Once again

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=sakj32hk6djt94cj3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2c(gf%20clubs%20or%20balanced)p2dp2s(3card spade, gf)p]133|200[/hv]

As noted in the auction, 2♣ is game forcing, clubs or balanced.

2♠ promises 3 card spade support.

[Winstonm]

2nt

[mikeh]

I really don't like my hand but bidding a sign-off 4S will work poorly when he thinks my red suit stuff is in diamonds. So I’ll reluctantly bid 2N to await developments

[TylerE]

4♠. I don't want to encourage. This hand is the definition of a minimum.

[smerriman]

It may be the definition of a minimum, but to me 4♠ is a minimum with no values outside of spades and diamonds. So clear 2NT.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq94ha75daqcat842&n=sakj32hk6djt94cj3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2c(gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p2dp2sp2np]266|200[/hv]

 

Over 2nt I assume that I cue 3♣?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq94ha75daqcat842&n=sakj32hk6djt94cj3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2c(gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p2dp2sp2np]266|200[/hv]

 

Over 2nt I assume that I cue 3♣?

 

Presumably all you've said is that you have 3 spades, you could have anywhere between 2 (if 3442) and 7 clubs at this point. Isn't 3♣ more useful to show you have real clubs than as a cue ? so partner can judge the worth of his club holding.

[Winstonm]

You have a nice 16 but partner holds a balanced 12-14, not enough to power into slam. Because both hands are balanced, the trick-taking potential is dependent on the club suit. That is why 3 clubs should be suit-showing rather than a simple cue.

 

This hand would require KQ of clubs in partner’s hand - too much to ask for - so personally I would raise to 3nt and forget about slam unless partner follows with 4nt showing 18-19

[Cyberyeti]

You have a nice 16 but partner holds a balanced 12-14, not enough to power into slam. Because both hands are balanced, the trick-taking potential is dependent on the club suit. That is why 3 clubs should be suit-showing rather than a simple cue.

 

This hand would require KQ of clubs in partner’s hand - too much to ask for - so personally I would raise to 3nt and forget about slam unless partner follows with 4nt showing 18-19

 

Doesn't require that much, isn't AKJxx, Kxx, Kxxx, x sufficient for slam to be decent, add ♠ 10 and it's pretty good ?

 

That said I'm not sure how you can accurately investigate this one

[Douglas43]

Not sure whether 2♥ would have been natural or Fourth Suit Forcing? If the latter:

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥ (FSF)

2NT - 3♠ slam try

4♥ (cue) - 4♠ (North has no controls in the minors so is pretty much marked with 5=2=4=2 and diamonds no better than Jack high)

 

Alternatively if 2♥ is natural in 2 over 1 can responder show extra strength and initiate cue bidding by bidding 3♠ instead of 2♠ on their second turn?

[Winstonm]

Doesn't require that much, isn't AKJxx, Kxx, Kxxx, x sufficient for slam to be decent, add ♠ 10 and it's pretty good ?

 

That said I'm not sure how you can accurately investigate this one

 

 

Doesn't require that much, isn't AKJxx, Kxx, Kxxx, x sufficient for slam to be decent, add ♠ 10 and it's pretty good ?

 

Did you forget that partner bid 2NT over 2S? This hand really isn't (or shouldn't be) in the mix as far as potential holdings.

[Winstonm]

Not sure whether 2♥ would have been natural or Fourth Suit Forcing? If the latter:

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥ (FSF)

2NT - 3♠ slam try

4♥ (cue) - 4♠ (North has no controls in the minors so is pretty much marked with 5=2=4=2 and diamonds no better than Jack high)

 

Alternatively if 2♥ is natural in 2 over 1 can responder show extra strength and initiate cue bidding by bidding 3♠ instead of 2♠ on their second turn?

 

IMO, I think the problem with 2H, which would be 4th suit forcing - is that it makes 3S seems a preference and not genuine supports. In 2/1, which I think is the system being discussed, 2S would also be forcing so that bidding 2H first confuses the issue.

