[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2012-June-06, 05:24, said:

Pray tell why 5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control, when a lot of folks would bid around a hole and thereby be in their minds unambiguous?

5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control because there is no other meaning for it in common use. The fact that some people believe that some other sequence also asks for a diamond control doesn't affect the meaning of this one.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2012-June-06, 08:22, said:

5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control because there is no other meaning for it in common use. The fact that some people believe that some other sequence also asks for a diamond control doesn't affect the meaning of this one.

Yes, there is. Asking for good trumps is a common understanding, as well. Granted, RKCB seems to handle that as well, but not with a void.

On a different deal, give partner something like ♠-- ♥Jxxxxx ♦Ax ♣AKQxx. He cues the spade control, but we do not cooperate. He wanted to bid Exclusion, but he was not sure that would be on. So, he bids 5♥ as Invitational Josephine.

[fromageGB]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-05, 19:55, said:

starting with 1s is absolutely hopeless

2♣ is fine and my bid too with a regular partner, but without agreement on continuations I think it liable to be taken to be a 5 card suit or longer. I would then take 3♣ as insisting on clubs as trumps. Once you go down this line it could get irretrievable when you have different interpretations of the bids.

It all hinges on that "no discussion on anything". I think 1♠ is safer.

[Fluffy]

kenrexford, on 2012-June-06, 09:07, said:

Yes, there is. Asking for good trumps is a common understanding, as well. Granted, RKCB seems to handle that as well, but not with a void.

On a different deal, give partner something like ♠-- ♥Jxxxxx ♦Ax ♣AKQxx. He cues the spade control, but we do not cooperate. He wanted to bid Exclusion, but he was not sure that would be on. So, he bids 5♥ as Invitational Josephine.

If partner has a problem with trumps he bids 5♦ to show it.

[rhm]

kenrexford, on 2012-June-06, 05:24, said:

Pray tell why 5♥ unambiguously asks for a diamond control, when a lot of folks would bid around a hole and thereby be in their minds unambiguous? ♥ We are talking, I believe, about an undiscussed situiation.

Also, people tend to not splinter with voids. Not all, but many.

Because for a long time the standard meaning of raising a major freely to the 5 level has been asking for control of the unbid suit or if opponents have bid in their suit.
I am surprised that you do not know this. Examples that this is standard treatment among experts can be found in the MSC of the BW.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-05, 20:07, said:

Justin - since partner was cue-bidding with 3♠, why would he cue bid the same control again with 4♠? Is this just a chance for him to hear about my hand in case I don't have a diamond control, rather than endplaying me into guessing what's going on with 5♣?

Also, would a direct raise to 5♥ over 4 suggest no diamond control by partner? That thought entered my head as a possibility, but I wasn't willing to entertain it much beyond the initial thought - it seemed to convoluted to make that assumption opposite a relative unknown.

Presumably 3S showed either a first or second round control, with a first round control I would bid 4S to confirm that to partner. 4S also just keeps blackwood in play if for some reason partner didn't want to keycard. Joe Grue likes to call 4S a "transfer to keycard." Admittedly, I was making some assumptions, I really am unsure what partner has or why he is bidding 5C. Personally if I had a diamond control and wanted to invite slam I'm sure I'd bid 5D. But if I didn't I would bid 4S and hope for either keycard, or if no keycard 5C...5D which would show the diamond control. I would be very worried my partner would take me for no diamond control if I bid 5C.

One of my assumptions was that partner with a second round spade control and no diamond control could never have a move over 4H, when I have Kxx KJxx in hearts/clubs. I was not trying to be theoretical, I was trying to be practical. Practically, when I hold this hand, I think my partner must have a diamond control. Obv I am just guessing but I'm trying to do my best to not have a disaster with a new partner.

Ken came up with KJ AQxxx QJ AQxx as an example hand for partner but it seems unlikely partner should move with this hand, he is off 3 keycards PLUS the diamond control opposite a hand that couldn't cuebid. Nonetheless, I've seen people do worse things than move with 19 HCP. But this is a very specific hand type, imo it is more likely that partner thinks he is showing the diamond control.

