How strong is your nt?

[jfaria]

LHO opens 1♦, partner x, after a pass from RHO u got

 

♠Qxx

♥xxx

♦KTxx

♣xxx

 

Supose u decide to bid one of the 3 card majors (opinions split about which) and p cues with 2 ♦

What now? Strong enough to bid 2nt? Or decide to repeat the same first round major?

On general ground, what do you think to be the minimum to bid 2nt?

[chasetb]

1.) I would bid 1♥, mainly because I prefer 1♠ to be 4 almost always, and I want 5+ Clubs for 2♣.

 

2.) I would bid 2♥, on the grounds that it doesn't show anything more than it did before. 2NT isn't a bad idea, but my partners at least wouldn't get the idea of it being this weak.

 

3.) I think 2NT here shows roughly 5-7 HCP and at least a stopper in their suit, and this hand qualifies.

[whereagles]

Dbl + cue shows a very strong hand. I think 5-7 is good enough for 3NT, not 2 :) 2NT should be.. I dunno 3-4 H?

 

Note that this isn't the same as

 

(1♦) dbl (pass) 1♥

(pass) 2♣

 

where 2NT now would be 5-7 H.

[MrAce]

Nuno for president!

[gszes]

1d x p 1h

p 2d p ?

 

Qxx xxx KTxx xxx

 

The cutoff point, under these conditions (and many similar), should

be an ace or greater (at worst a KJ in the same suit) in order to

be considered near the top or extra length/suit quality)

 

2h less than an ace and promises no extra length

 

2s less than an ace but at least 45 in the majors

 

2n a stopper less than an ace and hate having to rebid first suit this means

xxx xxx JTxx xxx would prefer 2n to 2h while xxx xxxx JTxx xx would prefer 2h

since you are really weak and have at least 4 hearts.

 

3c less than an ace but at least 54 in hearts and clubs

 

3d at least an ace no stopper and no suit to rebid Kxx xxx xxxx Kxx for ex (see 4d)

 

3h at least an ace at least 4 hearts and no stop*

 

3s at least an ace at least 4 spades and 5+ hearts

 

3n at least an ace at least 1 dia stop and no special distribution*

 

4c at least an ace at least 54 in hearts and clubs

 

4d at least an ace no stopper and some form of 4414

 

4h at least an ace (or compensating length at least 5 hearts)

 

*there are gray areas here when we have "stuff" in the opening bidders

suit and each partnership must decide how they want the situation

handled for ex xx xxxxx KQxx xx would your partnership prefer (at the ?)

a 3h bid or a 3n bid I would lean toward 3n merely because I prefer my p

to know most of my stuff is located in the opps suit but not all would agree.

 

using the above system the problem hand would bid 3n

[dake50]

The D10 with K-4th stop(s) persuades me to 3NT.

[PhantomSac]

Surely partner is well within his rights to cuebid with an 18 count? Or a 4315 17 count. And I don't know what you guys would do with a 4324 17 count but cuebidding seems like the only option so that's what most people seem to do (the other alternative is 2H I guess which has it's own drawbacks, I'd rather just be 1 point light for the cuebid than make the same bid I'd make with a 4414 15 count which is a totally different hand type).

 

2N seems just right here. It's not like 2N is not constructive, with nothing we would bid 2H. I would say the point ranges are something like 0-4 2H, 5-6 2N, and 7-9 3N. Ofc if you had a good 4 count or a hand with only 3 hearts you might bid 2N.

[rhm]

Surely partner is well within his rights to cuebid with an 18 count? Or a 4315 17 count. And I don't know what you guys would do with a 4324 17 count but cuebidding seems like the only option so that's what most people seem to do (the other alternative is 2H I guess which has it's own drawbacks, I'd rather just be 1 point light for the cuebid than make the same bid I'd make with a 4414 15 count which is a totally different hand type).

