What we need is a plan.

[han]

Qx

xxx

AKQxx

AKx

 

1D - (1H) - 1S - (p)

??

 

How will you bid this hand from now on?

[MarkDean]

I would just bid 2NT and hope for the best.

[matmat]

I liked your call at the table.

[h2osmom]

What about 2h? Is that terrible?

[mike777]

What about 2h? Is that terrible?

ditto

[655321]

What about 2h?  Is that terrible?

ditto

I would describe 2♥ as a bid, not a plan - i.e. what would you bid next?.

 

Actually, even though 2♥ is sort of obvious, I don't really like it because of just that problem. Any of 2NT, 3♦ or 2♣ will often get you to a sensible contract, although I don't much like any of these bids either. I think I like 3♦ the most, not sure why - I don't remember ever making a jump rebid in a 5 card suit before.

 

 

Changed my mind - Roland's (Walddk) plan below looks much better. :blink:

Edited October 2, 2008 by 655321

[dicklont]

3♣.

Partner will bid 3NT when he can.

If he can't he will play 4♠.

BTW: my partners 1♠ shows five.

 

I won't bid 2♥, when I must bid 3/4♠ later partner might think I have four of them:

1D - (1H) - 1S - (p)

2H - (p) - 2S - (p)

3C - (p) - ??

now partner is in trouble.

[mike777]

3♣.

Partner will bid 3NT when he can.

If he can't he will play 4♠.

BTW: my partners 1♠ shows five.

 

I won't bid 2♥, when I must bid 3/4♠ later partner might think I have four of them:

1D - (1H) - 1S - (p)

2H - (p) - 2S - (p)

3C - (p) - ??

now partner is in trouble.

over 2s I bid 4s.

[Codo]

3 ♦ I have to lie, maybe this lie can lead to the best score.

Second choice would be 2 ♥ followed by 3 ♠ over a non NT bid from pd.

[Walddk]

I would bid 2♣, the most flexible bid in my opinion. It's not quite good enough to force to game (3♣) because xxx in hearts the worst possible. If partner rebids 2♠, I will raise to 3, if I get 2NT it's an easy raise to game, and if he gives preference to diamonds, my plan is to follow up with 2♥. If he can produce a jump preference, I will bid 3♥ next.

 

Then he knows that I was close to a game forcing bid on my 2nd turn, without three spades and not a heart stopper.

 

Finally, if he supports clubs, I still have 3♥ available.

 

Roland

[gnasher]

2♥. Then:

- Raise 2♠ to game

- Over 2NT, bid 3♥, suggesting a choice of strains (because 3♠ might imply 3-card support).

- Over 3 of a minor, bid 3♥

- Over 3♥ (which I think says he has a single stop but wants me to play 3NT), bid 3♠, suggesting that perhaps we don't belong in 3NT after all.

- Pass 3NT

 

I'm surprised that some people play 2♥ as promising support. The opponents have declined the opportunity to investigate game, so there's no need for our side to preempt. If we have no need for a preemptive raise, we don't need a cue bid to show a high card raise.

 

This is almost a prototype for a 2♥ bid. 30 years ago people would have looked at you in astonishment if you suggested bidding anything else. It doesn't seem much of an advance to find ourselves considering actions like 3♦ and 2NT.

[dicklont]

I would bid 2♣, the most flexible bid in my opinion. It's not quite good enough to force to game (3♣) because xxx in hearts the worst possible.

I like this cautious bidding, but is there no danger that partner passes holding:

AKxxx

xx

xx

Qxxx

[Walddk]

I would bid 2♣, the most flexible bid in my opinion. It's not quite good enough to force to game (3♣) because xxx in hearts the worst possible.

I like this cautious bidding, but is there no danger that partner passes holding:

AKxxx

xx

xx

Qxxx

Surely not; that is an obvious 3♣ (10-12, distributional points included). Then he will get 3♥, and 3♠ will be his next call. So 4♠ it will be on 5-2. Excellent contract.

 

Roland

[han]

I bid 2C, but I don't like it at all in hindsight. I think 2H is better.

 

Anyway, if you bid 2C then the auction continues maybe

 

1D - (1H) - 1S

2C - 2D

 

Now what?

 

OVer 2H partner perhaps bids 2S. It seems to me that partner will often bid this on hands that don't have a suitable bid. What's your call now?

