[mikeh]

Here is a 5C bid: Qxx void QJx AKxxxxx

Slam may make or be down. There is no way slam is 'good' when partner bids 5C. It is bad thinking to pay no attention to his choosing to not bid 4C. The fact that on this hand partner bid badly is no reason for us to assume, at the table, that he bid badly.

[P_Marlowe]

 mikeh, on 2015-February-24, 09:08, said:

Here is a 5C bid: Qxx void QJx AKxxxxx

Slam may make or be down. There is no way slam is 'good' when partner bids 5C. It is bad thinking to pay no attention to his choosing to not bid 4C. The fact that on this hand partner bid badly is no reason for us to assume, at the table, that he bid badly.

As far as I am concerned, this is still a 3D bid, we still loose
3 cashing tricks in 5C, with 3NT making.

But in general I agree, although I voted 6C, if we trust partner,
we have to pass, ... but I am still waiting to see a hand that
screams, I had to bid 5C.

[dave_beer]

 ArtK78, on 2015-February-23, 10:14, said:

---

Our cue bidding style is Neanderthal, meaning aces first. So I had no cue bid available over 3♣.

Some comments on the auction and your comment about cue-bids:

First, I would have rebid 2NT with opener's hand not 3♣. I have no problem raising with only 3-card support but will do so when the other options are flawed. With this shape I would raise with a small doubleton in one of the unbid suits and a hand where I couldn't rebid 2♥.

Second, after 3♣ on the actual auction new suits at the 3-level are not necessarily cue-bids but should be assumed to be features/stoppers for 3NT. What is responder supposed to do with xx-xx-KQxx-AKJxx or KJx-xx-xx-AKJxxx?

Based on that, I think the auction should start: 1♥-2♣-2NT-3♣. At this point opener can and perhaps should make a key-card ask intending to bid 6♣ if we are missing one or to tell responder that we have all of them and the ♣Q and let him bid the grand if that is enough information.

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2015-February-24, 09:08, said:

Here is a 5C bid: Qxx void QJx AKxxxxx

Slam may make or be down. There is no way slam is 'good' when partner bids 5C. It is bad thinking to pay no attention to his choosing to not bid 4C. The fact that on this hand partner bid badly is no reason for us to assume, at the table, that he bid badly.

If this is the text book 5♣ bid, I think it should be taken out of the system and should not exist. Void in pd's suit + 3rd round controls all over the side suits + running 7 card suit screams like 3 NT to me. If I am going to reject and waste all the space between 3♣ and 3 NT to figure what is our best game, which we may not even have one, I would never bid it. I actually never saw such a bid in 2/1 in practice.

I mean, when I saw it I also hated the 5♣ bid. Now the more we try to find a suitable hand for this bid the more we fail makes me have more and more sympathy for Art's bid. Maybe there is no such a hand that is suitable for this bid which will make everyone agree that it is optimal.

[Zelandakh]

I think you are being generous Mike. We have all seen threads on BBF where many posters chose to make a 2/1 GF response on invitational hands because the alternatives were worse. In particular, we are not told whether a 3♣ response would be Bergen, an IJS or something else. To me, the logical hands to bid 5♣ here are those that Responder is ashamed of as a game force and light in hcp. The 5♣ rebid thus becomes a warning. Your hand with ♣KQJ instead of ♣AKx perhaps or maybe just less outside strength. The point is that Responder ought to have a very good reason for taking up 2 whole levels opposite an unlimited partner. Just having a minimum GF hand is not a good reason in my book so we need to look for an alternative explanation.

