[beatrix45]

RHO is the dealer.

Scoring: MP

P-1♣-3♦-3♥
P-3♠-P-3NT
P-???

---

Your bid?

[han]

4C seems straightforward, slam try with long clubs.

4NT by partner would be sign-off.

[hrothgar]

beatrix45, on Aug 11 2005, 06:11 AM, said:

RHO is the dealer.

Scoring: MP

P-1♣-3♦-3♥
P-3♠-P-3NT
P-???

---

Your bid?

Abstain

Would have opened 5♣ to begin with

[mike777]

Hannie, on Aug 10 2005, 10:35 PM, said:

4C seems straightforward, slam try with long clubs.

4NT by partner would be sign-off.

yes and 4d will be rkc for clubs .

[han]

hrothgar, on Aug 10 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

Abstain

Would have opened 5♣ to begin with

Huh, what?

Had too much Australian beer?

[Double !]

Why 5C?

BTW, good job re viewgraph.

Bid 4♣ / 3NT. P has some cards over there. I'd like to find out more about them.

[mikeh]

I suspect that we are not going very far on this hand, but maybe partner has some Aces and the black finesses rate to work if I need them. Pass is silly even at mps: we surely do not hold exactly 9 tricks here.

I will respect 4N or 5♣.

I strongly disagree with 4♦ by partner as keycard: it is needed for cue-bidding on this auction. Partner will show his controls (if he wants to co-operate with our slam try). In my view, many players would improve their slam bidding immensely if they used less keycard and more cue bidding

[mike777]

Agree strongly with your main point on cuebidding.
For another view see Kantar's bidding the last 40 years of cuebidding disasters.

Strongly disagree, 4d is not needed as a cuebid on this hand. Perhaps on others.
Since MP have very little interest in Grand.

In any event we are stuck with 4d rkc and 4nt to play on this hand.

[Fluffy]

The only reason why we could had bid 3♠ previous round was to let partner bid 3NT, so if we did that stick to it and play.

[Free]

4♣, start control bidding to find slam

[mikeh]

mike777, on Aug 11 2005, 01:47 AM, said:

Strongly disagree, 4d is not needed as a cuebid on this hand. Perhaps on others.
Since MP have very little interest in Grand.

In any event we are stuck with 4d rkc and 4nt to play on this hand.

The meaning of 4♦ by partner does not change according to the cards we hold, nor the cards he holds

And there is no reason why we should be stuck with 4♦ keycard, unless we have previously agreed to be stuck! I would not so agree in any established partnership, nor would I expect a pickup but true expert partner to assume that our default meaning would be keycard.

I believe that it makes little sense for a non-jump bid to be keycard in a minor when the bidder has not yet shown either a fit or slam interest.

Kickback is a powerful tool, but, as with the original blackwood, many of those who adopt it use it in far too often.

And if your response would be: how can partner ask for keycards when 4N is natural and 4♦ is a cue: the answer is: he cannot. Big deal. He cues only with slam interest. I think that most advanced players would improve their slam bidding immensely if they and their favourite partner played for a year without ever asking for keycards... their judgment would improve immensely, and, when they began using keycard again, they would find that they did not use it anywhere nearly as often as they had earlier.

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

The only reason why we could had bid 3♠ previous round was to let partner bid 3NT, so if we did that stick to it and play.

The reason I bid 3S last round was to desribe my hand to partner. For one thing, he could have been 4-6 (or even 4-7) in the majors. For another, when we now bid 4C he knows where 10 of our cards are.

[han]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

The only reason why we could had bid 3♠ previous round was to let partner bid 3NT, so if we did that stick to it and play.

Don't understand you comment at all Fluffy. I think that we are painting a clear picture of our hand: exactly 4 spades, long clubs, very few losers. Partner should know that in the red suits we are only interested in aces.

4D would be a cuebid for me, not rkc.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Aug 11 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 11 2005, 01:47 AM, said:

Strongly disagree, 4d is not needed as a cuebid on this hand. Perhaps on others.
Since MP have very little interest in Grand.

In any event we are stuck with 4d rkc and 4nt to play on this hand.

The meaning of 4♦ by partner does not change according to the cards we hold, nor the cards he holds

And there is no reason why we should be stuck with 4♦ keycard, unless we have previously agreed to be stuck! I would not so agree in any established partnership, nor would I expect a pickup but true expert partner to assume that our default meaning would be keycard.

