[patroclo]

---

[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]

 ahydra, on 2014-February-03, 07:24, said:

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]

 MrAce, on 2014-February-03, 09:45, said:

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]

 mikeh, on 2014-February-03, 10:33, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-February-03, 10:50, said:

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]

 mikeh, on 2014-February-03, 10:33, said:

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]

 mikeh, on 2014-February-03, 11:18, said:

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.