[han]

quiddity, on 2012-August-29, 11:12, said:

Even if it shows a control, why does it have to be mandatory? Partner's cuebid was forced since our hand is unlimited. As far as we know he is merely cooperating, so we shouldn't have to tell him about our heart control. We should be able to just bid 4S to clarify that we have an invitational hand.

Yes, 4S clarifies that we have an invitational hand without a heart control.

[lalldonn]

quiddity, on 2012-August-29, 11:12, said:

Even if it shows a control, why does it have to be mandatory? Partner's cuebid was forced since our hand is unlimited. As far as we know he is merely cooperating, so we shouldn't have to tell him about our heart control. We should be able to just bid 4S to clarify that we have an invitational hand.

This makes no sense. 4♥ still promises no more than a slam invitation. If he wouldn't accept an invitation he can bid 4♠ anyway and we will know it has nothing to do with an uncontrolled suit since they were all cuebid. But if we bid 4♠ what is poor partner supposed to do on a hand good enough to bid RKC but no heart control?

[Cyberyeti]

han, on 2012-August-29, 11:23, said:

I don't agree with you. I am not bidding this hand the same as all other 12-counts. With KJxxx Ax xx KJxx I would bid 3NT but not go beyond 4S. With J10xxx AJ Kx QJxx I would bid 4S immediately.

Consider how much better our hand could be when we bid 3C, for example we could have KQxxx Axx x KQ10x! Of course, that is a hand that would move beyond 4S even after showing serious slam interest.

If you show the second hand as a 14 count, I suspect you'd be in a minority, that's worth 15 of anybody's money.

[quiddity]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-29, 11:39, said:

This makes no sense. 4♥ still promises no more than a slam invitation. If he wouldn't accept an invitation he can bid 4♠ anyway and we will know it has nothing to do with an uncontrolled suit since they were all cuebid. But if we bid 4♠ what is poor partner supposed to do on a hand good enough to bid RKC but no heart control?

If he has an accept he bids 5S. If he has 3 small hearts and we have no control, that's really unlucky. But given that he showed 9 black cards I'm not terribly concerned about it, and given that he is opposite 18-19 balanced I don't think he should be overly concerned either.

edit: I guess I don't see why showing or denying a side suit control is so important here. Frequently with big balanced hands we just want to issue a general invite. If partner is rejecting all along then I don't want to bid 4H needlessly. And if I do bid 4H then I want it to show something more useful than Kxxx of a side suit.

edit 2: meh, nm. Your approach is probably better. At least the rules are very clear.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand at what point we showed a game force balanced.
Have we even denied 4 spades?

Is there some reason we couldn't have

AQx
x
KQxx
AJxxx

or

Axx
AKxx
KJxx
Kx

?

if we've said absolutely nothing about our hand other than we have spade support and a club cue bid, how can partner ever really evaluate his honours? For example, on the actual hand minor club honours are important but if we had a club doubleton they wouldn't be.

OBviously I just don't understand these methods. In terms of hand valuation I seem to be not strong enough for a slam force but close between 4H and pass 4S and make another try at the 5-level.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-August-29, 16:49, said:

I don't understand at what point we showed a game force balanced.

I'm guessing 2♣ gf clubs or balanced was gf (clubs or balanced) rather than (gf clubs) or balanced.

[lamford]

I presume ♠ KTxxx ♥ Jx ♦Kx ♣KQxx bids like my pard did as that is not total junk, so I am worth 4H. I agree with the eminent people on here that we then respect the 4S sign off. Even on that hand slam is not great. But add either legal jack and it is good.

[lalldonn]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-August-29, 16:49, said:

Is there some reason we couldn't have

AQx
x
KQxx
AJxxx

Presumably the (natural) 2NT bid rather than a spade raise at that point?

[sathyab]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-29, 17:48, said:

Presumably the (natural) 2NT bid rather than a spade raise at that point?

Couldn't 2nt followed by 3♠ show Hx in case partner has six ♠. Upto the point that he bid 3♣ partner could easily be 6-4 in blacks, can't he ?

[lalldonn]

Sure I mentioned that earlier in the thread, but then I answered based on the given explanations.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-August-29, 16:49, said:

Is there some reason we couldn't have

AQx
x
KQxx
AJxxx

I don't know what bluecalm plays, but I imagine that he would bid 3S instead of 2NT if he wanted to show a spade raise with clubs. Note that 2NT was not alerted.

Quote

Axx
AKxx
KJxx
Kx

?

I'm missing your point, this is a balanced hand?

[Fluffy]

slam looks poor opposite 5224 and 5134, even opposite diamond short I am worried about 4th round of clubs. I would cue just once more.