Potpourri

[kfay]

Probably these auctions have been discussed many times on the forums, but I was having a brief discussion with a partner and we weren't like 'obv' so I thought I'd ask. There are some very easy ones and some, I thought, obscure ones. Question 5 have multiple parts.

 

Please specify if the final call taken is: Nonforcing, Forcing (to what extent), Game Forcing, Penalty, Takeout

 

1) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-2♣

 

2) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-2♣

    (P)-2♥-(P)-2♠

 

3) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-2♣

    (P)-2♥-(P)-3♣

 

4) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-2♣

    (P)-2♥-(P)-2NT

 

5) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-2♣

    (Dbl)-2♥-(3♣)-?

 

i) Pass

ii) Double

iii) 3♥

 

6) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-3♣

 

7) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-1♠

    (P)-2♣-(P)-2♥/2♠

    (P)-3♣

[whereagles]

NOTE: these are my conventions. They are based on agreed upon rules and meta-rules, not just common sense.

 

1) forcing to 3M. Usually shows 11+ and one or both 4-card major(s).

 

2) as above.

 

3) forcing to game, asks for stopper.

 

4) forcing, natural, 16+ (with 7-10 bid 1NT, 11-12 2NT, 13-15 3NT)

 

5) as 1 and 2.

 

6) forcing to 3M. Shows 44 majors, 8-10 hcp (about the same as a responsive dbl).

 

7) game forcing. Doubler has game in hand.

[mikeh]

a fairly common rule is to play that advancer's cue bid establishes a forcing auction until either game has been reached or a suit has been bid and raised. Thus, after opener began with 1♣, advancer's cuebid forces to 3 of a suit bid and raised or game, whichever is lower.

 

This addresses most of your examples.

 

I have never seen nor do I ever expect to see, in real life, an auction that proceeds [1♣] x [P] 3♣.

 

If we can make 3♣, we should be defending 1♣ x'd, and if we have any sort of non-club good hand, we start with 2♣.

 

If doubler cues clubs, he can cue the suit as often as he likes...I am not going to play him to have a club suit (if the opps are playing standard)....altho I admit that after his 5th cue bid I may pass just to teach him a lesson.

 

Does that mean that as doubler I am barred by the 1♣ bid when I hold AKQJxxx and side values? No...I can always overcall in notrump of I really can't stand the idea of passing...otherwise, yes I am stuck. I can live with it.

[aguahombre]

a fairly common rule is to play that advancer's cue bid establishes a forcing auction until either game has been reached or a suit has been bid and raised. Thus, after opener began with 1♣, advancer's cuebid forces to 3 of a suit bid and raised or game, whichever is lower.

 

This addresses most of your examples.

 

I have never seen nor do I ever expect to see, in real life, an auction that proceeds [1♣] x [P] 3♣.

 

If we can make 3♣, we should be defending 1♣ x'd, and if we have any sort of non-club good hand, we start with 2♣.

 

If doubler cues clubs, he can cue the suit as often as he likes...I am not going to play him to have a club suit (if the opps are playing standard)....altho I admit that after his 5th cue bid I may pass just to teach him a lesson.

 

Does that mean that as doubler I am barred by the 1♣ bid when I hold AKQJxxx and side values? No...I can always overcall in notrump of I really can't stand the idea of passing...otherwise, yes I am stuck. I can live with it.

Very nice. Although maybe the 4th consecutive club cue would be enough for me.

 

the hand in the last paragraph seems to be handled very well by the slow pass :huh:

[kfay]

a fairly common rule is to play that advancer's cue bid establishes a forcing auction until either game has been reached or a suit has been bid and raised. Thus, after opener began with 1♣, advancer's cuebid forces to 3 of a suit bid and raised or game, whichever is lower.

 

This addresses most of your examples.

 

I have never seen nor do I ever expect to see, in real life, an auction that proceeds [1♣] x [P] 3♣.

 

If we can make 3♣, we should be defending 1♣ x'd, and if we have any sort of non-club good hand, we start with 2♣.

 

If doubler cues clubs, he can cue the suit as often as he likes...I am not going to play him to have a club suit (if the opps are playing standard)....altho I admit that after his 5th cue bid I may pass just to teach him a lesson.

 

Does that mean that as doubler I am barred by the 1♣ bid when I hold AKQJxxx and side values? No...I can always overcall in notrump of I really can't stand the idea of passing...otherwise, yes I am stuck. I can live with it.