[daffydoc]

My expectations for 5C is a hand that is not quite a 2/1 but felt it was obliged to start with 2/1 - 4C with responders hand is appropriate since it has 7clubs and two other second round controls - there are hands one feels constrained to bid 2/1 even when you don't quite have it because other choices are more evil. So responder should not have a 7th club or the diamond King. maybe same hand with diamond queen not king is appropriate for this auction. That's why the worst bid in the auction is 5C - it is way too good for 5C and begs pard not to bid again. daffydoc

[PhilKing]

I don't mind the 5♣ bid - you need partner to have a lot of controls for slam, and a cue bidding auction may tip the winning lead. Say we bid 4♣ and partner bids 4♥. Now what? Do we sign off? If you say we must have a diamond control for that, on the grounds we must have something, I don't agree:

♠xx
♥Kx
♦Qx
♣AKJxxxx

Seems totally fine. I play 4NT over 4♥ as showing a diamond control ("rolling" or "DI"), but most don't. And I can imagine partner now just auto-bidding slam because he thinks he must go on with a spade control. 4♣ does not guarantee an accurate auction.

Most are foaming at the mouth about the 5♣ jump, but MikeH is the only one to come up with a construction to back this up, which I reject for the same reasons as MrAce. For me, 5♣:

A) Shows excellent shape (we have that).
B) Denies a diamond or spade shortage (we would splinter), ergo we have short hearts, but I think this is overwhelmingly likely to be a singleton, since otherwise it contains too many side losers to venture past 3NT.
C) It shows a high card minimum for 2♣. This should mean it rates to have an outside king, but I do not say it is guaranteed. But anyway, even if slam could go down on the right lead, it may gin up when they guess wrong.
D) Is NOT a request to just put the dummy down whilst tilting about the barbaric route we have chosen.

[ArtK78]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-February-24, 10:16, said:

I think you are being generous Mike. We have all seen threads on BBF where many posters chose to make a 2/1 GF response on invitational hands because the alternatives were worse. In particular, we are not told whether a 3♣ response would be Bergen, an IJS or something else. To me, the logical hands to bid 5♣ here are those that Responder is ashamed of as a game force and light in hcp. The 5♣ rebid thus becomes a warning. Your hand with ♣KQJ instead of ♣AKx perhaps or maybe just less outside strength. The point is that Responder ought to have a very good reason for taking up 2 whole levels opposite an unlimited partner. Just having a minimum GF hand is not a good reason in my book so we need to look for an alternative explanation.

Since you asked, 3♣ would have been Bergen.

[mikeh]

 PhilKing, on 2015-February-24, 11:52, said:

I don't mind the 5♣ bid - you need partner to have a lot of controls for slam, and a cue bidding auction may tip the winning lead. Say we bid 4♣ and partner bids 4♥. Now what? Do we sign off? If you say we must have a diamond control for that, on the grounds we must have something, I don't agree:

♠xx
♥Kx
♦Qx
♣AKJxxxx

Seems totally fine. I play 4NT over 4♥ as showing a diamond control ("rolling" or "DI"), but most don't. And I can imagine partner now just auto-bidding slam because he thinks he must go on with a spade control. 4♣ does not guarantee an accurate auction.

Most are foaming at the mouth about the 5♣ jump, but MikeH is the only one to come up with a construction to back this up, which I reject for the same reasons as MrAce. For me, 5♣:

A) Shows excellent shape (we have that).
B) Denies a diamond or spade shortage (we would splinter), ergo we have short hearts, but I think this is overwhelmingly likely to be a singleton, since otherwise it contains too many side losers to venture past 3NT.
C) It shows a high card minimum for 2♣. This should mean it rates to have an outside king, but I do not say it is guaranteed. But anyway, even if slam could go down on the right lead, it may gin up when they guess wrong.
D) Is NOT a request to just put the dummy down whilst tilting about the barbaric route we have chosen.

All valid points.

However, I think it comes down to this:

5♣ is not a call that should exist in any rational bidding scheme. Opener is effectively unlimited, especially since 2♣ promises no more than 4 cards, and for those who require 5 diamonds for 2♦, could be on 3 cards (admittedly rare). Responder could have 3 (or more, for some) card heart support. For a variety of reasons, in a 2/1 context, 3♣ is unlimited.

