jillybean Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hi, The auction, playing checkback stayman.... 1♦:1♠1nt:2♣ (checkback)2♠: ?? Is 3♣ here generaly a cue bid in ♠ or something else? tyjb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 I don't know what is standard.I don't even know if there IS a standard.It certainly warrants express agreement. Personally, I would normally expect the bid to be natural and forcing (where a jump to 3C immediately over 1N would be natural and non-forcing but invitational). You might want to reverse those meanings, and I doubt that it matters much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hi, The auction, playing checkback stayman.... 1♦:1♠1nt:2♣ (checkback)2♠: ?? Is 3♣ here generaly a cue bid in ♠ or something else? tyjb Are you playing 2 way checkback where 2clubs is an invite not game force bid. Are you playing where partner bids 3s with 3 spades and a maximum and 2s with 3spades and a minimum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Assuming a jump to the prior round would have shown some sort of 5-5 invite, 3♣ should be a 5-5 GF. I can see an argument that its some sort of game try too. Unless you play some sort of majors first, this has to promise 5 spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted November 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hi, The auction, playing checkback stayman.... 1♦:1♠1nt:2♣ (checkback)2♠: ?? Is 3♣ here generaly a cue bid in ♠ or something else? tyjb Are you playing 2 way checkback where 2clubs is an invite not game force bid. Are you playing where partner bids 3s with 3 spades and a maximum and 2s with 3spades and a minimum? 2♣ checkback, not 2way here.2♠ shows min, 3card support3♠ max, 3card support. I want to start cue bidding starting with ♣A but it seems like that is a non standard treatment here. If I was playing 2way checkback maybe I could do it.1♦:1♠1nt:2♦2♠:3♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 I want to start cue bidding starting with ♣A but it seems like that is a non standard treatment here. You are not forced to play a standard treatment, especially in a situation where what is "standard" is perhaps contentious. That said, my personal opinion is that it normally pays dividends to clarify a bit more about your distribution before committing to control-showing cue bids, especially where (as here) you have plenty of bidding space to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 2♣ checkback, not 2way here.2♠ shows min, 3card support3♠ max, 3card support. I want to start cue bidding starting with ♣A but it seems like that is a non standard treatment here. I think 3♥ should be your forcing spades raise here. You can start cuebidding afterwards. This probably can't be called "standard" but it's the only forcing spades raise I've heard of (except for those who play two-way checkback, of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 The other issue is how you bid a weak black 6-4. Suffice it to say I'm glad I play xyz :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Assuming that spades are trump after the 2S bid, I can see two reasonable meanings: Big hand with some sort of clubs, making a slam try in spades Game try in spades, interpreting "game try" however you usually do. Presumably after the 2S bid it is possible for responder to be uncertain whether to bid 4. The usual action is to bid 3S asking partner to choose, but I can see where a side suit bid with a specific meaning could be useful. That's if the meaning is known to both partners. Undiscussed, I would expect a big hand with at least five spades and some values in clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hi, 3C is certainly a cue bid, agreeing spades. With kind regardsMarlowe PS: The only sensible other option would be weak 6-4, but I would simply suggest to pass2S to make life simpler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 3C here is normally considered natural and forcing, not a cue bid. Why? How else are you going to show a forcing club hand (assuming that you would respond 1S with 4-4 in the blacks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hi, The auction, playing checkback stayman.... 1♦:1♠1nt:2♣ (checkback)2♠: ?? Is 3♣ here generaly a cue bid in ♠ or something else? tyjb Are you playing 2 way checkback where 2clubs is an invite not game force bid. Are you playing where partner bids 3s with 3 spades and a maximum and 2s with 3spades and a minimum? 2♣ checkback, not 2way here.2♠ shows min, 3card support3♠ max, 3card support. I want to start cue bidding starting with ♣A but it seems like that is a non standard treatment here. If I was playing 2way checkback maybe I could do it.1♦:1♠1nt:2♦2♠:3♣ Hi, your other option would be to bid 3S instead of 3C,requesting an cue bid from opener.3S is forcing and is looking for a possible slam. Since opener has already defined his hand very precise, missing is only the location of his honors,responder does not need to tell the oppoents wherehis honors are located. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Beaner, Check out my blog. I am starting to discuss checkback and NMF in earnest, and the Lowell Adjunct might be the winning ticket for you. Thankfully you are using CBS, which is far better than the farce of NMF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts