[CSGibson]

Scoring: MP

1♠-3♠,
4♦-4♠,
5♥-6♠

---

North-South have never played together before, and do not have agreements like serious 3N in place. 3♠ was a standard limit raise.

Edit: I would not normally waste time on this, but there was actually a difference of opinion at the table (surprise, surprise), and I don't know enough about the subtleties of expert level cue-bidding to call him on it without backup.

[gwnn]

If 4♦ was a cue, N should know that there is no control in ♣ (because of 4♦).

If 4♦ was a second suit, N should know that there is no control in ♣ (because of 5♥).

[Fluffy]

north was not playting the same game.

[pooltuna]

Normal action to partner who ignorred the question asked (i.e. "Hey stupid do you have a first or second round ♣ control?") in order of occurence

1) excoriation
2) tarring and feathering
3) drawing and quartering

[bid_em_up]

100% North.

What's he going to do with his two losing clubs when South has only shown red suit controls?

[Mbodell]

If you don't have agreements in place isn't it possible that South is showing second round control of clubs as well as first round control of diamonds and hearts by bidding 5♥ over the attempted sign-off in 4♠. Since North has second round in both reds and an extra trump and his South partner was willing to ignore the attempted signoff, then I can see getting excited. If South denies second round club control (either by skipping it on the first round of cuing [my preferred agreement] or by skipping it the second time) then obviously it is all North's fault. How would folks bid the South hand if the 2 of clubs was the 3 of spades?

[foo]

CSGibson, on Aug 2 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♠-3♠,
4♦-4♠,
5♥-6♠

---

North-South have never played together before, and do not have agreements like serious 3N in place. 3♠ was a standard limit raise.

Edit: I would not normally waste time on this, but there was actually a difference of opinion at the table (surprise, surprise), and I don't know enough about the subtleties of expert level cue-bidding to call him on it without backup.

1= N signed off after S's Cuebid.

2= But S ignored the signoff.

3= Therefore some N's, especially in a pickup between two non experts, would think that what S was looking for was not SMALL slam but rather GRAND slam and therefore bid 6 after the "I'm ignoring your signoff" 2nd cue bid.

The real lesson of this hand is that acceptable slam bidding usually requires at least a minimum of discussion and agreements.

[655321]

Mbodell, on Aug 2 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

How would folks bid the South hand if the 2 of clubs was the 3 of spades?

AKQT32
A3
AQT4
Q

After partner's limit raise I would use the Blackwood Convention, landing up in either 6 or 7♠, depending on whether partner has the ♣A and both red Kings or not.

[JLOGIC]

655321, on Aug 2 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Aug 2 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

How would folks bid the South hand if the 2 of clubs was the 3 of spades?

AKQT32
A3
AQT4
Q

After partner's limit raise I would use the Blackwood Convention, landing up in either 6 or 7♠, depending on whether partner has the ♣A and both red Kings or not.

Now now, partner can have the minor suit kings as well!

[JLOGIC]

Mbodell, I don't get it. South didn't bid 5C and you think he controls clubs just because he moved over a signoff? What if his hand was AKQxx A AQxxx xx?

If you play a style of strict cuebidding here combined with something like non serious 3N, so that 4D is a serious slam try with no club control, then north would always bid 4H with a club control and a min (and higher with more than a min, likely keycard).

However if you play what imo is a better style where 4x shows a help suit slam try (learned that phrase from GIB), and 3N asks for cuebidding, then 4D just showed a diamond suit, and the return to 4S was just a negative in that context. Now 5H says "in addition to my diamond suit help slam try, I have a heart control and no club control). North would not be compelled to bid slam with a club control, he can also evaluate the rest of his hand (hence 4D to begin with, if you just wanted a club control you would start with 3N and drive over 4C).

Anyways, maybe it's too simplistic for you but I like to keep bridge easy...the guy who bypassed 4C and 5C to bid 4D and 5H has no club control. Had he had one, he would have bid it at some point. I cannot think of any hand where it's useful to bid 5H showing a club and heart control, wouldn't you obviously rather bid 5C and hear if partner can bid 5D (allowing 5H by you), or if he bypasses 5D whether he has a heart control or not?

[bluecalm]

Standard expert practice is that 4♦ denies ♣ control.
If you once denied control in given suit then 5♥ doesn't mean you magically found it...

If you play first round control cuebid first then I am sorry but that belongs to previous century.

This is all assuming 4♦ is cuebid. If that's help suit try or something obviously ♣ is possible.

[Free]

Lets see, 4♦ is cue, 4♠ is normal since there's no ♣ cue.

If they were playing last train, South wouldn't have any reason to bid further, but since it's a first time partnership he may make an exception.

North on the other hand didn't realise his partner still doesn't have a ♣ cue, so he should just stop in 5♠.

[H_KARLUK]

N!!

[gwnn]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 02:07 AM, said:

Mbodell, I don't get it. South didn't bid 5C and you think he controls clubs just because he moved over a signoff? What if his hand was AKQxx A AQxxx xx?

If you play a style of strict cuebidding here combined with something like non serious 3N, so that 4D is a serious slam try with no club control, then north would always bid 4H with a club control and a min (and higher with more than a min, likely keycard).

However if you play what imo is a better style where 4x shows a help suit slam try (learned that phrase from GIB), and 3N asks for cuebidding, then 4D just showed a diamond suit, and the return to 4S was just a negative in that context. Now 5H says "in addition to my diamond suit help slam try, I have a heart control and no club control). North would not be compelled to bid slam with a club control, he can also evaluate the rest of his hand (hence 4D to begin with, if you just wanted a club control you would start with 3N and drive over 4C).

Anyways, maybe it's too simplistic for you but I like to keep bridge easy...the guy who bypassed 4C and 5C to bid 4D and 5H has no club control. Had he had one, he would have bid it at some point. I cannot think of any hand where it's useful to bid 5H showing a club and heart control, wouldn't you obviously rather bid 5C and hear if partner can bid 5D (allowing 5H by you), or if he bypasses 5D whether he has a heart control or not?

in other words you agree with gwnn, does it hurt to say it?

[neilkaz]

"North-South have never played together before"

I wonder if they will ever play again after South twice denies a ♣ control and then North bids the slam also without a ♣ control and with what is a minimum limit raise.

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on Aug 3 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

in other words you agree with gwnn, does it hurt to say it?

It would probably have been painful.

But I don't understand the possible use of "Serious 3NT" after a limit raise. Anything other than pass or 4S is serious, since we were not in a GF auction prior. Isn't it standard to use 3N to discover shortness or as some other asking bid, and otherwise use cues or Blkwood?

Maybe it is just semantics, but I thought serious 3N was used when obligatory cues were the alternative.

[peachy]

foo, on Aug 2 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

The real lesson of this hand is that acceptable slam bidding usually requires at least a minimum of discussion and agreements.

There is no lesson.

Whatever the partnership discussions and agreements might be, I cannot imagine any agreements by which South has showed a club control in the given auction.

Without any agreements and just "normal bridge", which was the actual case, it is crystal clear that South does not have club control. So why does North bid slam, anybody's guess.

[dake50]

Did someone miss a STING 4C Q-bid or BEEGEEs 4C splinter?

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Aug 4 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

Maybe it is just semantics, but I thought serious 3N was used when obligatory cues were the alternative.

Why can't it be used anytime range is an issue or just to clarify the range in context.