Indeed, as others have noted, in normal 2/1 bidding, 3♣ doesn't even set trump, nor mean that we are playing a trump contract. 3N is still very much in contemplation and no good pair would use 3 of a new suit as a cuebid in support of clubs. It would be stopper showing, altho later actions may retroactively transmute it into a cuebid.

So in the face of this sort of methods, I don't see any hand on which 5♣ exists.

Thus my view is that absent a specific agreement a jump to 5♣ makes no sense at all. It can only be a mistake and the problem that faces opener is to guess what mistake partner has made. You guessed, correctly as the hand existed, that he had underbid his hand, and that all he needed for slam was 3 Aces and 3+ trump support: hardly an unlikely holding given that you have opened.

I guessed that he may have misbid in another fashion.

Threads that in essence devolve into who correctly guessed what mistake a partner made in the auction can have a peculiar interest of their own, and can be relevant since partners are rarely immune from error, but generally don't, in my view, advance our understanding of the game as it should be played.

Personally, without trying to justify any particular side card holdings, my view remains that the most probable mistake was based on a heart void. Combine a heart void with a minimum, slam-unsuitable hand, and I don't think 6♣ is a favourite, hence my decision to pass. I accept that in this particular case I guessed wrong and you guessed correctly. That makes me think well of your ability to make what appear to me to be random guesses, but doesn't persuade me that your view is, in a vacuum, better than mine on the OP.

[gnasher]

I think 5♣ shows something like xx xx Qx AKJxxxx.

[ArtK78]

 gnasher, on 2015-February-24, 15:41, said:

I think 5♣ shows something like xx xx Qx AKJxxxx.

I don't believe many would believe that your hand is a game force. The 2♣ bid was game forcing.

[Zelandakh]

This was precisely my point Art. If you look back at BBF threads for hands such as Andy's there is often a strong group of players that choose to make a game forcing response. This in turn becomes a logical meaning for 5♣, which as Mike has pointed out otherwise does not make a great deal of sense.

[ArtK78]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-February-24, 15:54, said:

This was precisely my point Art. If you look back at BBF threads for hands such as Andy's there is often a strong group of players that choose to make a game forcing response. This in turn becomes a logical meaning for 5♣, which as Mike has pointed out otherwise does not make a great deal of sense.

I guess I don't understand the logic in that. What you are saying is that players make game forcing bids on hands that are not a game force, and then try to make up for it later. Makes no sense to me.

I can understand the points made by many who believe that the 5♣ bid either does not exist or is intended as an absolute signoff. But the idea that it shows a hand that should not have bid 2♣ in the first place is something that I can not comprehend.

Clearly I am in the camp with PhilKing on this one. His description of the 5♣ bid was exactly what I was trying to convey when I made the bid.

[helene_t]

P must have something in hearts since he didn't look for notrumps and he doesn't have ♣Q and his points must be somewhere.

Besides, jumps to game are generally picture bids, showing concentration of values in the suits already bid. I believe this applies here also. If only because a pointed suit feature could be shown naturally while a heart feature can't.

So something very close to PhilKing's hand. Could be just six clubs. ♥K stiff is certainly possible. Should probably not have a stiff elsewhere.

Alternatively, maybe one could play 5♣ as hearts-excluding RKC for clubs?

[case_no_6]

 ArtK78, on 2015-February-23, 06:28, said:

Swiss Teams. IMPs converted to VPs.

---

2/1 game forcing.

Most of the problem here is that, in most partnerships, the 5C bid is undefined. Though I am sure many will disagree, there is no question that it is theoretically unsound to play 5C as a weak, fast arrival, game forcing bid for it preempt opener who has not limited his hand with the 3C rebid. Rather, 5C should deliver a very narrow and specific message so partner knows what to do.