 

2N seems just right here. It's not like 2N is not constructive, with nothing we would bid 2H. I would say the point ranges are something like 0-4 2H, 5-6 2N, and 7-9 3N. Ofc if you had a good 4 count or a hand with only 3 hearts you might bid 2N.

In the old days an immediate cuebid said I have game in hand, that is a hand, which would open 2♣. With Michaels the modern equivalent is a takeout double followed by a cuebid.

Why is partner within his right to cuebid with an 18 count or a 17 count holding 4315 or 4324?

Partner did not jump so might have no good suit nor values. He might well have a yarborough when you are strong and an opponent has opened the bidding.

You have neither a fit nor enough values and you force to game?

 

With 4315 and an 18 count you might be just barely good enough to bid a non forcing 2♣ over 1♥.

With the remainder simply pass 1♥. If that is unbearable to you rebid 1♠. At least you keep the bidding low and non forcing.

 

It is the mark of a weak player that he overbids with strong hands and underbids with weak ones. His imagination is underdeveloped.

The point is that strong but not super-strong hands loose a lot of their strength if dummy is worthless and the key are often the meager values the weak hand holds or does not hold.

If you can not jump to 3NT over a cuebid with a hand just below an initial 1NT response to an initial takeout double the whole structure gets unplayable.

2NT in reply to a 2♦ cuebid might be bid with ♠xxx ♥xxx ♦JTxxx ♣xx

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Rainer, 2♦ isn't game-forcing. It doesn't even promise another bid.

[whereagles]

that depends on your agreements.. I don't think there is a standard here

[rhm]

Rainer, 2♦ isn't game-forcing. It doesn't even promise another bid.

So you rebid a 3 card suit in response to 2♦?

I am aware that 2♦ just might be a 19 count with three card support.

In my view lowering the requirements any further is dangerous

I at least want my partners to be able to bid 2NT with a diamond (half)stop and out. ♦Qx would be fine.

What is the lower limit in your opinion of 2♦ and how do you differentiate? I would be interested hearing your agreements for follow-ups after a cue bid.

 

The only responses I would consider passable after a 2♦ bid are 2NT and rebid of the same suit by partner and partner can only pass a simple preference to his first suit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

So you rebid a 3 card suit in response to 2♦?

Yes, if that's what you were dealt and you haven't agreed any artificial methods for this auction. Rebidding the suit doesn't show any extra length, it just says you don't have anything else to say. Obviously rebidding a 3-card suit is awful, but it's also rare.

 

I am aware that 2♦ just might be a 19 count with three card support.

In my view lowering the requirements any further is dangerous

I at least want my partners to be able to bid 2NT with a diamond (half)stop and out. ♦Qx would be fine.

What is the lower limit in your opinion of 2♦ and how do you differentiate?

 

If it's balanced and can't bid notrumps, about the same as what Justin said. I wouldn't want to pass 1♥ with a 4324 17-count, and I'd like 1♠ to promise five of them.

 

I agree with you that 2♣ ought to show something like a good 4315, but the world hasn't yet learned the merits of this approach.

 

I would be interested hearing your agreements for follow-ups after a cue bid.

I think the answer is to play an artificial negative after the cue-bid. That ought to be step one. I've never played that though, and I haven't thought about how the continuations would work.

 

In practice people do play a negative, but it's a "natural" negative. Rebidding advancer's suit shows a bad hand, and anything else shows values.

 

The only responses I would consider passable after a 2♦ bid are 2NT and rebid of the same suit by partner and partner can only pass a simple preference to his first suit.

Yes, that seems right.

[cherdano]

It is the mark of a weak player that he overbids with strong hands and underbids with weak ones. His imagination is underdeveloped.

rhm implying that PhantomSac is a weak player might be one of my favourite forum exchanges.

(I am not even sure he meant to imply it - maybe rhm is just incapable of writing a complete post wihtout adding a few sentences that would be taken and meant as condescending in a conversation between normal human beings.)

