[VixTD]

---

Partner and I didn't bid this hand well on Tuesday. We don't play together often, and obviously had different ideas about this sequence.

2♣ was Acol, artificial GF or 23+ balanced. 2♦ was a relay. 3♥ showed a solid suit and invited cue-bids. (I know there are more fashionable meanings for this bid these days, but we're traditionalists.)

Partner readily admitted that his suit fell short of the required solidity, but he decided to take a gamble. As we play cue-bids to show first round controls normally, I signed off in game. Partner expected me to cue-bid 4♦ with my hand.

I wondered afterwards whether East could have made another move, and how the auction should proceed. He could continue cue-bidding with 4♠, so West will now know that second-round controls are of interest. Alternatively, he could bid 4NT as a further try. What would this mean? It's not key-card asking, as we know about those. One set of responses I suggested was to cue-bid kings at the five level, or KQ combinations at the six level. (Shortages won't be shown, as West is not guaranteed to have any trumps to ruff with.) KQ in a side suit is a powerful holding on these hands, but the length is also important. KQ(x) would be less useful on the given hand than KQxx(x).

Does anyone have any agreements in this situation? Also, what would a 3NT response to 3♥ mean? "No first-round controls, but one or more seconds"? "No first-round control, but a singleton and at least xx in trumps"?

Any ideas?

[wank]

your partner could do nothing. you must cuebid with your hand. add your 8 points to partner's 23ish+ and you know you're in the slam zone so you should announce some strength with a cue instead of endplaying partner.

as for what 3nt should mean, you could play cues as 1st round controls (the GFer will often have a shapely hand where aces are much more valuable than kings) and 3nt as values but not aces, i.e. what you have.
[/quote]

[aguahombre]

Not saying we would start the sequence with the given hand, but:

After the 3-bid by opener, we use 3NT as denying an Ace, but showing one or more kings. So, if we did have a hand with that AJX of Diamonds and had started the sequence, then--

4D=asking bid over 3NT...second step (4S) would show stiff or KQ(X+) of diamonds. Re-ask would clarify which.

A very old Hardy/Walsh thing.

[ArtK78]

Responder has far too much in values to sign off. So 4♥ is not an option.

If you insist on first round controls for cue bidding, then 3NT is your only option. As partner showed a solid suit and presumably set trumps, 3NT must be forcing but also denies a first round control. This should not come as a surprise to opener. Over opener's 4♣ call, responder can bid 4♦ and, subsequently, 5♦. This should be good enough to get to slam.

[Cyberyeti]

Before I assign guilt the same way as Wank, what if anything did 2♦ actually show ? Was there a 2♥ double negative available ?

[neilkaz]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-14, 09:50, said:

Before I assign guilt the same way as Wank, what if anything did 2♦ actually show ? Was there a 2♥ double negative available ?

I have to ask the same question, although with opener showing a GF, West's hand still looks too good to just bid 4♥

[Zelandakh]

Given your agreements, I would think best would be just to treat this situation as the same as after a key card and queen response, that is for 4♠ to be a specific king ask and for other bids to be SSAs. That is effective and does not require learning anything new over what you are already playing in RKCB sequences (important for rare auctions).

Edit: I missed the last question. 3NT as extras without a cue bid seems sensible but I think better would be to play 3NT as a spade cue and 3♠ as this. That way Opener has a 3NT ask available for second round controls. That is obviously more logical if you play Frivolous/Serious 3♠ with hearts agreed. If not then I would not bother with this inversion; as above, it is too low frequency to have special rules for.

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-14, 09:50, said:

Before I assign guilt the same way as Wank, what if anything did 2♦ actually show ? Was there a 2♥ double negative available?

No. As I said, we're traditionalists.

[VixTD]

I agree that I was too strong to sign off in 4♥, but it seems wrong to show a first-round control when I haven't got one. If you're recommending that we change our agreements in this specific situation where one hand is very strong then I can see the sense in that. If partner had rebid 2♥, I'd raised to 3♥ (on a different hand) and he'd started cue-bidding I would certainly cue bid this diamond control, I just thought the jump rebid specifically asked for first-round controls.

That's why I wanted to know about the 3NT response. Art's responses look like good ones we could safely adopt.

Thanks for the replies.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2013-March-14, 11:47, said:

No. As I said, we're traditionalists.

You described it as a relay not a traditional negative which is why I asked (some old timers would bid 2N, others would reject that for lack of an A and a K).

If you've shown nothing, then you have far too much for 4♥. 3N is sensible and if I couldn't do that I'd just ask aces and bid 6 if I wasn't missing 2. You are not normally short of tricks when partner shows the solid suit. If he's void in diamonds that's just unlucky. If you have an AK missing, they probably need to cash them immediately. The fact that partner has shown a solid suit means he must have at least 7 of them ... oh wait

[lowerline]

VixTD, on 2013-March-14, 09:13, said:

---

Partner and I didn't bid this hand well on Tuesday. We don't play together often, and obviously had different ideas about this sequence.

2♣ was Acol, artificial GF or 23+ balanced. 2♦ was a relay. 3♥ showed a solid suit and invited cue-bids. (I know there are more fashionable meanings for this bid these days, but we're traditionalists.)

