What's your plan on this hand?

[awm]

[hv=d=w&v= &s=skj87ha2da84ca984]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

LHO opens 2♦ (weak two, pretty wide ranging in terms of length and values. Partner overcalls 2♥. RHO passes and it's your call...

[helene_t]

It would be nice if 2N was forcing. As it is, I bid 3♦ which won't make it easy to find the club slam.But at least I get to see if p can bid 3N. If he rebids 4♥ I think I'l raise to 6.

[han]

3D followed by 3NT over 3H, 4C (cue) over 3S and pass over 3NT.

[P_Marlowe]

3NT, wtp?

 

After I voted, I have seen the majority vote,

... well, thats the alternative bid, but it wont

help you a lot, and it should promise fit.

 

And 2H overcalls are wide raniging too ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[karlson]

In my world 3d 100% shows hearts, and I don't think this hand fits. So for me the choice is between 3n and 4n (natural). The latter seems like a mild overbid, so 3N I guess.

[dburn]

It would be nice if 2N was forcing. As it is, I bid 3♦ which won't make it easy to find the club slam. But at least I get to see if p can bid 3N. If he rebids 4♥ I think I'll raise to 6.

2NT forcing is actually a very good idea, which I would commend to the attention of all BBO "experts" - many BBO experts doubtless use it already. No guarantees, of course, but it simplifies a great many auctions in these troubled times where the opponents seem to bid before you do whenever one of them is the dealer.

 

As it is, I don't see much of an alternative to 3♦. It's not that I have a plan, but when you can't make some nebulous double, the best you can do is make some nebulous cue bid and see if partner can think of a plan.

[Halo]

3D

 

I've noticed that cue bids on this forum are rarer and more specific than I imagine they are. This may be a good thing, and then this hand will be one that got away, since a more flexible cue bid is clearly advantageous.

[mike777]

[hv=d=w&v= &s=skj87ha2da84ca984]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

LHO opens 2♦ (weak two, pretty wide ranging in terms of length and values. Partner overcalls 2♥. RHO passes and it's your call...

As is often the case with a difficult bidding problem, cuebid or double will often work out as good as anything else. :(

 

 

3d

[whereagles]

2NT forcing is actually a very good idea

on lack of that, I'll stick to a forcing 2♠ :( This hand needs some exploration, so let's keep the bidding low.

[dicklont]

I've voted 2♠. We could very well have a fit there.

[jdonn]

3♦ seems clear to me. I can easily follow up whatever partner does.

 

3NT over 3♥

4♦ over 3♠

4NT over 3NT

4♦ over 4♣

4NT over 4♦ or 4♥

[Fluffy]

Ax is fit to a level 2 overcall. 3♦.

[mcphee]

I have no problem cue bidding 3D. If Ax is not sound enough along with the balance of my goodies then partner does not have a 2H bid. I do not expect to play 3N unless partner can take time out to bid it, which I doubt. If 2NT was forcing with this partner that would be a good choice. 2S may catch a S raise and then I am not sure what to do. 3D simply seems practical.

[han]

I must say I find the comments by the fluffies and mcphees disturbing. It seems that they are implying that they are making a strong heart raise by bidding 3D.

 

Do you really play that 3D shows support here? Isn't AKJx xx xxx KJxx a common hand for 3D?

 

Are you really planning to play hearts? Wouldn't partner overcall 2H with Axx Qxxxx Kx KQx?

[Fluffy]

My general agreement is cue shows fit, but admits having a too powerful hand to bid anything else.

 

I would never cue without being prepared to play 4 in my partner's major.

 

This hands and your example makes it look like it is better to play 3♦ as flexible, at the table I would probably be aware of this posibility and not assume fit. But younever know if your partner is on the same wavelenght.

[Apollo81]

3♦ seems clear to me. I can easily follow up whatever partner does.

 

3NT over 3♥

4♦ over 3♠

4NT over 3NT

4♦ over 4♣

4NT over 4♦ or 4♥

I'd bid RKC over 3♠. Other than that I agree with these.

[han]

But you never know if your partner is on the same wavelenght.

I really disagree with this, you are playing with the wrong people. I'd say that most of the time I am quite confident that partner is on the same wavelength and on this particular issue I'd be very sure that partner is. This is just beginner bridge.

[Apollo81]

In my world 3d 100% shows hearts, and I don't think this hand fits. So for me the choice is between 3n and 4n (natural). The latter seems like a mild overbid, so 3N I guess.

When you pick up a hand like this where there are many, many possible contracts, it pays off to make a flexible bid rather than a unilateral one. Since the cuebid is really the only flexible option, it is the right bid here.

 

Think of this cuebid as meaning "I'm not sure what the right contract is, and there's no other bid that I can use to describe my hand" This strongly correlates with heart hands since there's no forcing way to bid hearts, but there are forcing ways to show 5+ clubs, spades. However it doesn't '100%' show hearts.

[han]

4♦ over 3♠

I'd bid RKC over 3♠. Other than that I agree with these.

I think 4♣ is clearly superior to 4♦, as I would like to hear if partner can cuebid 4D (shortness would be nice wouldn't it?).

 

4NT seems reasonable as over 4NT-5C-5D-5H-5NT partner should have a good picture of our hand. I think.

[awm]

Obviously if 2NT is forcing it's the right bid. We weren't playing that. :)

 

It's interesting that people want one of the most expensive calls below game to be the "flexible option." Doesn't it make more sense to play that one of the cheaper bids indicates flexibility (here perhaps saying that 2♠ can be bid on a four-bagger) rather than assigning a flexible meaning to an expensive bid?

