Settle a bet please

[Echognome]

P - (1♣) - Dbl - (P)

2♣*

 

*Does 2♣ promise a rebid?

[kfay]

IMO as a passed hand it shouldn't. Partner might already be doubling pretty light.

[jdonn]

YES

[ArtK78]

No.

[jtfanclub]

P - (1♣) - Dbl - (P)

2♣*

 

*Does 2♣ promise a rebid?

Geez, I'd hate for it to promise a rebid. I hate for it to promise a rebid even with an unpassed hand!

 

If I have some random 9 or 10 count with 4-4 in the majors, I'd rather have the cue bid available than flip a coin and pick a major, and the hand simply isn't strong enough to do anything else. I don't feel a desperate need to force our side to the 3 level with half the points and an 8 card fit.

 

Here's a question....

 

-P- - (1♣) - DBl - (P)

2♣ - (P) - 2♥ - (3♣)

-P-

 

Is the pass forcing?

[pclayton]

In standard it probably doesnt. I think it should - why should the doubler have to return cue or jump to show extras?

[Finch]

P - (1♣) - Dbl - (P)

2♣*

 

*Does 2♣ promise a rebid?

Geez, I'd hate for it to promise a rebid. I hate for it to promise a rebid even with an unpassed hand!

 

If I have some random 9 or 10 count with 4-4 in the majors, I'd rather have the cue bid available than flip a coin and pick a major, and the hand simply isn't strong enough to do anything else. I don't feel a desperate need to force our side to the 3 level with half the points and an 8 card fit.

 

Here's a question....

 

-P- - (1♣) - DBl - (P)

2♣ - (P) - 2♥ - (3♣)

-P-

 

Is the pass forcing?

If 2C promised a rebid, then pass is forcing.

It it didn't, then it isn't.

 

Isn't this effectively the same question?

[ceeb]

Yes.

 

Given that a non-passed hand would be promising a rebid, the difference here is negligible. Doubler is still unlimited. The distribution of possible hands for advancer is very little changed by being a passed hand because advancer to a full-value doubler, even a cue-bidding advancer, rarely has opening bid values.

 

The point of promising a rebid is to make the bidding structure easier in case doubler is strong. Hence it's the passed hand status of doubler, not of advancer, which matters.

[kfay]

Here's a question....

 

-P- - (1♣) - DBl - (P)

2♣ - (P) - 2♥ - (3♣)

-P-

 

Is the pass forcing?

If 2C promised a rebid, then pass is forcing.

It it didn't, then it isn't.

 

Isn't this effectively the same question?

I think that's the intent of the qustion. This sure doesn't LOOK like a situation where pass is forcing. Obviously if you've discussed whether 2♣ promises a rebid the logical continuation would be to decide whether you're looking to penalize opps, look for game, or even if your heart support is that hot.

 

In standard it sure seems like this is a lot to agree upon, which is an argument against the rebid promise.

 

Thinking about this since my original post I've kind of wavered back and forth a bit but I mostly agree with what JT said and just have sympathies for what Phil said. Supposedly with the cuebid you've shown 4-4 in the majors and tolerance for diamonds so Dbler should be fine jumping around if he's real.

[Halo]

Yes

 

Wow.

 

I thought I was voting in a 100% poll, and didn't plan to post.

 

Why am I cue bidding if not to make it easier for partner to bid?

[Guest Jlall]

No, not by a passed hand. I remember reading this in MSC a while back and it made sense to me. Partner will bid on the assumption you have both majors invitational for a passed hand cue.

[Guest Jlall]

In standard it probably doesnt. I think it should - why should the doubler have to return cue or jump to show extras?

So that you can stop in 2M since 90% of the time responder has 4-4 majors and like a 9-11 count.

[dburn]

P - (1♣) - Dbl - (P)

2♣*

 

*Does 2♣ promise a rebid?

Geez, I'd hate for it to promise a rebid. I hate for it to promise a rebid even with an unpassed hand!

 

If I have some random 9 or 10 count with 4-4 in the majors, I'd rather have the cue bid available than flip a coin and pick a major, and the hand simply isn't strong enough to do anything else. I don't feel a desperate need to force our side to the 3 level with half the points and an 8 card fit.

 

Here's a question....

 

-P- - (1♣) - DBl - (P)

2♣ - (P) - 2♥ - (3♣)

-P-

 

Is the pass forcing?

If 2C promised a rebid, then pass is forcing.

It it didn't, then it isn't.

 

Isn't this effectively the same question?

I don't think so. Since the 2♣ bidder is a passed hand, then even if 2♥ were forcing because a rebid is promised, presumably doubler can pass if that rebid is 2♠ and his double won't make game opposite a passed partner.

 

In such a case, the partnership is committed ("forced") only to 2♥ (since doubler can bid 2♦, advancer can bid 2♥ and doubler can pass it). This does not imply that simply because 2♣ promised a rebid, the partnership must bid above 3♣.

