[hrothgar]

IMPS
Red versus White

Decent Opponents

You hold

♠ KT763
♥ KT3
♦ KJ9
♣ K7

Auction starts

P - (1♣) - 1♠ - (P)
2♣ - (P) - ???

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2017-September-23, 15:36, said:

IMPS
Red versus White

Decent Opponents

You hold

♠ KT763
♥ KT3
♦ KJ9
♣ K7

Auction starts

P - (1♣) - 1♠ - (P)
2♣ - (P) - ???

2NT for me.

[Cyberyeti]

How much less would I overcall on ? how light does partner open ? What's the minimum for 2♣ in your style ? Do you have a different raise for 4 card support, does 2♣ suggest 3 ?

2N is a bit rich for me, we open light enough that partner shouldn't have enough for game here very often and if he has, he would use a different raise.

[hrothgar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-23, 15:53, said:

How much less would I overcall on ? how light does partner open ? What's the minimum for 2♣ in your style ? Do you have a different raise for 4 card support, does 2♣ suggest 3 ?

2N is a bit rich for me, we open light enough that partner shouldn't have enough for game here very often and if he has, he would use a different raise.

First time playing with this partner.

All that we have agreed is 2/1 GF

We do both post on the forums and might have some idea about style...

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2017-September-23, 15:36, said:

IMPS Red versus White
Decent Opponents
You hold ♠ K T 7 6 3 ♥ K T 3 ♦ K J 9 ♣ K 7
Auction starts
P_ - (1♣) - 1♠ - (P)
2♣ - (_P) - ???

Agree with WinstonM. I rank

• 2N = NAT. Extra values with ♣ stop. Describes hand well.
• 2♦ = NAT. If you're unsure what's happening make the minimum bid.
• 2♥ = NAT. But partner is more likely to take a major seriously.
• 2♠ = NAT. Exaggerates ♠ quality and understates outside values,
• 3N = NAT. An overbid. Especially opposite a passed hand.

[Cyberyeti]

 nige1, on 2017-September-23, 16:14, said:

Agree with WinstonM. I rank

• 2N = NAT. Extra values with ♣ stop. Describes hand well.
• 2♦ = NAT. If you're unsure what's happening make the minimum bid.
• 2♥ = NAT. But partner is more likely to take a major seriously.
• 2♠ = NAT. Exaggerates ♠ quality and understates outside values,
• 3N = NAT. Overbid.

Am I missing something here ?

Is 2♣ not a UCB raise, F1 with 2♠ as the weakest response, so how does 2♠ exaggerate the spade quality ?

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-23, 16:39, said:

Am I missing something here ?

Is 2♣ not a UCB raise, F1 with 2♠ as the weakest response, so how does 2♠ exaggerate the spade quality ?

It might be a UCB raise. Or it might be a general cue bid in the American style. Hrothgar has chosen to be rather nebulous, not even giving us the flag of his partner, which might at least provide some clue. Under these circumstances, 2NT has to be a sensible choice; to make the hand "interesting" would require at least some basis for making an intelligent decision though.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-September-23, 16:56, said:

It might be a UCB raise. Or it might be a general cue bid in the American style. Hrothgar has chosen to be rather nebulous, not even giving us the flag of his partner, which might at least provide some clue. Under these circumstances, 2NT has to be a sensible choice; to make the hand "interesting" would require at least some basis for making an intelligent decision though.

I can't believe 2N is ever the right bid. If 3N was making, partner opened or bid something other than 2♣, the best chance is 4♠ opposite something like Axx, A9x, Q10xx, xxx or similar, and 2N won't get you there.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-23, 17:38, said:

I can't believe 2N is ever the right bid. If 3N was making, partner opened or bid something other than 2♣, the best chance is 4♠ opposite something like Axx, A9x, Q10xx, xxx or similar, and 2N won't get you there.

Again, you are assuming partner has 3 spades. For you and I that is normal - we are English - but there are plenty of souls in the rest of the world that play a cue bid differently. My first thought on the hand was similar to yours - we want to be in 4♠ - but Hrothgar has stated the problem in such a way that we cannot even assume that spades is a fit, let alone the best game contract.

