[Chamaco]

2NT = positive relay= I wanna know your minor p.
Pard has bid Michaels at unfavourable, he rates to have a VERY good hand.
Slam is not unlikely.

Bidding directly (e.g. without going via 2NT) any number of a minor suit would be pass/correct, usually with weaker hand, and pard would passout even with a god hand.

[Chamaco]

HeartA, on May 5 2005, 10:35 PM, said:

Wow, I am the only one voting for 3♠.

I know this thread is not about system, but it seems to me that the 3S cue is more useful as a forcing raise of the only known suit (hearts here), with hands interested in slam (e.g. that want to show heart suport without signing off in 4M nor risking that 3M gets passed out).

Minor-oriented hands can go via 2NT to clarify first which is the suit held.

[han]

Good point Mauro, but I do think that the meanings of follow-ups should be discussed here too.

[shoeless]

Little green man sat on my shoulder and whispered in my ear - 4C - intended to suggest I am prepared to play game in your minor pard cause this isnt a splinter (oops if BBO advance includes minis) and I have zippo for hearts and while I am at it I think I will tease opps a little. Was having a good seesion until this board - oh well!!!

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-001-E
West North East South
   1♠    2♠    Pass   ?

Of course, 2♠ is Michaels cue-bid in BBO-Advanced.

---

2♠ being michaels cue-bid shows the other major and a minor. The first question is should you be thinking 1) game or more, 2) invite game, or 3) get out safely in what ever your partner's minor might be. In this thread above, you find a little bit of each of these views. For the most part, the expert panel was more focused on option 1) game or more on this hand. In my opinion, this is the correct view: force to game, and invite slam is right. Your partner at unfavorable vul forced you to bid at the three level. If you have a yarborough his hand should be strong enough to give you some play for 3 of a minor with just a fit for one of his suits. You not only have a fit (and thus 9 likely tricks based upon his hand and fit), you have two aces (up to 11 tricks) and some extra values. Thus, I have to agree with the majority of panelist.

Let's start with Phicro's response, which was, "3♠; I want to play game (at least) in front of a vulnerable overcall, in the minor owned by partner." The cue-bid leaves no doubt that game will be reached. It will be interesting to see what our members think about 3♠, but we can rest assured it will lead to game (or more) in the minor, and that is EXACTLY what the majority of the other panelist have in mind. So 3♠ scored very well in the poll.

The majority vote for 2NT. The uniformity of this bid is shattered a little bit by followup auctions mentioned by these voters. Ritong and Fred, being busy kindly submitted their votes without comments. I have to apologize for throwing this at them at the last moment. We will give all the panelist plenty of time to respond in the next poll. But Beverly Kraft speaks for the major when she says "2NT: I hope this is an ask for the minor with values. I will cuebid and drive to game while looking for slam." This was echoed by jlall who voted for 2NT, explaining, "I want to find out what partners minor is. I'm always going to game (even if you play michaels as weak/strong a red/white michaels bid cannot be a yarborough) but see no disadvantage in going slow as slam is a very real possibility."

luis also voted for 2NT, but suggest the problem will be on the next round of the bidding: " 2NT; Is this a problem? Asking pd fpr his minor suit seems to be
automatic, I guess the problem will be more difficult in the next
round of bidding. 2NT can't be INV in NT it would be very silly after
pd shows a two suiter to "invite" in NT, if you want to play 3NT you
bid 3NT." So it is clear luis is planning to bid again, what is less clear is if he plans to force to game or only invite. Likewise, ng choose 2NT, "Asks for minor and/or strength. Promises at least 2 and a half cover cards. I vote 2NT for good hands, 3C would be Pass or correct. " So like luis, we are not sure how ng plans to follow this bidding up.

Although it is unclear if luis is going to force or invite game, this is not the situation with Waldkk, who said, "2NT, asking for the minor. I have a good hand opposite a vulnerable Michaels, even a very good one opposite 1-5-2-5. I will pass 3D, but make a try over 3C, most likely 3S.

Finally, Cascade took a different view of the hand, choosing to sign off with "3♣, Pass or correct. If partner comes to life with a good Michaels then I will have an easy raise to game or even a slam try." The problem with this, is your partner will not come alive on a lot of hands that will make game, and you will languish in 3 or a minor.

I promoted the 3♠ vote to full 100 as it is clearly intended to drive to game, and since the majority of the 2NT voters felt that way as well.

The scores on this hand are…
Votes, scores, Panel, Members
2NT      100       7   
3♠    100       1   
3♣        10       1   

[luke warm]

hehe... well ben, you're in charge but it's hard to see how 7 out of 9 and 1 out of 9 can be worth the same thing...

i personally think 3♠ is a bid one makes when planning on driving to slam.. 2nt *then* 3♠ shows no, or not as much, slam interest

[awm]

I'm not sure I agree with giving 3♠ the full point award here. The panel is hardly unanimous on bidding game on this hand -- Cascade wanted to sign off, Roland is passing 3♦ by opener, Luis may only be inviting, several people didn't comment... and 3♠ could well be a slam try.

It seems to me that if a majority of the panel agrees to a single bid, shouldn't that be the only choice to receive the full award? Otherwise the moderator seems to be overruling the panel's choice.

Just a thought.

[Chamaco]

awm, on May 7 2005, 09:06 AM, said:

It seems to me that if a majority of the panel agrees to a single bid, shouldn't that be the only choice to receive the full award? Otherwise the moderator seems to be overruling the panel's choice.

Just a thought.

Ditto.
The fact that 3S forces to game does not seem enough to earn a full 100 (in my opinion, it is barely enough to avoid ZERO points, and if "NOT LOSING GAME" is the only criterion, then a 5C pass or correct is worth the same award since it does not miss game either....
but I am no expert ).

[HeartA]

So far I got 70+90+90+100+100 = 450. Com'on, 3♠ worths more than 99 . It also keeps 3N option open....

[Chamaco]

HeartA, on May 7 2005, 09:25 AM, said:

So far I got 70+90+90+100+100 = 450. Com'on, 3♠ worths more than 99 . It also keeps 3N option open....

hehe

[Fluffy]

What surprises me is the 3♣ rating :-P, come on you gave 30 for the other 1 votes I've seen.

[Fluffy]

I also wonder if the 3♠ bidder will be happy with these auction:

1♠-2♠-pass-3♠
4♠-5♥-X

[pigpenz]

2NT then will raise partner

[inquiry]

Fluffy, on May 7 2005, 06:17 AM, said:

What surprises me is the 3♣ rating :-P, come on you gave 30 for the other 1 votes I've seen.

The consesus is that should force to game and even try for slam opposite this bid, and that 3♣ here is pass correct. With the panel thinking slam, I thought I was generous to give 30 for a bid that is a signoff.

As far as 100 for 3♠ and 2NT, it is kind of moderator decision. Most of the 2NT bidders were going to drive to game and try for slam, and the 3♠ bidder was going to do the same. In fact, given that some of the 2NT bidders were going to pass 3♦ and only invite to game in clubs if partner had that suit, I actually wanted to split the 2NT reponders so that some got 100 some got something less (both continations can't be best). So I viewed phicro's 3♠ answer more correct than Roland's 2NT response. I didn't feel it fair nor prudent to give Roland 100 for wanting to play maybe 3♦ or 4♣ and then give Phicro less than 100 for analyzing the problem like the majority and coming up with a certain solution. The only problem with 3♠ is that I think it is best used to imply a major fit.

Ben