[JLOL]

It seems to me like 4S as a cuebid is almost never going to be useful, but 4S with a good 8 card suit (or GREAT 7 card suit) is likely to gain. However, bidding 5m natural seems even less likely to be useful than a cuebid since it's so less often that you'd want to pull 4major to do it.

[whereagles]

It seems to me like this is good advertisement for transfer advances.

With diamonds: bid 5♣ and pass pard's 5♦.
With diamonds + hearts: bid 5♣ and bid 5♥ over pard's 5♦.

[Gerben42]

After you bid 4♥, they are trumps, i.e. I agree with JDown. 4♠ would also not have been natural.

You can play 5♦ as a control asking bid, I guess. At the table I would have bid 6♦ to give pd a choice of slams, after all ♦Ax sounds great!

Quote

Both North players tried to bid a natural 5♦ (who can blame them?), but it was not interpreted as such. Rimstedt and Houlberg both pulled to 5♥, passed. Not a success; down 2 and a flat board.

What North and South could have done to avoid this is not clear I think.

Why would 5♦ play TWO tricks better than ♥? After all partner bid 'em at the 4-level. I guess North should have passed 4♥ (here I am, mr. result merchant).

[rogerclee]

Having 4♠, 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ all for slam purposes seems worse than having 4♠ natural and 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ for slam purposes to me.

[Fluffy]

I dunno wich planet it is but I think I am from the same planet as josh.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I dunno wich planet it is but I think I am from the same planet as josh.

Cool, if we find a 4th we can start a bridge game

[Apollo81]

JLOL, on Apr 13 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

It seems to me like 4S as a cuebid is almost never going to be useful, but 4S with a good 8 card suit (or GREAT 7 card suit) is likely to gain. However, bidding 5m natural seems even less likely to be useful than a cuebid since it's so less often that you'd want to pull 4major to do it.

Agree. I have needed 4♠ to play several times over the years. Once I even had AKQJxxxxx --- Kx xx opposite partner's 4♥.

[jdonn]

rogerclee, on Apr 14 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

Having 4♠, 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ all for slam purposes seems worse than having 4♠ natural and 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ for slam purposes to me.

I agree (and don't forget 5♥!) but 5♦ seems to be the one that is useless for slam purposes, not 4♠. At least if you are cuebidding, if you are using asking bids you would need them all. Still I have never bothered to make another agreement, although if I held a few solid 9 card suits maybe I would change my mind.

Btw my meanings would be:
4♠: Cuebid
4NT: Keycard
5♣: Cuebid
5♦: Cuebid but useless
5♥: Slam invitational with no club control (NOT forcing slam opposite a club control)

[FrancesHinden]

Sounds as if I am on planet Zarg compared to all you transfer cue bid exclusion types, although I'm disappointed not to find that gnasher agrees with me.

My agreement is that after a 4M overcall, new suits are to play, 4NT is RKCB in partner's suit and a cue bid is a slam try in partner's suit. This is the simple "game is to play unless otherwise agreed" rule.

A 4M opening is different in two ways, first it is often more pure than a 4M overcall, and secondly there is no cuebid available. Opposite a 4H opening, I play 4S as natural NV, and a cue vul, and 5m as a cue bid at all vulnerabilities (in some partnerships I play the cue-below-the-control-you-are-looking-for thing).