[dickiegera]

---

Should West now cuebid the Ace of Clubs?
I East intended 3 Spades as showing the Ace of Spades , agreeing Hearts as trump and a slam try in Hearts.
Partner West said I was showing a 6-5 distribution and giving her a choice of a 4 Spade or a 4 Heart contract.

Comments appreciated.

Thank you

[mike777]

1) sure cue ac of clubs now
2) yes h are trumps over 3s


yet another example of people trying to back into a second trump suit. aLL I CAN SAY IS DONT.

FOR 99% OF US it is too tough.
for 99% of us it does not come up enough.
for 99% of us focus on more important crap.

[Bbradley62]

If you're not trying to show an extreme two-suiter with the possibility of playing in spades, why not 2♦ over 1N?

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-22, 08:22, said:

If you're not trying to show an extreme two-suiter with the possibility of playing in spades, why not 2♦ over 1N?

Because -unless you have agreed that it is a convention- it is a natural sign-off and you get to play in 2♦.

And then you will have to answer the question: "If you have hearts and spades and a GF hand and you can show those by bidding a natural and forcing 2♠, why did you bid 2♦?"

And, for the record, even if I would be playing NMF or some form of checkback, I would still bid a natural 2♠ on this hand (unless, of course, I have agreed that 2♠ has a conventional meaning as part of my checkback convention).

Rik

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-22, 09:54, said:

Because -unless you have agreed that it is a convention- it is a natural sign-off and you get to play in 2♦.

I don't know what is commonly played in The Netherlands, but I would be very surprised to find any "Intermediate and Advanced" pair in ACBL that is not playing NMF when 2/1 is stated in the sub-heading of the post.

Trinidad, on 2015-February-22, 09:54, said:

And then you will have to answer the question: "If you have hearts and spades and a GF hand and you can show those by bidding a natural and forcing 2♠, why did you bid 2♦?"

"Because with your 1N rebid your hand is fairly well-defined, including the fact that we do not have an 8card spade fit, so I am taking captaincy in order to get as much info as possible about your hand before placing the contract."

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2015-February-22, 12:00

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-22, 11:10, said:

I don't know what is commonly played in The Netherlands, but I would be very surprised to find any "Intermediate and Advanced" pair in ACBL that is not playing NMF when 2/1 is stated in the sub-heading of the post.

I would never make such an assumption because I don't need it since I have a perfectly natural, unambiguous bid available. The reason why I think it is silly to bid 2♦ is not only because partner might pass it (as he should when we don't have an agreement otherwise) but also for the simple fact that partner might want to play a different convention (e.g. checkback Stayman or x-y NT).

But the basic reason is: "Why would you make an ambiguous bid if you have a perfect unambiguous bid available?"

Your answer "because you want to be captain" doesn't really answer that: After 2♠, you are also captain and you get all the necessary information. You were already captain the moment partner bid 1NT.

Rik

[rmnka447]

Partner's argument that you are 6-5 and were giving a choice of contracts is bogus unless you regularly bid 1 NT when holding 4 ♠.

Assuming not, then partner has already denied 4 ♠s and the choice between playing in a 9 card fit or 8 card fit is moot. It's almost always right to play in the greater fit.

So what can the 3 ♠ bid be?

If Partner still wants to believe it shows 6-5, OK, but it must be a slam try. Opposite such a hand, Partner needs to revaluate how their hand fits with it. If you are 6-5, then you must hold 2 minor cards. Partner's hand has both minor As, so Partner knows there are no minor losers at all. Additionally, Partner holds honor third in both your suits which is certainly a very positive holding. So, Partner should cooperate and make a 4 ♣ cue.

If Partner decides it must be a cue bid, then Partner should again reevaluate. Even though minimum, Partner still holds the 1st round controls in the outside suits and fitting fragments with honors in your bid suits. Again, that's very positive and Partner should cooperate by cueing 4 ♣.

