[Ai Hao]

2♣: strong opening
2♦: game force (at least 2 Queens+ or a King)
3♠: slam interest in ♠

---

1, Which bid is underbid?
2, What is a minimum requirement in your system for 3♠ here?

[neilkaz]

North has to start cuebidding with 4♣ to show interest or perhaps the pair plays Serious 3NT to show this, or perhaps North just grabs the bull by the horns and keycards.

Some my argue that S is worth a bid after 4♠ but I like to respect my PD's s/offs, noting that he has many ways to look for slam and neglected all of them and that S has no idea that his ♣ are gold.

The N hand is worth lots more than 23 bean counter points opposite trump support and slam interest.

If am South here, I will have a very serious discussion with PD concerning hand evaluation (if I don't decide to dump PD after this session).

[whereagles]

2C 2D
2S 3S
4C 4S
4N 5D
6S

4C: cue
4S: no red suit cue
4NT: so you must have ♣K for a heart discard. I'll worry about the diamonds later.

[sfi]

I don't much like the pass of 4S with nice extras, but signing off with the North hand is a joke and a bad one at that. If forced to give percentages, I would say South 30% and North 100% (maybe more).

[billw55]

Quote

3♠: slam interest in ♠

Considering this, north is 100% at fault for signing off. Having already expressed interest, and holding no controls, what more could south do?

That said, talk of dumping partner seems a little over the top. I punt a board once in a while too.

[diana_eva]

Were those partnership agreements: 2D GF and 3S strong ? North's bidding looks like s/he had no clue they were in GF or 3S was slammish.

[kenrexford]

North's call was hopeless. If I were in doubt as to how to bid, my two options for North contextually would be 6♠ or 6NT, but 6♦ also is up there.

North does have a problem, but it is way more subtle than is obvious. North may be concerned about strain still. Give South, for instance, ♠KQx ♥xxx ♦Jxxx ♣xxx. 6♦ looks great. 6♠, however, is only about a 50-50 proposition. 7♦ is as good as 6♠.

Obviously, 4♠ does not help us find 7♦, let alone 6♦.


All that being said, there almost is a theoretical argument for North making the correct bid, actually. I don't think North can possibly have a signoff in this sequence. If you assume that to be correct, then 4♠ must have a definition. 4♠ as a simultaneous cue of all three side suits, therefore, is not insanity. However, I would assume this to be a negative cue of trumps even in that scenario, or a "courtesy wrap-around cue" of all suits, either of which is wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

whereagles, on 2014-April-18, 03:27, said:

2C 2D
2S 3S
4C 4S
4N 5D
6S

4C: cue
4S: no red suit cue
4NT: so you must have ♣K for a heart discard. I'll worry about the diamonds later.

Why rule out the grand ? can partner not have ♠KQx/KQJ/KQxx and K♣. Also there's no reason to assume partner has the K♣, and he may not need it, Kxxxx, xxx, Jx, xxx is a fine slam, KQxx, Qxx, xx, xxxx is one of two finesses.

[whereagles]

well, put 5H 5S in between then

[aguahombre]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-18, 07:27, said:

Were those partnership agreements: 2D GF and 3S strong ? North's bidding looks like s/he had no clue they were in GF or 3S was slammish.

Exactly. North was not playing their style as shown. His bids would be fine if:

2D was merely waiting.
3S was merely showing support with at least one control somewhere.

Then it would have been South's responsibility to move over 4S with his KJX of trumps and a nice KJXX side source.

[helene_t]

Make an agreement about how opener bids after the raise. 3nt asking for specific kings (an ace will do of course) and 4 of a suit natural is possibility. You can also play cuebids and non serious 3nt of course.

[Bbradley62]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-18, 07:27, said:

Were those partnership agreements: 2D GF and 3S strong ?

I think this is the key question. If 2♣ is the strong opening bid, I'd always at least bid RKC as South. If 2♣ is a strong opening bid but 2♦ is stronger, that would be different.

[Ai Hao]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-18, 07:27, said:

Were those partnership agreements: 2D GF and 3S strong ? North's bidding looks like s/he had no clue they were in GF or 3S was slammish.

They agree 2♦=game force, promise at least two queens or one king; 3♠= more than minimum, slam interest.

[diana_eva]

Ai Hao, on 2014-April-18, 15:39, said:

They agree 2♦=game force, promise at least two queens or one king; 3♠= more than minimum, slam interest.

In that case it's North's fault but really that's the type of hand where I wouldn't even get mad, I'd just have a chat with partner and ask what the heck happened. One of these two misunderstood something IMO.

[mcphee]

Opening hand dropped the ball imo and should continue with 3NT (if agreed this is a cue bid) if 3N is not available 4H should imply the others covered.

[steve2005]

I cant believe some people are blaming south. his 2♦ promised 1 King, he has a whole one extra King above minimum. Certainly bidding 3S as encouraging constitutes showing the second King.

Nobody has mention what the minimum the 2♣ bidder can have, sounds pretty high but it certainly possible that if south would be getting too high bidding over 4♠



If North can't find a cuebid with 4 aces and such a strong hand opposite a partner who is encouraging him, he should take up euchre where he can not pick up a Bower lol

[aguahombre]

steve2005, on 2014-April-19, 20:09, said:

I cant believe some people are blaming south. his 2♦ promised 1 King, he has a whole one extra King above minimum. Certainly bidding 3S as encouraging constitutes showing the second King.

Nobody has mention what the minimum the 2♣ bidder can have, sounds pretty high but it certainly possible that if south would be getting too high bidding over 4♠



If North can't find a cuebid with 4 aces and such a strong hand opposite a partner who is encouraging him, he should take up euchre where he can not pick up a Bower lol

Maybe I missed something, Steve, but the only people mentioning any blame to South (me, for instance) were talking hypothetically and out of context to the agreements mentioned in the OP. Given those agreements, of course the blame is all on North. My personal opinion about those agreements is another matter and probably best kept personal.

[Bbradley62]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-19, 21:27, said:

Maybe I missed something, Steve, but the only people mentioning any blame to South (me, for instance) were talking hypothetically and out of context to the agreements mentioned in the OP. Given those agreements, of course the blame is all on North. My personal opinion about those agreements is another matter and probably best kept personal.

No, that was directed at me. I still think that if 2♣ is the strong forcing opening, and I hold the South hand, I'm not passing 4♠, so I think South has some share of the blame.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 4S is the lazy bid
#2 3S says, I have more than, what I have shown so far, but there is a point
in always bidding 3S, if you have a king or a shortage, i.e. 3S promises
a cue

[neilkaz]

P_Marlowe, on 2014-April-21, 13:09, said:

#1 4S is the lazy bid
#2 3S says, I have more than, what I have shown so far, but there is a point
in always bidding 3S, if you have a king or a shortage, i.e. 3S promises
a cue

Considering that 2♦ promised at least a King, 3♠ should promise something extra in terms of playing strength.

This is why I hate the 4♠ bid like everyone else. If I was forced to make only 1 bid after 3♠ and that bid had to end the auction I'd just bid 6♠.