[luis]

Congratulations to Emotion Overkill from the Master Weirdos Forum for getting this right!

[the hog]

Phil, I gave this hand to a couple of very strong players. Both said they would raise at Imps if vul, and both thought the decision was better than marginal. I ran your 2C suggestion past them and again both thought that using a 2C bid to show a hand of is type is a very useful treatment, and has the added advantage of allowing you to bail out in 2S.

Also look at France's post above. If you play light overcalls in the Nicola Smith style for example, then Frances is right, this hand qualifies for a raise. My partner thinks this hand is a clear cut raise for example.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Aug 25 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

Pard held: Jx, Qxx, KTxxx, KQx.
(lengthy snip)
So, those are my thoughts. Feel free to tee off and tell me why I'm full of it 

I do not believe that you are 'full of it' and I think that your idea of using 2♣ here as an asking bid makes sense: many players use such a 2♣ ask in advancing partner's 4th seat reopening 1N, in auctions such as 1x - p - p - 1N p - ?
(Rigal is, I think, the name for this useful device)

Where I think you are in error is in its application to this hand. I appreciate that your partner held a hand on which 3N was highly desirable, and use of your gadget would have got there.

But, I suspect that it would also have got you to 3N on many hands on which 3N was less than desirable. You cannot sensibly play your gadget as asking 'do you have a super-max?'. At least, you cannot unless the ONLY info you seek is a sort of step response, grading the hand from terrible to super max in four easy steps

As I said in my earlier reply, the problem is that partner will treat as a maximum many hands which do not mesh as well (and do not hold as much strength) as the one he actually held.

The validity of this point can be weighed by considering the a common swing situation that arises when one partnership in a swiss match plays, say, 12-15 1NT and at the other table they play 15-17.

Each dealer picks up 15, and opens 1N.

Partner is sitting there with a good 9 count. Vulnerable, most experts bid 3N opposite 15-17, but many would choose to pass a 12-15, because partner needs a fitting maximum to give game a play and an invitational sequence will get you to game anytime he holds 14, while even 2N will fail if he holds a misfitting 12.

And playing 13-15 still leaves the same dilemma, altho not to quite the same extent.

Sometimes hands hit the seams in your methods: get used to it. Now, if 1N by partner could be a good 12, I change my tune, since game is favourite opposite decent 11 counts... i.e. less than a super-max. But I would rather change my partner than agree that 1N, vul, could be based on 12 hcp.

And I am with Frances on her example hand...so while I have extras, I do not have two tricks of extras for my vul 1♠

[the hog]

♠ KQTxx
♥ T9x
D Ax
♣ Axx

To some extent this also depends on which hands would respond 1NT

xx
Kxx
KJxxx
Qxx

The above for us would be a bare minimum and we would not crime a pass. Note that this hand gives you a "play", albeit a very poor one for 3N.

xx
KQxx
Jxxx
Qxx
Clear cut pass for us. Would anyone consider bidding 1N on this non fitting trash?
x
Kxxx
QJxxx
Kxx

This would be a 1N response. Here we have a 0% play, and using Phil's suggested 2C bid we would play this in 2D.

To Mike, you apparently misread France's reply, else your comment makes no sense. She said that if you overcall 1S, you should invite with this hand.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If you are not using a cue bid as natural, as Ben suggests (which I think absent other agreements, is a very sensible idea, since it increases the frequency of the call), I would suggest that it become a low-level probe.

This is an interesting concept and could be really useful - the strong overcalls are easy enough to bid when partner limits his hand and shape with a 1N advance, so the problem hands are the "tweeners" and the weaker hands. You rightly pointed out that 2H could be bid on two completely different hands and there was no way to know which was which.

Perhaps Cue Bid Checkback is what this is - not for 3 card support but for interest in game. To really see if this is of value, you have to extend the idea to other sequences such as 1D-1S-P-1N, 1C-1H-P-1N, 1H-1S-P-1N, etc. It's probably not very playable unless 1N guarantees 2 or 3 spades, though. Something to think about.

Winston

[pclayton]

I was thinking on similar line, Winston. There is less utility for a probing cue when our overcalled suit is one above the opener's suit. Yet, its still handy for determining if resp is min/max.