[fourdad]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-22, 11:59, said:

I would never make such an assumption because I don't need it since I have a perfectly natural, unambiguous bid available. The reason why I think it is silly to bid 2♦ is not only because partner might pass it (as he should when we don't have an agreement otherwise) but also for the simple fact that partner might want to play a different convention (e.g. checkback Stayman or x-y NT).

But the basic reason is: "Why would you make an ambiguous bid if you have a perfect unambiguous bid available?"

Your answer "because you want to be captain" doesn't really answer that: After 2♠, you are also captain and you get all the necessary information. You were already captain the moment partner bid 1NT.

Rik

"You are already the Captain after 1NT"
BINGO!!!!

Is 2♠ not a Responder's revers and forcing? With a 6 card suit and partner bidding 3♥, the trump suit is set so 3♠ is redundant.
PArtner has a minimum (at least 13) and you have a revalued 19. Ask for Aces or just bid 6♥.
Whay make it more complex than it needs to be?

[helene_t]

Why not rebid 4♦ instead of 2♠? Obvious hand for an auto-splinter.

Seriously, though, I agree with Rik. Of course, if everybody plays NMF in Ohio that is probably also a reasonable option.

Back to the OP: Yes, West must bid 4♣. As rnmka447 explain, it should be clear that hearts are trump, regardless of whether East has four or five spades.

[nekthen]

I have both minor Aces and the King ♥. My partner has made a slam invitation despite my relatively unenthusiastic bidding to date. I bid 6♥ I have all the info I need what is to be gained by a cue bid? If I do not trust p I could use rkcb to confirm two aces and the q♥, but personally I think that's an insult to a good p.

The idea that 3♠ could be a 5 6 hand that could play better in ♠ is laughable. A 63 fit is always going to play as well as a 54 fit so what is the point?

UPDATE EDIT:
Actually 4N IS the bid. When partner bids 5♠, you can bid 5N which tells p that you have all the missing key cards. That should enable p to bid 7 if he has 3 kings

[bkvaran]

We used to be confused for years about cuing or not, until we decided that cuing (as an opening hand who has showed a minimum ),
should show at least 2 of the 6 key cards. Here we have 3 . ofcourse you cue..
I am not so sure splinter is the best all the time. You consume a lot of space that could be used better.
It can sometimes be possible for opener to show both spade cue and club cue below the splinter diamond bid.

[birtley1]

I am mystified by the first response. Why not force immediately with 2 hearts? The hand then almost bids itself. West bids 3 hearts and after this suit agreement a cue of 3 spades is obvious. Then cues or RKB by West gets to 6 hearts. Not cold, but a good bet.
Is there a systemic block to such bidding in the US?

[nekthen]

birtley1, on 2015-February-23, 12:18, said:

I am mystified by the first response. Why not force immediately with 2 hearts? The hand then almost bids itself. West bids 3 hearts and after this suit agreement a cue of 3 spades is obvious. Then cues or RKB by West gets to 6 hearts. Not cold, but a good bet.
Is there a systemic block to such bidding in the US?

Many play 2♥ as similar to a weak 2

[birtley1]

Yes, This seems to be a common agreement among many 2/1 gf players. However since the 2/1 applies only after a major opener then surely they could use the jump major bid as a game force over a minor opening. Of course there is always the problem of the short minor in a weak NT type hand in US bidding and this would raise doubts on the efficacy of a club fit here.

[rmnka447]

birtley1, on 2015-February-23, 12:18, said:

I am mystified by the first response. Why not force immediately with 2 hearts? The hand then almost bids itself. West bids 3 hearts and after this suit agreement a cue of 3 spades is obvious. Then cues or RKB by West gets to 6 hearts. Not cold, but a good bet.
Is there a systemic block to such bidding in the US?

As nekthen points out, many people now play an immediate jump shift as something other than a very strong and forcing hand. Many use it as a preemptive bid. Some might use it as a jump fit bid.

But even if you do want to play it as strong, there's another reason not to use it here. It takes up so much bidding space that it gets difficult to identify and sort out game versus slam with a fit in a third suit. So generally you're better off using a strong jump shift for near slam going hands where the potential slam will in opener's suit, responder's suit, or NT.