Partner readily admitted that his suit fell short of the required solidity, but he decided to take a gamble. As we play cue-bids to show first round controls normally, I signed off in game. Partner expected me to cue-bid 4♦ with my hand.

I wondered afterwards whether East could have made another move, and how the auction should proceed. He could continue cue-bidding with 4♠, so West will now know that second-round controls are of interest. Alternatively, he could bid 4NT as a further try. What would this mean? It's not key-card asking, as we know about those. One set of responses I suggested was to cue-bid kings at the five level, or KQ combinations at the six level. (Shortages won't be shown, as West is not guaranteed to have any trumps to ruff with.) KQ in a side suit is a powerful holding on these hands, but the length is also important. KQ(x) would be less useful on the given hand than KQxx(x).

Does anyone have any agreements in this situation? Also, what would a 3NT response to 3♥ mean? "No first-round controls, but one or more seconds"? "No first-round control, but a singleton and at least xx in trumps"?

Any ideas?

3nt over 3♥ denies an ace but shows one or more kings. Over 3nt East will bid 4♣. If West now bids 4♦ it is clear that it is the king because aces were already denied. So getting to 6 is no problem. But getting to 7 only seems possible if you play something like the grand slam force...

Steven

[Zelandakh]

lowerline, on 2013-March-15, 04:52, said:

But getting to 7 only seems possible if you play something like the grand slam force...

Sure? If you played the 3♠ I suggested then Opener can bid 3NT as a king ask, or a new suit as an SSA. Say the choice is 4♦; the responses might be 4♥ = ♦Jxx or worse; 4♠ = ♦xx; 4NT = ♦Q; 5♣ = ♦K; 5♦ = KQ bare; 5♥ = KQx; 5♠ and up KQxx or better. That would get you to the grand very easily. You could even get by without the extended SSA responses by using a 6♦ follow-up.

Similarly, after 3NT you would hear 4♦. Now 4♠ as a further ask and 5♦ shows the ♦Q (denying ♠K or ♣Q). We can now make a further try of 6♦ for the 13th trick. This last looks the best path since it also allows finding the grand opposite ♠K, unless that hand (2 kings) would not have responded 2♦ of course. And if not, then presumably 4♠ over 4♦ would be a specific queen ask. That also gets the job done. RKCB follow-ups with this much space will cope with most grands I think.

[Free]

With your current methods you can't cuebid 4♦ and partner knows you can't cuebid because he holds all Aces. However, you're too strong to just bid 4♥ (you can have 0HCP and you're obligate to bid). In your situation I'd just bid 5♥ showing some values and willingness to play slam. I'm not saying you'll find grand (which is quite impossible given the traditional methods) but at least you'll reach slam.

[ahydra]

As others have said, if 2D doesn't show anything about your values then you have to do something other than 4H here. Since opener is unlimited I would strongly advocate playing a 2H double negative or similar response, so that opener has some idea how high you want to go.

I'm not convinced one can get to 7NT without some cunning method of finding the HJ.

ahydra

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2013-March-14, 11:47, said:

No. As I said, we're traditionalists.

I think that traditionalists would have bid 2♣-2NT; 7NT.

Rik

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-15, 14:31, said:

I think that traditionalists would have bid 2♣-2NT; 7NT.

Rik

No true traditionalist would bid 2NT with a singleton.

However, we can rule out spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs as well.

I guess a true traditionalist would be sitting there in perpetuity trying to figure out a bid for this hand.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2013-March-14, 09:13, said:

Does anyone have any agreements in this situation? Also, what would a 3NT response to 3♥ mean? "No first-round controls, but one or more seconds"?

Yes, it is sensible (and quite common) to play that rasing to 4M denies an ace or king, whilst 3NT shows a king. Over 3NT, 4♣ asks which one. On this hand, when Responder gets to show ♦K with 4♦ a cue bid of 5♦ on the next round shows that he has ♦Q as well.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree that West has too much to bid 4H over 3H and that 3NT should show a king. West also has enough to drive the 5-level opposite a solid suit.
However, I'm not certain that 3H is the right call on the East hand, particularly at matchpoints. He's got so many high cards that 3NT might be better than hearts, and he's also giving up on playing in diamonds opposite, say, xxx x Q10xxx xxxx

[lycier]

Quote

Also, what would a 3NT response to 3♥ mean? "No first-round controls, but one or more seconds"?

Yes,I just play that style

[kenberg]

I don't play Acol; so maybe I should just listen, but suppose that my partner has shown a solid heart suit and gf values, that I have shown nothing yet, and I have something., While often a 5♥ bid asks about trump. that can hardly be the case when partner has shown a solid suit. Would not 5♥ be something like: Too much to sign off in 4♥, no ace to cue, but values I haven't shown yet. I realize that holding the J of hearts you may think pard will be worried about his so-called solid suit, and of course 5♥ does not at all show where these values are, but if forced by system to improvise I think that 5♥ would be my choice. Pard will not be bidding 7 but I imagine 6 is an easy call.