[Cyberyeti]

 

Did you forget that partner bid 2NT over 2S? This hand really isn't (or shouldn't be) in the mix as far as potential holdings.

 

Why the hell not, auction is already GF, partner could well have clubs with the ambiguous 2♣ YOU bid 2N over HIS 2♠ showing a heart stop

[Winstonm]

In American baseball we would call your response a swing and a miss. 2n was a pattern bid and not a way to show a heart stopper after partner shows spade support. Same bid could be made with Qx of hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

In American baseball we would call your response a swing and a miss. 2n was a pattern bid and not a way to show a heart stopper after partner shows spade support. Same bid could be made with Qx of hearts.

 

OK, you would play it showing a different thing to me, to me it's at least as likely to be 5341 as 5242, I was slightly surprised to see this was the bid of choice, because to me it would suggest a less good spade suit than this and put NT in the frame if partner's spades are also poor.

 

Think Jxxxx, KQx, KQxx, Q opposite xxx, Axx, Ax, AKJxx where 3N makes 10 or 11 most of the time, 4♠ might not make 10.

[pescetom]

OK, you would play it showing a different thing to me, to me it's at least as likely to be 5341 as 5242, I was slightly surprised to see this was the bid of choice, because to me it would suggest a less good spade suit than this and put NT in the frame if partner's spades are also poor.

 

 

Cyberyeti does not even play 2/1 but his bridge logic is compelling.

In Italian modern 2/1, a 2♠ rebid by responder does not fix trumps, it could be 2 cards in a hand unwilling to play NT from his side and asking opener to continue.

A 3♠ rebid fixes trumps and invites a control-bid, clearly indicated here.

Opener would control-bid 4♥ denying control of both minors and now responder has a tricky choice.

[Winstonm]

There isn’t a right or wrong to this but it shows how important it is to be on the same page about bidding style

[Douglas43]

IMO, I think the problem with 2H, which would be 4th suit forcing - is that it makes 3S seems a preference and not genuine supports. In 2/1, which I think is the system being discussed, 2S would also be forcing so that bidding 2H first confuses the issue.

 

Where I come from, 3♠ via FSF shows three card support GF, just as 2♠ does in this auction. Opener's hand is limited by the 2NT rebid, so they are free to cue bid on the way without responder expecting extra strength.

 

 

I realise that 2♠ is game forcing but it doesn't tell partner that your hand is a GF+ (just short of an old-fashioned jump shift). Surely 2/1 has some way of communicating that, and starting a cue bid sequence when you have 3 card support? The advantage of 2/1 is that you have an immediate GF in situations where an Acol / SAYC player has to manufacture one, But here the responder seems to be just pottering along making nothing bids that don't disclose their extra strength. If you can get opener to cue bid, you will identify the lack of minor-suit controls and stop safely. 3♠ on the second round must mean something, and presumably it is "I have interest in a slam, please cue bid"? (As noted by pescetom above)

[mikeh]

I understand the logic behind having south’s 3C bid over 2N as suppressing good clubs, but I’m not going to play that.

 

There are some very good players who advocate sequencing cuebids to bid firstly in a strong suit. That’s not my style and I really don’t think it’s a good style here.

 

As responder, we very much want to know whether opener ‘likes’ his hand for slam. We elicit this by starting to cuebid. 3C will prompt a 3D cue if opener has a non-terrible hand in context, and now we bid 3H and hope for a 4C cue, after which we are well positioned for keycard.

 

Once opener bids 3H, we know that we have a potential diamond loser, and have reason to be concerned about the club suit as well. After all, if opener has two clubs, we don’t have anywhere for him to pitch it unless his hearts are KQ.

 

We’re still worth a try over 3H....we have an easy 3S bid. Now 4S tells us that the slam is likely no better than a finesse. Since there are tiny other adverse factors (5-0 spades as an example) that cause slam to fail, the percentages suggest, by a slim margin, playing 4S.

