tell me your bid

[patroclo]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt85h86dqt5caq84&w=sj96hq5dakj742c97&n=saq2hakj3dckt6532&e=s743ht9742d9863cj&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1ddp]399|300[/hv]

[ahydra]

2NT (NAT 11-13)

 

ahydra

[helene_t]

IT is a style issue whether South has a 2♠ bid or a 2♦ bid followed by a correction of 2♥ to 2♠, but as a passed hand 2♦ can't be wrong.

[Cascade]

2NT (NAT 11-13)

 

ahydra

 

2nt doesn't seem sound with one stopper and a four card major opposite a takeout double.

[billw55]

2♠ for me. I would worry that partner would take 2♦ as both majors.

 

As for 2NT, I may not have a diamond stopper at all.

[Endymion77]

2♠. 2♦ might create unnecessary confusion and I hate 2NT.

[Cyberyeti]

I didn't have this problem, I opened the south hand, but 2♠.

[ahydra]

One would surely have ways to find majors after 2NT (e.g. Stayman), right? I don't like 2S, prefer a 5-card suit if I'm going to eat loads of room.

 

My second choice would be 2D.

 

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

Absend any special agreement, it is either 2S or 3S, I tend to bid 3S.

If 2D does not promise both majors, just 2 places to play, it is certainly better than pure spade bids.

 

One thing for sure: I am not hiding the 4 card spade suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hrothgar]

2♠ for me as well

[MrAce]

2♦, and it never promise both majors. There are simply too many hands that has to start with cue. Sparing the cue only for both majors is unplayable imo.

 

Not sure if it was Andy (Gnasher) or Fred made a topic about cue bid as response to take out doubles and what they think it would show and what the subsequent bids will show. I just could not find it. It was a very good topic.

 

If the fuss about 2♦ was not about both majors but evaluation of the hand, and downgrading the full value of QTx (which is a common mistake imo) this hand is still the max as much as it can be. W/o diamonds we have 9 solid hcps, all in our long suits and we have 2 suits to offer as a previously passed hand.(i don't like the first pass anyway). Pd may even have a strong hand and off shape t/o dbl where our QTx ♦ may turn out to be a great aspect.

 

It is ok to be conservative and not open this hand where you do not have 1 single wasted hcp. Being too timid at our 2nd call is just too much.

[Zelandakh]

Not sure if it was Andy (Gnasher) or Fred made a topic about cue bid as response to take out doubles and what they think it would show and what the subsequent bids will show. I just could not find it. It was a very good topic.

It was fred and indeed an excellent topic highlighting that there are several playable styles which in turn have knock-on effects for the later auction.

 

Edit: I found the thread.

[mikeh]

I didn't look for Fred's thread, but the notion that this is a 2♦ response seems solidly standard to me, and indeed is (I think) Bridge World Standard.

 

For those who think the cue shows both majors, let me ask you how you make a forcing advance of the double? Make it AQJx Kx Q10x Axxx? Yes, I know that in the OP, S is a passed hand, but I doubt that many would change the meaning of the cue based solely on that factor.

 

For those who think that we can bid notrump and then partner uses stayman, that is (to me, and I have played for more than 40 years) weird. If one doubles and then bids clubs, one is showing......clubs!

 

BWS is to play the cuebid as forcing until a suit has been bid and raised, or game is reached (again, if memory serves...I don't think a cue followed by 2N is passable).

 

So here the interesting question for me isn't S's call: he has an automatic 2♦. It is what N ought to do.

 

It is tempting for him to show hearts, since it is so cheap. Now S bids 2♠, and N bids 3♣ and S has a bit of a dilemma, since N sounds as if he is 3=4=2=4, and now 3N is in the picture, despite or even because of the club fit, and 3N would be a disaster on this hand, even tho surely cold.

 

I think N should forgo the temptation to bid hearts and show his longest suit via 3♣. That should get S excited. Even if all he does is raise to 4♣, N will drive to slam and the only issue is small or grand.

[Zelandakh]

I think N should forgo the temptation to bid hearts and show his longest suit via 3♣.

I play this 3♣ call as showing the hand too strong for a 2♣ overcall (double and bid). Is that the same for you too Mike? Presumably doubling style is relevant here.

[kenrexford]

This is nearly a difficult problem to resolve for some of us, IMO.

 

For me, for instance, the South hand is a clear opening hand. The 11-count is made up of completely working values. The shape is the more promising 4-4-3-2 (better than 4-3-3-3). There are two working 10's in tenaces. There also is body (working 9's or 8's). You have no rebid problems (holding balanced with four spades). Thus, this clearly qualifies, for me, as a minor opening hand.