 

Over 3♦, if partner decides to bid something like 3♠ or 4♣, are you necessarily certain this is a suit and not a cuebid for hearts? Obviously if it's a cuebid you like your odds of slam, but there's no reason hearts is necessarily the right strain. Even if partner bids 3♥, presumably the plan is 3NT next to offer choice of games, but couldn't 4♠ or even 5♣ be the right game? Partner may well assume three hearts and two diamond stoppers for the 3♦...3NT sequence.

 

In any case, partner and I had no clear agreements about these things, a theme which came up later in the hand as well. I decided to try 3♣, figuring that partner was not that likely to insist on clubs without four-card support. Partner bid 3♦ over this, perhaps in part because of uncertainty as to whether a 3♥ rebid would be forcing. Now the troubling question became, if bid 3♥ over 3♦, is that a forcing call? Uncertain as to whether it would be, I decided to bid 3NT next which ended the auction. Partner's hand:

 

♠AT9

♥KJ8xxx

♦x

♣KTx

 

Clearly 4♥ is a superior game. The 3NT contract appears to have some play, but after holding up the diamond ace until the third round, I finessed hearts losing to the queen. To my dismay, RHO produced a fourth diamond and LHO overtook and cashed out for down one.

[pclayton]

In Adam's actual hand, it appears that 4♠ is also a decent game.

 

Contrast this situation to one where we are responding to a one level overcall. Since new suits typically aren't forcing, we need the cue bid to show a variety of hands, including strong hands with a single suit where we don't have a forcing call available.

 

In response to a 2 level overcall, new suits (by an unpassed hand) are forcing. This is why I think Adam chose 3♣ instead of 3♦. A cue should really promise heart support IMO. Han's 4234 hand is indeed a problem for this method, but as far as I can tell, its the only problem hand type, along with a 4144 lacking a diamond stop.

 

If we held a 4324 14 count, we would cuebid without qualms. Pard could make a move toward slam with the right hand knowing full well we are promising heart support.

 

I think those that bid 3♦ expecting pard to field it are really deluding themselves. Put pard on a vanilla 3523 with so-so hearts. Is pard really supposed to check back for a diamond stop to see if 3N is a better spot than 4♥? I doubt it.

 

My call? 2♠. If pard raises with 3, I can punt with 3N as a choice of games. Pard can sit with a 3523, or can pull with a 3514 or with any hand containing 4♠'s. If pard bids 3♥ I have an easy raise to 4. Over 3♦, I have an easy 3N call.

 

A forcing 2N is an intriguing idea and it works fine on this hand. I think even transfer advances make a lot of sense too.

[han]

It's interesting that people want one of the most expensive calls below game to be the "flexible option." Doesn't it make more sense to play that one of the cheaper bids indicates flexibility (here perhaps saying that 2♠ can be bid on a four-bagger) rather than assigning a flexible meaning to an expensive bid?

Why is this so interesting? Isn't it very common in bridge that a cuebid is played as flexible? Would you even for a moment think that (2S)-3H-(p)-3S shows heart support? Are you suggesting that we should, without prior partnership discussion, assume that the meaning of the cuebid changes depending on the amount of room it takes up?

 

So far I've only asked questions to which I think I know the answers, I'd better not touch real questions like "is it really superior to play 2NT as the flexible bid given that it might wrongside a potential 3NT?'

 

It seems to me that the flexible 3D followed by 3NT would have worked quite well as partner has an easy pull to 4H. The improvisational 3C followed by 3NT showed a very different hand, in fact nothing closely related to this hand. 3C followed by 3H would be a much better probe for the best game imo. Is there anybody out there who would play that as non-forcing???

 

I used to play a lot with a partner who would invent a new gadget every time one of us had made a poor judgement call in a tricky situation. While the gadgets were often sensible, it is not a good attitude for becoming a better bridge player. I really don't want to suggest that you have the same attitude in general, but you seem to be making the same mistake on this hand.

 

OK, enough unsolicited criticism, I'll try to be nice now.

[awm]

These types of awkward hands actually come up a lot. The rule I'm proposing is hardly a "gadget"; just a simple agreement that the cheapest suit, while it nominally has some meaning (natural most of the time, or something else if it's the cue depending on if you play transfer advances) can in fact be the "catch-all" when you have an awkward hand. Note that this usually still implies a four-card suit (in the case of a natural bid) or a doubleton in support (in the case of a raise). This preserves space and makes a lot more sense to me than playing that cuebid is always either of a raise or an awkward hand regardless of the auction.

 

It seems sensible that when I have no idea about strain, I should keep the auction low, rather than making a space-consuming call that appears to commit to strain and then trying to back out of it later.

[joshs]

These types of awkward hands actually come up a lot. The rule I'm proposing is hardly a "gadget"; just a simple agreement that the cheapest suit, while it nominally has some meaning (natural most of the time, or something else if it's the cue depending on if you play transfer advances) can in fact be the "catch-all" when you have an awkward hand. Note that this usually still implies a four-card suit (in the case of a natural bid) or a doubleton in support (in the case of a raise). This preserves space and makes a lot more sense to me than playing that cuebid is always either of a raise or an awkward hand regardless of the auction.

 

It seems sensible that when I have no idea about strain, I should keep the auction low, rather than making a space-consuming call that appears to commit to strain and then trying to back out of it later.

Well the cheapist bid is 2S, so what do you propose bidding with

Qxx Ax Axxx Axxx?

 

I can understand you wanting to re-arrange the meaning of the bids, so that the cheapist call is the cue bid (heart support or flexible with no 5 card suit), although that has its own problems since typically you need more space on a potential misfit then you do when you have a fit or semi-fit for partner's overcall....

[Fluffy]

I agree with Adam, I though the same when I saw the hand, it is hard to have such agreements sadly, but more and more I am convinced that having cheapest voice forcing as non natural is good idea when opponents are likelly to pass.