Worthy of the MSC?

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s8752hakt943dcaq7]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1♦ p 1♥ p

1♠ 2♣ 3♣ p

3♠ p ?

 

1. Do you agree with 3♣?

2. Now what?

[helene_t]

3♣ looks politically correct but I'd probably bid 4♠. Depends which partner I'm playing with. Some dislike unnecessarily fast bidding.

 

Now I'm tempted to bid 4♥ since partner's failure to bid 3N suggests some heart tolerance.

 

But I'd probably bid 4♠ just in case partner is 5-6.

[han]

What's up with all these people passing first and then interfering? (see B/I thread)

 

Anyway, I really like my hand, I can't imagine bidding 4S (and 4H, what?). If I was confident that partner is 5-6 then I would rather punt 6S than bid 4. But I can imagine partner having AKQx xx QJxxx xx (would be great slam though!).

 

5D is a good way to test your exclusion RKC agreements. I think it should be exclusion but I'd like to be 100% certain before I bid it. Lacking exclusion I would bid 4C because I am worried that partner will interpret 5S as asking for a club control.

 

(it's late and I've played too much bridge so if I said nonsense then please ignore this)

[Foxx]

We have a real hand here. We have to do more than raise to 4♠. 3♣ was a generic forcing cue, I don't even know if it promises spade support. But still, I would go on with 4♣, followed by 5♠. How good are those trump. With no more than one trump loser, North is to bid six.

[Guest Jlall]

4C looks normal. I think forcing to the 5 level with xxxx is insane though.

[Guest Jlall]

5D is a good way to test your exclusion RKC agreements. I think it should be exclusion but I'd like to be 100% certain before I bid it.]

I wouldn't try this one. Couldn't 5D just mean strong diamonds and no club control? (ie picture bid).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 not really, I would have bid 4S,

gives up on slam, but I wonder

which answer will help me to

decide slam is good / bad,

if 2NT as good/bad would have

been available, 3S would have

been forcing

 

#2 4S, I have to show support

sometimes, and I have made a

lot of noise

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I hate 4C, I hate unclear cue bidding.

3C did not promise support, 3S may be 6-5,

but partner may still be 4-2-4-3 (what do I

know), 3S may just show values, I dont know.

[Guest Jlall]

PS: I hate 4C, I hate unclear cue bidding.

Why is it unclear? It is a good spade raise, that is pretty clear. If we had a good diamond raise we would bid....diamonds.

[whereagles]

I think I would just bid 4NT. If pard bids 2 keys, I'll assume one is the ♦A and bid accordingly.

 

4♣ is nice but it will probably draw 4♦ from pard, after which I'm not much better off than straight blackwood.

[mike777]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ 8752 ♥ AKT943 ♦ [space] ♣ AQ7

 

1♦ p 1♥ p

1♠ 2♣ 3♣ p

3♠ p ?

 

1. Do you agree with 3♣?

2. Now what?

No, hate 3clubs, prefer double.

 

Now I guess I will bid 4clubs.

[inquiry]

I like 3♣, and I like 4♣. If partner refuses to cue-bid diamonds, I like the hand even better over 4♣, ...

 

so

 

4♣-4♦-4♥ (last train)

4♣-4♠-4NT = races.....

 

The 4♠ bid, should deny ace or king of diamonds. So we can begin imagiining perfect hands. Over 4♦ cue-bid, I am worth a last train 4♥ and if partnre bids 4♠, I will stop.

[skjaeran]

I like 3♣, and I like 4♣. If partner refuses to cue-bid diamonds, I like the hand even better over 4♣, ...

 

so

 

4♣-4♦-4♥ (last train)

4♣-4♠-4NT = races.....

 

The 4♠ bid, should deny ace or king of diamonds. So we can begin imagiining perfect hands. Over 4♦ cue-bid, I am worth a last train 4♥ and if partnre bids 4♠, I will stop.

Agree with Ben and Justin's post - 4♣ is a clear cue bid agreeing ♠'s.

[foo]

Auction

1♦ p 1♥ p

1♠ 2♣ 3♣ p

3♠ p ?

 

1. Do you agree with 3♣?

2. Now what?

 

Our hand: ♠8752♥AKT943♦♣AQ7

 

1. Yes. You have a 5 loser hand with 4card Spade support opposite an unlimited Opener who may very well have 2-3 H's on this auction.

You belong in game and there may be a slam in the air.

3C shows limit raise+ values in support of S's. That's what we've got so show it.

 

2. 3S showed a minimum opening. Opener has told their story. You OTOH, are considerably stronger than a Limit Raise.

A 7 loser minimum opening opposite your hand may still result in a slam.

So, 4C; cuebidding the CA.

 

If 4C gets the expected 4D, bid 4H.

 

 

I don't like an immediate 4C cue bid because some partnerships play this as shows a C void and some play it as showing a Mixed Raise.

An immediate 4C doesn't show this hand in any partnership I've ever been in.

[han]

A 4C mixed raise? :huh:

[Fluffy]

3♣ is correct, now bid 4♣ and raise 4♠ to 5♠, bt if he bids 4♦ bid 4♠.

