[PhantomSac]

BTW, on 6 do we agree that 2D then 2N is NF and not showing a bigger hand than a direct 2N, but just showing a flexible hand in case partner wants to pull it? That is probably the correct technical way to bid but I hate doing that against a precision 1D lol, one of the biggest downsides of precision diamond is when your partner is on lead... if the opps have made it sound like they have good diamonds you will rarely lead one.

[PhilKing]

PhantomSac, on 2014-June-22, 13:37, said:

8 seems like an easy 2D bid.

I have modified the quiz to include a follow-up on number eight.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2014-June-21, 10:40, said:

I think the answer is to play an artificial negative after the cue-bid. That ought to be step one. I've never played that though, and I haven't thought about how the continuations would work.

Back as a kid, before I had ever met a person to play bridge with, this is precisely the system I came up with in the absence of a teacher or detailed agreements in the books I had. It is another thing that I abandoned when meeting a real partner.

On Phil's hands, I expected to see a few votes for 2♣ rather than double over 1♦ given that BBFers generally play the top of 2 level overcalls stronger than average. Seems clear to continue 2♣ having doubled though.

#4 seems to have a direct bearing on what we are doing on this hand. If we agree that we always respond to a takeout double with the higher of equal suits (so 1♠ in the OP hand) then we can just forget about the spades. If not then it feels to me that we should introduce them - does anyone play 3♠ here as a fit jump? I guess we are not strong enough even if we do but (to me) interesting anyway.

#8 looks to be a corollary to Justin's question in post #21. Is it reasonable for this sequence to show a good 3 card raise and deny a stop? Maybe that is what is meant by a flexible hand here.

Finally, am going out on a limb on #9 and passing when not vulnerable instead of just agreeing with Justin. Game is worth chasing vulnerable but not vulnerable it feels better to stay low.

I do not have a lot to add for the others hands - interested to see if any posters have alternative suggestions on any of them. If any of the hands produce a lot of discussion we could perhaps split it out into a new thread so as not to swamp the rest.

[gszes]

YAY a QUIZ that will help players decide if they ever want to play with that person as a
partner (is this a pathway to bbo rating?)))))))))))

1. 2c
2. 3h
3. 1n
4. 1s
5. 2h
6. 2d
7. 2h
8. 3c
9 I would have passed 1h and would also pass 2h (after my 2d cue bid).

It will be interesting to see the hands facing us since there might even be a
series of strong objections to a simple 1h rebid:)))

[PhilKing]

Quiz answers:

1. 1♦= Strong Club 4CM.
♠A975 ♥K94 ♦3 ♣AKQJ4

Partner holds: ♠QJ4 ♥87632 ♦QT75 ♣8

If you bid bid 2♣(as did Nickell), partner rebids 2♥, which you pass for +140. If you bid 2♦ (as did Katz) partner jumps to 3♥, rightly or wrongly, which you raise to Four - two off.

2. 1♦= nat
♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ

Partner holds: ♠JT2 ♥953 ♦Q92 ♣8632

Grue did not pick a good moment to raise to 4♥ - down four. Partner will obviously pass 3♥ and rebid 2♥ over 2♦ (which is the correct technical auction imo).

3. 1♦= nat
♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82

Partner holds: ♠743 ♥K862 ♦Q43 ♣973

Stark bid 2♦, and partner contented himself with a conservative 2♥, which went one down. 1NT is the winning choice, and with no impletion pard should let that go. Seven tricks are the limit as the cards lie.

4. 1♦= Precision
♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2

Partner holds: ♠J ♥765 ♦KQ7654 ♣JT3

Palau sniffed out a winning sequence here - he bid 1♠, and over 1NT from partner, bid, 2♥. It continued 2NT-3♥-3NT, which made when diamonds broke.

In principle, partner is unlikely to hold three hearts, but the opponents lack of bidding indicates the odds are somewhat higher. Also, the stronger we are, the more likely partner is to introduce a three-bagger.

5. 1♦= Precision
♠K42 ♥AKQ75 ♦A63 ♣Q5

Partner holds: ♠J86 ♥JT32 ♦J2 ♣9742

Fantoni bid 2♦ and passed 2♥. Drijver jumped to 3♥. Eight tricks were the limit, so cue and pass (or raise to 2♥) wins again.

6. 1♦= Precision
♠AQ3 ♥AK2 ♦A63 ♣KQ64

Partner holds: ♠7652 ♥QJ94 ♦9 ♣T532

Welland cued 2♦ and jumped to 3NT over 2♠ - presumably he took this as a positive move. Partner's 1♥ bid looks like an error - if he responds 1♠, we might use Justin's flexi sequence to reach a pretty spot (and Welland could still have use that route as it went) - 1♠-2♦-2♥-2NT-3♣-5♣! It fails on the lie, but that's life.

