[masse24]

I'm hoping some more experienced players can help with this.

When Q-bidding opponents suit to show support for partner's bid suit, if the opponents have bid TWO SUITS , do some partnerships have different meanings for the Q-bid depending on if it is the higher or lower suit?

Example:

1♠ (2♣) P (2♦)
2♥ (2♠*) 4♥ P
P (5♦) All Pass

*2♠ = Strong support for partners ♦ suit.

Since two suits were available as a Q-bid (♥ & ♠), is it the norm for them to have different meanings? Or, would this be some sort of special partnership agreement?

I'm not even sure at this point what the different meanings could or would be...just curious. With two suits available, I suppose the Q-bid suit could show shortness as well as support? Or, depending on which suit, higher or lower, it might describe the length or strength of support...

Thanks!

[dburn]

masse24, on Jun 3 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

I'm hoping some more experienced players can help with this.

When Q-bidding opponents suit to show support for partner's bid suit, if the opponents have bid TWO SUITS , do some partnerships have different meanings for the Q-bid depending on if it is the higher or lower suit?

Example:

1♠ (2♣) P (2♦)
2♥ (2♠*) 4♥ P
P (5♦) All Pass

*2♠ = Strong support for partners ♦ suit.

Since two suits were available as a Q-bid (♥ & ♠), is it the norm for them to have different meanings? Or, would this be some sort of special partnership agreement?

I'm not even sure at this point what the different meanings could or would be...just curious. With two suits available, I suppose the Q-bid suit could show shortness as well as support? Or, depending on which suit, higher or lower, it might describe the length or strength of support...

Thanks!

I am sure some experienced players could help with the question.

But unless it actually generated a ruling, or some situation in which the Laws of Duplicate Bridge were concerned, I am not sure what the question is doing in this section of the forums.

Perhaps some kind moderator could (if necessary) move it to the appropriate place.

[kenrexford]

Very often, one of the two suits bid by the opponents makes sense as natural, in which case that "cuebid" is usually deemed accordingly -- not a cue but a natural call.

It seems rare that two cues are available, but this sequence seems to qualify. I cannot imagine that 2♠ is not the obvious default cue for support. 3♥ forces the four-level and seems unlikely by anyone to be a simple cuebid. More likely shortness or a notrump probe, but this auction seems relatively rare for much discussion. I look forward to any real takes on this.

[Siegmund]

At least in some simple situations, many partnerships assign meanings to the two cuebids.

The particular example you gave -- overcaller's rebid after an advance and another bid from opener -- isn't one that my partnership has ever discussed.

In the somewhat different auction (1C) 1H (1S), where advancer has a whole pile of cuebids, our agreement is that 2C = the standard limit raise or better; while 2S and 3C are both mixed raises that also show values in the suit bid, to give our side a feel for whether we need to penalize or compete onward if opener's side bids again. Lots of meanings are possible.

[Vampyr]

With most of my partners I play that you make a cuebid in the suit in which you have some kind of useful holding.

[Jlall]

2S forces to the 3 level and 3H would force to the 4 level (or 3N).

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

2S forces to the 3 level and 3H would force to the 4 level (or 3N).

Yes, in this sequence it's easy because of the difference in levels.

You can have up to four cue-bids below three of the suit, for example:

1♣ pass 1♥ 1♠
pass

With two cue-bids available below three of the suit, I think that the lower should be a high-card raise and the higher a mixed raise.

If there are three, I play that the lowest is a high-card raise with three trumps, the middle a high-card raise with four trumps, and the highest a mixed raise.

If there are four, I'd play the first three as above, and the fourth as a splinter.

[Fluffy]

my meta agreements are clear, the highest cuebid promises stopper in that suit, while 2♠ just suggest I have stopper in spades, but might have a strong hand with neither.

[campboy]

I hadn't really thought about this, but I very much like what gnasher suggests. It also matches what I play in a situation I have discussed, where (1x) 1y (pass) 2x is a good raise and (1x) 1y (pass) 3x is mixed.

