[ONEferBRID]

gwnn, on Sep 30 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

thank you for your brilliant lessons oneferbrid, this was very useful to everybody

Your welcome....
I'll be awaiting your next post:
" We found out minor fit, but missed our Major fit ".

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

Why are people bidding 3♠ rather than 3♥? It seems normal to use a repeat cue-bid to try to find a 4-4 fit, and 3♠ to show five (in a good hand presumably).

I prefer to use 3♥ to show extra strenght, but yours looks very playable as well.

I just don't expect partner to raise me with the 3 cards I already know he has.


IMO 2♥ is GF. Over a minor cue is normally GF, but it has the exception og a 44m hand with invitational values.

If you think this hand is not worth a GF (I don't) you should either bid 2♠ or 3♦ the round before the way I play.

[jdonn]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 30 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 30 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

thank you for your brilliant lessons oneferbrid, this was very useful to everybody

Your welcome....
I'll be awaiting your next post:
" We found out minor fit, but missed our Major fit ".

Lol yes obviously partner is barred from bidding spades when we cuebid. It's not like he knows whether or not he has four spades or anything.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

Has anyone mentioned to all these brilliant teachers the risks of insisting upon a suit of Axxx where partner may have just three (gasp) cards?

If you want insurance go apply to Lloyd's of London

[ONEferBRID]

gwnn, on Sep 30 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

2♥ is not a gf.

I know you will hate to see another opinion....

1A - X - p - 2A!

" A cuebid ( 2A! ) will inform partner that game is certain. However, the partner of the Doubler can not be certain of the final contract. As with all cuebids, it informs partner nothing about the cuebid suit, and nothing about the strength. This is a Forcing Bid, and partner must respond."

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Doubles/RespondT...eoutDouble.html

[mike777]

gwnn, on Sep 29 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Axxx
Txx
AQxxx
x

nobody vul imps LHO opens 1♥. (btw would you open this hand in 1st seat?)

1♥-x-p-2♥
3♣-3♦-p-?

Do you agree with 2♥?
Regardless of what you think of 2♥, what would you do now?

potential red herring: Opponents are about 85 years old. They might pass over the x with 3 card support.

1) agree with 2h as some general force, tell me more pard.
2) now 5d, giving up on slam.

[655321]

Maybe the gnasher/jdonn way is better, but I just made a cue bid in preparation of bidding some (4 card) suits, and accordingly I now bid 3♠ as a 4 card suit. For me another cue bid would show a hand that had no other bid, i.e. would deny 4 spades.

I will bid a rustic 4♠ either sooner or later with 5 spades in a passed hand that wants to force to game.

But having said that, I have never had system notes with much detail in this area (cue bid by passed hand after a takeout double), so perhaps my partners would not be on the same wavelength as me after all.

[ONEferBRID]

Advancer here is not a passed hand.

[jdonn]

After, say, 1♦ X P, it has long been standard for 2♦ to be bid on hands good enough for 2 of a major with 4-4 in the majors. Presumably partner would then bid a major and you would raise to 3, nonforcing. All the websites in the world with wrong information on them won't change that. Dare I ask you the qualifications of these authors?

[ONEferBRID]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

After, say, 1♦ X P, it has long been standard for 2♦ to be bid on hands good enough for 2 of a major with 4-4 in the majors. Presumably partner would then bid a major and you would raise to 3, nonforcing. All the websites in the world with wrong information on them won't change that. Dare I ask you the qualifications of these authors?

Those misinformed websites say the same thing:
1m - X - p - 2m! = normally 12,13+ but can be as few 10 w/4-4 in the Majors.

[655321]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 30 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

Advancer here is not a passed hand.

I assumed that OP asking if we would open this hand meant that he passed, and LHO then opened. But you may be right, the auction doesn't show an initial pass.

If we are not a passed hand I like gnasher's 3♥ (we could now have a very powerful hand with 5 spades). Unfortunately though, a 1♠ response to the takeout double is still horrible whether or not we are a passed hand.

[jdonn]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 30 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

After, say, 1♦ X P, it has long been standard for 2♦ to be bid on hands good enough for 2 of a major with 4-4 in the majors. Presumably partner would then bid a major and you would raise to 3, nonforcing. All the websites in the world with wrong information on them won't change that. Dare I ask you the qualifications of these authors?

Those misinformed websites say the same thing:
1m - X - p - 2m! = normally 12,13+ but can be as few 10 w/4-4 in the Majors.

And in what way does that not directly contradict "A cuebid ( 2A! ) will inform partner that game is certain."?