(In my partnership it shows a very long semi-solid club suit and second round controls in all unbid suits (in this case, spades and diamonds) with little need of or interest in heart values (other than the Ace, of course). A hand like KJx, x, Kx, AKJTxxx would be ideal.

Whether you have this understanding or not, I think you have to bid on with opener's hand. You have first round control of all side suits plus a high trump honor. You don't have to have all that for your auction so far (and responder presumably is not bidding to fail in a 5C contract). Consequently, I will not only force to slam, but I will make a grand slam try by starting with a 5D cue bid. If partner shows me a heart card next (with 5H), I will follow up with 5S.

Megan
BBO username: Case_No_6

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2015-February-24, 15:41, said:

I think 5♣ shows something like xx xx Qx AKJxxxx.

What about xx Kx xx AKJxxxx

You have no reasonable bid at the three level and bidding 4♣ to initiate a cue bidding sequence will most of the time just tell opponents what the best lead will be against 5♣.
So I see a rationale for bidding 5♣.

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

A thought about general system here. I thought that the primary point of 2/1 (perhaps even the reason it was invented?) is to go slow in game forcing auctions, especially when partner is unlimited. 1♥-2♣-3♣ is a routine auction that, in theory, should be right in the wheelhouse of 2/1. And yet, responder was unable to use any of the nine bids between 3♣ and 5♣. So I would ask, in the particular system you are playing, is there any corresponding advantage to balance this seeming disadvantage?

[MrAce]

 billw55, on 2015-February-25, 07:24, said:

A thought about general system here. I thought that the primary point of 2/1 (perhaps even the reason it was invented?) is to go slow in game forcing auctions, especially when partner is unlimited. 1♥-2♣-3♣ is a routine auction that, in theory, should be right in the wheelhouse of 2/1. And yet, responder was unable to use any of the nine bids between 3♣ and 5♣. So I would ask, in the particular system you are playing, is there any corresponding advantage to balance this seeming disadvantage?

Another thing that is used in 2/1 is "picture bids" where one can not make or learn anything by going slow. Instead he tries to give an approximate clear definition of his hand. This type of bids also takes out some weight from slow auctions. Imo this particular bid should show a 7-8 card suit, which helps pd to count tricks. If go slow he will have no idea whether you are cueing with 4 trumps or 7-8 trumps. Having no control on the side is another message. He is either short in pd;s suit or has not shortness at all or he could have splintered. I think this is pretty good information.

I disagree with Art that there are no hands that can start 2/1 gf but does not have the hcp values for it.

xxx void xx AKQxxxxx for example. Are we supposed to invite with this when pd opens? I don't think so. Now that we bid 2♣ and surprisingly pd raised, I will bid 5♣. Even with more due to date cuebidding style, I would bid 5♣.

[rhm]

 billw55, on 2015-February-25, 07:24, said:

A thought about general system here. I thought that the primary point of 2/1 (perhaps even the reason it was invented?) is to go slow in game forcing auctions, especially when partner is unlimited. 1♥-2♣-3♣ is a routine auction that, in theory, should be right in the wheelhouse of 2/1. And yet, responder was unable to use any of the nine bids between 3♣ and 5♣. So I would ask, in the particular system you are playing, is there any corresponding advantage to balance this seeming disadvantage?

The primary point of 2/1 is that you need not jump just to keep the bidding alive, when the room may be needed to investigate strain and level.
It does not mean jump bids should not exist and should be void of any meaning.

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

 MrAce, on 2015-February-25, 08:28, said:

I disagree with Art that there are no hands that can start 2/1 gf but does not have the hcp values for it.

xxx void xx AKQxxxxx for example. Are we supposed to invite with this when pd opens? I don't think so. Now that we bid 2♣ and surprisingly pd raised, I will bid 5♣. Even with more due to date cuebidding style, I would bid 5♣.

That is not what I said. I never mentioned high card values. I said that if you are playing 2/1 GF, there should be no hands that make a 2/1 which are not a game force. This seems tautological to me.