[xx1943]

N/S vulnerable the bidding goes:

2♦ pass pass 4♠
pass 5♣

You (South) passed after LHO opens a weak 2♦, partner bids a confidently 4♠.

What is the meaning of your 5♣ bid here?

Imho there can be no doubt about the meaning, but 2 of my partners disagreed with me. That is why I wrote this post.

Al

[Fluffy]

cuebid for spades, can only make sense with a penalty double of 2♦. But then, it doesn't make much sense then either.

[gwnn]

cuebid for spades, I disagree with Fluffy, there are millions of hands that can try for slam.

Kxxx
Kxxx
AJxx
x

(this regular expression alone allows 2.28M hands)

[effervesce]

Cuebid

[andy_h]

With long weak clubs just pass 4S. This is a cuebid.

[Free]

Must be cuebid, other meanings are pretty useless imo.

[pooltuna]

xx1943, on Jun 16 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

N/S vulnerable the bidding goes:

2♦ pass pass 4♠
pass 5♣

You (South) passed after LHO opens a weak 2♦, partner bids a confidently 4♠.

What is the meaning of your 5♣ bid here?

Imho there can be no doubt about the meaning, but 2 of my partners disagreed with me. That is why I wrote this post.

Al

MetaAgreement: When partner takes unilateral action at the game level or higher any new suit bidding on your part must be in support of partner's suit. Sounds good anyway.

[jjbrr]

it's definitely not natural.

[neilkaz]

Cuebid for sure

[peachy]

Cuebid for spades, no other meaning is even reasonable IMO.

This reminds me of what someone [probably some author of bridge book, but who?) said - if you are in doubt or don't have an agreement as to the meaning of a bid or don't know if it is forcing or not, these are forcing: removal from one minor to the other minor, removal from major to minor, removal from NT to minor.

[xx1943]

Many thanks to all who answered.
This was the complete hand I must play 5♣ in a 3-2 fit

---

[aguahombre]

oops, you changed the actual hand on me while I was posting. Never mind; by the time I make a new post it will change again.

[gwnn]

on the terribility scale (1 to 10):

2D: 3
p: 0
p: 6
4S: 7

p: 0
5C: 10
p:0
p: 10
p: 0

[hanp]

Why is 2D terrible, we were not given the colors?

5C is aggressive but does it really deserve a 10? I don't think so gwnn!

[aguahombre]

3 is not very high on his terribility scale --ten being most terrible. Actually, with the wrong number of diamonds, the wrong suit quality, and the two outside features, a "3" is a bit generous. 4S would be about right as a seven. 5C is just plain crusing for a disaster. Maybe not 10 on a ten-scale, but pretty close.

[peachy]

xx1943, on Jun 16 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

Many thanks to all who answered.
This was the complete hand I must play 5♣ in a 3-2 fit

---

South was way too aggressive. If NS were vulnerable and this was IMPs, I could scrape up a little sympathy for the 5C call, but even then it is so borderline that it is not worth the risk of going down in 5S when 4S was making. North's 4S does not promise the earth, he is taking a chance on the likelihood that South holds his fair share of the outstanding values and a couple of spadesm and if South should turn out with less, then the few values might be fitting - and North was right. South has them, but nothing to get excited about. All in all North's Pass is inconceivable, IMO, and South's frisky 5C although it was an error, is defensible under some circumstances.

[cherdanno]

This thread is weirding me out. 4♠ is just a bad bid, this shows a completely different hand, North should double and bid spades. (It's a bad bid in the sense that it shows a misunderstanding of the auction, not in the sense that it will cost many IMPs.)
5♣ is aggressive but I don't think it's crazy. 4♠ shows s.th. like a 7-card suit in a 9-trick hand. We have ♣A and maybe two ruffs (assuming opponents don't have more than a 9-card fit). 9+3=12.

[aguahombre]

actually, I like a balancing 3S call. Double first could be done on one less spade, for instance. 3s/2D pp=is a fairly strong balancing hand.