[whereagles]

sorry, I meant 5341 of course.

[JLOGIC]

Playing 3N after partner bids 3D is awful, you don't need any system when your hand is this easy. If your partner is bidding 3D because he has shortness in hearts and is unsure about 3N, well, we have Axx and prime cards, why would we want to play 3N? If he has short clubs and is unsure about 3N, we have Q9xx of clubs and prime cards, why would we want to play 3N? If he has 5-5 and choice of games, we have a hand that would never play 3N. If he has a slam try, we have a fantastic hand for slam, and would never play 3N.

[P_Marlowe]

Quantumcat, on 2011-May-19, 00:58, said:

Cues always agree the second suit. So 3♥ is no problem.

No.

It makes sense to play that the cue showes primary support for the
first suit, and that bidding the first suit agrees the 2nd, ...
as long as you remember this.

The reason is simple - from a frequncy point of few, you are more
likely to have 3 cards than 4 cards, and you usually prefer to play
the major.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on 2011-May-24, 10:05, said:

No.

It makes sense to play that the cue showes primary support for the
first suit, and that bidding the first suit agrees the 2nd, ...
as long as you remember this.

The reason is simple - from a frequncy point of few, you are more
likely to have 3 cards than 4 cards, and you usually prefer to play
the major.

With kind regards
Marlowe

no

You want to be able to support one suit or the other at a low level.

3h is a cue for d and 3s is spade agreement.

btw pard could have 5 or even 6 card d support but only 2 or 3 spades (no superaccept).

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-24, 01:11, said:

Playing 3N after partner bids 3D is awful, you don't need any system when your hand is this easy. If your partner is bidding 3D because he has shortness in hearts and is unsure about 3N, well, we have Axx and prime cards, why would we want to play 3N? If he has short clubs and is unsure about 3N, we have Q9xx of clubs and prime cards, why would we want to play 3N? If he has 5-5 and choice of games, we have a hand that would never play 3N. If he has a slam try, we have a fantastic hand for slam, and would never play 3N.

Are we to infer that in your style partner virtually never bids diamonds if 5242? Clearly if partner is always 5431 then missing 3N is a worry, but some people always bid diamonds if they have 5-4. Personally I prefer only to bid diamonds if I might want to play there, so if 5422 would expect honours in the suits with small doubletons typically, but partner of course has some leeway.

[JLOGIC]

I am with you that if he is 5422 he probably has small doubletons. If that is the case, 3N is probably not demonstrably better than anything else (eg KQJxx xx KQxx xx, 3N is best but playing 4S is not really a crime, same with most other hand types with xx xx in the rounds). I still do not see some great need to play in 3N. Even if partner could have any random 5422, the great likelihood is still that he is 5431 or 5-5 and playing 3N in those cases is probably so wrong that ever playing 3N seems silly to me.

[the hog]

gnasher, on 2011-May-19, 17:22, said:

I don't think 3♥ promises primary diamond support. What are you supposed to bid with Kx AKJx AJx xxxx?

Agree with this. 3H would not agree Ds in any of my partnerships.
Totally disagree with Quantumcat's post. Bidding 3NT on this hand really is a lol.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Quantumcat, on 2011-May-19, 00:58, said:

Cues always agree the second suit.

I agree

Quantumcat, on 2011-May-19, 17:30, said:

3NT says you have two cards in his first suit and three in his second. If you don't want to bid 3NT, you have to pretend you have three spades and bid 3♠.

I agree

In fact I can't remember not agreeing with Quantumcat.

[Zelandakh]

Andy, if you are going to play 3C here as 2-way is it not better to play it as diamonds or the hand that wants to play in the major opposite 3 card support? Then 3D instead shows clubs at a cheaper level than the 3H in your scheme. There is plenty of space to distinguish between diamonds and non-diamonds after 3C and you end up with more space than after your 3S rebid for the diamond hand.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Zelandakh, on 2011-June-13, 05:14, said:

Andy, if you are going to play 3C here as 2-way is it not better to play it as diamonds or the hand that wants to play in the major opposite 3 card support? Then 3D instead shows clubs at a cheaper level than the 3H in your scheme. There is plenty of space to distinguish between diamonds and non-diamonds after 3C and you end up with more space than after your 3S rebid for the diamond hand.

Zel .... but then how does Andy show the "long Major" ( 6+cards ) hand ( and no interest in a minor ) , which is what his Responder's 3D! rebid-after-transfer showed.

[Zelandakh]

I was still with his original post. Naturally you can bundle the strong major slam try into 3C instead of the other type, making it diamonds or 1-suited. You will recall from a previous thread that this is what I do. The point is that if you are making 3C multi-way it is more efficient to have it as diamonds or "something special" about the major (with 3D as clubs) rather than diamonds or clubs (with 3D "something special" regarding the major).

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2011-June-13, 05:14, said:

Andy, if you are going to play 3C here as 2-way is it not better to play it as diamonds or the hand that wants to play in the major opposite 3 card support? Then 3D instead shows clubs at a cheaper level than the 3H in your scheme. There is plenty of space to distinguish between diamonds and non-diamonds after 3C and you end up with more space than after your 3S rebid for the diamond hand.

I expect you're right. I wasn't really recommending one particular way of doing it, just pointing out that a simple change to one's methods removes the ambiguity about responder's objectives.

[bluecalm]

This is really very simple hand and very simple situation.
Cuebid of course agrees diamonds but 3H is not yet a cuebid. It's either values to find 3NT (Ax AQJx Axx Jxxx) or cuebid in diamonds.
We bid 3H, if partner bids 3NT we bid 4D clarifying that we had ♥ cuebid and no ♣ cuebid. If he bids 3♠ we again bid 4♦.
Once he bid 3♦ we are never going to play 3NT with our premium support and bare ace in one of his short suits. It's not like partner is forced to bid 3♦ with 5S-4D, with stuff like: KQxxx Qx KQxx Jx he would just bid 3NT.

I don't consider any aspect of this at all problematic it's seems like ABC stuff to be honest.
Due to lack of space we are not always going to find the best contract here unfortunately. This is why Meckwell and their followers play double transfers so they can get one additional step in those sequencies. Here in fact partner would bid 3♣ as transfer to diamonds and we would accept with 3♦ showing 4card support he could then make a slam try futher describing his hand. It's awesome but not frequent enough to bother imo.