7. 1♦= Precision
♠QT2 ♥AKJ7 ♦K8 ♣AJT5

Partner holds: ♠A43 ♥9632 ♦JT976 ♣2

Most roads lead to 4♥ here. Martel chose the straightforward 3♥ raise. If you cue 2♦, partner would probably bid 3♦ - natural.

8. 1♦= Nat
♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753

You cue 2♦ and pard bids 2♥, what now?

Partner holds: ♠98 ♥QJT43 ♦J65 ♣T92

You have follow through with 3♣ now - partner will probably bid 3♦ and you can now give delayed heart support. Demirev simply raised 2♥ to 3♥, which we can see from other hands could easily be a 3-3 fit. Anyway, all roads lead to 4♥.

9. 1♦= Nat
♠AJ75 ♥KJ4 ♦J8 ♣AQJ2

Partner holds: ♠T64 ♥632 ♦T762 ♣K93

As has been pointed out, the hand is a bit weaker than it's point count. Alex Gipson bid 2♦ and reached 2♥ - two off on a sightly inaccurate defence. This would be a good hand for the Rainer Herrmann flexible 1♠ over 1♥.

[whereagles]

Ok ok no peeking:

1. 2C
2. 3H
3. 1NT
4. 1S
5. 2H
6. 2NT
7. 1NT
8. 2D, intending to follow up with 3C
9. 1NT

Let's see how I did... Edit: well, not too bad lol.

[chasetb]

1.) 2♣
2.) 2♦
3.) 1NT
4.) 1♠
5.) 4♥ (I think this hand is way too good for anything other than 3♥, I was probably overly aggressive)
6.) 2♦ (Hearts are a little better than Spades, but agreed on bidding 1♠ the first time)
7.) 3♥
8.) 2♦ -> 3♣
9.) 2♥ (I did think about 1♠ on 4, since I'm used to it in Precision)

EDIT (Added parts in parenthesis)

I'm happy with my results!

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-25, 10:07, said:

2. 1♦= nat
♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ

Partner holds: ♠JT2 ♥953 ♦Q92 ♣8632

Grue did not pick a good moment to raise to 4♥ - down four. Partner will obviously pass 3♥ and rebid 2♥ over 2♦ (which is the correct technical auction imo).

In example 8 partner held ♠98 ♥QJT43 ♦J65 ♣T92 for rebidding 2♥, quite a difference.
I do not like rebidding 3 card suits in response to a cuebid.
I think the bidding should go

(1♦)-DBL-1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠-AP

Quote

3. 1♦= nat
♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82

Partner holds: ♠743 ♥K862 ♦Q43 ♣973

Stark bid 2♦, and partner contented himself with a conservative 2♥, which went one down. 1NT is the winning choice, and with no impletion pard should let that go. Seven tricks are the limit as the cards lie.

I would give serious consideration to 1♠. In this case 1NT works out slightly better

Quote

4. 1♦= Precision
♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2

Partner holds: ♠J ♥765 ♦KQ7654 ♣JT3

Palau sniffed out a winning sequence here - he bid 1♠, and over 1NT from partner, bid, 2♥. It continued 2NT-3♥-3NT, which made when diamonds broke.

In principle, partner is unlikely to hold three hearts, but the opponents lack of bidding indicates the odds are somewhat higher. Also, the stronger we are, the more likely partner is to introduce a three-bagger.

It would never occur to me to bid 1♥ over a Precision 1♦. This shows poor judgement.
What do you want to pass the DBL over a Precision 1♦???

Quote

8. 1♦= Nat
♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753

You cue 2♦ and pard bids 2♥, what now?

Partner holds: ♠98 ♥QJT43 ♦J65 ♣T92

You have follow through with 3♣ now - partner will probably bid 3♦ and you can now give delayed heart support. Demirev simply raised 2♥ to 3♥, which we can see from other hands could easily be a 3-3 fit.