Holding two suits as here, bidding as responder has by reversing as responder gives you more room to figure out where and how high you belong.

[birtley1]

On the contrary the immediate force frees up bidding space by allowing low level suit agreement and subsequent cue bidding _ check it out.

[birtley1]

Further thoughts. If there is a Spade fit then West can bid his 4 card spade suit after the the heart force and suit agreement again becomes established by the 3 level without contortions or esoteric agreements.

[Trinidad]

birtley1, on 2015-February-23, 13:44, said:

Further thoughts. If there is a Spade fit then West can bid his 4 card spade suit after the the heart force and suit agreement again becomes established by the 3 level without contortions or esoteric agreements.

Birtley, welcome to the forums.

Your idea about rebidding spades is nice, but it doesn't work. After a strong jump shift by responder, a 2♠ rebid by opener doesn't promise four spades...

You might be curious and ask "Why doesn't a 2♠ rebid promise four spades?"

Because responder can't have four spades. As rmnka447 pointed out a strong jump shift shows a hand that is forcing to game and will play in one of only three denominations:

• opener's suit (clubs)
  
• responder's suit (hearts)
  
• NT

Since spades cannot be trumps anymore, a 2♠ rebid by opener cannot suggest spades as a trump suit. Instead, 2♠ functions as a cheap waiting bid to allow responder to clarify his hand type. All other spade bids will be control showing cuebids. (The actual West hand from the OP would be a perfect 2♠ rebid and it doesn't have four spades.)

This whole discussion, of course, assumes that the OP was playing strong jump shifts. Though strong jump shifts are certainly not extinct, they are definitely not the standard anymore among tournament players. That means that you cannot assume that the Op was playing strong jump shifts, even if you would like that.

I would consider the weak jump shift the standard, though many strong players give the jump shift to a major a conventional meaning (e.g. a hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts and 6-9 (2♥) or 10-11 HCPs (2♠)) or a hand with a five card major and a fit for opener's minor. These three possible meanings for the jump shift make it easier for opener to make the most important decision in tournament bridge: Whether to play in 4M or to play in a partscore (and which partscore).

For tournament players, the strong jump shift simply is too rare to be useful, so most have replaced them by something more useful.

Rik

[birtley1]

Well it certainly is useful here. I can see an argument for not playing this in pairs but for IMP or total point scoring it is very useful. The alternatives are too complex save for top tournament players and even they can have memory lapses. There is no doubt that a low level force simplifies subsequent bidding which is why 2/1 was introduced in the first place even though it placed a strain on on the range of the 1 NT response making it a one round force. Transfer responses to suit bids and relay systems are fine for those who can memorise complexities but for middle rank players a more natural system is considerably more efficient. KISS is a good guide. In top tournaments a tiny percentage advantage can make a big difference but for the vast majority a simpler logical, natural system is less strain and more effective. Incidentally the hand can be bid very well by different routes if West opens a weak no trump.

Btw, thank you for the welcome Rik, I should have mentioned this earlier!

[birtley1]

On the subject of jump shifts in a major at the 2 level, here is an extract fromm Eric Crowhurst's book "Acol Index", a comprehensive survey of English standard bidding at the time of writing.

It is commonly believed that a jump shift at the two level should show either (a) a powerful one suited hand, or (b) a hand containing primary support for the opener's suit. However there is no need to restrict such a useful response in this way. The responder should feel free to make a jump shift on a two suited 5-4 hand, for there is ample room in which to find a fit in the responder's second suit. (e.g. 1C-2H-2S-3S or 1C-2H-3D-4D).

I think a 6-4 hand fits this method too. Certainly one can argue that the two level forcing jump is less frequent than a preemptive jump and drop it on that account but arguments against its use on two suiters are simply invalid.

I realise that modern bidding theory has dumped the 2 level jump GF but I think this is a mistake when playing teams with IMP scoring as it simplifies slam bidding over a minor opening without resort to extra complexities. For pairs, where frequency is king then there is something to be said for preemptive jumps, but even here for non-national class players the simplicity involved outweighs any other advantages I think.