[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2015-July-31, 13:49, said:

I did not think of 2D as "forcing be agreement". Indeed we had no agreement. But I thought it "forcing" in that, after the cue bid, if partner has diamonds he would naturally raise diamonds, and if partner did not have diamonds he would get me out of diamonds and tell me what he did have. Not that I was going to be all that happy if he raised diamonds. Truth be told, after the 2C cue I did not have any good ideas. Calling 2D a punt sounds about right.

I admit it gets a little tough after I bid 2D and partner bids 2H. I'm thinking I should just have bid 4H. I have to show some values sometime and partner did bid hearts without any encouragement from me.

If I go the alternative route of bidding 3C over 2C and partner now bids 3H I am not in any better shape as near as I can see. After 3C I can hardly pass, so I bid 4H, right?

When partner cued 2c after your 1♠ advance, a re-cue 3c, IMO, would look something like Axxx JTx Jxx Jxx. Close, but, not quite what you held. With my example, you would get your strength and your tolerance for any strain all out there in one swell foop.

[apollo1201]

You could also bid 3NT after cuing the cue (max lf 1st answer so probably 6 to bad 8) and partner's 3H. A not so imaginative partner should figure out a weak stopper and for sure no fifth spade so hopefully 2 Hs (I however wonder what the 2nd bid could be Axxx x xxxxx Qxx: 3D but does it say sth about respective lengths of S/D). And pull or pass depending on his hand.

[jodepp]

1) Partner has a moose (obvious).

2) I have a complementary moose. How can 3♥ be wrong after pard's 2♥? I have a bullet and two heart fillers. Anything other than 3♥ now muddies the water. For example, 2♠ is hardly a 'control' bid. Why throw curveballs and bean partner? Just give the poor guy some good news and THEN cuebid.

[kenberg]

apollo1201, on 2015-July-31, 14:28, said:

You could also bid 3NT after cuing the cue (max lf 1st answer so probably 6 to bad 8) and partner's 3H. A not so imaginative partner should figure out a weak stopper and for sure no fifth spade so hopefully 2 Hs (I however wonder what the 2nd bid could be Axxx x xxxxx Qxx: 3D but does it say sth about respective lengths of S/D). And pull or pass depending on his hand.

I unfortunately muddied the waters on this topic. I'll explain so you do not have to page back through. That J of clubs I originally posted was the 7. If the 7 were actually the J, I agree entirely. I like to think that I even might have done it. With essentially all opponent's values with W, I think 3NT could be very playable.

[kenberg]

jodepp, on 2015-July-31, 16:05, said:

1) Partner has a moose (obvious).

2) I have a complementary moose. How can 3♥ be wrong after pard's 2♥? I have a bullet and two heart fillers. Anything other than 3♥ now muddies the water. For example, 2♠ is hardly a 'control' bid. Why throw curveballs and bean partner? Just give the poor guy some good news and THEN cuebid.

I agree that 2S was a bad call. Absolutely.

[PhilKing]

jodepp, on 2015-July-31, 16:05, said:

1) Partner has a moose (obvious).

2) I have a complementary moose. How can 3♥ be wrong after pard's 2♥? I have a bullet and two heart fillers. Anything other than 3♥ now muddies the water. For example, 2♠ is hardly a 'control' bid. Why throw curveballs and bean partner? Just give the poor guy some good news and THEN cuebid.

Because (as bid) you have a raise to 4♥ - so far you have shown a zero count. You now know game is on, and there is no reason to believe 3♥ is forcing.

Don't show a mouse when you have a moose.

[jodepp]

PhilKing, on 2015-July-31, 16:53, said:

Because (as bid) you have a raise to 4♥ - so far you have shown a zero count. You now know game is on, and there is no reason to believe 3♥ is forcing.

Don't show a mouse when you have a moose.