 

The relevance to this is that calls after passing take on definition from expected strength. This applies both to the person making the double and to Advancer. For, the systemic approach should assume practical maximums, on both sides of the table. In easier terms, I cannot systemically show this hand as a passed hand because I would never pass this hand.

 

Because of this, my own systemic thinking is that 1NT handles any balanced hands that would not open and that the cuebid is designed purely to find the best major fit with 4-4 and not for other purposes, unless something weird happens.

 

What, then, would other bids show?

 

2NT, for instance, would not be a balanced hand that is strong enough to open, as that makes no sense. Anything lighter and balanced would be right for a simple 1NT. So, 2NT makes no sense as balanced. Instead, this should be (IMO) an anticipatory fit-jump, showing essentially a hand good for a three-level raise in the other minor, with a stopper. Hence, this might look like KQ-sixth in clubs with the diamond Ace as the perfecto holding. The bid would be designed to catch partner with the missing club honor and quicks. Maybe ♠xx ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣KQxxxx opposite ♠Axxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣Axxx, for a 21-point 3NT. Thus, 2NT is not an option for me, because the definition must make contextual sense.

 

Well, what about the option of the cuebid, followed by either a raise of 2♠ to 3♠ or a conversion of 2♥ to 2♠? In the former (the raise), that might work. We would have an assured 8-fit in spades (hopefully). Although partner would expect a different hand type, the general strength expectation would be right. I would just have more HCP strength and less distribution than expected. However, this would be dangerous if partner can double with relative weakness opposite a passed hand (which would be alleviated by playing R.U.N.T., but that is a different topic). The conversion, however, sounds more like a strongish 4-5, which also might be OK if I am willing to scramble at potentially too high a level.

 

So, I suppose if I miscounted my hand, I would start with the cuebid.

 

 

 

 

 

[mikeh]

I play this 3♣ call as showing the hand too strong for a 2♣ overcall (double and bid). Is that the same for you too Mike? Presumably doubling style is relevant here.

Style is definitely important.

 

Would we double with, say, AQx AJx xx Kxxxx?

 

I'd be very reluctant to overcall on Kxxxx. I'd be very reluctant to pass with 14 hcp, support for the unbid suits, and shortness in diamonds. So I think I'd be stuck with an uncomfortable but clear double.

 

Then partner impales me further on my self-selected hook by cue-bidding. Unless I decide that I am now bidding a 3 card major, and I really....really....don't like that idea, I am endplayed into bidding 3♣.

 

If you are in agreement, reluctantly or otherwise, to this point, then it seems clear that one cannot play the 3♣ bid as showing a hand too good to overcall. I don't see that as an issue, btw. If we are fortunate enough to have such a hand (which for me would be at a minimum a good 6 card suit and a prime 16) and our partner cuebid, we are probably going to be able to handle the subsequent auction. Partner, here, is a passed hand, so we aren't going to want to overbid if it becomes clear that we lack a good fit, while if we have a fit, our hand would be worth a move beyond game, since we'd be at least a trick stronger than partner was assuming when he got us to that game.

[phil_20686]

I didn't look for Fred's thread, but the notion that this is a 2♦ response seems solidly standard to me, and indeed is (I think) Bridge World Standard.

 

With only four spades and QTx under the bidder, and no real shape I would not bid 2D here, it seems like a solid middle of the road 2S bid.

 

I mean I use 2D exactly as you suggest, I just don't think this hand is beyond the top of a 2S bid. Give me a fifth spade, or move the diamond Q to spades, and then its a 2D bid.

[gszes]

Don't show all 4 hands unless necessary to the problem (rare) best would be to show only

 

the hand needed to make a bid. It is "difficult" to bid the right way when it is clearly wrong

 

in a particular situation. (just a thought):)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

 

 

 

2s

 

 

Nice simple 8-10 and 4 spades is all I promise ---dia QTx is sort of speculative as

 

a NT stopper (or even as to any value) and spades is a lot closer to where I live. If p has enough stuff to

 

go further we can then introduce NT (if necessary) and at least p will get the idea we are not dia rich:)

 

 

 

 

Prefer 2n to be something similar to Kxx Kxx KQT xxxx or some and would strongly consider

 

bidding 2n with such a hand even with a 4 card major (especially a ratty one).

 

 

 

 

 

[the hog]

2S. The only reason to bid 2D is if you think the hand is a bit strong for 2S. With the unguarded Q of Ds I don't think it is.

[aguahombre]

Style is definitely important.

 

Would we double with, say, AQx AJx xx Kxxxx?

 

I'd be very reluctant to overcall on Kxxxx. I'd be very reluctant to pass with 14 hcp, support for the unbid suits, and shortness in diamonds. So I think I'd be stuck with an uncomfortable but clear double.

 

Then partner impales me further on my self-selected hook by cue-bidding. Unless I decide that I am now bidding a 3 card major, and I really....really....don't like that idea, I am endplayed into bidding 3♣.

