sfi, on 2020-June-09, 04:19, said:
The current "expert standard" is basically the first one, where you show the shape and don't worry about sorting out the strength early. I'm not saying it's best, just that's it's flavour of the month at the moment. The second one is the normal alternative - I generally describe it as "either weak or 'double and bid' strength, but not in between". Since it's forcing, you can easily include very good hands in the cue bid. I'm not sure I see merit in the third one, but I may be missing something.
But yes, partnership agreement is key.
The first one is also the way I play it at the moment (although I should perhaps also add that we always show 2 known suits with the cue bid, in this auction
♥+
♣, reasoning that if they have the black suits and we have the red suits we can bid
♦ over their
♣ but not the other way around). The important difference between the first option and the others is that it requires more speculative constructive answers by partner.
The merit of the last option is that you will rarely go for a big number, while still limiting the strength of your hand in a single bid. Plus in theory you reserve the most room for the strongest hands, although in practice the opponents are likely to jump and you have to play catch up with 16+ hands. It is also easy to remember, and covers the point range you are most likely to pick up at the table. That being said, it is my least favourite of the agreements listed.