[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

S W N E
1♦1♠2♥P
?

What call do you make? Do you have a way to separate good hands from bad? What about the concept of using a 2-level cue bid here as good/bad?

---

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Oct 10 2005, 12:21 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

S W N E
1♦1♠2♥P
?

What call do you make?  Do you have a way to separate good hands from bad?  What about the concept of using a 2-level cue bid here as good/bad?

---

1) 3 clubs.
2) forcing one round but I can pass 3d,3h or 4c by responder now.
3) I think a cuebid would show a bigger hand.

Hopefully the average hand partner will have is:
732=AQJ972=K3=T2

Other choice is to play NFB, which of course means you can pass 2H now.

[000002]

Is't cue-bid ask for a ♠ stopper? then:
1)back to ♥ show game force.
2)rebid 3minor to invite
3)rebid 3♠to show a solid ♦
4)proceed to 4minor (or leap directly), a super double fit with control suit

maybe many fault here

good regards

[Codo]

If 2 ♥ was non forcing, I have an easy pass.
If Heart was forcing, I would bid 2 ♠, asking for a stopper.
If Pd has one, we play 3 NT, else I ask again with 3 Spade, planing to play 4 Heart, if Pd has not even a little help in spades.

[joker_gib]

2♠ is my bid.

In those sequences, the cue bid does not show force and is ambiguous !

It is the more economical way to tell partner that we have no clear bid ( so probably no ♥ support and no ♠ stop)

Alain

[pclayton]

The only thing I see wrong with 3♣ is that pard would like to pass (but really shouldn't) with a minimum hand. Lets get really junky and give him: Jx, KJxxx, AJ, Jxxx where 3♣ might be the last makeable spot.

3♣ by me should be a one round force, no?

This might be another one of those seldom used cuebids that has a better application............

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Oct 10 2005, 09:19 AM, said:

Winston, I have thought of this before too. It definitely works in some auctions and has great gains. No one will play it with me though

As they say...great minds.....LOL

Still there seems to be 3 categories here:

1) The auction allows a cue bid at the 2 level: 1C-1S-2D
2) The auction only allows a suit rebid at the 2 level: 1S-2C-2H
3) The auction only allows 2N or a 3 level bid: 1D-2H-2S.

Seems reasonable to try to distinguish goodish from average in these sequences and my solution is:
1) Cue bid is good/bad
2) Suit rebid is the weakest action
3) Responder has to hold a better hand.

BTW, Justin, my pard won't play this either.

Winston

[mike777]

pclayton, on Oct 10 2005, 10:20 AM, said:

The only thing I see wrong with 3♣ is that pard would like to pass (but really shouldn't) with a minimum hand. Lets get really junky and give him: Jx, KJxxx, AJ, Jxxx where 3♣ might be the last makeable spot.

3♣ by me should be a one round force, no?

This might be another one of those seldom used cuebids that has a better application............

I think this is a clear negative double, the heart suit is too poor, hcp too minimum and support for partner's suit too poor.

Change the hand a bit and 2h would be ok.

[Double !]

A very interesting concept, the "I don't have any decent bid in response to your bid" convention. Seems to have merit for this sequence. Could an underlying theme her be that some conventions or agreements (such as negative free bids or, I dare to ask, 2/1GF) should be in effect in certain situations and not in others?

Just the rebel in me speaking. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

DHL

[han]

Just wanted to mention that transfer responses (yes, just like transfer advances but as responder) would work well here. Partner would show 5+ hearts and we'd have an easy 2H bid, showing tolerance and a minimum.

Basically, transfers allow you to combine negative freebids with forcing freebids at the cost of giving up on negative doubles (on some auctions).

[luke warm]

is this another hand where nfb is better?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 10 2005, 06:02 PM, said:

is this another hand where nfb is better?

No, it's a hand where opener's hand has gone down in value due to the auction and has no way to show it. The problem is not what responder has but opener's rebid and what it shows.

Playing fairly standard, the 2/1 in competition reverts back to an SAYC meaning and is only forcing for one round - so how does opener separate his holdings between the weaker hands and the better hands without misdescribing either his shape, stoppers, or support?

Just seemed to me on these kinds of hands that the 2-level cue bid really isn't needed for much and could be better used as for good/bad. Suppose in this same auction opener held:

Qx, Qxx, AQxxx, Kxx.

Three hearts here is fairly ambiguous and I'm not certain everyone would agree on whether it was weak or forcing. A way to solve these hands is to use the 2-level cue as a puppet after which opener can clarify his hand - with a game forcing hand responder simply refuses to accept the puppet.

The trouble with 3 clubs directly on the actual hand is this bid must encompass every club hand that fears bypassing 3N, from weak distributional to a solid opener and there is no way to know which is which.

