'The most interesting questions from visitors to the Dutch sister site (Bridgevaria.nl)'.

Dear Ed and Peter,

I have a question about the bidding problem on Bridgevaria.com, 13 November, the deal from the Venice Cup (click the following link to read that article: bridge bidding problem).
Australian Bourke picks up as South:

¹ Spade fit, invitational

This is about North's 3♣ cuebid. My point is that North bids the opponents' second suit. My question: North had a choice between bidding 2♦ (cuebid in the opponents' first suit) and 3♣. Do these bids have a different meaning or are they basically the same? Or is this just a matter of partnership agreement?

Kind regards,

Remco ten Hagen

Answer Ed Hoogenkamp (South)

Dear Remco,

I think this is mostly a matter of partnership agreement. I usually played these bids semi-natural. So I bid my longer suit. Or, another possibility, the stronger of the two suits.
I'm not sure whether that was the best of agreements. I think the main reason that we made this agreement was that is was easy to memorise :-).
Probably there is something to be said for bidding your shortest suit.

Ok, I don't know.

Peter does. He knows everything.

Saludos desde Barcelona

Answer Peter van der Linden (North)

Dear Remco,

It pleases me that Ed is wrong again. Because I do not know everything. Far from it.
It doesn't please me that I don't know the answer to your question either...
It doesn't please me either that, concerning the most obvious solution, I have to agree with Ed, as I'm inclined to say: bid the stronger of the two suits (or the shortest, matter of agreement). You make a trial bid, as it were: a long suit trial or a short suit trial respectively. Like in:

¹ Long or short suit trial

Still I can think of another way of distinguishing between the two cuebids 2♦ and 3♣ (I have returned to the auction from your question):
- Perhaps 2♦, the cheaper cuebid, could convey this message: 'I had a maximum in view of my pass over West's opening bid, but no fit and no clear-cut alternative bid (after all, with for instance 14 HCP and guards in both of West's suits, North could bid 2NT, so 2♦ would deny such a hand). If South has some extra strength, he can react by bidding a guard in one of West's suits, or 2NT if he has both), or 3♠ with a six card suit.
- 3♣, the expensive cuebid, shows a fit and is invitational to 4♠ (as the Australian women sitting NS obviously played it).

Another possibility:
- A jump to 3♠ by North is an old-fashioned invitation to game (since East has already passed his partner's opening bid, North doesn't need this bid as a pre-emptive)
- Both cuebids then carry the same meaning: 'no fit, invitational to 3NT, I have a guard in the suit I bid, but not in the other one.'
On closer inspection however, I don't like the idea that 3♠ by North is an old-fashioned invitational bid. Mostly because it violates the sound basic principle of system on: if 3♠ keeps its usual meaning, there is less chance of mistakes.

There you have it: I don't know what is commonly accepted here, so I'm philosophising away. Just like Ed and that doesn't please me a bit... (sorry, Ed).

En hils fra Orkanger