[Bbradley62]

Out of curiosity... does no one consider bidding 1N in response to the double, or was that simply not what was being asked?

[PhantomSac]

Out of curiosity... does no one consider bidding 1N in response to the double, or was that simply not what was being asked?

 

1N ideally shows a stronger hand. I think the range just gets wider depending on what suit was opened, 1S X p 1N has the widest range and 1C X p 1N has the most narrow range. This hand is def not good enough to bid 1N directly, you would want at least 7 points. If you can bid 1N on any hand from 5 to 11 points, it is too wide. Even if you have to jump to 2N with 11, 5-10 is a pretty unmanageable range that you want to avoid.

[aguahombre]

Out of curiosity... does no one consider bidding 1N in response to the double, or was that simply not what was being asked?

Maybe someone would; I prefer a 1NT advance of a t/o double to show about 7-10 and would not expect an expert partner to have less. He might, but if so he wanted someone at the table to think he had 7-10.

[PhantomSac]

 

I agree with you that 2♣ ought to show something like a good 4315, but the world hasn't yet learned the merits of this approach.

 

 

 

What is the idea here, if you have a 1 suiter you have to be strong enough to bid 3C? What about a shape like 4216 (or is that close enough to 4315?). I think cuebidding is fine with this shape, you miss out on playing in 2C but playing in a 4-3 heart fit at the 2 level with a strong hand is usually fine (insert rainer comment about a 3-3 heart fit not being fine!). I want to be able to double with 1 suited in clubs or with 4S + C and play in 2C without partner bidding on with a stiff personally.

 

Rainer, how do you go from this:

 

In the old days an immediate cuebid said I have game in hand, that is a hand, which would open 2♣. With Michaels the modern equivalent is a takeout double followed by a cuebid.

Why is partner within his right to cuebid with an 18 count or a 17 count holding 4315 or 4324?

Partner did not jump so might have no good suit nor values. He might well have a yarborough when you are strong and an opponent has opened the bidding.

You have neither a fit nor enough values and you force to game?

 

to this:

 

I am aware that 2♦ just might be a 19 count with three card support...The only responses I would consider passable after a 2♦ bid are 2NT and rebid of the same suit by partner and partner can only pass a simple preference to his first suit.

 

in one post?

 

The first quote is ridiculous, the 2nd thing you said directly condradicts that and is (almost) what everyone else plays. I agree that rebidding your suit and bidding 2N are non forcing and others are forcing. I agree that if you bid a new suit and partner preferences to your first suit that is non forcing (obviously not possible in this auction but 1C X p 1H p 2C p 2D p 2H for instance). That is a far cry from the cuebid showing GAME IN HAND. You have arbitrarily decided 19 points is the cutoff for hands that are not GAME IN HAND, why? You cannot pass 1H with 18 points as you have suggested, you could easily be missing a game. Since you have no agreed that Xing and cuebidding does not promise GAME IN HAND, it is fine to do that when you have a hand that might still have game but has no other bid, that is the normal meaning of the cuebid even though partner might have a yarborough! You are not forcing to game, you are forcing to the 2 level. Bidding 1S on a 4 card suit or 1N with no stopper because you have arbitrarily made the cutoff 19 points instead of 18 points does not seem like a very good method, and it is definitely not normal.

 

You are very perturbed by the possibility of having to rebid a 3 card suit. You are the guy who says hands that have a stiff major over 1N and 1 or both minors and a GF hand almost never comes up. Well this is a scenario that rarely comes up also. What is your suggested solution, you want to be able to bid 2N over the cuebid with a 1 count to solve this problem? But how have you solved it? Now you make your 2N range extremely wide and partner has to guess whether to bid game or not when he does not have the GAME IN HAND hand type (btw if he has the game in hand hand type, he will bid again over 2M and you can then show your stopper so it is irrelevant). And you have to bid 3N with a lot of hands since 2N does not show anything. The rest of the world just rebids 2M and takes their lumps so that 2N can be constructive and partner will not have to guess whether to bid game or not. This is a perfectly sound/fine way to play the vast majority of the time when you have a FOUR card suit (I would rather play 2M in a 4-3 than 2N anyways, even if 2N didn't promise anything).

