[Gerben42]

Scoring: MP

---

1♦ p 1♥ p
1♠ 2♣ 3♣ p
3♠ p ?

1. Do you agree with 3♣?
2. Now what?

[helene_t]

3♣ looks politically correct but I'd probably bid 4♠. Depends which partner I'm playing with. Some dislike unnecessarily fast bidding.

Now I'm tempted to bid 4♥ since partner's failure to bid 3N suggests some heart tolerance.

But I'd probably bid 4♠ just in case partner is 5-6.

[han]

What's up with all these people passing first and then interfering? (see B/I thread)

Anyway, I really like my hand, I can't imagine bidding 4S (and 4H, what?). If I was confident that partner is 5-6 then I would rather punt 6S than bid 4. But I can imagine partner having AKQx xx QJxxx xx (would be great slam though!).

5D is a good way to test your exclusion RKC agreements. I think it should be exclusion but I'd like to be 100% certain before I bid it. Lacking exclusion I would bid 4C because I am worried that partner will interpret 5S as asking for a club control.

(it's late and I've played too much bridge so if I said nonsense then please ignore this)

[Foxx]

We have a real hand here. We have to do more than raise to 4♠. 3♣ was a generic forcing cue, I don't even know if it promises spade support. But still, I would go on with 4♣, followed by 5♠. How good are those trump. With no more than one trump loser, North is to bid six.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 not really, I would have bid 4S,
gives up on slam, but I wonder
which answer will help me to
decide slam is good / bad,
if 2NT as good/bad would have
been available, 3S would have
been forcing

#2 4S, I have to show support
sometimes, and I have made a
lot of noise

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I hate 4C, I hate unclear cue bidding.
3C did not promise support, 3S may be 6-5,
but partner may still be 4-2-4-3 (what do I
know), 3S may just show values, I dont know.

[whereagles]

I think I would just bid 4NT. If pard bids 2 keys, I'll assume one is the ♦A and bid accordingly.

4♣ is nice but it will probably draw 4♦ from pard, after which I'm not much better off than straight blackwood.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on May 22 2007, 02:19 AM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ 8752 ♥ AKT943 ♦   ♣ AQ7

1♦ p 1♥ p
1♠ 2♣ 3♣ p
3♠ p ?

1. Do you agree with 3♣?
2. Now what?

No, hate 3clubs, prefer double.

Now I guess I will bid 4clubs.

[inquiry]

I like 3♣, and I like 4♣. If partner refuses to cue-bid diamonds, I like the hand even better over 4♣, ...

so

4♣-4♦-4♥ (last train)
4♣-4♠-4NT = races.....

The 4♠ bid, should deny ace or king of diamonds. So we can begin imagiining perfect hands. Over 4♦ cue-bid, I am worth a last train 4♥ and if partnre bids 4♠, I will stop.

[skjaeran]

inquiry, on May 22 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

I like 3♣, and I like 4♣. If partner refuses to cue-bid diamonds, I like the hand even better over 4♣, ...

so

4♣-4♦-4♥ (last train)
4♣-4♠-4NT = races.....

The 4♠ bid, should deny ace or king of diamonds. So we can begin imagiining perfect hands. Over 4♦ cue-bid, I am worth a last train 4♥ and if partnre bids 4♠, I will stop.

Agree with Ben and Justin's post - 4♣ is a clear cue bid agreeing ♠'s.

[foo]

Gerben42, on May 22 2007, 02:19 AM, said:

Auction
1♦ p 1♥ p
1♠ 2♣ 3♣ p
3♠ p ?

1. Do you agree with 3♣?
2. Now what?

Our hand: ♠8752♥AKT943♦♣AQ7

1. Yes. You have a 5 loser hand with 4card Spade support opposite an unlimited Opener who may very well have 2-3 H's on this auction.
You belong in game and there may be a slam in the air.
3C shows limit raise+ values in support of S's. That's what we've got so show it.

2. 3S showed a minimum opening. Opener has told their story. You OTOH, are considerably stronger than a Limit Raise.
A 7 loser minimum opening opposite your hand may still result in a slam.
So, 4C; cuebidding the CA.

If 4C gets the expected 4D, bid 4H.


I don't like an immediate 4C cue bid because some partnerships play this as shows a C void and some play it as showing a Mixed Raise.
An immediate 4C doesn't show this hand in any partnership I've ever been in.

[han]

A 4C mixed raise?

[Fluffy]

3♣ is correct, now bid 4♣ and raise 4♠ to 5♠, bt if he bids 4♦ bid 4♠.

