit strange that there's a thought that 4♣ is strongly suggestive of a strain!) The 4♥ cue is okay, too. It feels wrong with such atrocious minor holdings, but it also feels wrong to show no signs of life with three quick tricks. I definitely can't see 5♣ being a superior contract to 5♦ on responder's hand, though. What's being played for, 2074? Just bid 5♦ and trust partner to have his bids. Not to say I'm stoked with the 5♣ bid; I'd bid 4NT in an ideal world but 5♦ in the real world and not worry about responder being void, as it may still have a play. 5♣ definitely feels like it is overstating ♣.

All up, probably 90-10 to West.

[rhm]

ninja89, on 2010-November-02, 01:58, said:

1♥ is preferable to 2♣, as others have noted. After the 2♣ start, 3♦ and 3NT are normal. I think 4♣ is a much better bid than 4♦. How does partner evaluate Kxx Axx xx KQxxx for slam if opener doesn't bid 4♣ now? Opener's later 5♣ cue does not sound like the ace. The argument of "show a good suit by bidding 4♦" doesn't make much sense, since any bid over 3NT (except perhaps 4NT) implies an excellent ♦ suit... opener is not trying to say that he had a splinter raise the first time by bidding 4♣. The only way I see opener having 4♣ is when he is 74 in the minors; with 64, splinter-then-4♦ expresses the hand. (I fear I'm missing something... it's a bit strange that there's a thought that 4♣ is strongly suggestive of a strain!)

Excellent analysis so far.

Quote

The 4♥ cue is okay, too. It feels wrong with such atrocious minor holdings, but it also feels wrong to show no signs of life with three quick tricks.

Here I beg to differ. First of all quick tricks are well defined and are not playing tricks. This hand has 2.5 quick tricks. But I admit I do not care. Fact is that opener has shown at least 9 cards in the minors and very likely 10 or more. The only card which is probably working (unless opener is void in ♥, which would hardly be a big surprise) is the ♥ace and maybe one of the two major kings.
For me it feels very right to show no signs of life after having made a constructive 2/1 response. If that is all what opener needs for slam he will bid it with no further encouragement and your task will have be to avoid to get to a grand.

Quote

I definitely can't see 5♣ being a superior contract to 5♦ on responder's hand, though. What's being played for, 2074? Just bid 5♦ and trust partner to have his bids. Not to say I'm stoked with the 5♣ bid; I'd bid 4NT in an ideal world but 5♦ in the real world and not worry about responder being void, as it may still have a play. 5♣ definitely feels like it is overstating ♣.

All up, probably 90-10 to West.

Fine analysis

Rainer Herrmann

[ninja89]

rhm, on 2010-November-02, 04:01, said:

Here I beg to differ. First of all quick tricks are well defined and are not playing tricks. This hand has 2.5 quick tricks. But I admit I do not care. Fact is that opener has shown at least 9 cards in the minors and very likely 10 or more. The only card which is probably working (unless opener is void in ♥, which would hardly be a big surprise) is the ♥ace and maybe one of the two major kings.
For me it feels very right to show no signs of life after having made a constructive 2/1 response. If that is all what opener needs for slam he will bid it with no further encouragement and your task will have be to avoid to get to a grand.

Oh yep, thanks for the clarification, I tend to get those quick tricks and playing tricks mixed up a bit. Anyway, your main point is correct, and I'd overestimated the major KQ-K; there is a very large chance that partner will get overexcited if we cue, so it is best to do something regressive (Axx x AKQxxx Axx will need all the discouragement we can offer just to avoid slam on a 3-3 break, let alone grand). Maybe 95-5 to West, then

Edit: even then, it's 3 1/2 and not 3 PT. Oops!

[dake50]

"3D is not solid suit" -- setting trump.
Then I advance cue bid 2S (create a force)
before repeat (with a jump if I must) to show
SOLID diamonds and get D-slam try on the table.