[thepossum]

Hi all

I recently had this hand, called an unusual 2NT (Im not very experienced using it) and ended in 5 Diamonds rather than a part score which would have been preferable. The reason being that North cue bid hearts rather than simply bidding their best minor - playing IMPs

What do you think the pros and cons are given that the 3rd level major cue bid leaves very little room to decide on a part score, possible 3NT or possible minor game

I didnt really want to bid to game, although it only went one down, and certainly didnt want to bid 3NT (I thought about it). 3NT goes down a few tricks

I felt on reflection that both the 2NT and the 3H cue bid used up far too much space before we even knew we had a likely part score or minor game, and no room to be sure of chancing a 3NT game

P

---

[FelicityR]

At this vulnerability this hand looks just about perfect for an Unusual 2NT. That's my honest opinion. Others may see it differently.

Partner will know about both minor suits as opposed to just one if you decide to overcall a minor instead - something I would be wary of given that you have another bid that perfectly describes your hand.

If you overcall one minor, then if the opponents raise ♥s you partner will not know about the other minor.

[Stephen Tu]

At some point advancer has to cue rather than bid 3m, because 3m promises neither values nor real fit. I don't think cue can promise specifically diamonds; it has to show decent hand for one minor or both minors. Overcaller shouldn't bid beyond 4c with a min.

After 4c, with a min cue bid I don't see why advancer can't pass/bid 4d NF, then overcaller can give up.

[thepossum]

Thx

I think the cuebid wasnt useful. The description was that it promised diamonds - I thought cues were showing game/slam interest and asked opener to show strength with a C or D bid. However the description promised 3+ diamonds so I had no choice really but to bid 4D. I guess I could have bid 4C and then advancer bid 4D but I was rather thrown by the cue bid and its description. I would have thought a 3D advance was better than a cue bid.

Maybe its just unlucky that 5D went down and game interest was correct. The other issue is that its hard to reach 3NT with that kind of auction - not that it would be successful in this case

[Stephen Tu]

Well for the thousandth time you really can't learn how to bid or correctly evaluate efficacy of sequences when playing with bug infested robots.

It's ludicrous for 3h to guarantee diamonds, that's just a bug or incomplete explanation. And to me the cue bid is perfectly useful. If partner bids just 3d you don't know whether they have zero or ten, or if they have a real fit or just a doubleton. The problem is just the robot probably doesn't restrict the meaning of overcaller's min rebid enough to make bidding again not attractive, and not requiring an extra useful k or whatever above a min cue bid to bump 4 up to five. The cue isn't the problem so much as the follow-ups. Overcaller with a better hand just bids 5 themselves, so 4 should be some min relative to the vulnerability.

Overcaller isn't going to try and bid 3nt; Advancer is supposed to bid 3nt if that is a target, not cue.

[thepossum]

So

Imagining that the cue bid a correct cue bid by a human that knew what they were doing and that it represented game/slam interest.

My understanding then is that with a minimum hand (10- points) I bid 4C and then advancer corrects to 4D if necessary, but with a stronger hand 4D is the correct bid, or some other natural bid.

Then we end up in 5 or 6 and go down 1 or two anyway - so just bad luck - mst of us ended in 5 or 6 but my judgement was that a 4 part score would have been my preferred contract, and sure enough that was what made. Those who ended up in the best part score contract did a 2C overcall followed by 3D. I dont know if North was strong enough for the cue. Its not a bad hand with 4 diamonds and two controls and singleton but hardly strong enough to suggest minor game/slam interest. Its not a bad hand but has a lot of losers after an opening bid and an overcall. Maybe its just one of those unfortunate traps

---

The other options I understand by advancer are

1- with a weak hand bid 3 of best minor
2- with a game/slam interest cue bid
3- a bid of spades or NT would have been a natural bid and non forcing

BTW I'm not learning to play you should all know that by now , and I was interesting in discussing the unusual 2NT and options rather than having a go at GiB

[Stephen Tu]

North is plenty strong to cue. I'd definitely want to be in 5d on these cards. It should have excellent play. You rate to lose 1d and one black card. Depends on the first few tricks, whether West can get in early to lead a spade and spade offside, then you may have to guess the ck depending on the diamond split. Otherwise you can just pitch spades on clubs and ruff the last spade.

[thepossum]

Thx Felcity and Stephen

regards P

[rmnka447]

IMO, 3 ♥ doesn't necessarily show ♦, but conveys the following message "I've got a good hand with a fit in one of your suits."

4+ card support in one of partner's suit coupled with shortness in the other means you are going to be able to set up partner's hand to take a lot of tricks. Add in the 2 major suit As and slam may be a possibility opposite a lot of decent unusual NT hands. As advancer, you need to convey that information to the Unusual NT bidder in case a chunky Unusual NT bid was made ( ♠ x ♥ x ♦ AKxxxx ♣ AQJxx?)

[HardVector]

I still disagree bidding 2n with these kind of hands. I like to do it with either preemptive or strong hands. When you add in the normal middle-of-the-road kind of hands, it becomes too difficult to judge where to play. I'd have overcalled 2d then rebid 3c if available.

[Tramticket]

HardVector, on 2019-June-24, 09:09, said:

I still disagree bidding 2n with these kind of hands. I like to do it with either preemptive or strong hands. When you add in the normal middle-of-the-road kind of hands, it becomes too difficult to judge where to play. I'd have overcalled 2d then rebid 3c if available.

I still play this style in one partnership, but that is partner's preference rather than mine. In my experience, the "preemptive or strong" approach works ok at favourable vulnerability, but less well at adverse vulnerability.

You probably don't want to get involved with much less than the opening post hand at these colours. You certainly don't want to be bidding 2NT with a random six-count, just because you are 5-5 - but swap the colours and you may do it! At favourable vulnerability, the split range can be useful to manage the wide range of the bid. At adverse vulnerability, the range is not so great since you are not bidding on minimal values just to be a nuisance, but you have a difficult choice of bid with the intermediate range since you are not bidding a second time. Would you bid 2♦ or 2♣ with the Opening Post hand?

[MatthiasK]

Tramticket, on 2019-June-24, 09:43, said:

...

You probably don't want to get involved with much less than the opening post hand at these colours.

...

Exactly, this hand is about minimum at these colors.

I played split-range, but today I think it's not so useful. You have a hand with high ODR, therefore
you want to outbid the opponents. Either for a make or a good sacrifice. Actually you don't care so much,
it depends on partner's fit and defense.

[thepossum]

Thx everyone