 

As to whether 2♣ promises a rebid at all, there are some very good pairs who play that it does not even by an unpassed hand (the cue bid is either a limited hand that just wants to play in the right strain at the two level facing a minimum double, or some stronger hand). I am not familiar with the style myself, so I cannot comment on its effectiveness. But all questions of the type "Does X promise Y?" can really only be answered by "who is doing the promising, and to whom?"

[neilkaz]

In standard it probably doesnt. I think it should - why should the doubler have to return cue or jump to show extras?

So that you can stop in 2M since 90% of the time responder has 4-4 majors and like a 9-11 count.

We agree completely.

[mikeh]

.  Supposedly with the cuebid you've shown 4-4 in the majors and tolerance for diamonds so Dbler should be fine jumping around if he's real.

Not in my world.

 

Yes, 4=4 in the majors, with, say an 11 count is prototypical for the cue but it surely isn't 'suggested' let alone 'promised' and partner definitely should not be assuming that I have that hand.

[Apollo81]

Not by a passed hand.

 

Does everyone agree that it does promise a rebid by an UPH?

[Guest Jlall]

Does everyone agree that it does promise a rebid by an UPH?

yes

[Guest Jlall]

.  Supposedly with the cuebid you've shown 4-4 in the majors and tolerance for diamonds so Dbler should be fine jumping around if he's real.

Not in my world.

 

Yes, 4=4 in the majors, with, say an 11 count is prototypical for the cue but it surely isn't 'suggested' let alone 'promised' and partner definitely should not be assuming that I have that hand.

Why is it not suggested? You're only cuebidding with inv with both majors and hands which you are going to bid game on. The latter is unlikely as a passed hand and almost always has a 5 card suit so it's not a problem to just cuebid and then bid game in that suit. You aren't going to have hands that are GF with no clear direction, or hands that want to decide between 3N and 4M. It is fine for partner to just jump to 3M if he has a force opposite both majors inv and then you can bid game if you had that or bid your suit if that's what you were doing. I don't see much advantage at all in "forces a rebid" except for slam decisions pretty much which are extremely unlikely. I would much rather just be able to bid 2C with Kxxx Axxx xx Kxx or something and still be able to play 2M, and surely that must be by far my most likely hand type.

[nige1]

P - (1♣) - Dbl - (P)

2♣*

*Does 2♣ promise a rebid?

IMO, It is a matter of agreement; but for me it does not promise a rebid; e.g. you may have constructive values with 2 or more places to play; and want to reach the right partscore

♠ JT52 ♥ Q982 ♦ AJ9 ♣ J8

It is inconsistent but, if you had you not already passed, I feel that it should promise a rebid

 

An example of a similar treatment in a similar context ...

(3♦) _X (_P) 4♦

IMO this cue-bid does not necessarily promise much in the way of values. For the moment, it simply shows 2 places to play and interest in reaching the right game.

[Codo]

In SEF this bid is well defined:

It shows both majors 8-10 OR a strong hand with no clear bid.

Obviously for a passed hand, the strong variant isn´t possible anymore.

 

I like this treatment and would hope that any partner will play it.

 

So non forcing it is.

[OleBerg]

Not by a passed hand.

 

Does everyone agree that it does promise a rebid by an UPH?

No. For reasons alredy brought forth by others.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[gnasher]

Some people play the cue bid as forcing to agreement - that is, until a suit is raised or someone bids notrumps.

 

This allows a cue bid on an invitational hand with only one major, such as Kxxx xx AKJx xxx or xx Kxxx K10xxx Ax. The main benefits are that a jump to two of a major is better defined, and you can avoid having to play a poor 4-3 fit.

 

Playing this style, the cue bid has to promise another bid, even by a passed hand. If it didn't, a doubler with a good hand would have to cue bid in return, leaving you without enough space to investigate both fits and stops.

 

This approach is, or used to be, standard in the UK, possibly because takeout doubles tend to be more traditional.

[dake50]

Don't I have other forces available? jump cue eg. Can I use this to get best choice on 5-7 4-4M? No continue? How about 5-5M 4-5? Would 2N force by either partner? Expect to show suits next? Isn't 3M clearer if cheap cue is allowed?

[Guest Jlall]

This allows a cue bid on an invitational hand with only one major, such as Kxxx xx AKJx xxx or xx Kxxx K10xxx Ax. The main benefits are that a jump to two of a major is better defined, and you can avoid having to play a poor 4-3 fit.

This approach seems fundamentally flawed since your hand is not good enough to drive to the 3 level, and if you DON'T find a fit you will just get way too high. The only time you play a 4-3 fit by bidding 2M with these hands is when partner passes, if he has enough to bid on you can still avoid 4-3 fits. I would rather play a 4-3 fit at the 2 level opp the hands my partner is passing 2M with than be forced to suit agreement.

[whereagles]

yes and no