[pooltuna]

3♣ is a bit pushy but change the QJ♠ --> K♠ and the contract is a fair one.

[the hog]

Laughing even louder at JLackofLogic. Read my posts. South had no business bidding 3C.
Next time sth will have a hand which only require a C stop and will be playing in 3D.

[JLOGIC]

lol

[Phil]

Ron seriously. Lol.

3♣ is pretty obv.

[quiddity]

The first time I read the OP I didn't notice West's double of 3♣. What's "expert standard" treatment of a redouble by North? Does it promise the ace or is that just for slam-going cuebids? Does it promise extras? I wonder if it can be used to get South to declare with ♣Qxx for example.

[the hog]

Phil, on 2011-March-31, 18:49, said:

Ron seriously. Lol.

3♣ is pretty obv.

Think so Phil?
Sth has
ATx
KJx
AQJxx
xx

Give Nth
Qxxx
Qxx
Kxx
Ax

Do you think Nth should bid 3NT now? It is a nice 11 count. You won't make 3NT, losing 4C and a H. Don't forget Nth is a passed hand. Don't you think with sharp cards Nth might have made a cue raise? Still want to bid 3C? Anyway my last post on this.

Quiddity, for me the xx would show a half stopper.

[ggwhiz]

the hog, on 2011-March-31, 21:31, said:

Think so Phil?
Sth has
ATx
KJx
AQJxx
xx

Give Nth
Qxxx
Qxx
Kxx
Ax

Do you think Nth should bid 3NT now? It is a nice 11 count. You won't make 3NT, losing 4C and a H. Don't forget Nth is a passed hand. Don't you think with sharp cards Nth might have made a cue raise? Still want to bid 3C? Anyway my last post on this.

Quiddity, for me the xx would show a half stopper.

North didn't bid 2 incredibly wimpy ♦ with that hand did they? We disagree here but that's what the forums are for.

ps. 1 of norths cards is on the floor.

[the hog]

ggwhiz, on 2011-March-31, 22:03, said:

ps. 1 of norths cards is on the floor.

Yes, give Nth another H or similar.

[han]

the hog, on 2011-March-31, 21:31, said:

Sth has
ATx
KJx
AQJxx
xx

The original Sth had 6 dds and a stiff clb. Give Nth the hnd you posted and 5C is terrific.

[han]

the hog, on 2011-March-31, 21:31, said:

Anyway my last post on this.

I gave you a +1 for this.

[MrAce]

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that 3♣ was DOUBLED.

It seems to me N could take advantage of that DBL. Just RDBL it and show your stopper (even if that shows 1st round in that suit, you have it ) and if pd bids 3 NT then fine, if partner bids 3♦ that means he needed more than just a stopper, so u pass. This is superior than other suggestions, since others seem to drag us above 3♦ level.

Thats how i would bid it. And if i did not have ♣ stopper and min hand i wld bid 3♦, with better hand and no ♣ stopper or partial stopper i would pass the DBL.

By the way, without DBL i am with The Hog. If this cuebid is agreed to ask stopper in that suit by a pdship, then it is asking stopper in that suit. Not our range. (Although it may be better to play it as Justin suggested, but then we need to redefine this cue and call it some sort of game try )

[655321]

MrAce, on 2011-April-03, 03:01, said:

If this cuebid is agreed to ask stopper in that suit by a pdship, then it is asking stopper in that suit.

Pretty sure everyone agrees with that...

MrAce, on 2011-April-03, 03:01, said:

By the way, without DBL i am with The Hog.

Here is hog logic from earlier in the thread:

the hog, on 2011-March-31, 18:04, said:

JLOGIC, on 2011-March-31, 05:57, said:

lol the hoggg.

It isn't that difficult, 3C is a game try. Over that, partner can bid 3D with a min. If overcaller wants to be in game opposite a min with a club stopper, can then bid again with 3M (which is not natural due to failure to bid 2M the time before). Easy game.

Laughing even louder at JLackofLogic. Read my posts. South had no business bidding 3C.
Next time sth will have a hand which only require a C stop and will be playing in 3D.

[MrAce]

Numeric, i see your point.

I think The Hog is not happy with bidding 3♦ when pd asked him ♣ stopper, and expect partner to expect him to have ♣ stopper and expect him to reopen the bidding and ask again the question to say all he need is a ♣ stopper, at the cost of playing at 4 level instead of 3 when learns i really did not have the ♣ stopper.

