[manudude03]

This is an auction my partner and I had a big misunderstanding over, and we're both pretty adamant over what it should be.

Partner opens 4H, and RHO overcalls 4S, what is the meaning of 5m here?
If it's a cuebid, what if you initially passed partner's opening and then bid 5m over LHO's 4S?

[Cyberyeti]

The obvious reply is "whatever you agreed it to mean", but probably not purely natural to play with clubs.

The second sequence to me is "I'm bidding 5♥, but you might want to lead a club".

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-05, 04:52, said:

The obvious reply is "whatever you agreed it to mean", but probably not purely natural to play with clubs.

The second sequence to me is "I'm bidding 5♥, but you might want to lead a club".

Most likely partner will not be on lead. That is why there is a big difference between this sequence and one where RHO makes a takeout double.

Of course, it all depends on what you agree, but a common agreement is:
- After a double a new suit is a lead directing raise to 5♥.
- After an overcall it is a raise showing a side suit to help partner decide what to do when they bid 5♠ (or a slam).

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-05, 04:58, said:

Most likely partner will not be on lead. That is why there is a big difference between this sequence and one where RHO makes a takeout double.

I was talking about 4♥-P-P-4♠-P-P-5♣ where partner is on lead if the 4♠ bidder's partner bids 5♠, and this is much more helpful than just bidding 5♥.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-05, 05:19, said:

I was talking about 4♥-P-P-4♠-P-P-5♣ where partner is on lead if the 4♠ bidder's partner bids 5♠, and this is much more helpful than just bidding 5♥.

Sorry.

I should learn to read better.

(I thought of deleting my silly post but I decided not to because it might have some value anyway.)

Rik

[RSClyde]

I think
4♥ P P 4♠
P P 5♣ is for a lead against a potential 5♠: this seems pretty clear.

However, without discussion, 4♥ 4♠ 5♣ is to play. I don't see the case for a different agreement. You can still have any hand and shouldn't be barred from bidding clubs if that's what you have. Those who want it to show a heart fit: what kind of hand do you have in mind?

[kenberg]

I voted "other" but I confess to voting too fast. I was thinking of it as lead directing but if course pard will not be on lead. So I revise this to showing clubs to help in any decision to be made over 5♠.

It's my view that if partner opens 4♥ then hearts are trumps, and I don't really see that subsequent events can change that. No doubt one can construct hands where I want to play in clubs, but I let them go for the simplicity of either playing in hearts or defending.

I think that if I bid 5♥ directly over 4♠, partner is to leave all remaining decisions, if any, to me. If I bid 5♣ over 4♠ he gets a say in the matter as well. I am announcing that hearts are fine by me, it's our hand, I have something in clubs.

In the optional slower auction, I don't really think that this changes.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2013-November-05, 10:50, said:

I think that if I bid 5♥ directly over 4♠, partner is to leave all remaining decisions, if any, to me. If I bid 5♣ over 4♠ he gets a say in the matter as well. I am announcing that hearts are fine by me, it's our hand, I have something in clubs.

Absolutely. 5C brings Pard back into the auction where 5H does not. But, I think "something in clubs" is too vague. We choose length (4+) and a concentration of strength (KQ, AJT, etc). What is your "something"? Maybe ours is too restrictive.

[mycroft]

I would play the latter case, where partner's on lead, as "lead a club please to 5♠". Which means pretty much exactly what 3♣ means in 2♥-X-3♣; I want a club lead. Could be AQTx, could be void, could be Kx with a potential "trump entry" and I don't want to lose communication in hearts; whatever.

[RSClyde]

But what does it mean to "bring partner into the auction" at this level? What specifically do you think 5♣ shows? For starters is this showing that it's our hand or suggesting a save?

[RSClyde]

kenberg, on 2013-November-05, 10:50, said:

I voted "other" but I confess to voting too fast. I was thinking of it as lead directing but if course pard will not be on lead. So I revise this to showing clubs to help in any decision to be made over 5♠.

