[NickRW]

I suppose it is possible for partner to hold something where 5♣ doesn't make, but it seems long odds against. So I'm hoping for 6 and I don't see what is wrong with bidding 3♠ for now.

Nick

[inquiry]

Several people have mentioned bidding 3♠, two of these 3♠ bidders are clearly better players than me, the third and fourth I don't know, maybe they are better too, so maybe 3♠ is a good choice......

phil said:

That leaves 3♠ and 4♠. Obviously they are both some form of cuebid supporting clubs. I think 3♠ is plenty. Over 4♠, how is pard supposed to know that void, Kxxx, Qxx, AJxxxx sucks, but void, xxxx, KQx AJxxxx is the subnuts

gnasher said:

If I bid 4♠ it would be because I've never bid a Bluhmer before, but I think 3♠ is more sensible from a bridge perspective, partly because 4♠ uses up so much space and partly because our red suits aren't equal.

justin said:

I guess I'd start with 3S and hope to get into a cuebidding sequence

nick said:

I suppose it is possible for partner to hold something where 5♣ doesn't make, but it seems long odds against. So I'm hoping for 6 and I don't see what is wrong with bidding 3♠ for now.

The good news about 3♠ is there is no doubt that this agrees clubs, and is at least game invite. But might partner not take this as a cue-bid? Sending the message you have the spade ACE is exactly wrong with this hand. Partner will think your ace is wasted and some of their value for their bids must be a card of more imporance (say the diamond ace). If you play that 4♣ is not forcing, then your only recourse seems to be a 3/4♠ bid, but I think a forcing 4♣ bid does a number of useful things. . it will give you a chance to show a heart control when partner cue-bids his hoped for king of diamonds. If partner can only cue-bid hearts, you can still bid 4♠ to show slam interest despite the lack of a diamond cue-bid.

Now if 3♠ is just an old=fashion, fit and force cue-bid without implications for 3NT or showing a spade control (ACE OR KING), then it is fine. But I worry about turning partner off. If partner decides we are making a slam try without anything in spades, it seems better for me.

[kenrexford]

jillybean2, on Jun 10 2008, 02:11 PM, said:

If anyone else is wondering what a Bluhmer is..
http://www.bridgehan...m/B/Bluhmer.htm

A "Bluhmer" is a safe empathetic splinter, in that you already know that partner has a stiff.

The problem with a Bluhmer here is the auction does not establish that partner has a stiff. Sure, in this auction, partner has a stiff (probably...). However, the same auction could occur on another day with Responder having a stiff and Opener 2 spades. So, if this is actually more precisely an empathetic splinter because you do not "know," you just empathize the splinter.

This is dangerous, however. The danger is in the assessment of what is going on, and reliance on partner to so assess. The 1♠ call should, IMO, be natural. However, it is conceivable to play 1♠ as pre-completion Michaels, and one opponent might have assumed this. Partner is not assured in his assessment that 3♠ is a Bluhmer, then he may assume an exposing bid. What would Responder bid, for instance, with values and AQ10xxx in spades?

Further, fourth seat may be funny and picking off spades.

The stiff heart screams of a real risk that the opponents are intentionally or unintentionally messing around.

All that said, I like the spade jump here.

[gnasher]

If 4♣ is forcing, I agree that you should do that.

In competitive auctions I normally play bids in our suits as limited and non-forcing (though it's not clear how useful this is when it's a jump to four of a minor). As a corollary, a cue bid includes a strong raise, and neither shows nor denies a control in their suit.

Usually when each side has bid one suit, the raise is the only hand that cue bids - you can make a takeout double on any awkward strong hand without support. Here, however, the auction is complicated by our not having a takeout double available. So I suppose that a cue bid includes both a clubs raise and a 3NT try, asking partner to bid 3NT with a singleton spade honour.

I expect that the auction will continue 3♠-4♣-4♦. I hope that will be interpreted as a cue bid in support of clubs.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 10 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Partner is not assured in his assessment that 3♠ is a Bluhmer, then he may assume an exposing bid. What would Responder bid, for instance, with values and AQ10xxx in spades?

I'd try a double. Six tricks are easier than ten, especially when it's the same trump suit in each case.

[MFA]

Just as inquiry, I would be worried that I wouldn't get my hand type across after 3♠. 3♠ has to be bid on a lot of different hands, it seems, some of which with only mediocre fit for clubs.

(phil)

Quote

That leaves 3♠ and 4♠. Obviously they are both some form of cuebid supporting clubs. I think 3♠ is plenty. Over 4♠, how is pard supposed to know that void, Kxxx, Qxx, AJxxxx sucks, but void, xxxx, KQx AJxxxx is the subnuts

We have to be realistic, I think. If I could show a slam try with a huge fit and a fistful of small spades, I would be very happy. I don't expect to do better in any other bidding sequence.
(Partner will sign off with both of your hands, I suppose, which is not so terrible. 6♣ is likely down on a trump lead on the latter.)
My only (and big) concern is that partner might not interpret 4♠ as intended. Afterall, I don't recall making one single Bluhmer bid in real-life bridge. But finally, here's a chance .

gnasher, on Jun 10 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 10 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Partner is not assured in his assessment that 3♠ is a Bluhmer, then he may assume an exposing bid.  What would Responder bid, for instance, with values and AQ10xxx in spades?

I'd try a double. Six tricks are easier than ten, especially when it's the same trump suit in each case.

Agree, double of 2♠ is penalty, so one starts with that, if he wants to play in 4♠ eventually.

[mr1303]

My inclination was to put 5C on the table. Admittedly, the meaning of 3 or 4S was not clear to me, and as a result I would not like to make a bid that I wasn't clear about the meaning.

Partner may give me 6 with his hand.