[kenrexford]

I had a problem assessing WTF was going on. I wonder what others would assume. The sequence up to a certain point made sense. However, the house of cards collapsed at the end.

As Responder, your hand is ♠J109x ♥AKxxx ♦Ax ♣AK

The auction:

1♣-P-1♥-P-
1♠*-P-2♦**-P-
2♥-P-2♠-P-
2NT***-P-3♣-P-
3♠(???)

*Shows unbalanced. Could be a three-card spade suit if 3145. 4225 possible.
**GF, artificial
***Denies two of the top three honors in trumps

The relevant rules of cuebidding applied in this sequence:

1. A cue of a suit that you yourself initiate shows two of the top three honors. A later cue having promised two shows the third. A later cue after denying two shows one.

2. The former rule applies by either partner for cues in the trump suit.

3. A cue in a suit initiated/shown by partner (and not trumps) shows one of the top three honors.

4. A cue in a side, unbid suit (not naturally bid) shows a "control," which could be shortness, but a cue of a logically necessary shortness shows a void or stiff Ace.

Fast arrival is limited to very weak holdings. Having nothing more than two key cards with the Queen is too much, so a jump fast arrival denies two keys plus the Queen of trumps. With fewer keys, you still will cue unless you have serious garbage.

What the Heck is going on? What do you do now?

[mike777]

I got lost at 2d....I just bid 4nt over 1s.......3s is possible means nothing. I cannot bid 2D on the basis of .0001% possible if that is what you are saying.

[karlson]

I dunno. Partner opened some junk like Axxx Jx QJ QJTxx? That seems to be what you're saying he's showing.

Is it possible partner forgot the agreements? If not, I'm just going to bid 4s I guess. What's partner supposed to do if I cue 4c, anyway? He's already denied anything in the reds -- is he supposed to cue HJ and DQ?

[rbforster]

Is hearts or spades agreed as trump here? Did you have a balanced slam try in spades over 1♠ except going through 4th suit (or 4NT)?

Edit to add - if 1♠ can be on only 3, I want to be pretty sure I'm not playing a Moysian with my poor spades. Otherwise it seems right to agree hearts, but I'm not sure if partner knows this yet.

[gnasher]

karlson, on Jun 8 2008, 06:38 AM, said:

I dunno. Partner opened some junk like Axxx Jx QJ QJTxx? That seems to be what you're saying he's showing.

I can't think of any other hand consistent with the bidding. Can I bid 3NT to play? If not, I would bid 4♠.

This looks like a good hand for your methods, except that if you were really clever you'd have arranged to play 6♠ from the right side, after first checking for the QJ of each minor and the ♠8.

[kenrexford]

I also visualized ♠Axxx ♥Jx ♦QJ ♣QJ10xx as the only possible holding for this sequence. However, that's not possible, for two (three?) reasons. One reason is that this is a sick opening. But, I can live with that.

1. Why would partner bid 2♥ over 2♦ with Jx? Ax or Kx, maybe. I could even be talked into Qx. But, Jx???

2. If partner did have this junk, and did bid 2♥, and did hear 2♠, wouldn't he jump to 4♠, fast arrival?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

1. Why would partner bid 2♥ over 2♦ with Jx?  Ax or Kx, maybe.  I could even be talked into Qx.  But, Jx???

For me, 2♥ shows 4225, and Jx is a perfectly acceptable heart holding. With a 4315 minimum I'd have raised to 2♥; with 4315 and extras I'd bid 3♥. I think this might be a tomayto-tomahto thing.

Quote

2. If partner did have this junk, and did bid 2♥, and did hear 2♠, wouldn't he jump to 4♠, fast arrival?

Dunno. Maybe he liked his clubs. Or maybe this auction just isn't possible given what you had.

Did you actually see his hand? If so, why don't you tell us what it was, so that we can all stop trying to understand the incomprehensible?

[kenrexford]

Partner actually held ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣QJxxx.

I figured out what was going on at the table. Partner had thought that hearts were agreed. Thus, he took 2♠ as a cue of the spade King and cue'd 2NT denying two top hearts. Then, he bypassed 3♥ to deny any top hearts but cue'd spades to show the remaining two top honors.

This made sense except that I cannot imagine how hearts is "set" if Opener can bid 2♥ with a doubleton, nor how 2♠ does not name trumps if 2♥ could be a doubleton.

The auction made sense (somewhat) with this assumption. However, I found it curious in that the major situation (what is trumps) is ambiguous in this precise sequence.

Do people think that 2♠ should set trumps and 3♥ hearts after Opener's 2♥?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

Do people think that 2♠ should set trumps and 3♥ hearts after Opener's 2♥?

I do.

[cherdano]

I got it. I teach partner complicated cue-bidding agreements, so that I can figure out later on when he doesn't understand a basic 4th-suit-forcing auction.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 8 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I got it. I teach partner complicated cue-bidding agreements, so that I can figure out later on when he doesn't understand a basic 4th-suit-forcing auction.

Partner was not a student to whom I introduced my style of cuebidding. The person bidding this hand far outranks me.

[rbforster]

I think you should think more about the situation of how to agree on which major suit wants to be trump on this sequence. We're potentially with a

4315 or 3145 or 4225 opener

vs

4522 or 4432 responder

and either spades or hearts or NT could be clearly right or shocking wrong. If it were my system I'd devote a few more bids to settling on strain over 2♦ and responder's rebid rather than starting cuebids so early (or at least agree which major suit is set if you do initiate cuebids).

I play Walsh style where the 1♠ rebid shows unbalanced with 4♠ and almost always 5+♣s (although 4144 is possible I guess). At least for me there's no ambiguity if responder bids 4th suit and then spades. Together with XYZ, over 2♥ new suits higher than 3♣ would agree hearts (5+), while 2♠, 2N and 3♣ would be natural.

[han]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

I figured out what was going on at the table. Partner had thought that hearts were agreed.

Impossible for us to figure out without knowing how bad partner is.

[kenrexford]

han, on Jun 9 2008, 03:56 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

I figured out what was going on at the table.  Partner had thought that hearts were agreed.

Impossible for us to figure out without knowing how bad partner is.

Actually, I'm not sure now. Alternatively, he might have bid 2NT and then 3♠ knowing that spades were trumps just because his hand sucked, not thinking of 2♠-P-4♠.

Bad move.