What is your call?

[Masse24]

As dealer you hold:

Q - T9 - AKQJT74 - A32

The auction proceeds:
1 – (P) - 1 – (2NT)
??

What is your call? Explain. 

[kenberg]

Oh my, I did this way to early in the morning, not thinking that 4 was a jump bid. I'll leave my earlier pre-coffee response up for amusement but I now disown it.
I go with 3 . But what it it? Well, if it's U/U it shows and some strength, it doesn't show a control. But it sounds like a reasonable start.
Very possibly U/U should be reserved for hands that go: 1 of something -(2NT) and, perhaps, 1m-(2m) when  2m is  Michaels, as it usually is.  Maybe this all needs discussion. If 3 shows a decent hand with good diamonds then it seems right.


The pre-coffee comments:
4 , non-forcing, seems right. Of course we might belong in 3NT but that seems like a huge gamble to me.
If partner has
Kxxxx
xx
xx
Kxxx
then we seem to have 10 tricks playing  in , and there are a fair number of variations on this. 
Of course any call is a gamble but I think 4 shows a hand that should play pretty well in .  If partner has more than a minimum for his 1 cal then he can raise or, on occasion, bid 4 which should show a hand that will play pretty well in .  I will leave him in 4 if he bids it.

This is an argument for calls to have natural meanings instead of conventional meanings.

[jcreech]

I am inclined to still try for 3NT, and so will choose 3 as a forcing bid.  I am not certain how the partnership will take the bid - it might be treated as a cue bid in support of spades, or simply a control, while unclear in communicating the direction of the auction.  When it is the later, I typically will rebid the direction at my next turn.

This time, the direction may depend on partner's rebid.  If partner cues in hearts, then I will take a stab at 3NT.  If partner rebids spades, then I will show my extra good and long diamonds.  I am not expecting other bids from partner, but will react accordingly if they come up.

[Masse24]

it might be treated as a cue bid in support of spades, . . .

Why?  Who does this?

[kenberg]

It occurred to me that 3C might be thought of as a cue in support of spades but I decided it does not make sense.  After 1D - (Pass) -1S -(2NT) I would think 4C is a splinter in support of spades, otherwise when i have spade support and GF strength it seems to me that either I bid 3H, assuming U/U applies, or else I just bid 4S. With lesser strength I can just bid 3S. Or I can pass the 2NT and then later compete with 3S, this being the weakest way to bid 3S.

So I think I have enough ways to support spades without using 3C as a cue. 

There is, I think, something to be said for skipping U/U and using 3C as a control with the hope of reaching 3NT if partner has values in hearts. Played that way, both 3C and 3H would deny decent spade support and show a control in the suit bid. This would strongly suggest  good diamonds since we ae trying for game and we do not have spade support.

[Masse24]

when i have spade support and GF strength it seems to me that either I bid 3H, assuming U/U applies, or else I just bid 4S. With lesser strength I can just bid 3S.

"Assuming U/U applies."

Why would it apply? And if it does apply (I do not think it does--believing it to be only a responder bid), then why does a cuebid in either of the opps two suits not show support for either of your partnership's suits?

[kenberg]

If it does apply, and I agree maybe it should not, then since the opponents are advertising hearts and clubs, i think 3C shows diamond strength and 3H shows spade strength. Yes I have already bid diamonds, but I have considerably more in that suit than my 1D bid showed. So if U/U applies, then the meaning could be that after 2NT a 3D call simply announces a willingness to play in 3D with nothing extra while 3C announces a good hand and diamond strength.

The problem is that using the 3   cue as an attempt to get to 3NT  is very possibly more useful.  With that meaning, partner looks at his hand and says "Pard has a club stop and is encouraging game". Depending on his hand he might then bid 3NT. The Kx would not be enough, since the defense could start with a spade to the A on declarer's right followed by a heart switch. The choice is up to partner.  He will not always get it right but knowing of the club control will be useful.

[Masse24]

Right, Ken.

I can find nothing in the literature that describes this rebid by opener as being UvU.

This post was all based on a hand from Jim's recent session. NOT this hand. The auction:

1 - (p) - 1 - (2NT)
3 - (X) - 4

Opener had:
K94 - 6 - J94 - AKQT87

When the auction occurred, I thought the 3 was some sort of attempt at 3NT, but even that seemed off, especially with that holding. It never dawned on me that it was supposed to show spade support. Especially since, with a mid-range hand and spade support opener has 3 to show it. With a GF, 4 .

