[quiddity]

Scoring: MP

1♥ X P 2♠
P 3♥ P ?

---

[jjbrr]

cuebid 4♥

[quiddity]

What is the cuebid? Good hand for spades? Heart control? Pick a minor?
Edit: I mean a further cuebid of 4H.

[jdonn]

I would just bid 4♣ since I think 4♥ implies longer spades. Partner's 3♥ doesn't promise a spade fit.

[hanp]

Me too, 4C. 4H is either bad or too murky, depending on what it means.

[MFA]

I like 4♥. 3♥ denies spades, at least in the sense that a later 4♠ would show only three. So there is no trump suit set and 4♥ must be flexible. I can bid 3♠ forcing and 4♠ picture bid if I have only spades.

I'm nervous that partner might try 4♠ over 4♣, which would end play me since I don't want to play a 4-3. So I bid 4♥ and then 5♣ over 4♠.

[jdonn]

MFA, on Feb 10 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

I like 4♥. 3♥ denies spades, at least in the sense that a later 4♠ would show only three.

You might convince me that's how it should be in a perfect world, but I really don't think that's how most people actually bid. I see people double then cuebid with support for partner all the time.

[jjbrr]

I don't agree that 3♥ denies 4♠. There aren't enough hands in partner's range that have neither 4♠ nor 5m nor balanced and a ♥stopper for 3♥ to be a practical bid.

slow pony

[jjbrr]

Also, I won't argue that 4♥ is a really messy bid, but I think it will be the only time in this auction where I can cuebid without the trumps being ambiguous. If I bid 4♣ and partner bids 4♦ or 4♥, I'm not confident what suit partner is supporting. I'm sure kenrexford has this all sorted out, but short of that I'd like to have one unambiguous slam auction if we have a ♠ fit.

If you bid 4♣ and partner bids 4♠, you'll wish you had done more, though I concede slam rates to be not great after that auction.

Edit: And I know this is a problem with the "game before slam" principle, which in itself might make 4♣ clearly better, though you won't get to 5♦ if it's right by bidding 4♣.

[Siegmund]

I think 3♥ does set spades as trump, force to game, and invite further exploration; partner's 2N and 3m would have been natural and forcing, 3S natural and nonforcing. I'll follow whatever my cuebidding agreements are here (with my reg p, that's 3♠ from me leaving him room to start showing first-round controls; for some others it may be 4♦.)

[karlson]

a. I also think 3♥ should tend to deny 4 spades.
b. I don't think that this is some kind of supermax for 2♠, I'm not really dying to cooperate with partner's slam tries, especially in spades.
c. I think that 4♥ should be a slam try with 5 spades, since that's the only suit we know for sure we have a fit in.
d. I like MFA's plan of not sitting for the delayed 4♠, but I don't see why we need to bid 4♥ to do that. What's wrong with 4♦ and then 5♣?

So I would bid 4♦. If partner is coming in spades after all, I don't see why this is any worse than 4♣ (at least I have a ♦ control).

[gnasher]

I think that 4♣ or 4♦ should deny five spades. With any five-card suit we'd bid 3♠ wouldn't we?

In that case, if I bid 4♣ and partner bids 4♠, he should have four of them himself. Without either four spades or four clubs, presumably he has five diamonds, so he can bid them over 4♣.

[jdonn]

Siegmund and gnasher (for different reasons), how does partner bid AJx xxx AQJx AKx?

[aguahombre]

hmm I already showed my strength with 2s.
Partner cued to probe the right strain.
4H would say "Whatever strain you want, I have all 3 suits".

Disagree that advancer, who is limited and has limited his hand, should be the one announcing a slam try. He should just try to redescribe his distribution.

[MFA]

aguahombre, on Feb 11 2010, 01:36 AM, said:

hmm I already showed my strength with 2s.
Partner cued to probe the right strain.
4H would say "Whatever strain you want, I have all 3 suits".

Disagree that advancer, who is limited and has limited his hand, should be the one announcing a slam try. He should just try to redescribe his distribution.

Right.

So what's all the fuzz in this thread? I don't think this is a particular unusual situation.

[karlson]

Is it completely obvious that 3♥ is GF?

I think it should be, but I wouldn't be on firm ground undiscussed.

[PhantomSac]

karlson, on Feb 10 2010, 06:50 PM, said:

Is it completely obvious that 3♥ is GF?

I think it should be, but I wouldn't be on firm ground undiscussed.

Not to me, I think partner can retreat to 3S and be passed.

edit: I won't delete so that people can see my stupidity, but I misread auction when I said this.

This post has been edited by PhantomSac: 2010-February-10, 18:23

[cherdanno]

Wow to me 3♥ is clearly game-forcing.

[PhantomSac]

lol i completely misread this auction!

I didn't know there was a jump. Obv 3H is GF sorry.

I thought it was 1H X 2H p p X p 2S p 3H or something, so I was wondering why everyone was like obv forcing...Actually I think I just read it as 2H X p 2S p 3H p ?

To answer karlsons question again, yes I think it's obvious that a cue is GF once partner has shown game invitational values.

[Codo]

3 ♥ is obviously game forcing and I like the idea that 4 ♥ should ask about the right strain.

I had not find that at the table and bid a mere 4 ♣.