[foo]

A 4C mixed raise? :P

Not a purely preemptive bid like an immediate 4S would be,

but a hand with the appropriate number of losers for the auction (8- for the 3 level, 7- for the 4 level, etc) plus: good (usually 4+ cards) trump support, =some defense=, but light on hard values for the auction.

 

This means Opener =knows= not to bid on in general or take the push to 5M unless they have a serious maximum.

 

For instance xxxx..(AKxxx.xxxx).

 

This 7 loser hand evaluates to 12 PP in support of S's because of the H void, but

a= We don't know how useful the H void is or isn't on this board.

b= While we want to be in game, we certainly aren't bidding it because we have full values (as in "an opening big opposite an opening bid means We belong in game")

 

Clearly, on the vast majority of Opening hands, if They bid "5 over 4" after Responder has made such a Mixed Raise, Our emphasis is going to be looking for excuses to X rather than spending any energy considering further competition.

 

I've also seen a Jump Cue here used for a Fit showing Jump Shift.

 

Of the three, the frequency ATT in increasing order seems to be

Showing Void in Their Suit, then FJS, then Mixed Raise.

[mikeh]

I agree with Justin, that 5♦ would be hazardous to partnership health: this is not the dummy for a ♦ contract, and I don't understand where we agreed ♠s as trump.

 

This means that I also agree with Justin that 4♣ is required: this IS an unambiguous cue in support of ♠s.

 

I wish I knew more about our style: in my partnerships, we'd be on a 9 card spade fit, but, in my partnerships, I'd also know that partner was unbalanced (his hand, not necessarily his personality) for 1♠.

 

Even with up-the-line bidding, such that partner could be 4=2=4=3 or 4=3=4=2 for 1♠, surely the default action over 3♣, when stuck, is to bid 3♦? Even with AKQJ xx Qxxx xxx, I'd bid 3♦: because the message sent by 3♣ is ambiguous but strong, and my job is to make the cheapest descriptive bid I can... and while rebidding 3♦ is not descriptive, it is cheapest and cheapest means most likely to be imperfect.

 

So I think partner should be 5=6 and now I have a huge hand, such that I cannot imagine not going to the 5 level or higher.

 

I bid 4♣.

 

I am not sure what I will do over the possible responses. I will let him out in 5♠ if we get that far... after all, with QJxxx x AKJxxx x, he should, in my view, bid 3♠ and then 4♦...if he did, I'd bid 4♥ and probably raise 4♠ to 5♠ as a suit quality try.

 

If he doesn't cue ♦s over 4♣, I have a tougher problem... let me get back to you on that :)

 

BTW, I'm heading for a disaster or a lucky result if he isn't 5=6.

[BebopKid]

I think 3♣ should show a limit raise or better.

 

If partner has extra values, I'm assuming he'll go to 4♠.

 

If he does, I go to 6♠.

 

Over the 3♠ response, I just go to 4♠.

 

Good luck with this one.

[foo]

mikeh?

 

Where do you play where 1m-1H;1S-(2om)-3om! is not a Limit Raise or better in support of S's?

 

I thought cuebidding the overcalled suit to show a LR+ of GOP's last bid suit was more or less Standard?

[mikeh]

The opp's overcall has deprived us of 4SF, as an artificial game force, direction unspecified. We get this back by using the cue bid... admittedly a level higher, but what else is there?

 

Consider: all bids of either of opener's suits are natural: if I have an invitational raise of spades, why can't I bid 3♠? I cannot imagine a need for 3♠ to be anything other than limit, so using 3♣ as limit is silly.

 

And what if I held a huge hand in ♥s? How can I force without endplaying partner in the auction, if I cannot bid 3♣ as a generic, non-specific game force, over which partner makes the most descriptive bid, using the cheaper of two logical alternative calls when there are two logical possibilities.

 

What if I held: x AKJxx KQxx Axx? An unlikely hand, I agree... but only in the sense that all good-fitting strong hands are inherently unlikely. Surely I'd want to make some forcing noise, then set ♦s as trump and then go slamming... and I cannot do any of that by bidding any number of ♦s... not to mention that, if partner is 4=3=5=1, I may want to play in ♥s... so I cannot jam the auction in ♦s.

 

I do not mean to insult any poster on this thread when I say that using 3♣ to agree on ♠s is absurd.... but it really is absurd :)

 

BTW, the analogy to the auction 1♠ [2♣] 3♣ is flawed: in that sequence, any new suit by responder is both natural and forcing (I am ignoring the problems of playing NFBs since they are nonstandard, and I despise them anyway), so responder doesn't need the cue to force... but in our sequence, we do need the cue to establish the force... other bids are non-forcing...even if they show strength.

[foo]

mikeh,

Ah. I think I see the problem.

 

I was imprecise in my question.

 

The more precise definition of a cuebid here that I was taught is:

"a Limit Raise+ in support of GOP's suit =or a GF hand that can handle any likely subsequent auction="

 

Thus the "huge hand with H's" example you gave cuebids and corrects to "change the message" from "I have a good raise" to something else

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-3C!;(3foo most likely 3H or 3S)-(non S or cue bid);= "I have a GF hand w/o S support"

 

Mike Lawrence once gave an example of such a cuebid with a GF 55 that had a stiff in Opener's suit.