 

Oh, and 2H here is not fourth suit forcing, since we are already in a forcing auction. It can usefully be played a ‘punt’ but it could also be the way one starts to describe a 5=6/ 5=7 hand with hearts and clubs. As a punt, it is an attempt to get opener to bid 2N.

 

Thus Qx xxx Kxx AKQxx, I’d bid 2H over 2D.

[Winstonm]

Duh! Of course Mikeh is right in that once a game-forcing auction is underway there is no such thing as 4th suit forcing.

 

My approach to actual 4th suit forcing has always been that it is used in two situations: 1) needing to create a force with a fit and no forcing non-jump raise is available, or 2) creating a force when no other bid is satisfactory.

 

Now that I realize 2H cannot be 4th suit, a 2H bid would basically deny more than 2-card support for spades in my thinking but I can see how it could be used as an advance cue bid - which I think your suggested auction would show but I have always found advance cues to be quite tricky to use and high risk of creating misunderstandings - in me.

 

I realise that 2♠ is game forcing but it doesn't tell partner that your hand is a GF+ (just short of an old-fashioned jump shift). Surely 2/1 has some way of communicating that, and starting a cue bid sequence when you have 3 card support?

 

The way I've always played 2/1 is that it first determines general strength - the 2/1 establishes game strength - then fits are found at the lowest level possible, and only after fit would the partnership start investigating slam.

 

I am quite opposed to the "captaincy" idea of bidding - although I know there are times it is necessary - so subsequent bidding after the fit is found is not so much strength showing but interest showing or maybe call in suitability showing. Only if one partner has signed off as showing no interest and the other continues to cue does a forced cue bid situation arise.

 

I hope that last paragraph is not too convoluted.

[mikeh]

Duh! Of course Mikeh is right in that once a game-forcing auction is underway there is no such thing as 4th suit forcing.

 

My approach to actual 4th suit forcing has always been that it is used in two situations: 1) needing to create a force with a fit and no forcing non-jump raise is available, or 2) creating a force when no other bid is satisfactory.

 

Now that I realize 2H cannot be 4th suit, a 2H bid would basically deny more than 2-card support for spades in my thinking but I can see how it could be used as an advance cue bid - which I think your suggested auction would show but I have always found advance cues to be quite tricky to use and high risk of creating misunderstandings - in me.

 

 

The way I've always played 2/1 is that it first determines general strength - the 2/1 establishes game strength - then fits are found at the lowest level possible, and only after fit would the partnership start investigating slam.

 

I am quite opposed the the "captaincy" idea of bidding - although I know there are times it is necessary - so subsequent bidding after the fit is found is not so much strength showing but interest showing or maybe call in suitability showing. Only if one partner has signed off as showing no interest and the other continues to cue does a forced cue bid situation arise.

 

I hope that last paragraph is not too convoluted.

Advance cuebids are an awful idea. They were developed at a time when players had few tools to create forces. With the advent of devices such as 2/1 gf, 4SF and so on, they have deservedly fallen out of favour.

[fromageGB]

As 2♠ is GF I would have thought a 3♠ bid from opener is all that is needed, or the 2NT that here serves the same purpose. However, I prefer 3♠ as I would rather emphasis the quality of that suit than suggest numerous scattered values. Responder has room to suggest signing off, room to cue beneath game, room to make a slam invitation. On the given hand I think it comes in the in-between category, too good to suggest signing off, not quite enough to unilaterally go ace asking.

 

So it depends on your agreement of the purposes of the cue. If this is a suggestion, then cue. If (as I prefer) cues are used as a prelude to an ace ask, simply to check that no suit is wide open, where the ace ask (or show) is obligatory if that is the case, then I don't rate this responder hand as quite being there. It needs your third option, and my choice is a 4M-1 slam try. Which partner accepts by ace asking or telling, and refuses by bidding game.

 

Whether opener has enough to accept is another matter. I wouldn't.

[jillybean]

I understand the logic behind having south’s 3C bid over 2N as suppressing good clubs, but I’m not going to play that.

 

Is suppressing a typo?

[mikeh]

Is suppressing a typo?

Yes. Weird.