[foo]

Hannie, on May 22 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

A 4C mixed raise?

Not a purely preemptive bid like an immediate 4S would be,
but a hand with the appropriate number of losers for the auction (8- for the 3 level, 7- for the 4 level, etc) plus: good (usually 4+ cards) trump support, =some defense=, but light on hard values for the auction.

This means Opener =knows= not to bid on in general or take the push to 5M unless they have a serious maximum.

For instance xxxx..(AKxxx.xxxx).

This 7 loser hand evaluates to 12 PP in support of S's because of the H void, but
a= We don't know how useful the H void is or isn't on this board.
b= While we want to be in game, we certainly aren't bidding it because we have full values (as in "an opening big opposite an opening bid means We belong in game")

Clearly, on the vast majority of Opening hands, if They bid "5 over 4" after Responder has made such a Mixed Raise, Our emphasis is going to be looking for excuses to X rather than spending any energy considering further competition.

I've also seen a Jump Cue here used for a Fit showing Jump Shift.

Of the three, the frequency ATT in increasing order seems to be
Showing Void in Their Suit, then FJS, then Mixed Raise.

[mikeh]

I agree with Justin, that 5♦ would be hazardous to partnership health: this is not the dummy for a ♦ contract, and I don't understand where we agreed ♠s as trump.

This means that I also agree with Justin that 4♣ is required: this IS an unambiguous cue in support of ♠s.

I wish I knew more about our style: in my partnerships, we'd be on a 9 card spade fit, but, in my partnerships, I'd also know that partner was unbalanced (his hand, not necessarily his personality) for 1♠.

Even with up-the-line bidding, such that partner could be 4=2=4=3 or 4=3=4=2 for 1♠, surely the default action over 3♣, when stuck, is to bid 3♦? Even with AKQJ xx Qxxx xxx, I'd bid 3♦: because the message sent by 3♣ is ambiguous but strong, and my job is to make the cheapest descriptive bid I can... and while rebidding 3♦ is not descriptive, it is cheapest and cheapest means most likely to be imperfect.

So I think partner should be 5=6 and now I have a huge hand, such that I cannot imagine not going to the 5 level or higher.

I bid 4♣.

I am not sure what I will do over the possible responses. I will let him out in 5♠ if we get that far... after all, with QJxxx x AKJxxx x, he should, in my view, bid 3♠ and then 4♦...if he did, I'd bid 4♥ and probably raise 4♠ to 5♠ as a suit quality try.

If he doesn't cue ♦s over 4♣, I have a tougher problem... let me get back to you on that

BTW, I'm heading for a disaster or a lucky result if he isn't 5=6.

[BebopKid]

I think 3♣ should show a limit raise or better.

If partner has extra values, I'm assuming he'll go to 4♠.

If he does, I go to 6♠.

Over the 3♠ response, I just go to 4♠.

Good luck with this one.

[foo]

mikeh?

Where do you play where 1m-1H;1S-(2om)-3om! is not a Limit Raise or better in support of S's?

I thought cuebidding the overcalled suit to show a LR+ of GOP's last bid suit was more or less Standard?

[mikeh]

The opp's overcall has deprived us of 4SF, as an artificial game force, direction unspecified. We get this back by using the cue bid... admittedly a level higher, but what else is there?

Consider: all bids of either of opener's suits are natural: if I have an invitational raise of spades, why can't I bid 3♠? I cannot imagine a need for 3♠ to be anything other than limit, so using 3♣ as limit is silly.

And what if I held a huge hand in ♥s? How can I force without endplaying partner in the auction, if I cannot bid 3♣ as a generic, non-specific game force, over which partner makes the most descriptive bid, using the cheaper of two logical alternative calls when there are two logical possibilities.

What if I held: x AKJxx KQxx Axx? An unlikely hand, I agree... but only in the sense that all good-fitting strong hands are inherently unlikely. Surely I'd want to make some forcing noise, then set ♦s as trump and then go slamming... and I cannot do any of that by bidding any number of ♦s... not to mention that, if partner is 4=3=5=1, I may want to play in ♥s... so I cannot jam the auction in ♦s.

I do not mean to insult any poster on this thread when I say that using 3♣ to agree on ♠s is absurd.... but it really is absurd

BTW, the analogy to the auction 1♠ [2♣] 3♣ is flawed: in that sequence, any new suit by responder is both natural and forcing (I am ignoring the problems of playing NFBs since they are nonstandard, and I despise them anyway), so responder doesn't need the cue to force... but in our sequence, we do need the cue to establish the force... other bids are non-forcing...even if they show strength.