[mikeh]

This is similar to a BW MSC hand I was re-reading the other day: except that the opps overcalled 1♠ and partner made a negative double, catching opener with 98xx Qx AKQx AKx

The two popular choices, each netting 10 votes, were for an immediate 2N or a 2♠ cue followed by a 3♠ cue.

2N was defensible on that holding because there is a legitimate chance that spades block, or that opening leader, expecting a stopper, may find an unfortunate (for their side) lead from various strong but not solid holdings.

I doubt that many of the 2N MSC voters would vote 2N here

I am torn between 2♣ (if we get by this round, we should be ok.. should, not shall) and the cue followed by a re-cue. I think that the latter is the best theoretical approach, but it is a little different from my usual treatment of the cue.. which, for me, shows a gf with either a very good suit of my own or a fit... now, it seems, I have to add: or a gf with no idea what to do

PS: to call this a gf is an overbid, but to call it a non-forcing, potentially minimum 2♣ is an underbid of (I think) somewhat greater magnitude.

[kenrexford]

2♣, and I thought this was going to receive a lot of WTP's.

After 2♦, I bid 2♠, also a WTP, I thought.

Weird.

[Lobowolf]

Actual percentage of "WTP?" bids that at least some experts construe as posing a problem of some sort: ______.


Hint: Barbara Feldon.

[Mosene]

Agent 99?

[fred]

The way I was taught, it is pretty normal to cuebid when you have 18-19 balanced and no stopper in the overcaller's suit.

That is not to suggest that making an abnormal bid (like 2C here) will necessarily work out badly, but one problem with not making the normal bid is that partner will not expect you to have a hand for which a normal other bid was available.

In other words, it is not as if you can ever hope to describe your hand after bidding 2C. 2C will only work if you get enough information to make the final decision yourself or if you get lucky and partner guesses well despite the fact that you have misdescribed your hand.

These scenarios might well come to pass which I why I think 2C is reasonable, but I still prefer the bid I consider to be normal: 2H

I think 3C is by far the worst of the 3 alternatives (and that it is considerably worse than 2NT for that matter).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Well, maybe more explanation of my thinking would be appropriate.

The first decision seems to be between three options.

A. 2NT
B. 2♥
C. 2♣

A. Clearly wrong.
B. The problem with this auction is that it seems unilateral and suggestive of a stopper. I always thought that 2♥ suggested either a spade fit and extras OR interest in notrump with a need for help in hearts. This hand has no spade fit, but it is balanced. The problem, IMO, is that I don't have anything in hearts -- not even a bolster.
C. Seems ideal. I am bidding where I live. If 2♣ passes out, that's good. If partner bids 2♦, I have a plan -- bid 2♠.

The "part two" explains why I like 2♣. Partner showed five spades. Hence, I have denied three spades for not raising him. So, if I bid 2♣ and then 2♠, I only have two-card support for spades, which I have (and a good two-card support at that). So far, this looks perfect.

I also have shown extras, for not passing 2♦. As I have extras, perfect.

The opponents, by not raising hearts or rebidding hearts, have made it really unlikely that I have something like 2155 shape. I don't have 2155 shape. Again, perfect.

By not cuebidding 2♥, I have implied no help at all in hearts. I have no help at all in hearts. Again, perfect.

[benlessard]

Quote

6-loser hand and good enough to force to game (jump shift)? Sorry, but we play a different game.

KJTxx
xx
???
???

Should make game a fair bet (even if they tap you in hearts). I can see many hands where partner will pass 2C and game is cold. Of course if partner got 3H its ugly, but its going to be tough to get a plus score anyway. I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass.

For the rest its a matter of style on how you handle the hand with short hearts or hand with no stoppers and your tolerance for fake jumpshifts.

If bidding D,C and giving a delayed preference show short heart than you have to cue bid 2H. If 2H show real trump support or / half a stopper than you have to bid 2 or 3C. I personnaly use 2H to make the distinction between a good raise and a bad raise to 2S (2H is GF or weak raise & 2S is inv raise---or 2H is INV or better and 2S is minimum)

If sometimes you can afford to bid 2Nt without a stop than 2Nt is your bid.


On this hand its pretty clear that 3Nt/4S are much more probable game then 5m. So if you are not ready to force to game and dont have a way to inv and stop in 2S are you willing to bid 3S (INV) ?

[Lobowolf]

Walddk, on Oct 2 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

benlessard, on Oct 2 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

3C followed by 3S WTP. With nothing wasted in H my hand is too good for 2C.

