[HeartA]

Free, on Apr 2 2005, 06:43 AM, said:

I really don't get this problem... Where are all the HCP gone to? I bid 1♠ in 4th seat (seems quite obvious to me), and LHO AND MY PARTNER pass? There's something wrong with either my partner or one of my opponents.

I don't agree. 1S can be passed out, when opener got minimum (and with some ♠s), pd got 7 hcp or so without fit for ♠.

[fred]

mike777, on Apr 2 2005, 05:45 PM, said:

fred, on Apr 2 2005, 12:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2005, 03:41 PM, said:

first of all, on the original hand i bid 4C because i want to be in game in whichever major partner prefers..

I don't think it is unreasonable to insist on game on the original hand, but I don't think that 4C is the best way to do this.

The reason is that partner, with 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors, will bid hearts and you will end up playing in the wrong suit.

I think it is better to start with 2C (assuming that is Michaels). If partner bids 2H you can jump to 3S (or if you don't think that is forcing you can cuebid 3C instead).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

That makes a lot of sense if opp are silent.

I am worried that bidding will get very messy over these 1s or 2c or 2s bids in 4th seat and I have not gotten my hand off my chest. Perhaps the hand belongs to 1c opener?

For sure the preemptive effect of 4C could be relevant, but my judgment suggests that making sure you get to the right suit will be relevant more often.

If you were always planning on bidding to the 4-level, you can still do that after bidding "only" 2C, regardless of whether or not there is competition. On some deals the competition might even help you (it might tell you that it is not safe to bid to the 4-level, it might help you or your partner play the hand, or partner might be in a position to make a penalty double in front of you).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

Quote Fred:
"The reason is that partner, with 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors, will bid hearts and you will end up playing in the wrong suit."

I think with this pd would bid 4D- pick your better Major.

[fred]

The_Hog, on Apr 2 2005, 09:18 PM, said:

Quote Fred:
"The reason is that partner, with 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors, will bid hearts and you will end up playing in the wrong suit."

I think with this pd would bid 4D- pick your better Major.

Probably that's what 4D *should* mean, but depending on partner to be on the same wavelength when you make an undiscussed artificial bid is too scary for me. In my regular partnerships we have agreed that, after we bid Michaels to show both majors, a bid of the opponent's minor is a cuebid, but a bid of the other minor is natural and non-forcing. In the absense of discussion concerning the sequence in question, I would attempt to apply existing agreements from similar auctions. Your partnership won't utilize the "best possible" meanings for all undiscussed sequences if you adopt this approach, but at least you will minimize the chances of a misunderstanding.

And yes, I do think it is possible that partner might pass over 1C and want to suggest diamonds as a place to play when the auction goes this way (he could have something like x x J1098xxx Qxxx). I also think that it would be foolish to cater to a hand like this if you bothered to discuss this auction, but in my view if you start inventing conventions as you play, you are asking trouble. There is a lot to be said for playing that all undiscussed bids that could be natural are natural.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

I believe a jump cue bid is the best call here and should be played as a balancing "super" Michael's bid - either a strong 5-5 or a good-to-strong 6-5.

WinstonM

[P_Marlowe]

2C perfect, if it shows the mayors.

You are mimimum for the bid, so you pass
a simple preference.

Marlowe

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Apr 5 2005, 09:20 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 4 2005, 09:54 AM, said:

2C perfect, if it shows the mayors.

You are mimimum for the bid, so you pass
a simple preference.

Marlowe

I really don't think this is a minimum. This hand makes game opposite Kxx of spades and out. This hand makes a grand slam opposite x KTxx AQxx xxxx. I think you underestimate the power of this hand if you catch some fitting honors/length.

I would certainly bid 2C with AQxxx Kxxxx x xx as well in balancing, and this hand is MUCH stronger.

Well, I think he means since 2C is forcing, you can start with it. For instance,

1C pa pa 2C
pa 2H pa 3S

now pard should have clear idea of your hand, and will pass with, say, xx xxx xxxx xxxx.

[P_Marlowe]

Jlall, on Apr 5 2005, 04:20 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 4 2005, 09:54 AM, said:

2C perfect, if it shows the mayors.

You are mimimum for the bid, so you pass
a simple preference.

Marlowe

I really don't think this is a minimum. This hand makes game opposite Kxx of spades and out. This hand makes a grand slam opposite x KTxx AQxx xxxx. I think you underestimate the power of this hand if you catch some fitting honors/length.

I would certainly bid 2C with AQxxx Kxxxx x xx as well in balancing, and this hand is MUCH stronger.

Hi Jhall,

the hand is nice, but only if you find a fit, you make the Grand, if you have fit.
But the direct Cue Bid shows already an opening bid with 5-5, some even play,
that the cue is showing a 5 looser hand, so would just bid 1S with your given
hand.
I would make the Cue, but then, i am more concerned in winning the part score
battle, than in reaching game, when I reopen.

