[pclayton]

In Adam's actual hand, it appears that 4♠ is also a decent game.

Contrast this situation to one where we are responding to a one level overcall. Since new suits typically aren't forcing, we need the cue bid to show a variety of hands, including strong hands with a single suit where we don't have a forcing call available.

In response to a 2 level overcall, new suits (by an unpassed hand) are forcing. This is why I think Adam chose 3♣ instead of 3♦. A cue should really promise heart support IMO. Han's 4234 hand is indeed a problem for this method, but as far as I can tell, its the only problem hand type, along with a 4144 lacking a diamond stop.

If we held a 4324 14 count, we would cuebid without qualms. Pard could make a move toward slam with the right hand knowing full well we are promising heart support.

I think those that bid 3♦ expecting pard to field it are really deluding themselves. Put pard on a vanilla 3523 with so-so hearts. Is pard really supposed to check back for a diamond stop to see if 3N is a better spot than 4♥? I doubt it.

My call? 2♠. If pard raises with 3, I can punt with 3N as a choice of games. Pard can sit with a 3523, or can pull with a 3514 or with any hand containing 4♠'s. If pard bids 3♥ I have an easy raise to 4. Over 3♦, I have an easy 3N call.

A forcing 2N is an intriguing idea and it works fine on this hand. I think even transfer advances make a lot of sense too.

[han]

awm, on Dec 17 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

It's interesting that people want one of the most expensive calls below game to be the "flexible option." Doesn't it make more sense to play that one of the cheaper bids indicates flexibility (here perhaps saying that 2♠ can be bid on a four-bagger) rather than assigning a flexible meaning to an expensive bid?

Why is this so interesting? Isn't it very common in bridge that a cuebid is played as flexible? Would you even for a moment think that (2S)-3H-(p)-3S shows heart support? Are you suggesting that we should, without prior partnership discussion, assume that the meaning of the cuebid changes depending on the amount of room it takes up?

So far I've only asked questions to which I think I know the answers, I'd better not touch real questions like "is it really superior to play 2NT as the flexible bid given that it might wrongside a potential 3NT?'

It seems to me that the flexible 3D followed by 3NT would have worked quite well as partner has an easy pull to 4H. The improvisational 3C followed by 3NT showed a very different hand, in fact nothing closely related to this hand. 3C followed by 3H would be a much better probe for the best game imo. Is there anybody out there who would play that as non-forcing???

I used to play a lot with a partner who would invent a new gadget every time one of us had made a poor judgement call in a tricky situation. While the gadgets were often sensible, it is not a good attitude for becoming a better bridge player. I really don't want to suggest that you have the same attitude in general, but you seem to be making the same mistake on this hand.

OK, enough unsolicited criticism, I'll try to be nice now.

[awm]

These types of awkward hands actually come up a lot. The rule I'm proposing is hardly a "gadget"; just a simple agreement that the cheapest suit, while it nominally has some meaning (natural most of the time, or something else if it's the cue depending on if you play transfer advances) can in fact be the "catch-all" when you have an awkward hand. Note that this usually still implies a four-card suit (in the case of a natural bid) or a doubleton in support (in the case of a raise). This preserves space and makes a lot more sense to me than playing that cuebid is always either of a raise or an awkward hand regardless of the auction.

It seems sensible that when I have no idea about strain, I should keep the auction low, rather than making a space-consuming call that appears to commit to strain and then trying to back out of it later.

[joshs]

awm, on Dec 17 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

These types of awkward hands actually come up a lot. The rule I'm proposing is hardly a "gadget"; just a simple agreement that the cheapest suit, while it nominally has some meaning (natural most of the time, or something else if it's the cue depending on if you play transfer advances) can in fact be the "catch-all" when you have an awkward hand. Note that this usually still implies a four-card suit (in the case of a natural bid) or a doubleton in support (in the case of a raise). This preserves space and makes a lot more sense to me than playing that cuebid is always either of a raise or an awkward hand regardless of the auction.

It seems sensible that when I have no idea about strain, I should keep the auction low, rather than making a space-consuming call that appears to commit to strain and then trying to back out of it later.

Well the cheapist bid is 2S, so what do you propose bidding with
Qxx Ax Axxx Axxx?

I can understand you wanting to re-arrange the meaning of the bids, so that the cheapist call is the cue bid (heart support or flexible with no 5 card suit), although that has its own problems since typically you need more space on a potential misfit then you do when you have a fit or semi-fit for partner's overcall....

[Fluffy]

I agree with Adam, I though the same when I saw the hand, it is hard to have such agreements sadly, but more and more I am convinced that having cheapest voice forcing as non natural is good idea when opponents are likelly to pass.