[Walddk]

OVer 2H partner perhaps bids 2S. It seems to me that partner will often bid this on hands that don't have a suitable bid. What's your call now?

3♠. Must be 2-2-5-4 or 2-3-5-3 like here with Hx in spades and no heart stopper. Strong hand of course. With a 3-1-5-4 or 3-2-5-3 shape I would have bid 2♠ over his 2♦ preference.

 

I still claim that 2♣ first is more flexible than 2♥.

 

There is one more instance where a three-card 2♣ suit is the best alternative on a hand that has no ideal rebid:

 

♠ AQxx

♥ x

♦ Axxxx

♣ KQx

 

1♦ - 1NT

2♣

 

You can't rule out that 1NT is the best spot, but more often than not you belong in one of the minors, especially at IMPs. Sometimes you even make game in diamonds or clubs.

 

Roland

[mcphee]

I also prefer 2C, if we survive this we are in fine shape. If partner passes, oh well. I am not in love with 2H, one thing is it could be a bid that may create a problem, like partner thinking we have some better S support comes to mind. 3D is sort of not bad but lacks the 6th card, although the same can be said for 2C it lets us have more wiggle room.

[P_Marlowe]

2H, asking for further

description.

 

I will pass 2S, raise 2NT to 3NT,

3S to 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I bid 2C, but I don't like it at all in hindsight. I think 2H is better.

 

Anyway, if you bid 2C then the auction continues maybe

 

1D - (1H) - 1S

2C - 2D

 

Now what?

 

OVer 2H partner perhaps bids 2S. It seems to me that partner will often bid this on hands that don't have a suitable bid. What's your call now?

If I have bid 2C, I will raise 2D to 3D.

If I have bid 2H, I will pass 2S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[benlessard]

3C followed by 3S WTP. With nothing wasted in H my hand is too good for 2C. I also prefer 2H to 2C.

[Walddk]

3C followed by 3S WTP. With nothing wasted in H my hand is too good for 2C.

6-loser hand and good enough to force to game (jump shift)? Sorry, but we play a different game.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

This is similar to a BW MSC hand I was re-reading the other day: except that the opps overcalled 1♠ and partner made a negative double, catching opener with 98xx Qx AKQx AKx

 

The two popular choices, each netting 10 votes, were for an immediate 2N or a 2♠ cue followed by a 3♠ cue.

 

2N was defensible on that holding because there is a legitimate chance that spades block, or that opening leader, expecting a stopper, may find an unfortunate (for their side) lead from various strong but not solid holdings.

 

I doubt that many of the 2N MSC voters would vote 2N here B)

 

I am torn between 2♣ (if we get by this round, we should be ok.. should, not shall) and the cue followed by a re-cue. I think that the latter is the best theoretical approach, but it is a little different from my usual treatment of the cue.. which, for me, shows a gf with either a very good suit of my own or a fit... now, it seems, I have to add: or a gf with no idea what to do :P

 

PS: to call this a gf is an overbid, but to call it a non-forcing, potentially minimum 2♣ is an underbid of (I think) somewhat greater magnitude.

[kenrexford]

2♣, and I thought this was going to receive a lot of WTP's.

 

After 2♦, I bid 2♠, also a WTP, I thought.

 

Weird.

[Lobowolf]

Actual percentage of "WTP?" bids that at least some experts construe as posing a problem of some sort: ______.

 

 

Hint: Barbara Feldon.

[Mosene]

Agent 99?

[fred]

The way I was taught, it is pretty normal to cuebid when you have 18-19 balanced and no stopper in the overcaller's suit.

 

That is not to suggest that making an abnormal bid (like 2C here) will necessarily work out badly, but one problem with not making the normal bid is that partner will not expect you to have a hand for which a normal other bid was available.

 

In other words, it is not as if you can ever hope to describe your hand after bidding 2C. 2C will only work if you get enough information to make the final decision yourself or if you get lucky and partner guesses well despite the fact that you have misdescribed your hand.

 

These scenarios might well come to pass which I why I think 2C is reasonable, but I still prefer the bid I consider to be normal: 2H

 

I think 3C is by far the worst of the 3 alternatives (and that it is considerably worse than 2NT for that matter).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com