It's my view that if partner opens 4♥ then hearts are trumps, and I don't really see that subsequent events can change that. No doubt one can construct hands where I want to play in clubs, but I let them go for the simplicity of either playing in hearts or defending.

I think that if I bid 5♥ directly over 4♠, partner is to leave all remaining decisions, if any, to me. If I bid 5♣ over 4♠ he gets a say in the matter as well. I am announcing that hearts are fine by me, it's our hand, I have something in clubs.

In the optional slower auction, I don't really think that this changes.

I'm having trouble understanding how this can be the case: especially the last part If I passed 4♥ initially, I clearly don't think we have a slam. But now I want to involve partner in the decision of whether or not to compete to 6♥ over 5♠? I mean you said that it should say it's your hand so if we're bidding slam then it's to make. Can't I just double 5♠ and live with it rather than bid a slam that I don't want to be in?

[manudude03]

Thanks for the replies, I bid 5C on Q A9x JTxx AKJxx thinking it was pretty much standard for it to show a fit with a side suit, and not really caring if he took it as a cuebid. Unfortunately, partner thought it was to play and passed leaving me in a 5-0 fit (going 5 off with 5H cold)

[aguahombre]

Recommendation: It would be standard to have the agreement you considered standard; but, assuming partner knows that without discussion is impractical. You will usually be better off result-wise by not trying something and then discussing what you wanted to do, than trying something and hoping it is understood.

[RSClyde]

manudude03, on 2013-November-06, 12:48, said:

Thanks for the replies, I bid 5C on Q A9x JTxx AKJxx thinking it was pretty much standard for it to show a fit with a side suit, and not really caring if he took it as a cuebid. Unfortunately, partner thought it was to play and passed leaving me in a 5-0 fit (going 5 off with 5H cold)

This was precisely my point: what are you wanting partner to do when he understands your bid that 5♥ doesn't accomplish? Can't you just double 5♠ with that hand if they bid it?

[Cyberyeti]

RSClyde, on 2013-November-06, 15:19, said:

This was precisely my point: what are you wanting partner to do when he understands your bid that 5♥ doesn't accomplish? Can't you just double 5♠ with that hand if they bid it?

Bid 6♥ with xx, KQJxxxxx, void, Qxx but not xx, KQJxxxxx, Qxx, void ?

[RSClyde]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-06, 15:25, said:

Bid 6♥ with xx, KQJxxxxx, void, Qxx but not xx, KQJxxxxx, Qxx, void ?

and with
x KQJxxxxx x Qxx?

[Cyberyeti]

RSClyde, on 2013-November-06, 16:13, said:

and with
x KQJxxxxx x Qxx?

Anybody's guess whether they're making 4,5 or 6 so I don't really care, but certainly don't want him to bid with the minors reversed.

[ArtK78]

manudude03, on 2013-November-06, 12:48, said:

Thanks for the replies, I bid 5C on Q A9x JTxx AKJxx thinking it was pretty much standard for it to show a fit with a side suit, and not really caring if he took it as a cuebid. Unfortunately, partner thought it was to play and passed leaving me in a 5-0 fit (going 5 off with 5H cold)

It is possible to construct a hand on which it is right to play in 5♣, but you are going to have to work at it.

Whatever you choose for the meaning of 5♣, to play should not be one of the choices. A 4♥ opening by partner pretty much ends the discussion of choice of trump suit. After that opening, the only options are some number of hearts or a slam in notrump.

The only exception would be if responder jumped to a slam in another suit. Unless you assign a specific meaning to that call, it should be to play.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-November-06, 14:16, said:

Recommendation: It would be standard to have the agreement you considered standard; but, assuming partner knows that without discussion is impractical. You will usually be better off result-wise by not trying something and then discussing what you wanted to do, than trying something and hoping it is understood.

Eddie Kantar's eight year old nephew, on why, when playing with his uncle, he didn't make a negative double: "I knew it, but I didn't know if Uncle Eddie knew I knew it".

[aguahombre]

Smart kid. He must have listened to me.