[bftboy]

---

2♦ is a limit raise or better in ♣, denies majors, and normally promises 5 or more clubs. What now and why?

[pooltuna]

4♥ Q seems reasonable

[Phil]

4♥. 5♦ over 4♠ and 5♣ over 6♣.

[wyman]

agree with the 4♥ q, 5♦ over 4♠, but opposite of Phil I'll raise 5♣ to 6 instead of taking partner's 6♣ back to 5♣

[JLOGIC]

double post

[JLOGIC]

I would definitely be trying for 7. Starting with 4H seems normal as long as it is a cuebid rather than a natural bid. I think in an auction like this you just play 4M as a cuebid even though you can be 5-6, it is very rare to begin with, even rarer on the auction when partner shows a fit for your 6 bagger, and even rarer that 4M will make and 5m will go down, it's just not something you're supposed to cater to, especially when it destroys your slam bidding.

That said, if I was unsure and thought partner might pass then 5D has to be a very reasonable option. I imagine it shows a diamond void and both major suits controlled and is trying for 7 so it can't be too far off, and is perhaps best anyways.

[ArtK78]

JLOGIC, on 2012-February-14, 13:07, said:

I would definitely be trying for 7. Starting with 4H seems normal as long as it is a cuebid rather than a natural bid. I think in an auction like this you just play 4M as a cuebid even though you can be 5-6, it is very rare to begin with, even rarer on the auction when partner shows a fit for your 6 bagger, and even rarer that 4M will make and 5m will go down, it's just not something you're supposed to cater to, especially when it destroys your slam bidding.

That said, if I was unsure and thought partner might pass then 5D has to be a very reasonable option. I imagine it shows a diamond void and both major suits controlled and is trying for 7 so it can't be too far off, and is perhaps best anyways.

I agree. There may be some doubt that 4♥ is a cue bid here. 5♦ is the only alternative that I can come up with, and this puts partner in an awkward position since we have both major suit aces. We are one step away from bidding a grand in clubs that we could probably just shoot out now. I don't see how you can avoid it.

[kenrexford]

This sequence is an example of a very complicated sequence, for a number of reasons.

First, minor suit bidding is unique in that the space available after a RKCB 4NT is terribly limited (and 4NT to play often a consideration anyway), where some form of Kickback often is used.

Second, because game in a minor is at the five-level, you lose the ability to make a five-level slam, invite call of some variety, which would be an available option after a major suit is agreed.

Third, in this specific sequence, the opponent's interfering suit is higher-ranking than our suit, and the last call high, such that we do not have the normal ability to cuebid their suit either as a showing bid or as an asking bid, whatever is agreed.

Fourth, Exclusion is all messed up, as well, by all of the above concerns.

Fifth, in this specific sequence, there are concerns about whether the auction is a forcing pass sequence or not, and what the various nuances ar, depending on the answer.

I doubt that many have firm (if any) agreement as to how to unwind all of this.

The idea of cuebidding 4♥, without more commentary, seems like a lazt response. Sure -- you meet a definition of what 4♥ might mean. So? Partner, with at best the club Ace and no secondary club honors, with no side Aces, is supposed to know what to do after 4♥? That is, if he knows what 4♥ means. I mean, 4♥ could be a cue, or natural, or kickback. If he guesses you meaning, what are his calls, how do these help you, and what are we doing?

The idea of bidding 5♦ is also somewhat lazy, IMO, without more discussion. Sure -- this sounds like a void, a grand try, and thus more clearly impressive than 4♥. But, what does this really do for the sequence and for partner's analysis? If 5♦ is Exclusion (is it?), you run out of space too quickly to know what the heck is going on or to gather needed information.

My own personal default rules would be as follows:

1. A forcing pass is in play. As a matter of convenience, I am willing to defend 4♦ doubled, making, on rare occasion to avoid guessing after a cue-raise.
2. If controls are an issue, I must go through pass. Partner should not bypass controls to bid 5♣ without really good cause.
3. 4♥ would be Kickback.
4. 4♠ (Kickback+1) would be Exclusion RKCB for their suit.

These defaults might not be ideal, but at least they get us to a clear start of 4♠ as Exclusion and void in diamonds. If partner bids 5♣ (one), I could bid 5♦ as a trump Queen, but I have that, so I bypass to 5♥ for specific Kings. If partner shows the spade King (5♠), I can then ask for the heart King (5NT). If he has both, we have five natural tricks in the majors, five trumps in his hand, and likely three diamond ruffs, with a missing trick maybe replaced by a stray Queen or something. If he has the death hand of 3-3-2-5 and nothing else to offer, I might need a 3-3 heartg split or a spade-heart squeeze.

WIthout these defaults, however, I would be operating on GP. I need partner, probably, to have ♠K, ♥K, ♣A for the grand. If 5♦ gets a 5♥ cue, 5♠ by me (if asking for the King) does the trick. But, if I do not have the kind of defaults that I described earlier, how will this sequence be clear, either?