6-loser hand and good enough to force to game (jump shift)? Sorry, but we play a different game.

Roland

Uh oh...the LTC word. What's that Phil was saying about a flame-retardant suit?!

[Walddk]

benlessard, on Oct 2 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

Quote

6-loser hand and good enough to force to game (jump shift)? Sorry, but we play a different game.

I can see many hands where partner will pass 2C and game is cold. Of course if partner got 3H its ugly, but its going to be tough to get a plus score anyway. I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass.

Show me the "many hands where partner will pass 2C and game is cold". Show me just 1 or 2.

<snip>

Even worse, "I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass."

Passing a game forcing jump shift? I don't follow; bridge is a partnership game, and you think partner can pass a forcing bid, let alone a GF bid? I am sure that this partnership won't last long. If you at any point must fear that your partner intentionally passes in a situation where he has been asked to bid, that partnership is doomed.

Then they don't play the same game; just like you and I don't play the same game. If you are going to pass a game forcing jump shift, I think you should have passed 1♦. Once you decide to keep the auction alive, you simply must obey and bid when asked to.

Sometimes you hear "I took a view, partner". That comment gives me goose bumps before I throw up. As Fred said in another thread (I think it was in the thread with the US women in Shanghai):

"Nowhere does it say that you must not intentionally throw up at the table, but it is still not allowed". He is right, but it must be the closest you can get to it when your partner passes your jump shift. Goodbye to

♠ AJx
♥ x
♦ AKQxx
♣ AKxx

1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - pass

I don't care if we have a game on or not, but I do care if partner passes 3♣ because he has "a dead minimum with 5 spades and 3 hearts" as you suggest.

Roland

[cherdano]

han, on Oct 2 2008, 06:44 AM, said:

I bid 2C, but I don't like it at all in hindsight. I think 2H is better.

Anyway, if you bid 2C then the auction continues maybe

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

Now what?

OVer 2H partner perhaps bids 2S. It seems to me that partner will often bid this on hands that don't have a suitable bid. What's your call now?

I think this auction has turned out well, maybe 2♣ is a good idea. I might just pass now. There is an excellent chance that we can't make any game despite many hcp if partner is 5332 or 5323. If partner had extras with no clear bid he would have bid 3♥.

I would have bid 2♥ automatically in the original problem, which for me has always shown a GF single suiter or a GF hand with no clear direction. But forcing to game is an overbid, and it's not even clear it will get us to the right strain.

[awm]

Hmm:

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦xx ♣Qxxx is probably a pass of 2♣ and 4♠ is pretty good

♠AJxxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣xxxx is probably a pass of 2♣ and 4♠ is pretty good

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Jxxx ♣xxx is a correct 2♣ to 2♦, and 5♦ is good

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Jxx ♣xxxx is a pass of 2♣ and 5♦ is good

♠AKJxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣xxx might even pass 2♣ and violate Burn's Law (4♠ is decent)

I think forcing to game on this hand is okay, because some of the real trashy hands that partner might bid 1♠ on uncontested can pass after the overcall. I would think that if partner doesn't have a real 6+ point hand then his spades must be quite good (and might support 4♠).

2♥ for me.

[benlessard]

Quote

I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass.

I meant pass 1H. Im not saying that 1S show extras but

1D----(1H)------???

I believe that some of the hand where you would bid 1S over 1D but can afford to pass when RHO bid 1H especially those with 5S/3H.

[fred]

benlessard, on Oct 2 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

Quote

I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass.

I meant pass 1H. Im not saying that 1S show extras but

1D----(1H)------???

I believe that some of the hand where you would bid 1S over 1D but can afford to pass when RHO bid 1H especially those with 5S/3H.

Disagree.

When the auction starts this way and you, as the partner of the opening bidder, have length in spades, it is frequently the case that the deal is a "battle between hearts and spades".

If that is the case it is important to bid 1S liberally in order to avoid having your side's potential spade fit shut out of the auction.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[CSGibson]

I would bid 2♥. I would also like to add (for the small contingent that is unaware), that this says nothing about spades; I have at least 5 different bids to raise spades showing a wide variety of hands, I don't need 2 hearts as another one. To me, this is a pure stopper ask, promising nothing in the way of help. 3 hearts over any non-no trump bid will show a partial stopper later.

Over 2N, I am bidding 3♥ as a choice-of-games bid. If partner comes back with 3 ♠, I bid 4 ♠.

Over 2♠, I'll simply bid 4 ♠.

Over 3♣ or 3♦, I'll raise to 4.

