[kenberg]

I give you an uncontested sequence from today:


1♥ 2♦
3♦ 3♠
4♥


The question is how to understand 4♥, specifically is it an offer to perhaps play in 4♥


If relevant: 2♦ was 2/1 and promised five card length. Over 3♠, 4♦ would have been forcing.

I was responder and passed 4♥. As it turned out, 4♥ could be made but partner followed a perfectly reasonable line of play and went down. 5♦ is so straightforward even I could make it.

Discussion followed.


My view: If opener, over 3♠, does not bid either 3NT or 4♣ then I can work out the club weakness and infer that the strength is elsewhere. So 3NT is unplayable but it may not yet be clear whether the hand should be played for ten tricks in hearts or eleven tricks in diamonds. As it happens, this was also mps but I don't want to dwell on that. If 4♥ is cog, the form of scoring might influence my choice, but the issue with us was whether it was choice of games at all. Partner felt it was a heart cue in case I had a diamond slam in mind, not at all offering choice of game.


Before I try to convince partner, I thought I would check back for the view from the forum.

If anyone has some general principle that applies, let's hear it.

[nigel_k]

My general principle is that choice of games takes priority. I also think that the form of scoring might influence whether it is choice of games at all. Anyway I would definitely treat 4♥ as an offer to play even at IMPS, especially when slam interest hands have so many other options.

[Fluffy]

3♦ is GF even on non 2/1 systems, except maybe SAYC.

Since you have 4♦ natural avaible, 4♥ is not a cuebid but an offer to play, with a non club control hand interested in 6♦ you'd bid 4♦

[kenberg]

Thanks, glad to here another voice!

It seems right to me. My diamonds were KQJTx and my hearts xx. Still, 4H was close. If the suits were QJT9x and Kx, certainly possible on the bidding, 4H would have been a cakewalk and 5D on a finesse after they took the first two clubs.

It seems right that 4♥ should be an offer, but this time an offer I could/should have refused.

[gwnn]

4♥ definitely sounds like hearts to me. if opener really liked diamonds he could bid 4N or 4D.

[P_Marlowe]

Cue.

You have a agreed trump suit, assuming opener could still be min,
than it is fairly easy to construct opening hands missing a club
control, and if you have in addition the agreement, that 4D showes
SI (at one point in time opener should start limiting his hand),
than what is opener supposed to bid with

#1 min
#2 no club control, but a heart control

If you say - 4D, than hopefully you have a ways of finding out that
opener has a min or more between 4D and 5D, good luck.

Of course responder can pass 4H, and he will do this with Hx, if he
thinks 6D is hopeless.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

Thanks, Marlowe, I was hoping to hear dissent. You haven't convinced me but I appreciate the view.

No mater what agreements one has, there will always be hands where you wish you had a different agreement. It seems to me that, after 1♥-2♦-3♦-3♠, any call by opener that does not show at least second round control of clubs will usually bring any interest in slam to a close. Of course responder might have that control but then that will/could be clarified by a 5♣ bid over either 4♥ or 4♦. Opener signs off with a min, bids 6 with extras.

As to playing that 4♥ is a cue rather than cog but can still be passed with Hx, I first thought no way. But maybe so. It would need an unequivocal agreement that the heart cue denies the ability to control clubs, else I don't see how responder could ever know that 6♦ is hopeless.

Anyway, I plan to re-open the discussion with partner. I am still of the opinion that cog is best but I will call his attention to everyone's opinion.

For the record, I will give you the hands (sorry, N declaring, spots approximate except definitely missing T9 of hearts). Perhaps many/most will disagree with my gf 2♦ call but it's what I did.

---

OK, maybe not the best contract ever, but not the worst. Opponents start with a small club to the ace and a shift, at trick 2, to a diamond. Won on board, small heart to T Q spot. What can I say, there are options. Partner did not choose the winning option. My fault, not his. 5♦ is pretty easy as long as the heart king is onside.


Give me Kx of hearts and 4♥ is a fine contract even if one of the diamond royals is changed to a spot.


Partner has the ideal cog hand, so it didn't matter that he regarded it as a cue and I saw it as cog. But we need to settle it for future hands.

[Zelandakh]

With no slam interest, 4H (cog) or 5D. Over 4H we still have space to find out about black suit controls below 5D.
With slam interest and a club control, 4C
With slam interest and no club control, 4D

Perhaps something more complex is theoretically better but simplicity wins for me here.

[Phil]

I think this is a great question!

With 6♥ / 4♦, I am hard pressed to come up with a hand that wants to raise diamonds, but later wants to offer 4♥ as a contract. To complicate things, we certainly have a splinter available over 2♦ via 3♠ / 4♣, so this should rule out non-minimums.