Only if you do not plan your bids with weak hands. I almost never rebid 3 card suits, preferring to respond 1♠ with equal length in the majors, even 3-3. If I were 2♠-3♥-5♦-3♣ I would respond 2♣, which often excites partner less than bidding a 3 card major.
Over 2♦ I can then bid 2♥, which must be a 3 card suit and denies 5 clubs. I admit bidding 2♣ could work out poorly.
Rebidding a major in response to a cuebid should confirm at least a 4 card suit. Otherwise the strong hand never knows what to expect.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2014-June-26, 04:19, said:

In example 8 partner held ♠98 ♥QJT43 ♦J65 ♣T92 for rebidding 2♥, quite a difference.
I do not like rebidding 3 card suits in response to a cuebid.
I think the bidding should go

(1♦)-DBL-1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠-AP


I would give serious consideration to 1♠. In this case 1NT works out slightly better


It would never occur to me to bid 1♥ over a Precision 1♦. This shows poor judgement.
What do you want to pass the DBL over a Precision 1♦???


Only if you do not plan your bids with weak hands. I almost never rebid 3 card suits, preferring to respond 1♠ with equal length in the majors, even 3-3. If I were 2♠-3♥-5♦-3♣ I would respond 2♣, which often excites partner less than bidding a 3 card major.
Over 2♦ I can then bid 2♥, which must be a 3 card suit and denies 5 clubs. I admit bidding 2♣ could work out poorly.
Rebidding a major in response to a cuebid should confirm at least a 4 card suit. Otherwise the strong hand never knows what to expect.

Rainer Herrmann

If you think the 1♥ response on board 4 is bad (it is), you should see their slam bidding.

Regarding the correct response with a weak 3343 or similar, the advantage of 1♥ is that you can pass a flexi Herrmann 1♠ advance - I'm surprised you did not know this.

[akwoo]

#4 I think I bid 1♠ at IMPs and 3♥ at MPs. The 1♠ gives partner a chance to properly evaluate the K♠ but risks +110 rather than +140 (for example if partner passes).

[dake50]

2N seems just right here. It's not like 2N is not constructive, with nothing we would bid 2H. I would say the point ranges are something like 0-4 2H, 5-6 2N, and 7-9 3N. Ofc if you had a good 4 count or a hand with only 3 hearts you might bid 2N. -- PhantomSac


*** Where does an initial 1NT to the T/O Dbl fit in??

[helene_t]

dake50, on 2014-June-27, 10:54, said:

2N seems just right here. It's not like 2N is not constructive, with nothing we would bid 2H. I would say the point ranges are something like 0-4 2H, 5-6 2N, and 7-9 3N. Ofc if you had a good 4 count or a hand with only 3 hearts you might bid 2N. -- PhantomSac
*** Where does an initial 1NT to the T/O Dbl fit in??

1NT denies a 4-card major while 1♥ will usually be based on four or more hearts.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2014-June-22, 01:32, said:

Almost everyone plays double-and-bid as "flexible" at the three-, four- and five-levels. We do that because:
- The flexible hands are more common and more important to show.
- Including the flexible hands in double-and-cuebid means overloads the cue-bid and means we never get to describe the flexible hand properly.
- The one-suiters can usually find another bid, albeit an imperfect one.

What's different about the two-level?

A 4315 17-count is more common than a one-suiter that was too strong to overcall. The 4315 has three interesting features to show - the secondary hearts, the club suit, and the spade suit. Any of these could be the key to whether to bid game or not, and to the decision about which game to bid. The one-suiter has one interesting feature to show.

In standard methods, with the 4315 presumably you cue-bid and pass 2♥ or 2NT, so you never get to show your clubs. Or you cue-bid and partner jumps to show extras, and your clubs are still lost. All this so that you can play in 2♣ rather than 3♣ when you have a one-suiter that will often produce nine tricks anyway?

As for which hands are included, I think it should be anything that looked like a strong takeout double at the start of the auction, so 4315, 4225, 3325, 4216 and 3316 might all be included, depending on the honour location.

I would play double and 2c as teh strong flexible but not quite forcing hand. 17-19 with 5 clubs is routine. Many shapes possible.

[petterb]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-25, 10:07, said:

2. 1♦= nat
♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ

Partner holds: ♠JT2 ♥953 ♦Q92 ♣8632

Grue did not pick a good moment to raise to 4♥ - down four. Partner will obviously pass 3♥ and rebid 2♥ over 2♦ (which is the correct technical auction imo).

Partner doubles 1♦ showing interest in the unbid suits and you bid 1♥, your worst suit, instead of the obvious 2♣? That's bad bridge imho.

[Zelandakh]

petterb, on 2014-July-22, 18:21, said:

Partner doubles 1♦ showing interest in the unbid suits and you bid 1♥, your worst suit, instead of the obvious 2♣? That's bad bridge imho.

It depends on your style of doubles. For many modern players the club support after doubling 1♦ will often fall short of your (or indeed my) expectations.