I believe that it makes little sense for a non-jump bid to be keycard in a minor when the bidder has not yet shown either a fit or slam interest.

Kickback is a powerful tool, but, as with the original blackwood, many of those who adopt it use it in far too often.

And if your response would be: how can partner ask for keycards when 4N is natural and 4♦ is a cue: the answer is: he cannot. Big deal. He cues only with slam interest. I think that most advanced players would improve their slam bidding immensely if they and their favourite partner played for a year without ever asking for keycards... their judgment would improve immensely, and, when they began using keycard again, they would find that they did not use it anywhere nearly as often as they had earlier.

Not sure if misunderstanding here or not.

I said yes to 4 clubs, but if responder bids 4d over 4c now I prefer that to be rkc not a cuebid. As you point out do not want to change the meaning of 4d here by responder "according to the cards we hold".

As to your mainpoint of cuebidding and not using rkc agree.

[Fluffy]

I don't think we have shown 4♠ here at all, jsut a stopper, and I don't think we want to play in ♠ at all either.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2005, 03:54 PM, said:

I don't think we have shown 4♠ here at all,  jsut a stopper, and I don't think we want to play in ♠ at all either.

I understand the rationale behind treating 3♠ as stopper showing. If we held, for example, Axx xx xx AKQJxx our best spot may indeed be 3N, and we cannot get there after 4♣.

However, why can partner not be 4=6 in the majors, or even 4=5 with good ♥ and weak ♠ or (as Frances suggested was possible) 4=7! Furthermore, why can't we be 5=6 in the blacks (and no doubt there are some posters who open many if not all 5=5 black hands 1♣.

In other words, there will be hands on which it is essential to use 3♠ as natural while the odds are that most hands on which we would like it to be stopper showing can be adequately, if not perfectly, bid to either 4♥ or 5♣.

A useful rule is: if it can be natural, and there is no other way of showing the natural meaning, it should be natural.

And you cannot have it both ways. Note partner's dilemma with say Kxxx AQxxxx Kx x. Over 3♠ he must commit: raise if natural, bid 3N otherwise.

[pclayton]

I just chose 6C, what I think I can make.

At least I don't have to join in the "is 4D kickback or a cue" or "is a later 4N key card or natural" debate.

[han]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2005, 03:54 PM, said:

I don't think we have shown 4♠ here at all, just a stopper, and I don't think we want to play in ♠ at all either.

I think this argument is better than mikeh's:

Even if 3S might have been bid to get to 3NT, 4C makes it clear that it was not.

[mikeh]

My concern is based not on the actual hand but on the meaning to be ascribed to a bidding sequence.

Give him one of these hands hands:

1) KJxx AJxxxx Kx x

2) KJxx AQxxxx Qx x

3) KQx AQxxxx xx xx (3♥ is a stretch but what else can he do?)

If 3♠ is stopper showing, then he must bid 3N on the first hand. Yes, if you then pull to 4♣, he can bid 4♠

But if it was natural, you may be passing 3N! Would you not bid 3♠ with Axx xx xx AKQ10xx? Would you really pull 3N?

On the second hand, if 3♠ is stopper showing, then can he really afford a 4♠ bid, playing 5♣ opp AQx xx xx AKxxxx?

On the 3rd hand, he can bid 4♣, if 3♠ was stopper showing.

But if 3♠ was natural, he raises on all these hands.

I agree that on this hand, with a 7-4 you will usually not be looking to play in ♠, but why does 3♠ show 7 ♣??? Partner is interpreting the bidding according to what the bids mean in theory, not on what you wanted it to mean based on your holding!

So decide, with reference to the various hand types you could hold, what 3♠ ought to mean. If you believe that the sequence of 1♣ (3♦) 3♥ (P) should bar your side from ever playing in ♠, use 3♠ as stopper showing, and hope you never pick up AQxx xx xx AKQxx.

[pclayton]

Mike - I think with your hands #1 and #2 a negative double would be better advised than 3H, pulling 3N (pard should have heart tolerance) to 4H.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons I think pard has club tolerance. He didn't make a negative double, he didn't try to punish our opps in 3D, and didn't rebid hearts. Likely shapes seem to be 2-6-3-2 and similar.