[zillahandp]

Oh dear now seen the full hand so p has little idea but you rebid 3s and he raises to four if not you bid spades again, no point asking about daft bids

[BillPatch]

zillahandp, on 2015-August-24, 08:55, said:

Ht contorl spade fit slam invite to accept explore further with a cue bid in minors, go slow with big hands

The latin suffix and unfamiliarity with the English idiom allows us to deduce that zilla is not from the three English speaking countries in the ACBL. George Rosenkranz is the only Mexican I have read in the realm of bridge. I doubt Romex is the country's standard, bt have no direct knowledge. So I bet zilla comes from a country that has not come from a Western Q bid country.

[mikeh]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-23, 20:22, said:

While the gambling NT is "standard", only about 50% of 2/1 bidders use it. While I use the convention in some partnerships, and consider its use here WTP in those pairings, impossible is a slight overstatement for the bridge world for those who use the convention.

My guess would be that in the expert community, only a tiny fraction use gambling 3N. I think it was Fred G. (no doubt echoing what other experts have said over the years) who said (and I am paraphrasing) that using the gambling 3N is a problem because on a lot of hands on which you'd want to be in 3N with a solid minor, you want partner to be declarer.

I agree with Mr. Ace btw, the given hand is a 3♣ call. No-one is holding a gun to opener's head, so when he bids 3♣, responder will strain to bid 3N when possible.

[case_no_6]

You could play it asking for a stopper, but the standard agreement/meaning is a spade raise. It is better than the immediate value bid of 2S or 3S. So it is like a 3.5S bid or better.

[BillPatch]

Case_no_6,
Sorry, you and ggwhiz seem to be in a distinct minority here in your opinion that the cue bid as the 2 and 1/2 spade bid is standard. Do you have any books or articles in major bridge journals to justify your claims?

[kenberg]

dickiegera, on 2015-August-23, 14:46, said:

---

These were the East /West hands

I think that over 2H a 3C call makes sense. On those hands where 3NT is right there will be a good chance that East can decide that for himself. Assuming that the 3H was a request to bid 3NT with a heart stop, the problem is that W does not really know rgat there are 9 tricks. he needs something from E, and if he bids 3C showing a good suit and some values, his partner is apt to get it right when he holds the needed cards. Not always, but often.

After 3C they will find either 4S or 5C.

With agreements as I suggested earlier, that after 3H E can bid 3S forcing or 3NT, here he can choose 3S and then 4S. My thought was that 3S shows a good heart suit, 3NT shows a heart stop, and when he has both he has to choose. With a pretty decent seven card suit I am pretty sure that I would go with the spades.

But back to the beginning. I far prefer 3C to 3H.


As you can see, I am not fond of the idea that 3H is an absolute command to bid 3NT with a stop, regardless of what else you have. But if that is the agreement then W should certainly not bid 3H.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2015-August-23, 23:01, said:

Well, twelve tricks doesn't depend on the spade position only, since the squeeze is of the triple variety.

I don't really see the connection with the OP topic or hand, but I guess it is there somewhere.

The reason that I liked the hand was, as I said, it is not obvious to me, just looking at NS, what the optimal line is. Double dummy, it's easy. But imagining myself playing it? We can hope.

The connection with the OP is the interpretation of the cue. Not exactly equivalent, but in the same ballpark.

Anyway, I just liked the hand a lot.