Winston

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 10 2005, 11:27 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 10 2005, 06:02 PM, said:

is this another hand where nfb is better?

No~snip~Suppose in this same auction opener held:

Qx, Qxx, AQxxx, Kxx.

i don't see why nfb hurts you here...just pass 2h, or even raise to 3h just in case

[the hog]

joker_gib, on Oct 10 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

2♠ is my bid.

In those sequences, the cue bid does not show force and is ambiguous !

It is the more economical way to tell partner that we have no clear bid ( so probably no ♥ support and no ♠ stop)

Alain

Absolute rubbish unless you play it like Winston and justin suggest - a good treatment imo. To play the cue as non descript as suggested here is reductio ad absurdum.

[joker_gib]

The_Hog, on Oct 11 2005, 03:00 PM, said:

joker_gib, on Oct 10 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

2♠ is my bid.

In those sequences, the cue bid does not show force and is ambiguous !

It is the more economical way to tell partner that we have no clear bid ( so probably no ♥ support and no ♠ stop)

Alain

Absolute rubbish unless you play it like Winston and justin suggest - a good treatment imo. To play the cue as non descript as suggested here is reductio ad absurdum.

English is not my mother tongue but the words you are using here seems very insulting.

I'm happy to see that my bid is absolute rubbish.

I'm not here to reply to those kind of provocations and will simply ignore them.

Fortunately there are a lot of polite people on this forum.

Alain

[Blofeld]

The_Hog, on Oct 11 2005, 08:00 AM, said:

joker_gib, on Oct 10 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

2♠ is my bid.

In those sequences, the cue bid does not show force and is ambiguous !

It is the more economical way to tell partner that we have no clear bid ( so probably no ♥ support and no ♠ stop)

Alain

Absolute rubbish unless you play it like Winston and justin suggest - a good treatment imo. To play the cue as non descript as suggested here is reductio ad absurdum.

That appears to be a nonstandard use of reductio ad absurdum, Ron. Could you explain how it applies?

[cherdano]

Alain, don't worry, it is unfortunately just The_Hog's everyday forum language. Best to ignore him.

Arend

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Oct 10 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

Well, the way I thought was best was the next step up (if not 2N) is the good/bad, and the cue then replaces that bid. For instance,

1C-(1S)-2D-(p)-

2H=any GF
-----    2S asks
----------          2N=clubs
----------          3C=diamond raise
----------          3D=hearts unbal
----------          3H=18-19 with 4 hearts
---------------            3S=asks for stopper or advanced cue
----------        3S=18-19 no 4 hearts no spade stop.
---- -----        3N=18-19 bal spades stopped.
2S=min with C+H
2N=minimum
3C=minimum
3D=minimum
3H=splinter
3S=splinter
3N=solid clubs, spades stopped.

1C-(1S)-2H-(p)-

2S=any GF
-----    2N asks
----------        3C-clubs
----------        3D-POWER heart raise (gerally 18-19 type, or an unbal hand equivalent to that)
----------        3H-forcing but not a lot extra, we all know we'd bid game with xx Axxx Kx AJxxx but we don't want to excite partner too much
----------        3S-18-19 bal no stopper
----------        3N-18-19 bal stopper.
3C-non forcing
3D-natural and forcing (it's a reverse so can't be "weak")
3H-non forcing
3S-splinter
3N-tricks + stopper
4C-picture (6-4)
4D-splinter

1D-(1S)-2C-(p)

2D-any GF
-----    2H-asks
----------        2S-balanced 18-19 (may or may not have stopper)
----------        2N-clubs
----------        3C-diamonds
----------        3D-D+H unbal
2H-weak D+H
2S-weak D
2N-non forcing
3C-non forcing

etc etc

For a time I was working extensively on this, I may still have the notes, I gave it up about 6 months ago.

Justin, this is good and obviously a lot of time and thought went into it - but as you grow older you'll have to factor in something we have named FF - the Forget Factor. Our goal is to resolve difficult situations as simply as possible with the minimum of memory work - once you been doing something the same way for 25 years it's had to change.

I think the simplistic answer is to use a 2-level cue bid to show about 14, or a real solid opener, and make it about 99% game force. This method allows natural and weaker bidding at the 3 level without having to adopt a lot of artificial sequences for responder to allow room for opener to show his hand.

This for sure would divide:

1D-1S-2H-P
3H This is non forcing.

1D-1S-2H-P
2S-P-2N - P
3H This shows strength

Leaving:
1D-1S-2H-P
4H This is based on distributional support.

Maybe you can see a problem but so far I don't see a serious flaw with using the cue bid as a puppet to 2N after which opener can clarify his hand. Basically it would be like reverse good/bad in that direct 3 level bids are weaker than puppet and bid hands.

Winston