[mike777]

would bid 2♥. I would also like to add (for the small contingent that is unaware), that this says nothing about spades; I have at least 5 different bids to raise spades showing a wide variety of hands, I don't need 2 hearts as another one. To me, this is a pure stopper ask, promising nothing in the way of help. 3 hearts over any non-no trump bid will show a partial stopper later.


ditto

I thought wtp until I read all the posts.

[Walddk]

awm, on Oct 3 2008, 01:06 AM, said:

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦xx ♣Qxxx is probably a pass of 2♣ and 4♠ is pretty good

♠AJxxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣xxxx is probably a pass of 2♣ and 4♠ is pretty good

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Jxxx ♣xxx is a correct 2♣ to 2♦, and 5♦ is good

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Jxx ♣xxxx is a pass of 2♣ and 5♦ is good

♠AKJxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣xxx might even pass 2♣ and violate Burn's Law (4♠ is decent)

1. 4♠ is not pretty good. Try to give it three rounds of hearts, a perfectly normal defence, and 4♠ is very bad.

2. A normal raise to 3♣ for me.

So those two examples don't show that "game is cold when partner passes 2♣."

...

3. This is a 3♦ rebid, not a 2♦ preference.

4. It's not a pass of 2♣ in my book. With a double fit it's too good to pass.

5. A clear 2♦ preference. You must have seen too many players open 1♦ with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs.

Roland

[cherdano]

I think Adam's example hands contain too few hands with 3 hearts.

[mike777]

As nonexp I give up...
I think ,,,,,2h ....easy..supereasy....no problem......

I will not even add i open 2d(alert)

[ASkolnick]

I have no problem bidding 2C, because I play

1D-1M
2C

as forcing for one round. Sure, I give up on the ability to play in exactly 2C when its right, but it solves all this problem about whether partner needs to take another call with 6(5) card major or over take a preference and this way you do not have to jump to show extra strength.

Since we open weak NT, our 2-2-(5-4) type hands we can open 1N. Although the minor suit may be superior, it usually does a decent job of preempting the major.

[awm]

Walddk, on Oct 3 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

1. 4♠ is not pretty good. Try to give it three rounds of hearts, a perfectly normal defence, and 4♠ is very bad.

2. A normal raise to 3♣ for me.

So those two examples don't show that "game is cold when partner passes 2♣."

...

3. This is a 3♦ rebid, not a 2♦ preference.

4. It's not a pass of 2♣ in my book. With a double fit it's too good to pass.

5. A clear 2♦ preference. You must have seen too many players open 1♦ with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs.

Roland

On the first hand, you need one of:

(1) Spades 3-3
(2) Four spades to the ace are in the hand with short hearts.

I think this is a perfectly good game at IMPs, should be more than 50% in fact.

On the second hand, your mileage may vary but this seems pretty light for a club raise. Opposite some typical non-minimum like ♠x ♥xxx ♦AKJxx ♣AKJx you have very little play for any game contract. Take away one of those kings (partner still has a fairly nice minimum opening) and you will have trouble making 3♣.

On the third hand, you have a balanced eight-count. Why is this a 3♦ raise? Again there are many quite nice non-minimums where you have little play for game and even 3♦ might be in jeopardy (say ♠x ♥Axx ♦AKxxx ♣KQxx). Bidding 2♦ allows partner another call if he has something like 16-18 high and or a bit lighter with a nice 5-5, and anything short of that seems unlikely to make game. The "three small" holding in clubs is a negative feature.

On the fourth hand, I could see correcting 2♣ to 2♦, but I can't really see raising anything.

On the fifth hand, you have the death holding in hearts (xxx). You have a nice five-card spade suit, but partner has denied having a fit for you there. Game seems really unlikely here. If you really love your false preferences so much that you would bid 2♦, try the same hand with one more club and one less heart. Yeah yeah, I know this is a 3♣ raise for you because, um, it's a balanced 8-count? Or will you preference out of your 4-4 fit so as to play a worse partial in a 5-2 and/or have partner raise to some unacceptable level in a misguided try for game?

I guess my point is: If you routinely raise a 2♣ rebid with a balanced 8-count or a 5-count with a side singleton, and you routinely jump to 3♦ on virtually any hand including four card diamond support regardless of shape or strength, then you are right, you will not miss games by rebidding 2♣. But if this is really your style, it seems like you will basically never pass a 2♣ rebid, so why not go all in and play it as forcing. This will help you when you have a really strong two-suiter, and seems like it won't cost you anything since it's virtually impossible to construct hands where you will pass a 2♣ rebid anyway.