[The_Badger]

Tough call. Unassuming Cue Bids are a bit like Drury. 2♠ as a rebid just seems the wrong call here, in my opinion - minimum. However, I personally don't like the aceless 5-3-3-2 hand, but it is a 13 count.

What does 3♠ as a rebid show here? Invite or forcing? Anyway, hasn't partner made the invite already with the UCB?

Vulnerable I'm inclined to trust partner and bid 4♠. 2NT or 3NT don't feel the right bids here. But it is a tough call and very borderline.

[johnu]

Random question. Did everybody notice that the cue bidder is a passed hand?

[alok c]

 johnu, on 2017-September-23, 23:58, said:

Random question. Did everybody notice that the cue bidder is a passed hand?

Not only that, will a passed hand respond with a Q bid? What he was trying to achieve with his at most 8/9 hcp hand ?Imo it is a ♣ suit showing non opening maximum hand with at best 2c ♠. I would pass with my Aceless hand.

[dokoko]

2♠ is the only sensible call.

A passed hand has no reason to cuebid without a fit. And even opposite a balanced 12-count game is far from certain. If partner passed an opener, it's his problem not mine.

If you bid anything else with me as a (passed) partner, you will have to play in game opposite a balanced 10-count.

[awm]

Seems clear to bid 2♠; I would not accept a 3-card limit raise on this hand! If partner has something that would game force opposite an opening (yes such hands do exist even as passed hands) he can bid again over my 2♠.

[wank]

2d a la drury. you're too good to just sign off but too bad to bid game and you'd rather not risk the 3 level if you just end up playing part-score.

for this reason i play 2C as a good raise irrespective of which suit they opened. 2 of their suit replaces a natural 2C. like 3rd in hand openers, overcalls have a very wide range, hence the need to narrow it with drury.

[The_Badger]

 johnu, on 2017-September-23, 23:58, said:

Random question. Did everybody notice that the cue bidder is a passed hand?

Certainly did, John I expect partner to be about a 10-11 count, with a good fit (4 card suit, or 3 with an honour and maybe a side suit, just short of a opening bid, something like:-

♠Qxxx
♥xx
♦AQxxx
♣Qx

[Cyberyeti]

 The_Badger, on 2017-September-24, 03:06, said:

Certainly did, John I expect partner to be about a 10-11 count, with a good fit (4 card suit, or 3 with an honour and maybe a side suit, just short of a opening bid, something like:-

♠Qxxx
♥xx
♦AQxxx
♣Qx

That's a 3♦ bid not 2♣ unless your overcalls can be spectacularly crap

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-September-23, 18:27, said:

Again, you are assuming partner has 3 spades. For you and I that is normal - we are English - but there are plenty of souls in the rest of the world that play a cue bid differently. My first thought on the hand was similar to yours - we want to be in 4♠ - but Hrothgar has stated the problem in such a way that we cannot even assume that spades is a fit, let alone the best game contract.

No I'm not, I'm saying that if partner doesn't have 3 spades, we are very unlikely to belong in game on a hand he couldn't open.

[The_Badger]

 wank, on 2017-September-24, 02:38, said:

2d a la drury. you're too good to just sign off but too bad to bid game and you'd rather not risk the 3 level if you just end up playing part-score.

for this reason i play 2C as a good raise irrespective of which suit they opened. 2 of their suit replaces a natural 2C. like 3rd in hand openers, overcalls have a very wide range, hence the need to narrow it with drury.

Yes, a Drury sequence, or I have a feeling 2 ♦ is a Reverse Drury enquiry, asking responder to clarify his hand looks just right here. Opener is saying I have a good overcall and asking his partner what his UCB is based on. Believe you can clarify whether partner has 3 or 4 card support for opener and keep the bidding at the 2 level if his hand is not right. (3 card support only, balanced hand)

Yes, definitely the best method, but by agreement, obviously.

[The_Badger]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-24, 03:19, said:

That's a 3♦ bid not 2♣ unless your overcalls can be spectacularly crap

Even red/white, with a good suit and shape and with a passed (experienced) partner, my one level (especially 1♠ over an opening of 1♣) overcalls can be bordering on 'spectacularly crap', for 1.) a lead possibly 2.) to try to disrupt their bidding.