I disagree with the idea that "I haven't shown anything yet" and "there is no reason to think 3♥ is forcing". After pard's 2♣ cuebid, a 2♠ rebid by me would be regressive. I didn't do that - I bid 2♦.

That pretty much sets a force, I'd think. Pard's sequence up to this point has said: "any sign of life from you and we're in game at least". Since I did something other than rebid my suit, I've confirmed "I'm not broke" and the force is set.

I follow your logic to a point, and I'd wager that most partnerships are not on firm ground on sequences like this (let's be honest, they don't come up often). I just think I set a force with 2♦.

[Stephen Tu]

Hmm, how much of a moose does the 2♣ cue bid promise?

Mike Lawrence in his takeout double book suggests that 2♣ is mostly strongish (~17+) hands with 3 cd only spades, along with a smaller percentage of really huge hands. He has 2♦ as weak NF, which is probably what you want to do if you bid on a 4x4x yarb and are facing a 3442 17/18 count or so.

[kenberg]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-July-31, 21:56, said:

Hmm, how much of a moose does the 2♣ cue bid promise?

Mike Lawrence in his takeout double book suggests that 2♣ is mostly strongish (~17+) hands with 3 cd only spades, along with a smaller percentage of really huge hands. He has 2♦ as weak NF, which is probably what you want to do if you bid on a 4x4x yarb and are facing a 3442 17/18 count or so.

I am a ML fan, but I had forgotten this. This sort of hand for N was along the lines of what I was thinking.

It seems to me that there are two distinct ways of playing the 2C cue. The moose, where 2C is either gf or almost gf. Sort of like a 2C opener, as someone said above. The other way is "I have a big hand but I am not at all sure where to play this. If we have a fit and you are not totally broke, we may well have a game." If I understand the Lawrence approach correctly, he is advocating the latter.

Note my restraint in not saying "Great minds think alike". I certainly would not say anything like that.
But thanks for the reference!


ADDED: I am having trouble finding the ML advice. I have Takeout Doubles. On pages 31-32 there is a brief note that "he must use a cue bid to create a forcing auction" but forcing to what is unsaid. I see from Amazon
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1897106874
that there is a Complete Guide to Takeout Doubles and that this is said to be updated and revised from the 1994 version, which is the one I have.

Are you citing advice from this newer version or am I missing something?

[rmnka447]

I agree with kenberg that the hand he imagined is too strong for a simple 2 ♥ after 1 ♠. Give responder ♠ Jxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ Jxxx ♣ xx and 4 ♥ is pretty toasty. But how many people would raise to 3 ♥ after a direct 2 ♥ after the double? Relatively few, I'd bet!

The discussion so far has been very interesting. The auction isn't one that comes up often, so once you get to 2 ♥, the bidding gets into uncharted territory. It's an area where just some basic agreement between partners can provide big dividends. It's in these kind of sequences where long time partners usually have a big edge. They've either made some basic agreement or know their partner well enough to be pretty confident what partner holds for any bids made.

One possibility is to treat the auction after 2 ♥ as if it were a 2 ♣ opener by partner followed by partner's 2 ♥ rebid. If you have second negatives available those would apply. Other follow on bids would be as normal over a 2 ♣ big opener. It might not be perfect, but any agreement is better than pure guessing.

Lacking any agreement, I think it's right to raise ♥s. In that case, if there were any doubt in my mind whether partner would treat 3 ♥ as forcing, I'd simply bid 4 ♥. It's better to get to a good spot than try for a perfect one.

[PhilKing]

jodepp, on 2015-July-31, 21:44, said:

I disagree with the idea that "I haven't shown anything yet" and "there is no reason to think 3♥ is forcing". After pard's 2♣ cuebid, a 2♠ rebid by me would be regressive. I didn't do that - I bid 2♦.

That pretty much sets a force, I'd think. Pard's sequence up to this point has said: "any sign of life from you and we're in game at least". Since I did something other than rebid my suit, I've confirmed "I'm not broke" and the force is set.