 

If you can not jump to 3NT over a cuebid with a hand just below an initial 1NT response to an initial takeout double the whole structure gets unplayable.

 

You are being blinded by having only 3 hearts in your hand. There is overlap in a hand that had the strength to bid 1N originally but has a four card major (and thus responded the major). Those are the hands that want to bid 3N. I would say if you have no bid for a 17 or 18 count that has doubled and it has to pass, that is unplayable. Yes, partner might have zero points but they also might have 7 or 8 or maybe 9 points. They might also have less points and more shape that provides a game.

[gnasher]

What is the idea here, if you have a 1 suiter you have to be strong enough to bid 3C? What about a shape like 4216 (or is that close enough to 4315?). I think cuebidding is fine with this shape, you miss out on playing in 2C but playing in a 4-3 heart fit at the 2 level with a strong hand is usually fine (insert rainer comment about a 3-3 heart fit not being fine!). I want to be able to double with 1 suited in clubs or with 4S + C and play in 2C without partner bidding on with a stiff personally.

 

Almost everyone plays double-and-bid as "flexible" at the three-, four- and five-levels. We do that because:

- The flexible hands are more common and more important to show.

- Including the flexible hands in double-and-cuebid means overloads the cue-bid and means we never get to describe the flexible hand properly.

- The one-suiters can usually find another bid, albeit an imperfect one.

 

What's different about the two-level?

 

A 4315 17-count is more common than a one-suiter that was too strong to overcall. The 4315 has three interesting features to show - the secondary hearts, the club suit, and the spade suit. Any of these could be the key to whether to bid game or not, and to the decision about which game to bid. The one-suiter has one interesting feature to show.

 

In standard methods, with the 4315 presumably you cue-bid and pass 2♥ or 2NT, so you never get to show your clubs. Or you cue-bid and partner jumps to show extras, and your clubs are still lost. All this so that you can play in 2♣ rather than 3♣ when you have a one-suiter that will often produce nine tricks anyway?

 

As for which hands are included, I think it should be anything that looked like a strong takeout double at the start of the auction, so 4315, 4225, 3325, 4216 and 3316 might all be included, depending on the honour location.

[PhilKing]

OK, from my shiny new database, here is a quick quiz on this area. All auctions start 1♦-X-Pass-1♥-Pass. Vulnerability was never particularly relevant, but include variable answers if you want.

 

1. 1♦= Strong Club 4CM.

♠A975 ♥K94 ♦3 ♣AKQJ4

 

2. 1♦= nat

♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ

 

3. 1♦= nat

♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82

 

4. 1♦= Precision

♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2

 

5. 1♦= Precision

♠K42 ♥AKQ75 ♦A63 ♣Q5

 

6. 1♦= Precision

♠AQ3 ♥AK2 ♦A63 ♣KQ64

 

7. 1♦= Precision

♠QT2 ♥AKJ7 ♦K8 ♣AJT5

 

8. 1♦= Nat

♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753

 

You cue 2♦ and pard bids 2♥, what now?

 

9. 1♦= Nat

♠AJ75 ♥KJ4 ♦J8 ♣AQJ2

 

Some of you should remember one or two of these hands. Full hands will appear in due course!

[PhantomSac]

OK, from my shiny new database, here is a quick quiz on this area. All auctions start 1♦-X-Pass-1♥-Pass. Vulnerability was never particularly relevant, but include variable answers if you want.

 

1. 1♦= Strong Club 4CM.