I think I can dredge up examples of GF single suited hands as well.

 

Your other tools here include a 2nd round X (agreed as non penalty) followed by bidding your suit or cuebidding.

 

I've always played the direct raise as shape and higher ODR based on that rather than more values.

 

So for this situation, the possible plans or "tools" for the auction are

start= 1D-1H;1S-(2C)-??

 

a= start-2S, 3S, or 4S

b= start-3C! followed by stuff showing S's

c= start-4C!

d= start-new strain

e= start-3C! followed by stuff showing a GF hand w/o S support

f= start-X followed by a S raise, a new suit, or a cue bid

 

Seems to be lot's of sequences available...

[mikeh]

mikeh,

Ah. I think I see the problem.

 

I was imprecise in my question.

 

The more precise definition of a cuebid here that I was taught is:

"a Limit Raise+ in support of GOP's suit =or a GF hand that can handle any likely subsequent auction="

 

Thus the "huge hand with H's" example you gave cuebids and corrects to "change the message" from "I have a good raise" to something else

1D-1H;1S-(2C)-3C!;(3foo most likely 3H or 3S)-(non S or cue bid);= "I have a GF hand w/o S support"

This is unplayable, for a number of reasons.

 

The most basic is: if GOP is supposed to take your call as a limit raise or better, then he is allowed to jump to 4♠. Now what do you do? Don't tell me that you now intend to bid 5♥ and hope to survive.

 

The second point is you still haven't explained why you need this treatment: why 3♠ is not invitational.

 

Unless you have some bizarre but useful meaning for 3♠ (which I suspect 99.99999% of players would take a a limit raise in ♠), using the cuebid to show 'limit or better or some other game force hand' is silly. Never, ever use two bids in the same auction to show the same hands... we rarely have enough bids available at the best of times, duplicating meanings for two calls in the same sequence shows a fundamental lack of understanding of bidding theory.

 

Instead, just use it as the equivalent of FSF: 'we're going to game, I'll tell you why later'. Try it...it works, it's simple and it's logical.

[pclayton]

Right or wrong, I'm assuming pard has a 5-6.

 

My 3♣ just established a force. It said nothing about a club control.

 

I need to know the quality of pard's trump and 5♠ at my next turn will ask.

[mikeh]

Right or wrong, I'm assuming pard has a 5-6.

 

My 3♣ just established a force. It said nothing about a club control.

 

I need to know the quality of pard's trump and 5♠ at my next turn will ask.

If 3♣ did not promise a control (a proposition with which I entirely agree), isn't there a risk that 5♠ over 3♠ asks for a club control? Or am I missing a round of your intended auction? I would have thought that 4♣ over 3♠ would be a control and unambiguously agreeing ♠s and then 5♠ would ask for trump quality.

[foo]

You still haven't explained why you need this treatment [hands w/ support doing Something Else than a Direct Raise]: why 3♠ is not invitational.

 

Unless you have some bizarre but useful meaning for 3♠ (which I suspect 99.99999% of players would take a a limit raise in ♠), using the cuebid to show 'limit or better or some other game force hand' is silly. Never, ever use two bids in the same auction to show the same hands... we rarely have enough bids available at the best of times, duplicating meanings for two calls in the same sequence shows a fundamental lack of understanding of bidding theory.

 

Instead, just use it as the equivalent of FSF: 'we're going to game, I'll tell you why later'. Try it...it works, it's simple and it's logical.

Please tone down the rhetoric. phrases like "...shows a fundamental lack of understanding of bidding theory." are information free and could be construed as logically fallacious Ad Hominem attacks.

 

 

I thought I =had= explained why a non-invitational 3S raise was useful here. *looks* yep: "the direct raise as shape and higher ODR based on that rather than more values." Let me try again.

 

There's a substantial qualitative difference between supporting hands with (9)10-11(12) HCP and 8 losers vs the 8 loser hand that rates to be safe at the 3 level due to shape.

(For one thing, We definitely want to emphasize play over defense holding the 2nd type. We also want to be more cautious about making penalty X's when holding the 2nd type.)

 

Two axioms from Bidding Theory come to mind.

1= one doesn't want to bid 2 substantially different hands the same way- it destroys Our ability to accurately evaluate.

 

2= The less hard values We have between us, the faster We want the auction over with.

 

Thus we would like to use all direct raises to show hands that have higher ODR and lesser values. (There's also plenty of precedent for this approach :))

 

So if we use the Direct Raise of 3M to show a hand with appropriate support and shape but less than traditionally invitational values, we need a way to bid the "power based" 3M raise.

 

The immediate cue bid of the overcall is the obvious choice; and it fits well with precedent.

 

Robson & Segal in _Partnership Bidding at Bridge (the Contested Auction)_ stated: "We should avoid making the last guess" and "We need more ways to raise partner in competitive auctions." I agree, and this approach does that while integrating well with other established practices to do the same.