However, in the example auction he gives I'd quite like to be able to bid 2♣ naturally -- which then reduces it to the 3-cuebid situation.

[kfay]

gnasher, on Jun 4 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 4 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

2S forces to the 3 level and 3H would force to the 4 level (or 3N).

Yes, in this sequence it's easy because of the difference in levels.

You can have up to four cue-bids below three of the suit, for example:

1♣ pass 1♥ 1♠
pass

With two cue-bids available below three of the suit, I think that the lower should be a high-card raise and the higher a mixed raise.

If there are three, I play that the lowest is a high-card raise with three trumps, the middle a high-card raise with four trumps, and the highest a mixed raise.

If there are four, I'd play the first three as above, and the fourth as a splinter.

I've discussed this and played it, but frankly I think it may lose to something like the following:

2♣ = ♣
2♦ = kind of the strangest call available, when you think about it. But it seems like it's either a fit non-jump or a mixed raise, which is kind of an anomaly but makes as much sense (or more) as anything else. The trouble is having this agreement in such a specialized auction. So I'd be inclined to have it just be natural for some reason and 2NT as a mixed raise.
2♥ = limit
2♠ = simple raise
2NT = natural
3♣ = splinter
3♦ = fit
3♥ = splinter
3♠ = weak

At the very least I think that 2♣ should be natural.

[gnasher]

I offer you four ways to raise, you find another two for yourself, and you aren't willing to use any of them for a mixed raise?

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Jun 4 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 4 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

2S forces to the 3 level and 3H would force to the 4 level (or 3N).

Yes, in this sequence it's easy because of the difference in levels.

You can have up to four cue-bids below three of the suit, for example:

1♣ pass 1♥ 1♠
pass

With two cue-bids available below three of the suit, I think that the lower should be a high-card raise and the higher a mixed raise.

If there are three, I play that the lowest is a high-card raise with three trumps, the middle a high-card raise with four trumps, and the highest a mixed raise.

If there are four, I'd play the first three as above, and the fourth as a splinter.

I like to play 2C and 3C as clubs in this auction, maybe not best since 2H doesn't allow much wiggle room below 2S. I think at least 3C should show clubs.

[kfay]

gnasher, on Jun 4 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

I offer you four ways to raise, you find another two for yourself, and you aren't willing to use any of them for a mixed raise?

Well I mean sure maybe if you find some meaning for 2♦ (likely diamonds) then 2NT doesn't have to be natural, and probably could well be played as mixed.

For whatever reason, this is an area of bidding that I've often been worried about, just because it may come up and I have no idea what I'm doing. On the other hand, I haven't really thought about it. I think I started a thread on it a while back, and then there was another by, I think, LittleKid but I don't even remember what they said!

But it never comes up so

[gwnn]

3D fit jump kfay? so you have a good hand with 5 diamonds and 4 spades that passed over 1c? if you want to allow 44's and others then it's sort of pointless since you will usually have values in diamonds (the unbid suit) anyway.

[Jlall]

Yeah true if you want another raise you can use 3D, never thought of that. That's even more of an argument to have 3C as natural. If you have a suit it is clubs not diamonds. I would still probably take 3D as a fit jump, maybe Qxxx x KJxxx xxx or something, I don't really see the need to have more raises than limit raise, mixed raise, and preemptive raise.

[gnasher]

I routinely make fit-jumps on 4-4. With Kxxx xx AQ10x xxx the benefits of 3♦ seem obvious: it helps partner to make sensible decisions about game prospects, about what to do if they bid 4♥, and about what to lead if he decides to defend.

[gwnn]

that is starting to be a 1♦ bid gnasher

anyway, I guess 3♦ can be a fit jump after all, and 2♣ natural and 3♣ a mixed raise. I don't think we will be short so often in clubs that we should have a splinter. But I don't think we will be long so often so as to have two natural bids in clubs either.