Yet, Its easy to picture a hand like xx AKQxx Kxxx xx that wants to offer a 5-2. Game before slam baby.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-10, 15:26, said:

3♦ is GF even on non 2/1 systems, except maybe SAYC.

Since you have 4♦ natural avaible, 4♥ is not a cuebid but an offer to play, with a non club control hand interested in 6♦ you'd bid 4♦

SAYC specifically requires that the 2/1 response requires a rebid so that 3♦ is inferentially forcing. I think weaker hands that want to raise diamonds need to go through rebidding the major and then showing diamond support later.

As for other systems I don't think 3♦ is forcing in Acol. I certainly cannot recall ever playing this as forcing in any serious or casual Acol partnership.

[Cascade]

P_Marlowe, on 2010-November-11, 04:59, said:

Cue.

You have a agreed trump suit, assuming opener could still be min,
than it is fairly easy to construct opening hands missing a club
control, and if you have in addition the agreement, that 4D showes
SI (at one point in time opener should start limiting his hand),
than what is opener supposed to bid with

#1 min
#2 no club control, but a heart control

If you say - 4D, than hopefully you have a ways of finding out that
opener has a min or more between 4D and 5D, good luck.

Of course responder can pass 4H, and he will do this with Hx, if he
thinks 6D is hopeless.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Indeed this seems a particularly bad auction for 2/1 (but maybe I am missing something).

At 3♦ both opener and responder are relatively wide range so we need somehow to be able to make quantitative bids to effectively investigate slam.

Further if 3♠ is primarily designed to get to 3NT when that is correct but could be an advanced cue for diamonds responder's range and ambitions still have not be clarified.

There are therefore conflicting issues here:

If 3♠ was aimed primarily at finding the best game then it makes sense that an immediate 4♥ should be a choice of games.

On the other hand opener needs to be able to distinguish between a minimum 3♦ bid and one with more serious slam ambition or simply some extra values. One might agree that 4♦ is serious or fivolous and that a cue-bid beyond 4♦ is the opposite (frivolous or serious).

Minor suit slam bidding suffers because there is frequently the desire to play 3NT takes precedence over investigating slam. This makes many auctions murky. On many auctions there are not good standard protocols for showing (or denying) extra values or slam interest.

The exact meaning of calls will depend on the alternatives available earlier in the auction - over 2♦ what would 4♦ mean? Can you splinter with 3♠ and 4♣? Would those splinters clarify the range at all.

This particular auction maybe further complicated if 2♦ or 3♦ or 3♠ did not establish an absolute force to game and the partnership can get out in 4♦. In my partnership we have a general rule that if we try for 3NT and fail then we can play 4minor.

This auction is further complicated for us in that we play kickback so that 4♥ is our Blackwood. Although against that it is somewhat simplified compared with 2/1 since 3♦ was limited.

We have other general agreements that have some impact on the following auction:

4♦ is minimum (frivolous) and bidding beyond 4♦ is serious

5♦ (and other bids above 4♦) therefore shows extras - often a shortage in the unbid suit although here we have a cheap cue of 4♣ in case responder has higher ambitions

Given that 3♠ was primarily a choice of games bid 4♥ is natural. It doesn't apply on this particular auction but in similar absolute GF auctions where there was ambiguity between a natural 4Major the natural meaning takes precedence and we have to make some other bid (4♣ or 4♦) that clearly agree diamonds if slam is our ambition.

[kenberg]

For better or worse, we have agreed that we cannot get out in 4♦ when 3NT proves unplayable. It's choice, we live (or die) with it.


It seems to me that

1. After the diamond raise, responder will fairly often want to try to reach 3NT by bidding his spade values.
2. If no one can stop clubs, sometimes the hand will belong in 4♥ on a 5-2 fit, sometimes it will belong in 5♦.

These things not only happen, they are common. So the bidding must accommodate it. I talked with partner today and he had thought it over and agrees.

Fwiw, I guess it's an interesting play problem. After, club to ace, diamond shift, heart to T-Q-spot he decided to return to the board by overtaking the spade and finesse again. Now when W held KT tight I think he is stuck. Playing for KT tight works: Bang down ace, cash another trump, leave the 9 out. Spade king, D to board with W showing out, spade ace throwing club, back to hand in D, draw and claim. Pard now thinks he should have done this. I don't much second guess in general and certainly I would not do so here. There is a restricted choice aspect to the play of the ten, but only sort of. W was a pretty good player and I would not bet my life that he was either KT9 or KT tight.