So, perhaps partner should just realize that those three cards merit accepting or cooperating. Will I know with confidence which, and will he have similar confidence? That's a heavy partnership question. I have seen powerhouse partnerships touchy-feely back-and-forth about grand possibilities, only to end up with someone guessing wrong or having insufficient confidence. (Remember, JL?)

The end result of my analysis, then, is that the "right answer" is extremely default-oriented or partnership-oriented and cannot be explained in any objective manner with the information given.

[JLOGIC]

It won't surprise forum regulars since I am not very forcing pass oriented but I think playing pass as forcing here is pretty crazy/radical.

[whereagles]

another man's call of 5D.

6D is also possible, but that's SUPER man's call

[mikeh]

I agree that this shouldn't be a forcing pass. 2♦ announced values to force to 3♣. That is not remotely the same as announcing values for one or both of 5♣ or setting 4♦, doubled into game. I'd run screaming from the table if partner alerted my pass and announced 'forcing'.

I like 5♦, which should, imo, show first round control of all 3 side suits. I think 4M is clearly a cue. I'll pay to a making 5-3 major when our 6-5 minor fails....not too often. So when we force to slam, via 5♦, we have to have both major Aces and a diamond void.

While it may be possible to construct a hand that forces to slam and has neither major A, partner can tell from his hand that we don't have that holding....he has to have at least one major K, so we have to have the A of that suit...and, since we didn't cue that A, we must have both major Aces.

[Yu18772]

Sorry - I dont get something about kenrexfords post :Why would pass be forcing? All we showed is a minimum opening opposite limit raise, surely 2♦ is not forcing to 5♣ vul ?

Also I really dont understand how 4♥ can be passed - yes opener may hold 5-6 hand, but even then playing 11 card trump fit with side suit for discards should be better than playing 8 card trump fit without side suit discards?

I would bid like Phil (except the 6♣ to 5♣ part )


Yu

[kenrexford]

First of all, I noted that this deal calls for the question of whether it is a forcing pass or not, not that this clearly is a forcing pass siotuation.

That said, my personal thought on this runs along these lines. I don't use a cue raise unless I want to establish a forcing pass sequence. To me, that's slicing the tomato too thin. Sure -- you could probably puit together a fairly compelling argument as to why a cue raise need not establish a forcing pass situation at this point, which is valid. I simply do not want to leave ambiguity and am willing to sacrifice a few bad boards to have a rule that a cue raise establishes a forcing pass.

If I have a hand where I cannot afford to establish a forcing pass auction, I could presumably jump to 3♣, 4♣, or even 3♦. Or, I could bid a simple 2♣.

I cannot imagine why anyone would use a cue raise just to show a hand worthy of playing at 3♣ only. That frankly seems dumb to me. If I raise to 2♣, this auction is surely not dead unless it needs to be if I have a hand where I can only force 3♣.

So, I surely have enough to really play at at least 4♣, which to me is the meaning of a limit raise for a minor. I am willing to bid/compete to game-1. But, if I am willing to compete to game-1 wiothout defense, then I have other options to use rather than a cue raise.

Life just seems easier when you hear competition and can set ownership immediately when it exists.

Mike would not run from the table, by the way, as I doubt highly that he would ever sit down as my CHO. That alone would make him go into fits too much to even grab the cards.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2012-February-14, 17:25, said:

Mike would not run from the table, by the way, as I doubt highly that he would ever sit down as my CHO. That alone would make him go into fits too much to even grab the cards.

Maybe you'd sneak in while we're playing with screens?

Actually, so long as we agreed to play some mainstream methods, I suspect we'd enjoy the game....and the post-game beer-fuelled discussion of how much better it would have been had I learned your methods

[Fluffy]

partner is missing too many keycards for 5♦ to do us any good, 4♥ by now

[mike777]

bftboy, on 2012-February-14, 12:24, said:

---

2♦ is a limit raise or better in ♣, denies majors, and normally promises 5 or more clubs. What now and why?

prefer 5d


not sure what 4h here is...

[Codo]

If I had just one bid I would try 7♣, but luckily I can go slow with a 4 ♥ cuebid.

[benlessard]

Auto 5D for me, and I strongly hate every other bids. Again im playing at least 6C and if i dont show my void now how partner is going to hate his A of D ? Showing the strenght to play 6 and a try for 7 while telling partner that his A of D is worthless but that majors KQ are working and that we wont loose slow trump tricks what more do you want ?

[benlessard]

playing FP is nutz here, opener can be 12-14 bal and responder have a nice 9 with a D stiff (unless you play that 3C is a mixed raise at these colours).

[bftboy]

What does simply bidding 6♣ say here? That's what my P bid, and holding Kx Kxx Jxx A10xxx I passed. Was concerned he had a stiff ♦. Same result at other table. I think if I had the hand I'd have bid 5d, hoping that it shows 1st round controls in all 3 suits, but it is still tough for P to bid 7. That's a lot of faith.