This looks fancy on forum page. Unless i have an agreement, I would not bid 3♦ with a ♣ stopper at the table just because my hand is weak, and expect me and my partner to be on the same page with all our expectations. I like Justin and other people's suggestion as i said b4, I would worry about misunderstanding and be scared to do it at the table to be honest.

[mfa1010]

MrAce, on 2011-April-03, 03:01, said:

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that 3♣ was DOUBLED.

It seems to me N could take advantage of that DBL. Just RDBL it and show your stopper (even if that shows 1st round in that suit, you have it ) and if pd bids 3 NT then fine, if partner bids 3♦ that means he needed more than just a stopper, so u pass. This is superior than other suggestions, since others seem to drag us above 3♦ level.

Thats how i would bid it. And if i did not have ♣ stopper and min hand i wld bid 3♦, with better hand and no ♣ stopper or partial stopper i would pass the DBL.

For us XX would be nothing in clubs but extra values. So I posted what north should do rather than precisely what he should bid, since that depends on style. I supposed that most would have an agreement when cuebids are doubled.

MrAce, on 2011-April-03, 15:57, said:

Numeric, i see your point.

I think The Hog is not happy with bidding 3♦ when pd asked him ♣ stopper, and expect partner to expect him to have ♣ stopper and expect him to reopen the bidding and ask again the question to say all he need is a ♣ stopper, at the cost of playing at 4 level instead of 3 when learns i really did not have the ♣ stopper.

This looks fancy on forum page. Unless i have an agreement, I would not bid 3♦ with a ♣ stopper at the table just because my hand is weak, and expect me and my partner to be on the same page with all our expectations. I like Justin and other people's suggestion as i said b4, I would worry about misunderstanding and be scared to do it at the table to be honest.

I thought that there would be consensus that ANY bid below 3 of our suit in bid-and-raise sequences doesn't promise more than invitational strength. Regardless of trial bid style. For me this is not fancy forum bidding.

[MrAce]

mfa1010, on 2011-April-04, 03:48, said:

I thought that there would be consensus that ANY bid below 3 of our suit in bid-and-raise sequences doesn't promise more than invitational strength. Regardless of trial bid style. For me this is not fancy forum bidding.

Thats correct for other bids below our suit, however the cue, especially when defined to ask a stopper changes things, since the suggestions here i read seems to not satisfy the pdship below our desired 3 level contract. So this "below our suit" doesnt make sense to me, since you will go ABOVE our suit each time when cuer has extras but responder has minimum and/or has no stopper.

Of course that has a lot to do with how we raise pd's 1 level overcall. I can overcall with huge hands compared to majority and we can raise on a dime. Perhaps my mistake is assuming this style to be common. Just like the xx would show first round assumption.

[mfa1010]

MrAce, on 2011-April-04, 10:49, said:

Thats correct for other bids below our suit, however the cue, especially when defined to ask a stopper changes things, since the suggestions here i read seems to not satisfy the pdship below our desired 3 level contract. So this "below our suit" doesnt make sense to me, since you will go ABOVE our suit each time when cuer has extras but responder has minimum and/or has no stopper.

Of course that has a lot to do with how we raise pd's 1 level overcall. I can overcall with huge hands compared to majority and we can raise on a dime. Perhaps my mistake is assuming this style to be common. Just like the xx would show first round assumption.

It has nothing to do with you but it's just that discussions like these become so annoying. I mean, everybody sits with their own assumptions and argue for their life with others who sit with their own assumptions, and so it goes on and on and on, yawn.

OP wrote that they "tend to play stopper asking instead of stopper showing" and some seem to interpret this as if it is a command to 3NT with a stopper. What the heck, I don't care what people think. This discussion has become one of semantics, not one of bridge. At least I hope so, or it is a really silly one if it is just about bridge.

[MrAce]

mfa1010, on 2011-April-04, 17:59, said:

It has nothing to do with you but it's just that discussions like these become so annoying. I mean, everybody sits with their own assumptions and argue for their life with others who sit with their own assumptions, and so it goes on and on and on, yawn.

OP wrote that they "tend to play stopper asking instead of stopper showing" and some seem to interpret this as if it is a command to 3NT with a stopper. What the heck, I don't care what people think. This discussion has become one of semantics, not one of bridge. At least I hope so, or it is a really silly one if it is just about bridge.

Sorry we bothered your sensitive eyes and valuable time with our assumptions, we should have known better about the standart bids like when a bid asks stopper, it actually does ask strength, and RDBL of a cue shows nothing in that suit but strength on side. I give up.