3-level cue bid

[paulg]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s53hkdakqt9753c72&w=sat7hj32dj842c543&e=skqj84haq96dcakq6&s=s962ht8754d6cjt98]399|300|Scoring: IMP

East opens 1♠ and is raised to 2♠ by West[/hv]

 

National Swiss Teams Congress, Kettering, England

 

This hand was the cause of the largest reported penalty of the weekend. North's bid at this point in the auction split the field into three camps:

• Those who bid a number of diamonds
  
• Those who bid 3♠ asking partner for a spade stop (and the other suits too!!)
  
• Those who bid 3♠ showing hearts and a minor
  

The largest penalty occurred when a partnership consisted of players from the last two camps. They did make a single trick in 5♥-X for -2900, but probably not the best start to the day as this was the second board in the first match (of five) on the Sunday.

 

Have you an agreement with your partner for 3-level cue bids?

 

Paul

[Guest Jlall]

3S would be michaels for me. I know some play 4m here as leaping michaels but I think that is wrong. There are MANY hands that want to bid 4m to suggest a save to partner. 3m could just be lead directing/prebalancing/whatever, so with a 7 card suit and an offensive hand 4m is very often a good bid to clue partner in to saving. Here too, north has a nice 4D natural bid.

 

Thus I use michaels since it is far more frequent than stopper ask. I would not use stopper ask with this hand anyways, we need a stopper in EVERY suit. Opponents these days are not stupid and know to bang down aces against stopper ask/gambling 3N auctions.

 

If I get a choice of being able to make a preemptive 4m bid suggesting to partner that we save vs being able to make a stopper ask it's a no brainer for me.

[Fluffy]

This is teh kind of hand where I bid 3♠ thinking... long solid minor, what else could it be?. Then find myself on a poor contract for not thinking enough :o

 

BTW 2NT shows 2 suiters, so I guess solid minor is the best treatment.