Quote

Also, would a direct raise to 5♥ over 4 suggest no diamond control by partner? That thought entered my head as a possibility, but I wasn't willing to entertain it much beyond the initial thought - it seemed to convoluted to make that assumption opposite a relative unknown.

I agree with this, but this is a demand for slam opposite a diamond control. Sometimes partner doesn't want to demand it, so he engages in a cuebidding auction where we show a diamond control and then signs off so we're not demanded to go. It looks like that may be what he's doing here, except my holdings outside of diamonds are so strong that I don't think thats what he's doing. Sorry partner if I'm wrong. As we can see from ken, this is apparently not even universal.

Quote

2♣ is fine and my bid too with a regular partner, but without agreement on continuations I think it liable to be taken to be a 5 card suit or longer. I would then take 3♣ as insisting on clubs as trumps. Once you go down this line it could get irretrievable when you have different interpretations of the bids.

It all hinges on that "no discussion on anything". I think 1♠ is safer.

How can an expert partner take 2C as a 5 card suit or longer? One must do something with 3334, 3343, 2344, 3244 etc. No expert partner can take 2C as a five card suit or longer lol. Here we have 4 good clubs. With "no discussion or anything" that makes creating a GF immediately rather than bidding 1S even more imperative, they have no agreements to cover 1H 1S 2D 3C, or 1H 1S 2H etc, aka the hardest auctions to bid with natural methods.

No offense but this is the expert forum. If you think that 1H p 2C p 3C sets trumps and you can no longer get back to your major suit fit, or that 1H p 2C might be taken as 5+ with no agreements, I don't know what to tell you other than that no expert would ever think either of those things. Playing 4 of a major with an 8 card fit is obviously one of the most important things to do in bridge, even if 2C was somehow 5+ then you should still be able to play 4 hearts in an 8 card fit. It is fine to have the view that 1S is the correct start but those reasons are not very convincing.

[yin970902]

I Think why North don't bid pass after 4♥. His 5♣ looks like to achieve slam,so I will bid 5♠. He can select 6 or 7 ♣.

[kenrexford]

rhm, on 2012-June-06, 10:27, said:

Because for a long time the standard meaning of raising a major freely to the 5 level has been asking for control of the unbid suit or if opponents have bid in their suit.
I am surprised that you do not know this. Examples that this is standard treatment among experts can be found in the MSC of the BW.

Rainer Herrmann

There is a wild difference between something being "for a long time standard" and something being "unambiguous." The best argument that I have for the call being in fact ambiguous is that, again, several people felt that the 5♣ call isolated the diamond menace (which carriers inference) and the fact that simply googling this concept gets you to a raise to 5 as a trump ask to many players.

Moreover, the fact that I would consider a given auction as not unambiguous does not in any way mean that I am unaware of people having your specific approach.

Besides, there is a wild difference between a bid of five of our suit when the opponents have bid a suit (and even then some bid five of THEIR suit as the ask) and a bid of this nature in an uncontested auction.

I mean, the post title is "common sense." "Common Sense" seems to argue to me that a simple raise-invite of 5♥ would logically say, "I have controls; I need stuff," whereas a cue of a control (ostensibly) says, "I also have this; I need what I have not shown." "Bid where you live" and "Bid around your hole" are two "xommon sense" axioms that come up very frequently, as "standard" understandings.

[CSGibson]

double post

[CSGibson]

---

After agonizing over the 5♣ cue, I finally decided, like Justin did, that partner can't be missing all of the awesome features in my own hand and be bidding like this without a diamond control. Unfortunately, I then fell victim to one of my own bridge foibles - solving the problem, and being so relieved at coming up with an answer that clears up the ambiguity, that I fail to consider what the best response is. I killed our grand slam aspirations by jumping to 6♥, instead of cue-bidding 5♠, which would probably lead to an auction of 5N - 6♣, 6♦ - 7♥.

Anyway, the aftermath of this was that we came up with several agreements. 1) the 3♣ bid shows extras (and 2M would be a minimum without a convenient rebid below 2M). 2) we are playing non-serious 3N, 3) we are cue-bidding italian style, and 4) 3♥ is stronger than 4♥ (and on this hand I'd still bid 3♥ even with a minimum in HCP because of the good controls & double fit).

