[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

in 1st seat you hold

KJxxx
Jx
AKQx
Ax

Scoring, if it matters, IMP.

The auction

1♠ - 1NT (1)
3♦ (2) - 4♣ (3)

(1) semiforcing, denies 3+ spades
(2) game force, 4+

(3) ??? what do you make of this bid

As always I am more interested in reason / logic.
The hand I have given you, is the hand of my partner.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

Question, what would 5♣ be ?

one of 4♣/5♣ is x, xxx, Q, QJ10xxxxx, the other is a cue supporting diamonds, may depend on your methods which is which.

[bluenikki]

Seems to me it must be a 7+ club bust without 2 spades or 4 diamonds.

[akwoo]

I don't think I have explicitly discussed this with any partners.

There are definitely some partners with whom I would take this bid as natural, and also partners with whom I would take this bid as a control bid with implied diamond support.

As a general rule, when a control bid shows implied support for one of two suits, it shows a control for the suit that is more expensive to support directly. Since 3♠ is a lower bid than 4♦, control bids imply diamond support.

[P_Marlowe]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-June-22, 09:57, said:

Question, what would 5♣ be ?

one of 4♣/5♣ is x, xxx, Q, QJ10xxxxx, the other is a cue supporting diamonds, may depend on your methods which is which.

At the time, I made the bid, I was convinced, it was clear, what the meaning had to be, but as so often, ... holding a hand, you invent
a bid, that has to 100% show your hand, and it may not be so clear on the other side of the table. This thread has the purpose to see,
how clear it was, if at all.

And there was no add. partnership discussion, natural bidding, but this is beside the point, I think it may be a seq. to discuss with
ones own reg. partner to see, if you are on the same page.

[bluenikki]

akwoo, on 2024-June-22, 10:20, said:

I don't think I have explicitly discussed this with any partners.

There are definitely some partners with whom I would take this bid as natural, and also partners with whom I would take this bid as a control bid with implied diamond support.

Even though the diamond jump was agreed not to be fake, that doesn't mean it is good enough for a high contract. Unless _that_ is an explicit agreement. So the responding hand must have diamond honors as well as length to consider a control bid. It makes sense, then, for the very rare control bid to require a jump.

[pescetom]

For us 4C is natural and too weak to respond 3C over 1S, 4D is a natural sound 4+ and invites a control-bid if 3D was the same, 5C does not exist.
Perhaps not optimal, but clear and safe.

[Tramticket]

We don't introduce new suits at the four level. Cue-bid for diamonds.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-June-22, 09:57, said:

Question, what would 5♣ be ?

one of 4♣/5♣ is x, xxx, Q, QJ10xxxxx, the other is a cue supporting diamonds, may depend on your methods which is which.

Is GF here to 3N or does it have to be game?
If the bidding had gone 1♠-1N-2♦ then for me 3♣ is to play. On that basis 4♣ would be the same.

[P_Marlowe]

mw64ahw, on 2024-June-22, 13:57, said:

Is GF here to 3N or does it have to be game?
If the bidding had gone 1♠-1N-2[d] then for me 3♣ is to play. On that basis 4♣ would be the same.

The answer to the question, how far 3D forces is certainly relevant.
Similar relevant is, if you could have already shown a weak hand with long clubs, at the table, I did not
have this agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2024-June-22, 13:09, said:

We don't introduce new suits at the four level. Cue-bid for diamonds.

So what do you do with a hand that was barely worth a response 1318/0319 ? 5♣ ?

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-June-22, 15:11, said:

So what do you do with a hand that was barely worth a response 1318/0319 ? 5♣ ?

You are not dealt one. But yes. We are going to game, and a game in clubs looks best with this many cards.

For me 4♣ would be a control. I'm not sure the opening hand is worth 3♦ - we need help in three suits, or a perfect minimum in two, to have a good chance at making 3NT.

[mw64ahw]

How would you bid the mooted hands non-naturally? Still struggling I think.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I did hold

♠
♥ AT9xxx
♦Jxxx
♣ KQx

and I clearly intended the bid as a control bid, agreeing diamonds.
6D is a pretty good contract.

As said, I was thinking at the time, it was clearcut, but the answer showed, I was wrong.

I did choose 4C instead of 3H, because I thought 3H would show 6+ hearts, but bypassing 3NT,
should clearly indicate, that the bid is intended as a control bid.
I felt, that 4D would be less helpful for partner, the spade void is bad, but maybe this was
overthinking.


With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-June-23, 00:38, said:

<br>Hi,<br><br>I did hold<br><br>♠<br>♥ AT9xxx<br>♦Jxxx<br>♣ KQx<br><br>and I clearly intended the bid as a control bid, agreeing diamonds. <br>6D is a pretty good contract.<br><br>As said, I was thinking at the time, it was clearcut, but the answer showed, I was wrong.<br><br>I did choose 4C instead of 3H, because I thought 3H would show 6+ hearts, but bypassing 3NT,<br>should clearly indicate, that the bid is intended as a control bid.<br>I felt, that 4D would be less helpful for partner, the spade void is bad, but maybe this was <br>overthinking.<br><br><br>With kind regards<br>Marlowe<br>

You do have 6♥ (I'd have 2nd thoughts with A9xxxx) so why not bid it. If partner responds 3N then 4♦ should be a clear slam try.

If the jump shift is absolutely forcing to game then there would be less chance of a mishap here after 4♣You can always correct 5♣

[mw64ahw]

Your hand fits in well with an Ambra style 2♦ response and may help with finding the right slam.

A further thought is if you had bid 3♥ and partner had raised to 4 what would 5♦ then mean?

I think it's common to have these misunderstandings with a casual partner. I had a simple one the other day playing Gerber. We had agreed to play 1430 Kickback, but not what to do with Gerber (I assumed 3014) so the responses got mixed up. I asked for Kings and misread this too so bottled the slam, when in retrospect there were too many points missing for partner's opener and I should have rethought.

[paulg]

Game before slam.

You have 3♠ as a general cop out and 4♦ to agree diamonds. 3♥ and 4♣ should be natural as a 6-2 or 6-3 fit is still possible. In all casual partnerships, game bids are to play: so 4♥ and 5♣ cover the weaker, highly distributional, hands.

[thepossum]

My first inclination is a cue bid in diamonds but...

NT game is gone. What next

A void in clubs?

Sorry now reading the thread

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2024-June-22, 15:50, said:

How would you bid the mooted hands non-naturally? Still struggling I think.

Simple strong club without asking bids - 1♣-1♥-1♠-1N-2♦-3♦ and onwards shouldn't be too difficult.

[DavidKok]

1NT with a 0=6=4=3 would not be my choice. Why not 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 3♦? More realistically though a strong club system will likely face some clubs overcall.