As much as it confused me, apparently it was understood by everyone else.  Responder fielded it, and said he understood it, and there was much nodding of heads at the subsequent description.

I asked another kibber present, and he opined that it was UvU. "If so," I asked, "then what is 3 ?" "Clubs," he said.

I think you nailed it earlier, Ken, when you said, "I think I have enough ways to support spades without using . . .  a cue." Yes, like bidding the suit!

 

 

[Masse24]

The original hand above was modified from the original hand from Thursday's session to attempt to elicit the type of rebid by opener that Jim suggested: 3

I probably could have tweaked it more to almost demand such a bid, but it's close enough.

Here, with two suits bid by the opps, I think 3 of either suit should generally show a stopper (though not always). Certainly it's forcing. Where partner is going, we're not sure . . . but a further description of responder's hand is his first responsibility. If that means bidding 3NT with a stopper--we'll find out soon. Treating it as support, when there are so many other ways to support, seems a waste of an opportunity to use the opposition bidding against them.

[kenberg]

I was wondering if I had been the inspiration ofr the thread.

On Thursday I was the opener and yes I bid 3 figuring it would be taken as spade support. Should it be? Oh, I don't know. I held
K94 - 6 - J94 - AKQT87.

It's highly likely pard has five spades, in fact he had six. If he only has four spades then he skipped over hearts to respond one spade, so he will have at most three hearts, so the opponents will have at least nine hearts, so probably they will be bidding on, and so, so,  so. Anyway he had six. He raised to 4 , it's a reasonable contract but not on ice. He made it.

It's a little tough to see just what I should do if 3 does not show spades. Maybe I could bid 3 and then, assuming they go on to 3 , I could then bid 3 .

A discussion of just when U/U is on could be useful. After 1m-(2m) Michaels it has always seemed to me to be a close call as to whether 2M is best used as a U/U bid or as an attempt to get to NT.

[wackojack]

Without the intervention I would bid 3 .  After the unusual 2NT, pass would show a balanced 12-14 or a min opener with diamonds.  I have 8 playing tricks and so was at the top of my range without intervention so there is a danger that partner might pass my now non-jump 3 .  So 3 comes to the rescue showing a club stop.  Partner can now bid 3N with a heart stop or bid 3 with a partial guard in which case I will bid 3N.  I would expect 3 to be bid on  Qxx.  UvU should not apply here. 

[wackojack]

I was wondering if I had been the inspiration ofr the thread.

On Thursday I was the opener and yes I bid 3 figuring it would be taken as spade support. Should it be? Oh, I don't know. I held
K94 - 6 - J94 - AKQT87.

It's highly likely pard has five spades, in fact he had six. If he only has four spades then he skipped over hearts to respond one spade, so he will have at most three hearts, so the opponents will have at least nine hearts, so probably they will be bidding on, and so, so,  so. Anyway he had six. He raised to 4 , it's a reasonable contract but not on ice. He made it.

It's a little tough to see just what I should do if 3 does not show spades. Maybe I could bid 3 and then, assuming they go on to 3 , I could then bid 3 .

A discussion of just when U/U is on could be useful. After 1m-(2m) Michaels it has always seemed to me to be a close call as to whether 2M is best used as a U/U bid or as an attempt to get to NT.

Was I your partner on this hand Ken?  I have no record of this hand.  Assuming the auction was 1 -(p) - 1 -(2NT) -? With your hand I would have bid 3 with the 6.5 playing trick hand.  I remember playing in several spade contracts in Jim's session.  It is an interesting debate about when UvU should apply.  I do not think it should apply here when we have already bid 2 suits. Only when we have bid one suit before the 2N overcall should it apply.  i.e. 1  - (2NT)-? 
3  =  weaker than direct 3  ;
3 = limit  raise or better
3  = forcing
3 = weaker    support. 
I think this is mainstream. 

[Masse24]

“Mainstream” is hard to define with this gadget. The version you’ve laid out above is one I have never seen. Usually (at least in the online sources I’ve accessed), the two cuebids show the stronger actions, with 3 oM and 3M showing the “constructive” values. Yes, one can make an argument for why this is not ideal.