[ONEferBRID]

jdonn, on Oct 1 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Sep 30 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

After, say, 1♦ X P, it has long been standard for 2♦ to be bid on hands good enough for 2 of a major with 4-4 in the majors. Presumably partner would then bid a major and you would raise to 3, nonforcing. All the websites in the world with wrong information on them won't change that. Dare I ask you the qualifications of these authors?

Those misinformed websites say the same thing:
1m - X - p - 2m! = normally 12,13+ but can be as few 10 w/4-4 in the Majors.

And in what way does that not directly contradict "A cuebid ( 2A! ) will inform partner that game is certain."?

Battle of the reference sites....
"A cuebid ( 2A! ) will inform partner that game is certain."? was from the bridgeguys .

" 1m - X - p - 2m! = normally 12,13+ but can be as few 10 w/4-4 in the Majors."
was from another which added:
"--This response (2m! cuebid advance ) is artificial and game-forcing, unless responder ( Advancer ) subsequently raises a suit below game ."

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:gYq04x...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

Apparently, different folks have different strokes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was just trying to back up MY initial accertion about the 1♠ bid ( as bad as it is )
with the British reference. I don't think I belittled anyone elses reply.
However, I don't think I could please you if the Nickell team backed me up... lol.
[ The closest I ever came to Rodwell and Meckstroth was as a kibitzer at the Nationals in Houston a few years back ] ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now can we get back to the problem at hand for the original sequence:
1♥-x-p-2♥!
3♣-3♦-p-?

Since partner apparently denies 4 cards Sp, my rebid would be an unabiguous cue in support of Diam, 4♣! ...
[ I apologize in advance ] .

Maybe it will go something like this:
1♥- x- p- 2♥!
3♣-3♦-p-4♣!
p - 4♥-p- 4♠
p - 4NT-p- 5♠
p - ?? Some number of Diam or a K-ask

[nige1]

gwnn, on Sep 29 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Axxx Txx AQxxx x
nobody vul imps LHO opens 1♥. (btw would you open this hand in 1st seat?)
1♥-x-p-2♥
3♣-3♦-p-?
Do you agree with 2♥? Regardless of what you think of 2♥, what would you do now? potential red herring: Opponents are about 85 years old. They might pass over the x with 3 card support.

IMO

• In 1st seat, 1♦ = 10, _P = 8, 2♦ = 1.
  
• Over partner's _X, 2♥ = 10, 4♠ = 8, 2♠ = 6, 3♦ = 5, 1♠ = 1.
  
• Over partner's 3♦, 3♠ = 10, 4♦ = 9, 3♥ = 8 (assuming that ♠ bids would still be suggestions to play rather than cue-bids).

[kgr]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 30 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

I found this hand at the following British site:
http://www.dur.ac.uk...vercallresp.htm.

And it looks vaguely familiar, doesn't it ?
( unless you are going to quibble about a 1 point difference ).

( 1♦) - X - ( p ) - 1♠ ( you )

Your hand:
♠ 8 6 4
♥ A J 3 2
♦ 5 4
♣ A T 6 3 2
edit: the site showed the 14 cards above.
        Obviously, one must be removed from one of the "pointy" suits. If it is a Diam, the shape looks remarkably like the hand in this post.... with one hcp less.

...and the following explanation:

"You have 9 points, and two suits. So what’s it worth? The answer is 1♥. Yes you do have a five card club suit, but so what – finding a major suit fit (♥) is much more important.  OK, as illustrated above, you could have no points what-so-ever but you actually hold two aces. Well this is true, and this is as strong a hand as you could have to make this weak bid. If you had much more you would have to find a more aggressive bid…"

Hey, but what do those Brits know anyway ?

The website showing 14 cards is a good indication of the quality

[ONEferBRID]

gwnn, on Sep 29 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Axxx
Txx
AQxxx
x

nobody vul imps LHO opens 1♥. (btw would you open this hand in 1st seat?)

1♥-x-p-2♥
3♣-3♦-p-?

Do you agree with 2♥?
Regardless of what you think of 2♥, what would you do now?

potential red herring: Opponents are about 85 years old. They might pass over the x with 3 card support.

As is usually the case here at the BBO forums, we once again have no follow-up.
What was Responder's hand ? ( or the complete deal for that matter ). ..
... and, good or bad, what the final contract ?

[gwnn]

Hi

I bid 3♥ which LHO doubled and partner bid 4♠. He played there, making. Unfortunately I don't recall his exact hand but pd told me 5♦ was a better contract than 4♠. RHO said 6♦ was a better contract than 4♠ but he was soon convinced by the other two people at the table that he was exaggerating. Maybe I can get a hold of the hand records and show you.

BTW I'm one of the people who frequently forgets to post the whole hand. Sometimes it's because I'm too embarrassed of my decision ATT but usually it's just that I forgot. Usually if someone asks for the full hand, OP will comply.