Very nice.

 

the hand in the last paragraph seems to be handled very well by the slow pass :huh:

How is it very nice? It answers like half the question.

 

Are you assuming, Mike, that someone would believe 3♣ in auctions 6 and 7 could possibly be natural? If you thought that's why I was asking the question then I'm a little insulted. Not saying I expect to see auction 6 anyway but was wondering if anyone did, and if so what they'd expect.

 

Anyway the biggest question for me hinges around question 5, which nobody has taken a shot at yet.

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=32241&hl= for jump cue

[TimG]

5) (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-2♣

    (Dbl)-2♥-(3♣)-?

 

i) Pass

ii) Double

iii) 3♥

I also play that the cue-bid establishes a force until suit agreement (suit bid and raised) or game. With that rule, pass is forcing and 3♥ is not (suit bid and raised). I would expect double to be takeout on the basis that doubles are takeout until our side has found a fit (and 2♥ did not establish a fit). Though I would expect it to be highly convertible in nature.

[gwnn]

I have never seen nor do I ever expect to see, in real life, an auction that proceeds [1♣] x [P] 3♣.

 

If we can make 3♣, we should be defending 1♣ x'd, and if we have any sort of non-club good hand, we start with 2♣.

This is like saying we should never bid 4NT after

 

1m-1M

1N-?

 

Since if we have only game values we should bid 3NT and if we have more than that we can bid 2♦ or whatever checkback we use.

 

What's wrong with assigning a meaning to this low-level sequence?

[Fluffy]

for the 5th sequence, IMO:

 

pass is forcing, hoping for some more clarification

 

double is penalty then

 

3♥ is non forcing.

[hanp]

I now play (2) non-forcing. Even 2H was non-forcing for us. I guess that answers (1) as well. (3) is gameforcing. (4) is also non-forcing. (5i) is non-forcing, (ii) is penalty and (iii) is non-forcing.

(6) I don't know and (7) is gameforcing.

 

This is probably very disturbing to someone from North America. Playing there I would assume:

 

(1) is forcing to suit rebid, (2) is forcing, (3) is gameforcing with fit, (4) is forcing, (5i) is forcing, (ii) is penalty and (iii) is non-forcing. (6) I still don't know and (7) is gameforcing.

[hanp]

I have never seen nor do I ever expect to see, in real life, an auction that proceeds [1♣] x [P] 3♣.

 

If we can make 3♣, we should be defending 1♣ x'd, and if we have any sort of non-club good hand, we start with 2♣.

This is like saying we should never bid 4NT after

 

1m-1M

1N-?

 

Since if we have only game values we should bid 3NT and if we have more than that we can bid 2♦ or whatever checkback we use.

 

What's wrong with assigning a meaning to this low-level sequence?

Agree but I haven't assigned a meaning to it. Something like 5-5 majors and slam interest is possible.

[mikeh]

I have never seen nor do I ever expect to see, in real life, an auction that proceeds [1♣] x [P] 3♣.

 

If we can make 3♣, we should be defending 1♣ x'd, and if we have any sort of non-club good hand, we start with 2♣.

This is like saying we should never bid 4NT after

 

1m-1M

1N-?

 

Since if we have only game values we should bid 3NT and if we have more than that we can bid 2♦ or whatever checkback we use.

 

What's wrong with assigning a meaning to this low-level sequence?

Your analogy is, frankly, silly.

 

1x 1y

1N shows a very tightly limited hand: 4N asks whether it is max or min in a defined context.

 

[1♣] x [P] is a very loosely defined auction already.

 

When one may need bidding space in which to describe one's hand, it is usually not a good idea to design a method that destroys bidding space to describe a hand that is not especially difficult to deal with by more mainstream methods.

 

So, for example, using 3♣ to show 8-10 4-4 in the majors is designing a potentially damaging solution to an infrequent problem.

 

It removes all game tries.

 

It will ensure that we avoid a 4-3 fit at the 2-level but we usually won't be in a 4-3 fit fit at the 2-level anyway....partner will be 3-4 or 4-3 in the majors only some of the time, and we will guess right by bidding a 4 card major half the time anyway. In the meantime, let's hope partner never doubles with 3=3=5=2 or 3=3=4=3, as some posters have advocated with some hands...and of course when doubler is minimum, we may be better off in a 4-3 at the 1 or 2 level than in a 4-4 at the 3 level.

