[dicklont]

Scoring: MP

---

Partner opens 1♥ you respond 2♣ planning to reverse spades.
LHO comes in with 2♠ and partner rebids 3♦.

Now what?

[ArtK78]

I have an agreement with my regular partner than an unnecessary jump to the 5 level, even in a suit originally bid by partner, is Exclusion RKCB.

Since I am going to commit this hand to at least 6♦, I would bid 5♥, exclusion RKCB. If partner has the ♠A and ♦KQ, I will bid the grand in diamonds. If not, I will bid the small in diamonds.

This approach fails when we are off the ♠A and a diamond trick.

[LH2650]

4♦

In 2/1, my 2♣ was game forcing. In SAYC, partner's 3♦ was game forcing. Settling for 6♦ at a minimum. Cuebidding should get us to the right spot.

[helene_t]

4♦. I need to hear a spade cue from p (stiff) since otherwise opps will start with ♠A and a ruff.

[kenrexford]

The problem with 4♦ to gets cues started is that partner should probably cue shortness in spades also. Granted, this is helpful in avoiding a ruff. But, that also only works if 4♠ is a cue (not RKCB in this sequence) and if partner cannot cue hearts. With a void in hearts and this much strength, I would expect a 4♥ cue, which eliminates my ability to see if partner can cue spades.

An alternative seems to be to cue 3♠ to see if partner bids 3NT. At least that way you would find out about the spade Ace early. You could then bid 4♦.

Alternatively, if partner does not bid 3NT, but instead 4♣, this carries a slight inference of a stiff spade, one that I would rely on. With 2542, no spade Ace, I'm not sure that he would bid 3♦ way back when.

Exclusion might work, but that is hard to read without a really fine-tuned partnership.

In practice, I think I'd bid 3♠.

[mikeh]

I don't use exclusion in partner's suit.. certainly not at my second turn.. and I think that this is a more common approach than that espoused by Art (altho there are undeniable benefits, as on this hand)

We are in a gf auction at this point even if 2♣ wasn't 2/1, so all my calls, other than a silly 3N, are forcing.

I choose 4♦ over the other possibility: 3♠.

3♠ works well if he bids 3N, but the odds against that are astronomical.

All other sequences will work better after 4♦ than after 3♠ because I have unambiguously set trump, such that my later other suit bids will be known as cue-bids. Note that I doubt that I will use keycard at any time: because I doubt that keycard will ever address all my concerns.

Most importantly, if I bid 4♦, I expect 5♦ by partner to deny a spade control, avoiding the odds-against 6♦ slam opposite, say, xx AKQJx KQJx Jx

So, over 4♥ by him (an offer to play 4♥, not a cue... I think that Ken is clearly wrong on this point) I will cue 4♠.

I will drive to 6 if he confesses to a spade control, and will cue in order to invite 7♦.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 2 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

So, over 4♥ by him (an offer to play 4♥, not a cue... I think that Ken is clearly wrong on this point) I will cue 4♠.

I'll agree that 4♥ can be played as an offer to play, if that is your style, and it might even be the preferred or best meaning. But, this yields the same conclusion that I reached earlier -- a 4♦ bid will not enable a 4♠ cue from Opener reliably.

The problem that I have with your thoughts, though, are that they seem inconsistent. If 4♦ is selected because it sets trumps, then why is 4♥ still strain exploration? If 4♥ is strain exploration, then how have you by bidding 4♦ ensured that all cues are cues in support of diamonds and not in support of this renewed heart-strain suggestion?

I mean, how can 4♦ "unambiguously set trumps" if 4♥ re-introduces hearts? That seems somewhat ambiguous.

I also do not get how 3♠ is deemed to work only if partner bids 3NT.

If partner bids 4♣, I can bid 4♦. Now, I expect that he has a stiff spade and can set trumps in a truly unambiguous manner.

If partner bids 4♦, I can cue 4♠, which is unambiguously a cue in support of diamonds (or 4NT as a spade cue if 4♠ would be RKCB for diamonds).

If partner bids 4♥, I'll assume that you have a technique for resolving this problem like I would have (4NT as RKCB for hearts, 4♠ as RKCB for diamonds, 5♣ as LTTC for diamonds, for example).

All of these sequences look fine to me.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Jul 2 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

I don't use exclusion in partner's suit.. certainly not at my second turn.. and I think that this is a more common approach than that espoused by Art (altho there are undeniable benefits, as on this hand).

My regular partner and I adopted this approach after we ran into a hand in the final round of the North American Swiss where my hand was perfectly suited (if you will forgive the pun) for an Exclusion RKCB bid my partner's' first bid suit. Without that tool, there was no way to bid a laydown grand slam with any degree of confidence. I have yet to see a downside to this agreement. What else would 5♥ mean in this auction?

[Odd story about this hand. We duly bid 6♠ making all 13 tricks when it turned out that partner's controls were outside of his first bid suit. At the other table, 6♠ was also the final contract - except one of my teammates decided that he wanted the lead of my first bid suit, so he doubled. It was not redoubled, but still, 1860 opposite 1460 is 9 IMPs].

[mikeh]

Quote

The problem that I have with your thoughts, though, are that they seem inconsistent.  If 4♦ is selected because it sets trumps, then why is 4♥ still strain exploration?  If 4♥ is strain exploration, then how have you by bidding 4♦ ensured that all cues are cues in support of diamonds and not in support of this renewed heart-strain suggestion?

I mean, how can 4♦ "unambiguously set trumps" if 4♥ re-introduces hearts?  That seems somewhat ambiguous.

Perhaps I wrote inelegantly: my 4♦ unambiguously set trump WHEN I bid again over 4♥. 4♦ tells partner that I think diamonds ought to be our trump suit, but 4♥ by him says, in essence.. that's great, but I have 6 good hearts, maybe 10 tricks in hearts is easier than 11 in diamonds.

If he calls 4♥ and I bid a black suit, that is NOT a cue in support of hearts.. it says that the reason I bid 4♦ was that I wanted to go slamming in that suit.

I originally wrote 'such that my other later suit bids' would be cue bids... I should have made it clearer for you by writing: later suit bids by me, after 4♦, will be read as cuebids, unambiguously setting diamonds as trump.

Even that, of course, wouldn't mean we were doomed to play in diamonds. Give partner void AKQJ10x KQJxx Jx and I would expect to play 7♥ most of the time

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 2 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Perhaps I wrote inelegantly...

Messy. Just messy. Not the writing, but the bidding.

[mike777]

4d no problem yet.