I follow your logic to a point, and I'd wager that most partnerships are not on firm ground on sequences like this (let's be honest, they don't come up often). I just think I set a force with 2♦.

Given that you agree that most partnerships are not on firm ground, how can you say that 3♥ is logically forcing?

To me it seems clear that it is non-forcing by default. Partner has shown a good hand with hearts and we have raised it to three, showing, of all things, a raise to three. There's no point sitting there waiting to see if partner passes your so-called forcing bid when you have a completely obvious raise to game.

I just don't see why 2♦ in response to the double should be forcing. Let's go back to basics - partner's cue bid starts life as about 19+ with three spades (say KQx Akxx Akxx xx). 2♦ simply says that we think it may be right to play in 2♦ when partner shows a good hand (Kxxx xx xxxx xxx for instance). If we want to force we can do so by either jumping or cue bidding (an alternative approach is suggested by Karlson), but 2♦ is non-forcing as far as I am concerned and is consistent with holding no points whatsoever.

[BillPatch]

Chapter 12(pp. 209-212) of Lawrence. . . Takeout Doubles continues the auction after one of a suit,( dbl), p, (simple suit rebid).p, (cue of opener's suit). 70% of the time opener will have the hand with three card support and 18+ support point s. If doubler has this hand he does not promise a rebid over a minimum change of suit, NT, or rebid of advancer's suit. With the OP hand--a maximum with a 4 card suit without a good club stopper--he should recue 3♣. With a maximum 4 card suit and a good club stopper, rebid 3 NT, with a maximum and longer original suit jump in hearts.

[BillPatch]

kenberg, on 2015-August-01, 05:46, said:

I am a ML fan, but I had forgotten this. This sort of hand for N was along the lines of what I was thinking.

It seems to me that there are two distinct ways of playing the 2C cue. The moose, where 2C is either gf or almost gf. Sort of like a 2C opener, as someone said above. The other way is "I have a big hand but I am not at all sure where to play this. If we have a fit and you are not totally broke, we may well have a game." If I understand the Lawrence approach correctly, he is advocating the latter.

Note my restraint in not saying "Great minds think alike". I certainly would not say anything like that.
But thanks for the reference!


ADDED: I am having trouble finding the ML advice. I have Takeout Doubles. On pages 31-32 there is a brief note that "he must use a cue bid to create a forcing auction" but forcing to what is unsaid. I see from Amazon
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1897106874
that there is a Complete Guide to Takeout Doubles and that this is said to be updated and revised from the 1994 version, which is the one I have.

Are you citing advice from this newer version or am I missing something?

As noted in my previous post, the ML advice which you referred to above is from Lawrence, Mike. The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles. The advice was not in the 1995 1st edition, but I cited the chapter and page numbers from the 2012 2nd edition. You slightly misquoted the title. The reason you had difficulty in finding Lawrences's complete reference covering the complete auction is that in an earlier chapter Mike introduces the original takeout double, then several chapters on responding to the takeout double, and finally finishes his exposition on this auction in the chapter under doubler's rebids in "Chapter 12: Continuing with over 18 Support Points but Only Three Card Support for Partner."

Edited 0813 edt 8 Aug 2015 after reskimming 1995 edition and not finding the advice cited in 2012 edition,

[kenberg]

Added: Bottom line, placed forst: It's time for me to get the 2012 edition. Things change!

BillPatch, on 2015-August-01, 15:36, said:

Chapter 12(pp. 209-212) of Lawrence. . . Takeout Doubles continues the auction after one of a suit,( dbl), p, (simple suit rebid).p, (cue of opener's suit). 70% of the time opener will have the hand with three card support and 18+ support point s. If doubler has this hand he does not promise a rebid over a minimum change of suit, NT, or rebid of advancer's suit. With the OP hand--a maximum with a 4 card suit without a good club stopper--he should recue 3♣. With a maximum 4 card suit and a good club stopper, rebid 3 NT, with a maximum and longer original suit jump in hearts.