♠A975 ♥K94 ♦3 ♣AKQJ4

 

2. 1♦= nat

♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ

 

3. 1♦= nat

♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82

 

4. 1♦= Precision

♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2

 

5. 1♦= Precision

♠K42 ♥AKQ75 ♦A63 ♣Q5

 

6. 1♦= Precision

♠AQ3 ♥AK2 ♦A63 ♣KQ64

 

7. 1♦= Precision

♠QT2 ♥AKJ7 ♦K8 ♣AJT5

 

8. 1♦= Nat

♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753

 

9. 1♦= Nat

♠AJ75 ♥KJ4 ♦J8 ♣AQJ2

 

Some of you should remember one or two of these hands. Full hands will appear in due course!

 

9 and 4 look quite tough, hand 9 is so bad having 4 jacks that it just seems too light for a cuebid, and I don't want Rainer to say I have no bidding judgement ;) Maybe a compromise with 2H is in order (I'm still not passing, sry). But maybe not, no idea. Hands like hand 4 always confuse me, it is so prime and the finesses rate to be on that I feel like we don't need that much for game, it's a much stronger hand than say hand 7 where I would bid 3H. But how high can we really force it? And there is some chance we belong in spades if partner 3 hearts. Not sure.

 

2/5/7 look like easy 3H bids.

 

8 seems like an easy 2D bid.

 

1 I would bid 2C despite earlier discussion regarding 4315 typically bidding 2D, with 5 solid clubs I am not worried about partner passing me with a stiff, it might be bad but it should at least be ok. I expect 2C to more often than not be the best partial if partner passes, and if we have a game partner will keep bidding.

 

3, meh I wish they played precision on this one since then it's an easy 1N, but I'd still bid 1N here just, feels right.

 

6, I am happy they play precision and I will make the value bid of 2N. IMO vs precision if you X and bid 2N they will often try some lead other than a diamond.

[PhantomSac]

BTW, on 6 do we agree that 2D then 2N is NF and not showing a bigger hand than a direct 2N, but just showing a flexible hand in case partner wants to pull it? That is probably the correct technical way to bid but I hate doing that against a precision 1D lol, one of the biggest downsides of precision diamond is when your partner is on lead... if the opps have made it sound like they have good diamonds you will rarely lead one.

[PhilKing]

8 seems like an easy 2D bid.

 

I have modified the quiz to include a follow-up on number eight.

[Zelandakh]

I think the answer is to play an artificial negative after the cue-bid. That ought to be step one. I've never played that though, and I haven't thought about how the continuations would work.

Back as a kid, before I had ever met a person to play bridge with, this is precisely the system I came up with in the absence of a teacher or detailed agreements in the books I had. It is another thing that I abandoned when meeting a real partner.

 

On Phil's hands, I expected to see a few votes for 2♣ rather than double over 1♦ given that BBFers generally play the top of 2 level overcalls stronger than average. Seems clear to continue 2♣ having doubled though.

 

#4 seems to have a direct bearing on what we are doing on this hand. If we agree that we always respond to a takeout double with the higher of equal suits (so 1♠ in the OP hand) then we can just forget about the spades. If not then it feels to me that we should introduce them - does anyone play 3♠ here as a fit jump? I guess we are not strong enough even if we do but (to me) interesting anyway.

 

#8 looks to be a corollary to Justin's question in post #21. Is it reasonable for this sequence to show a good 3 card raise and deny a stop? Maybe that is what is meant by a flexible hand here.

 

Finally, am going out on a limb on #9 and passing when not vulnerable instead of just agreeing with Justin. Game is worth chasing vulnerable but not vulnerable it feels better to stay low.

 

I do not have a lot to add for the others hands - interested to see if any posters have alternative suggestions on any of them. If any of the hands produce a lot of discussion we could perhaps split it out into a new thread so as not to swamp the rest.