Even reputable sources differ:
1.   Larry Cohen (and other websites) says the “higher suit” cuebid shows support for partner’s hand.
2.   BridgeHands (and other websites) says the “lower suit” cuebid shows support for partner’s suit.
3.   A third method, one that I use (and believe to be “expert standard”), is “lower suit” cuebid for lower suit --- “higher suit” cuebid for higher suit.
4.   And I know there are other, more complex methods that employ an “either-or” set of responses. But no use expending much energy on these unless you have a partner willing to devote the extra memory load.

So this is one of those gadgets that I insist on at least one additional question to be answered other than, “UvU partner?” I usually tack on, “Lower for lower—higher for higher?”

But I don’t much care which of the three vanilla methods mentioned above we use, as long as we’re on the same page.   

[kenberg]

I was wondering if I had been the inspiration ofr the thread.

On Thursday I was the opener and yes I bid 3 figuring it would be taken as spade support. Should it be? Oh, I don't know. I held
K94 - 6 - J94 - AKQT87.

It's highly likely pard has five spades, in fact he had six. If he only has four spades then he skipped over hearts to respond one spade, so he will have at most three hearts, so the opponents will have at least nine hearts, so probably they will be bidding on, and so, so,  so. Anyway he had six. He raised to 4 , it's a reasonable contract but not on ice. He made it.

It's a little tough to see just what I should do if 3 does not show spades. Maybe I could bid 3 and then, assuming they go on to 3 , I could then bid 3 .

A discussion of just when U/U is on could be useful. After 1m-(2m) Michaels it has always seemed to me to be a close call as to whether 2M is best used as a U/U bid or as an attempt to get to NT.

Was I your partner on this hand Ken?  I have no record of this hand.  Assuming the auction was 1 -(p) - 1 -(2NT) -? With your hand I would have bid 3 with the 6.5 playing trick hand.  I remember playing in several spade contracts in Jim's session.  It is an interesting debate about when UvU should apply.  I do not think it should apply here when we have already bid 2 suits. Only when we have bid one suit before the 2N overcall should it apply.  i.e. 1  - (2NT)-? 
3  =  weaker than direct 3  ;
3 = limit  raise or better
3  = forcing
3 = weaker    support. 
I think this is mainstream.

On Thursday I was the opener and yes I bid 3 figuring it would be taken as spade support. Should it be? Oh, I don't know. I held
K94 - 6 - J94 - AKQT87.

It's highly likely pard has five spades, in fact he had six. If he only has four spades then he skipped over hearts to respond one spade, so he will have at most three hearts, so the opponents will have at least nine hearts, so probably they will be bidding on, and so, so,  so. Anyway he had six. He raised to 4 , it's a reasonable contract but not on ice. He made it.

It's a little tough to see just what I should do if 3 does not show spades. Maybe I could bid 3 and then, assuming they go on to 3 , I could then bid 3 .

A discussion of just when U/U is on could be useful. After 1m-(2m) Michaels it has always seemed to me to be a close call as to whether 2M is best used as a U/U bid or as an attempt to get to NT.
[/quote]

Was I your partner on this hand Ken?  I have no record of this hand.  Assuming the auction was 1 -(p) - 1 -(2NT) -? With your hand I would have bid 3 with the 6.5 playing trick hand.  I remember playing in several spade contracts in Jim's session.  It is an interesting debate about when UvU should apply.  I do not think it should apply here when we have already bid 2 suits. Only when we have bid one suit before the 2N overcall should it apply.  i.e. 1  - (2NT)-? 
3  =  weaker than direct 3  ;
3 = limit  raise or better
3  = forcing
3 = weaker    support. 
I think this is mainstream.
[/quote]

Indeed you were my partner. Or I think it was you. You had this good six card spade suit, you thought a bit, and you bid, and made,  4 .   I also can't find the whole hand. As I recall, spades split reasonably well. clubs didn't. There are reasons for wanting to be in 4 . In clubs, I will be ruffing a heart. This will stop them from taking a second heart but it will not add to the trick total. When you ruff a heart with a spade, it not only stops them from taking a heart it adds to the trick total. And we only need ten tricks, not eleven. It could go wrong but all was well.

I forget just where this hand came from, but it was one of the hands up for discussion.. You, or partner, whoever it was, said you/he took it as spade support. I think I agree that really it should be a heart control looking for NT.

But that's why we have these discussion sessions.