[jdonn]

1♠ - 2♣ - DBL - P
2♥ - P - 3♣

Is (sorry I lost the exact quote) 13+ points and 5+ hearts. Huh?

[jdonn]

I think I realized, is that the cuebid rule where any cuebid is game forcing in the last bid suit, and since 2♥ shows 3+ hearts... ?

I told you I hate that rule.

[arigreen]

Yes, I recall that this is not your favorite rule. Let's look at it more closely:

If Partner's most recent call was a major M
AND I cuebid below the four level
AND the cuebid is not a jump
AND we don't have a known fit
AND we might have a fit in M
AND we might have enough strength for game
AND we're not in a known game force

THEN
the cuebid is gameforcing, promising a fit in M.


We could try changing this rule to:

If I cuebid below the four level
AND the cuebid is not a jump
AND we don't have a known fit
AND we're not in a known game force
THEN
the cuebid is gameforcing, promising nothing more about shape

How does that sound?

[jdonn]

That might be better, I'd have to think if it creates the opposite problem elsewhere. The real problem is that you can't do an "or" (like how takeout doubles can't be "takeout shape or any good hand") so for the negative double itself you can't say "4 hearts any strength or 5+ hearts weak".

[cherdanno]

Maybe it is worth making a distinction between a cue as your first non-pass call (which is usually an inv+ raise) and a cue later in the auction (which is usually just a generic game force).

[arigreen]

It is easy to create rules at higher priority than other rules.

So we have specific rules for auctions such as 1S-(2H)-3H to show a good hand with support.

As Josh said, it is very difficult to define the negative double as "4+ hearts, 7+ points OR 5+ hearts, 7-10 points". Our best solution is to take the union of the two definitions, which is "4+ hearts, 7+ total points".

So far, there don't seem to be any harmful side effects to the new rule.