I wish you were here, we could get to the bottom of this quickly.
First: In my paperback, or perhaps softcover, version, pages 209-212 are in Chapter 17. But 109-112 are in Chapter 12. And it deals with a cue. So I assume that.


But!


This (ch 12, pages 109-112, from 1994) is dealing with the cue bid response to the doubler, not the cue bid rebid by the doubler. for example, in hand a. on page 110 we have
1C-X-P-?
Fourth hand holds
AK43 / KQ3 / Q73 / 873
A 2C call is recommended. Maybe the hand belongs in 4S, maybe in 3NT. We start with 2C.

Hand b is AQ73 / JT74 / K4 / 963

Here the plan is first cue 2C to find out which major pardten has four of and raise his response to a passable 3.

this is my 1994 edition in softcover.


But the auction in question is

1C X P 1S
P 2C.

So I am not sure if this is different editions or different situations.

I am guessing different editions.

All of this has inspired me to order the 2012 edition mentioned above. I generally find ML's suggestions to my liking. His style seems to be "natural first, science if needed". This suits me.

[BillPatch]

kenberg, on 2015-August-01, 16:20, said:

. . . .
So I am not sure if this is different editions or different situations.

I am guessing different editions. . . .

You are correct. Upon review of both editions I see that the material in question from the 2nd edition was not in the 1st edition. Mea culpa. I also think this set of treatments is vintage Lawrence. Vintage 2015--note yet current standard practice. I also like it.

I highly recommend the 2012 edition.

[kenberg]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-01, 18:56, said:

You are correct. Upon review of both editions I see that the material in question from the 2nd edition was not in the 1st edition. Mea culpa. I also think this set of treatments is vintage Lawrence. Vintage 2015--note yet current standard practice. I also like it.

I highly recommend the 2012 edition.

Thanks, and no culpa at all. This whole discussion has been interesting and I am going to get the Lawrence book.

[FrancesHinden]

In my simple world the one hand partner does not have is a huge hand with hearts. If he had a heart single-suiter, he would bid 2H, 3H or 4H over 1S. If he had a hand that was too strong for any of them he would cue and then jump in hearts. This auction is how he shows a very strong hand, probably with 5 hearts, that doesn't know where it is going. On the OP hand given, having bid 2D (which I don't know if I agree with or not), I would bid 3C over 2H to say I have lots of high cards in context but I don't know where I am going. I think a raise to 3H shows 3 of them.

[kenberg]

The suggestion: I bid 3C, and then.

I guess if partner, over 3C, bid 3D I can then bid 3H sayong that I hav somethingh in hearts but not a good enough holding to go directly to 4H over 2H?
It was earlier said that it is not really clear, after my 1S and 2D calls, neither of which shows any strength at all, that 3H is forcing.
So I think 3H is out.
And 2S, my actual choice at the table, I no longer think is at all reasonable.
So 3C, planning to pass a 3NT bid, or raise a 3H rebid to 4, or convert 3D to 3H (now a stronger bid than a direct 3H over 2H)?
I think that I like this.

I also thought that partner cannot have a hand where he both knows he wants to play in game regardless of my strength and knows he wants to play in hearts regardless of my support. He has more direct ways of making that clear.

[WesleyC]

Even without any agreements, I would assume that 1S followed by 2D showed slight extras (maybe 4+ HCP with a little shape or slightly more without). With a truly rotten hand and 4/4 in S/D, why not start with 1D immediately? I also don't think 2C showed a massive hand, a sharp 15 count would be plenty. Making a simple raise to 2S on competitive hands with 4S is very important.

Based on these assumptions, I think this hand is both too good and also unsuitable for X followed by 2H. That sequence should show better hearts (either a 6C suit or a very good 5c suit) and partner should be allowed to pass holding a heart misfit.

My preference is for 3C, forcing to game in whatever strain is best.