[awm]

joshs, on Dec 17 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Well the cheapist bid is 2S, so what do you propose bidding with
Qxx Ax Axxx Axxx?

I can understand you wanting to re-arrange the meaning of the bids, so that the cheapist call is the cue bid (heart support or flexible with no 5 card suit), although that has its own problems since typically you need more space on a potential misfit then you do when you have a fit or semi-fit for partner's overcall....

No, I do not want to re-arrange the bids. In this particular auction I would suggest:

2♠ = spades, but could be four spades with a good hand and no other clear call. Maybe it could even be three good spades. In any case it is forcing.
2NT = natural, not forcing
3♣ = clubs, but will be a real suit because something like 4234 bids 2♠
3♦ = an actual heart raise because something like 4234 bids 2♠, forcing
3♥ = normal heart raise, not forcing

With the example hand of Qxx Ax Axxx Axxx, I would probably bid 3NT. Being able to hold up the diamond ace for three rounds makes the notrump contract a lot more sound, and having only Qxx removes spades as a possible strain for game. However, I could even see bidding 2♠ on a strong three-card suit on occasion (say KQx Ax xxxx Axxx). Note that it's not really clear what you do with this hand if you start 3♦ and partner bids 3♥, since you still have a game force and you still don't know which strain to play in (I guess you just bid 4♥ and hope partner's suit is good and he survives the tap?). And if your agreement is that 2♠ can just be a forcing call you're less likely to hang yourself (yes, partner will raise to 3♠ with four spades, but it might even be the right strain then, and partner will give you leeway with only three spades by cuebidding to show a three-card raise).

Note that bidding 2♠ works great any time partner doesn't have a raise (he's making a totally natural bid which will usually allow you to set the strain). It might even be a good call if partner expects a five-card suit.

[han]

Next time you'll have AKx Kx Jxx Jxxxx and you'll want to bid 2S on a 3-card suit...

Again, I'm not saying that your proposed solution is a poor idea. Not at all. I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with why you got a poor score.

[bhall]

The practical bid with a new partner is 3N, although it doesn't work on this deal. You expect to run RHO out of diamonds before possibly having to lose a trick to him in establishing a ninth trick, if, say, hearts don't run.

2♠ should certainly be forcing, although it is likely to lead to a shaky 4-3 game on some hands where 3N is cold. At least, if partner rebids 3♥, you will have found one 8-card fit. If he rebids 2N or 3♣, you are likewise well positioned. I would rate this as the best choice in an expert partnership.

3♦ could easily work out, since partner is likely to hold 6 decent hearts, and subsequently raising his 3♥ rebid to 4 will get your general strength off your chest. However, the cue does not ask him for another suit, and he can hardly have enough controls to cuebid back. And when he holds a 3=5=2=3 minimum, he will still rebid 3♥, while 3N could be your only making game.

If you want to see his eyes spin, you can start with 3♣ and rebid 3♠, but I would suggest moving quickly to another table thereafter.

[jdonn]

bhall, on Dec 18 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

3♦ could easily work out, since partner is likely to hold 6 decent hearts, and subsequently raising his 3♥ rebid to 4 will get your general strength off your chest. However, the cue does not ask him for another suit, and he can hardly have enough controls to cuebid back. And when he holds a 3=5=2=3 minimum, he will still rebid 3♥, while 3N could be your only making game.

If you bid 3♦ and partner bids 3♥, isn't it clear to bid 3NT now? You are obviously offering a choice of games at this point since you didn't bid 3NT last round, so this particular auctions seems to be one of the advantages of bidding 3♦.

[bhall]

jdonn, on Dec 18 2007, 06:11 AM, said:

bhall, on Dec 18 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

3♦ could easily work out, since partner is likely to hold 6 decent hearts, and subsequently raising his 3♥ rebid to 4 will get your general strength off your chest. However, the cue does not ask him for another suit, and he can hardly have enough controls to cuebid back. And when he holds a 3=5=2=3 minimum, he will still rebid 3♥, while 3N could be your only making game.

If you bid 3♦ and partner bids 3♥, isn't it clear to bid 3NT now? You are obviously offering a choice of games at this point since you didn't bid 3NT last round, so this particular auctions seems to be one of the advantages of bidding 3♦.

I believe you're right. Bidding 3N over 3♦-3♥ should be choice of games, although some might interpret the delayed 3N as indicating a doubtful or partial ♦ stop. I still prefer 2♠, if partner is an experienced player with a decent sense of the constraints on competitive auctions.