 

So while this meaning would definitely gain on some hands, is it worth the cost?

 

Similar analysis would, I suspect, apply to virtually any meaning given to 3♣.

 

I guess my main concern is that I do not accept that the jump to 3♣ is a 'low-level' call....in the context of a very, very wide range of hands for doubler.

 

Edit: just to argue against myself, it struck me that using the jump as, say, weak 5-5 or better in the majors....say...3-5 hcp...would be playable...this is a hand type that is difficult to describe...not good enough to jump in a major yet good enough that we will be uncomfortable if our 1-level response is passed out.

[gwnn]

it is usually not a good idea to design a method that destroys bidding space to describe a hand that is not especially difficult to deal with by more mainstream methods.

what method exactly are you talking about? Do you think that all possible hands are easy to deal with in mainstream methods? Doubler has 3-4 in each major, 0-3 in the minor he doubled and 2-5 in the unbid minor and 10+hcp (discounting the possibility of a good one suiter or a 19+ balanced hand). Advancer can have a great variety of forcing hands, GF one suited with the other minor/a major, 12ish balanced with interest in one major, two majors, 11 hcp 5332 with a major, 15 hcp 5om+4M, very strong balanced, 7-10 with a 55 hand, etc. These hand-types are not exactly well structured in the preceding list, and I'm sure I forgot a few objectives here, but each hand would like to bid 2♣ in a way (bidding a suit with a jump doesn't seem to do justice to either). Don't you think 2♣ is overloaded?

 

For example in the thread I quoted earlier Frances spoke of this jump as a gameforcing single suiter in an unbid major. Gnasher said he plays it as AK-6th of a minor and asks for partner to think about 3NT.

 

Who would you think is better off? Them, who have this defined, or you, who seem to think that whatever meaning you ascribe to it it will not be especially difficult to deal with. I don't know why you disagree that it's a good idea to agree to this sequence.

[mikeh]

For example in the thread I quoted earlier Frances spoke of this jump as a gameforcing single suiter in an unbid major. Gnasher said he plays it as AK-6th of a minor and asks for partner to think about 3NT.

 

Who would you think is better off? Them, who have this defined, or you, who seem to think that whatever meaning you ascribe to it it will not be especially difficult to deal with. I don't know why you disagree that it's a good idea to agree to this sequence.

 

Where did you see me writing that it was a bad idea to have an agreement?

 

What I wrote was that I have never seen the sequence. That is because I have never had an agreement on what it means, and it has never arisen...some of my opps may indeed have had an agreement but, if so, the need to use it did not arise when I opposed them, or, indeed, in any of the many thousands of hands I have either kibitized or read about.

 

Indeed, I edited my last post to suggest one possible agreement.

 

What I wrote earlier was that one should not use the 3♣ jump cue for a hand that doesn't require consuming an entire level of bidding. Overload the 2♣ cue if you need to...you at least have an extra level in which to sort out hands.

 

I am not surprised to read that Frances and Andy have agreements for the call: my sense is that both of them have spent a lot of time in serious partnerships devising meanings for auctions that very few will have considered.

 

As for their particular meanings, gf in an unbid major: unless it carries more information than that (re suit quality or slam suitability), how is that different from cuebidding and then bidding one's major (or cue bidding again to agree partner's suit if he bids ours? So it is a meaning, but is it one that is needed? Of course, if it does have extra information, then that allows the cue then suit to show a different hand, and that will have uses.

 

As for Andy's, that is, I think, more useful as stated...because a jump to 2♦ wouldn't promise the diamond quality and hence is less likely to find partner considering a notrump call. It is, I suspect, a low frequency usage, but that is actually a factor in its favour...space consuming bids, when not needed for preemptive effect, should be well-defined and show hands that are not readily describable by more mainstream methods.

 

Bear in mind that this treatment probably cannot be usefully extended to other auctions: if they open even 1♦, using the jump cue as non-forcing, inviting 3N means committing to 4♣ when, as will the case more often than not, doubler lacks a stopper in the suit he doubled for takeout.

 

Note also, that the usages proposed by Frances and Andy are ones that they have specifically agreed upon...I don't see anyone asserting that they think that there is ANY meaning that a random, but expert, partner would think was 'standard' or anything other than idiosyncratic.

[gwnn]

Fair enough. I thought the kfay was asking about how everyone plays it and you thought he was asking about standard.