[BillHiggin]

On reviewing a transcript of an online bridge lesson, I encountered a method I had not been aware of (note that there are a rather large set of things that I am not aware of). Sometimes these lessons may be actually presenting the instructor's pet methods and their widespread adoption may be more of a wish that a fact.

This article suggested that in competitive auctions that a cue bid show a 4+ card invite or better raise, while 2N showed a 3 card invite or better raise!

Clearly the cue bid to show a good raise is quite widespread. The 2N call -- I do not recall seeing it.

What would general thoughts be about this?

Might it be more "law" like to use a cue bid when available below 2 of our suit as the 3 card invite+ raise and then 2N as the 4 card invite+ raise?

Thank you in advance for your replies!

[TylerE]

Seems...bad.

There are things I would much rather use 2NT for (including natural, for once).

If you really wanted to play such a method the higher bid really should be the 4 bagger.

[msjennifer]

In competitive bidding,I personally feel that, the 2NT bid must be available to show a real balanced hand where the hand is not suitable for a making a negative double.

[dsLawsd]

Usually some form of double would be used to show 3 card support.
Whether snapdragon, xyz, or support doubles would apply depending on your level of agreement. NT should convey info about stoppers and size.

There are systems where 2 NT would show a limit raise or more, especially using Polish methods.

[pescetom]

BillHiggin, on 2018-September-07, 14:59, said:

This article suggested that in competitive auctions that a cue bid show a 4+ card invite or better raise, while 2N showed a 3 card invite or better raise!

Clearly the cue bid to show a good raise is quite widespread. The 2N call -- I do not recall seeing it.

What would general thoughts be about this?

This should be the other way round, with 2N showing INV 4+ card and a cue bid of opponent's suit showing INV 3 card.
The holder of 3 card should ensure that his partner has a chance to bid NT first and thus put the interferer on lead.
It's probably best also to play it only over a major suit opening.

With these improvements it becomes a very effective scheme which is common in modern 2/1 outside North America.

[bilalz]

found this:
https://www.bridgeba...l-interference/

[pescetom]

bilalz, on 2018-September-09, 03:19, said:

found this:
https://www.bridgeba...l-interference/

If your system does not use 2NT as an invite after an uncontested 1M opening then it's probably best not to use it as an invite after competition either: just follow whatever your system prescribes or is normal practice (see Stephen's comment in that topic). It's fun to tinker with systems but unless you have considerable skill it tends to do more harm than good and the damage is not always immediately obvious.

[steve2005]

Seems logical to have 2N as the 4-card raise.
A cuebid by an unpassed hand needs to be available for big hands without support. So cue should be at most 3 card support.
By passed hand cue would always be 3-card support.

[mikeh]

What I am currently playing, at the suggestion of a partner who has multiple NABC titles and even more CNTC wins, is that in a major, we play both 2N and a cuebid as raises.

Generally, with one exception, the cheaper of the cuebid or the limit raise is gf, and the higher is limit. The exception is 1H (2S), where for obvious reasons we use 3S as gf and 2N as limit.

The argument is that often-times an overcall gets raised, sometimes to game, usually as a sacrifice, and it will be helpful to opener to know whether we are in a gf sequence or not.

This is particularly true when we need to know whether forcing passes exist. Our meta-rule is that fp exist only of the auction is below the level to which we have forced.

So if we are bidding spades, and the auction is 1S (2H) 3H (4H), 3H forced us only as far as 3S, so 4H can be passed out. You may argue that this is a small target, and that it rarely pays to defend 4H undoubled. If they make, we probably should save and if they go down, we probably should double. That's fine in theory but (especially since we tend to open most 11 counts) not so clear in practice, and I've never lost a match because I was +50 on these boards, and not a nervous +100.

There are other factors as well.

Picture a great hand with slam interest opposite a limit raise....we do something to show that.

Picture a not so great but still good hand with slam interest only opposite a gf response....we can't just bid game, so we do something to show slam interest.

How does responder know whether we are looking for slam opposite a good limit (so he needs to bid a good limit aggressively) or only opposite a good gf (so he needs to back-pedal and sign off with a limit)?

When, in other words, does either player limit their hand, if one has extras?

Meanwhile, we give up the natural 2N. I was reluctant to agree to the method initially precisely because I thought that I'd hate giving up the natural 2N, but it hasn't worked out that way. I don't play much, but have played maybe 35 sessions of duplicate and maybe another 200 hands of BBO practice, so pushing 1,000 hands, and while the 2N/cuebid has arisen several times, the natural 2N hand hasn't happened once.

I think the distinction between limit and gf is far more important that the distinction between 3 and 4 card support.

[ahydra]

I've always played: over majors, cue = 3-card INV+ raise and 2NT = 4+-card INV+ raise; over minors, 2NT is natural with cue = any inv+ raise. It's worked well - the 9th trump is a very powerful card when you're declaring, as it opens up endplay/dummy reversal lines.

mikeh makes a good point about GF vs limit, which can be very useful to help with your FP auctions if 4th hand bounces the pre-empt. I've never considered this, but my gut feel is that it makes the limit raise such a narrow target that it won't come up often enough to warrant its existence. Playing both bids as INV+, opener would generally bid game (or game try) anyway if he has anything better than a minimum pile of rubbish.

The use of the direct raise to 3M plays into this. I play this as "mixed" or thereabouts, something like 7-9 with 4-card support, but others prefer it to be more pre-emptive - in which case your "limit raise" bid would be more wide-ranging (perhaps even as wide as good 7-bad 12) and hence more frequent.

ahydra

[rmnka447]

mikeh, on 2018-September-10, 17:22, said:

What I am currently playing, at the suggestion of a partner who has multiple NABC titles and even more CNTC wins, is that in a major, we play both 2N and a cuebid as raises.

So how would you be handling a "natural" 2 NT hand? Would it be making a negative double and then bidding 2 NT?

[mikeh]

rmnka447, on 2018-September-11, 01:34, said:

So how would you be handling a "natural" 2 NT hand? Would it be making a negative double and then bidding 2 NT?

That is ‘the ‘issue. The negative double would be the usual route, but options include passing, to await the hoped for reopening double then 2N or stretching to bid 3N. Depends on what the hand looks like. Bear in mind that we routinely open 1N with 5332 in range, and range is 14-16. Thus our openings are either unbalanced or strong or 10-13 hcp. With unbalanced, usually opener rates to be short(ish) in the overcall suit, if responder has moderate length there.

So far, especially since the natural 2N hand seems very rare, the method appears to be a winner, based on frequency. My sense is that this will prove to be the case in the long-term, but there is little doubt in my mind that the natural 2N hand will end poorly for us at some point. However, every coherent system includes choices that operate to similar effect. Thus we play that 1M 1N 2D promises 4 cards and that 2C can be as few as 2. Then what do we bid when we are 4=5=3=1, since we do not play flannery?? Again, the answer is that we choose whatever distortion seems least wrong, 2C or 2D depending on how our hand looks.