[gszes]

YAY a QUIZ that will help players decide if they ever want to play with that person as a

partner (is this a pathway to bbo rating?:))))))))))))

 

1. 2c

2. 3h

3. 1n

4. 1s

5. 2h

6. 2d

7. 2h

8. 3c

9 I would have passed 1h and would also pass 2h (after my 2d cue bid).

 

It will be interesting to see the hands facing us since there might even be a

series of strong objections to a simple 1h rebid:)))

[PhilKing]

Quiz answers:

 

1. 1♦= Strong Club 4CM.

♠A975 ♥K94 ♦3 ♣AKQJ4

 

Partner holds: ♠QJ4 ♥87632 ♦QT75 ♣8

 

If you bid bid 2♣(as did Nickell), partner rebids 2♥, which you pass for +140. If you bid 2♦ (as did Katz) partner jumps to 3♥, rightly or wrongly, which you raise to Four - two off.

 

2. 1♦= nat

♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ

 

Partner holds: ♠JT2 ♥953 ♦Q92 ♣8632

 

Grue did not pick a good moment to raise to 4♥ - down four. Partner will obviously pass 3♥ and rebid 2♥ over 2♦ (which is the correct technical auction imo).

 

3. 1♦= nat

♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82

 

Partner holds: ♠743 ♥K862 ♦Q43 ♣973

 

Stark bid 2♦, and partner contented himself with a conservative 2♥, which went one down. 1NT is the winning choice, and with no impletion pard should let that go. Seven tricks are the limit as the cards lie.

 

4. 1♦= Precision

♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2

 

Partner holds: ♠J ♥765 ♦KQ7654 ♣JT3

 

Palau sniffed out a winning sequence here - he bid 1♠, and over 1NT from partner, bid, 2♥. It continued 2NT-3♥-3NT, which made when diamonds broke.

 

In principle, partner is unlikely to hold three hearts, but the opponents lack of bidding indicates the odds are somewhat higher. Also, the stronger we are, the more likely partner is to introduce a three-bagger.

 

5. 1♦= Precision

♠K42 ♥AKQ75 ♦A63 ♣Q5

 

Partner holds: ♠J86 ♥JT32 ♦J2 ♣9742

 

Fantoni bid 2♦ and passed 2♥. Drijver jumped to 3♥. Eight tricks were the limit, so cue and pass (or raise to 2♥) wins again.

 

6. 1♦= Precision

♠AQ3 ♥AK2 ♦A63 ♣KQ64

 

Partner holds: ♠7652 ♥QJ94 ♦9 ♣T532

 

Welland cued 2♦ and jumped to 3NT over 2♠ - presumably he took this as a positive move. Partner's 1♥ bid looks like an error - if he responds 1♠, we might use Justin's flexi sequence to reach a pretty spot (and Welland could still have use that route as it went) - 1♠-2♦-2♥-2NT-3♣-5♣! It fails on the lie, but that's life.

 

7. 1♦= Precision

♠QT2 ♥AKJ7 ♦K8 ♣AJT5

 

Partner holds: ♠A43 ♥9632 ♦JT976 ♣2

 

Most roads lead to 4♥ here. Martel chose the straightforward 3♥ raise. If you cue 2♦, partner would probably bid 3♦ - natural.

 

8. 1♦= Nat

♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753

 

You cue 2♦ and pard bids 2♥, what now?

 

Partner holds: ♠98 ♥QJT43 ♦J65 ♣T92

 

You have follow through with 3♣ now - partner will probably bid 3♦ and you can now give delayed heart support. Demirev simply raised 2♥ to 3♥, which we can see from other hands could easily be a 3-3 fit. Anyway, all roads lead to 4♥.

 

9. 1♦= Nat

♠AJ75 ♥KJ4 ♦J8 ♣AQJ2

 

Partner holds: ♠T64 ♥632 ♦T762 ♣K93

 

As has been pointed out, the hand is a bit weaker than it's point count. Alex Gipson bid 2♦ and reached 2♥ - two off on a sightly inaccurate defence. This would be a good hand for the Rainer Herrmann flexible 1♠ over 1♥.