Yes. But this, combined with your previous thread, leads me to:

 

(1D) X (P) 2D (not guarnteeing both majors, but definitely constructive)

(P) 2H (P) 3C (not 2S. the implication of 2 places to play is already out there.)

 

Now, it seems we would be off to the races with the actual two hands in the OP.

 

So, a big yesssss to the 2D cuebid here --that does not mean I wouldn't jump advance to 2S on some hands with only 4 pieces...just not this one.

[rmnka447]

Put me in the 2 ♦ cue bid camp. Since the hand has already passed, it's important to convey to partner that you hold as good a hand as you can hold given the auction so far. It may useful information for partner to have both in terms of moving forward toward game or potentially doubling later in the auction.

 

The hand is right on the cusp of being an opening bid. You have 2 QTs and a potential stopper/trick in opener's ♦ suit. If you simply bid 2 ♠, I don't think doubler will ever be able to envision you holding that much. So you may miss out on game opposite some nice 13/14 counts when partner just can't move for fear of your having an 8 or 9 count.

[kenberg]

To the question what would I bid, I am sure I would bid 2♠. Which is not the same as saying I am sure that is right. If I held the North hand and partner, bid 2♠, I hope I would bid 3♦. The logic would be something like this:

 

North's double: Please tell me about a major if you have one

 

South's 2♠: I have spades and a decent hand

 

North's 3♦ over the 2♠: We are going to game, I am still not sure about strain.

 

My thoughts are that the first double indicates that North is prepared for any likely response and then the 3♦ suggests that South continue on is spades if he has five but at least consider another strain if he does not.

 

I realize the hand makes 7♣ and for that matter as the cards lie makes 7♠ (not a contract I would like to be in). I doubt I get to 7♣ but I would not be surprised to find myself in 6 with this approach.

 

I read the forum to learn, and I am more than willing to consider the arguments in favor of South starting with 2♦. I recall an old comment by Terrence Reese however: Bridge is easier if the players bid the suits that they have instead of the suits that they don't have.

 

As long as partner and I are on the same page that the double shows support for the majors but not always 4-4 and the jump to 2♠ shows a good hand with spades but not always five, I think we land on our feet here. I'm just not good enough to get to the grand after they open, whatever my syste, but I think I get to 6.

[helene_t]

By an unpassed hand, playing standard methods, I believe 2♠ would be weaker than 2♦ followed by 2♠, but some play both as showing about 8-11 points, the difference being that the slow route is a hand like this one while the fast route shows a less flexible hand, i.e. almost always longer spades. So when I said it was a "style issue" I didn't mean whether you evaluate the hand as a light or a heavy invite, but whether you want the 2♠ bid to suggest a 5-card suit or not. As a passed hand I think that both should show up to a max passed hand, so the difference should be about hand type, not about strength.

 

Now I hope this clarification doesn't cause anyone to regret having upvoted my previous post :)

[Zelandakh]

Now I hope this clarification doesn't cause anyone to regret having upvoted my previous post :)

I understood what you mean the first time perfectly. :)

[kenberg]

"Style" covers a lot of ground. Here on the I/A forum I expect that there are others who, like myself, value simplicity. For example, not having my 2♠ mean one thing if I am a passed hand, something else if I am not, does not simplify things. Simply as a factual matter I cannot recall that I ever discussed this distinction with any partner that I have ever had. It follows that even if I treat the two situations as different (and I acknowledge that they are), my partner may well not be aware of my views on this.

 

I try really hard to never make a take-oiy double when I have only two cards in one of the majors unless I am quite confident I can control the subsequent auction. Similarly, I am reluctant to respond 2♦ here when I have only two hearts. For all I know my lho will bid 3♦ over my 2♦. We are now at the three level and partner has no idea that if he has Kxx of spades, four hearts, and a 14 count, I might well have a play for 3♠ but any number of hearts is hopeless. Maybe we can sort it out, maybe we can't, but I like my chances better if I start with 2♠.

 

No doubt I would reconsider my call with an 11 count and a spade suit such as Qxxx. If partner has a 13 count and a 3=4=2=4 shape I may not enjoy playing in spades. But with my current four card holding I may be able to manage, at least if the spade holding is Kxx. So, for me, 2♠ says that I think I can probably make eight tricks with spades as trump. Far more often than not, I believe that this will be true with my 11 count and strong four card spade holding. When he has extras, we can sort it out on our way to game.

 

 

I don't intend this to hijack the current interesting discussion of the proper response to the double. But I have long thought that style issues should begin with "style for whom?" Meckwell, playing together at the highest levels for thirty some years, probably encounter few auctions that they have not discussed. We who play at a different level have the experience quite often, and bidding spades to show spades can work well.