In retrospect, I like all of partner's bids, given that he was operating under the same handicap I was in terms of lack of agreements and lack of knowledge about partner's style. He got us to a point in the auctions where it was conceivable that I wouldn't screw up our chances for grand.

Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure partner's actual hand shows the foolishness of my deciding partner had to have a diamond control. I'm pretty sure the auction would have gone the same way if partner had the same hand without the ace of diamonds, and with his current hand, he probably would have bid 6♦ over a 5♥ sign off, after which I would be insulting partner if I didn't bid the grand.

[han]

I think that a much clearer auction would be:

1H - 2C
3C - 3H
4S - 5C
5S - 6C
6D - 6S
7H (or 7NT?)

If responder bids 6H instead of 6S opener can bid 7C.

I am not fond of cuebidding auctions to grand slams, especially when there are trump honors missing. For example, if you had AKx Jxx Qxx KJxx, shouldn't you bid 7 as well when partner bids 6D over your 5H sign off? Maybe you can convince me that this hand should not jump to 7 after having signed off twice, but would you always get these kinds of things right at the table? It's all too vague, with too much guessing.

Even worse are cuebidding auctions that skip an entire level and then continue at the 5-level. I am not saying that this isn't an interesting discussion, but isn't it a bit like discussing how best to swim when your hands are tied behind your back?

[gnasher]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-06, 21:29, said:

I killed our grand slam aspirations by jumping to 6♥

I think he should bid 7♣ over that. xxx Kxx xxx KJxx is enough, and your failure to cue-bid a pointed suit makes it very likely that you have both round-suit kings.

[Fluffy]

Andy beat me to it, partner just needs 2 kings for 7♣.

I also think 4♠ instead of 5♣ is obvious, why didn't he bid it?

[kenrexford]

Good general rule of thumb: When partner cuebids at the five-level, assume a void somewhere.

[Phil]

3♣ looks great when partner has ♥Kxx, but I think at the table we'd all bid 3♠.

However, this is OK, since over 4♥, 4♠ is EKCB.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-June-07, 09:18, said:

3♣ looks great when partner has ♥Kxx, but I think at the table we'd all bid 3♠.

However, this is OK, since over 4♥, 4♠ is EKCB.

I also thought i could start with 3 or even 4 ♠...with N hand over 2♣

This is an interesting hand though, your pd may not like the splinter. I know you will continue with 4♠ even if he rejects your splinter, but the mattter of fact is you may not even need ♥ K to make grand. I dont know how will you learn if he has xx or x ♥ later after he responds to 4♠

Assume south holds

AQxx
x
QJx
KJxxx

or

KQx
x
Jxx
AQxxxx

Actually, if it turns out that you are playing on a 4-4 fit, then spade A maybe vital, assume south now holds something like

AQJx
x
Qxxx
KJxx

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2012-June-07, 09:18, said:

3♣ looks great when partner has ♥Kxx, but I think at the table we'd all bid 3♠.

However, this is OK, since over 4♥, 4♠ is EKCB.

I think splintering with the north hand is awful, are you serious?

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-07, 11:20, said:

I think splintering with the north hand is awful, are you serious?

Why would you raise clubs and not splinter? I mean, 6♣ looks like our most likely slam, but 4♥ seems like our most likely game.

[JLOGIC]

Because our hand is ridiculously good and we will end up taking control anyways? Are you really playing 4H after 1H p 2C lol? If so, I doubt you can do it after 1H p 2C p 3S, are you passing 4H or rebidding 4H over 3N or something?

We have 4 first round controls and the queens of both suits, as well as SEVEN hearts to go with 4 card club support. This is not the time to be splintering.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-07, 15:04, said:

Because our hand is ridiculously good and we will end up taking control anyways? Are you really playing 4H after 1H p 2C lol? If so, I doubt you can do it after 1H p 2C p 3S, are you passing 4H or rebidding 4H over 3N or something?

We have 4 first round controls and the queens of both suits, as well as SEVEN hearts to go with 4 card club support. This is not the time to be splintering.

Yes, this is true. I suppose if I had a way to show club support, long hearts and a stiff spade AND not be worried about being dropped in game - I'd make the call.