I am probably a little bit to conservative, my regular partner would probably
make another move, but personnally I hate to go down -1 in a partscore,
when nothing is on.

If partner has some fit, he will raise, probably not with Kxx in spade and out,
but with the more realistic hand Kxx + ???.

But if he gives just a simple preference, I have more fear that he is 1-2 in the
mayors, than that we miss anything. And these probabality is slightly higher,
when I hold 6-5, but the last argument is ..., well, ... ignore it.

I really hate it, going down, when I could have written plus. Take your choice,
and drive / invite to game if thats your style, but be aware that there are risks.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[tysen2k]

One more thing to consider. It also looks like this could be a big misfit hand. We have extreme shape and the auction is relatively non-competitive. I'd say neither side likely has a good fit.

I believe Modern Bridge Conventions by Root and Pavlicek defines a cue in the balancing seat as Michaels, "intermediate or better" strength.

[han]

A cuebid followed by 2S would have been perfect imo. Not quite forcing to game, but showing serious playing strength.


My friend overcalled 1S and then bid 2H and played there opposite Kx xxxxx AKx xxx, making 6. I think both partners seriously underbid.

[flytoox]

Hannie, on Apr 5 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

A cuebid followed by 2S would have been perfect imo. Not quite forcing to game, but showing serious playing strength.


My friend overcalled 1S and then bid 2H and played there opposite Kx xxxxx AKx xxx, making 6. I think both partners seriously underbid.

Certainly responder, not sure the overcaller.

[beatrix45]

Seems like 2C has to be a general purpose cue bid. You have to have a bid here that shows a powerful offensive hand that is unsuitable for defense. Basically, a double should promise no club void since a penalty pass is not too unlikely, and defending at the one level can be a tough way to score points if you can't lead a trump through, and the extra trumps you don't have in your hand show up in the dummy.

In this case, you have some play for game opposite four small spades and a doubleton heart. So, raising partner's one heart or one spade bid as a game try looks just right. Even a raise of one spade to three can be defended. Partner shouldn't play your bid as Michaels, so he/she might bid diamonds, and, if so, you can either bid spades or re-cuebid to elicit a major suit preference.

The other tactic is to 'walk the dog' with a quiet 1S bid with a heart follow up if necessary. I don't think anyone can say this is tactic is right or wrong, it just depends on the caliber of the opposition, your partner, the state of the match, and your feel of the table. If it works, you are right. If it fails you are wrong.

Trixie

[Chamaco]

Quote

Partner shouldn't play your bid as Michaels, so he/she might bid diamonds, and, if so, you can either bid spades or re-cuebid to elicit a major suit preference.

Repeated cues are often prone to misunderstandings: their meaning is clear in the mind of the cuebidder, but his/her partner often has quite a headache, such as guessing whether the cue is a hand with fit in advancer suit and slam interest OR "pick another suit pls".

This is not theory but practice- unfortunately - it has happened to me in a similar sequences, when one partner of mine (a good player who participated to several italian National finals) was playing with me for the first time, and was not 100% sure of the meaning of my 2nd cue: he had a reasonable doubt, but in an undiscussed pship, he settled for a "practical" bid which landed us in a wrong strain.

This obviously would not have occured if the same repeated cue would have been made by his regular pard, but I guess the lesson is that, unless the partnership has discussed everything in detail, I'd try to avoid them altogether.

[Karma]

1 - I did consider 4♣, leaping michaels.
2 - I don't think it is clear that balancing 2♣ is michaels, it is too useful as a natural bid. You can certainly play it as Michaels, but that was never the intention of the Michaels cue bid. For one, it doesn't pre-empt the opponents. Also, 2NT balancing is NOT unusual NT, why would it be Michaels?
3 - I opt for a simple 1♠, then I am prepared to rebid ♥ at any level.
4 - The hand type is also interesting to discuss if the ♠and ♥ are reversed, i.e. 5-6 in the majors. With this hand, I would bid ♥ then rebid ♠ at any level.

[fred]

Karma, on Apr 11 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

2 - I don't think it is clear that balancing 2♣ is michaels, it is too useful as a natural bid. You can certainly play it as Michaels, but that was never the intention of the Michaels cue bid. For one, it doesn't pre-empt the opponents. Also, 2NT balancing is NOT unusual NT, why would it be Michaels?

If you have a hand appropriate for a natural 2C overcall, just pass out the opponents in 1C. If you are at unfavorable vulnerability and you have such a strong club 1-suiter that you are afraid you might have a game, then treat your hand as a notrump hand.

Don't worry about preempting the opponents when the bidding goes 1C-P-P to you. Do you really think they rate to need space for a delicate constructive auction when the auction starts this way? Besides 2C is more preemptive than your suggestion of 1S.

2NT is often played as natural (ie not unusual) in the balancing position because it is a useful natural bid to have. The same is not true of the cuebid (which is not a useful natural bid).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com