[jillybean]

---

[paulg]

3♦ - which I play as a mixed raise. I am in the upper range, but I don't hace a spade honour and my ♦K is hard to evaluate. I really want to get across my four-card support.

[jdiana]

paulg, on 2025-January-02, 02:40, said:

3♦ - which I play as a mixed raise. I am in the upper range, but I don't hace a spade honour and my ♦K is hard to evaluate. I really want to get across my four-card support.

Nice. Tough choice between this and 2♦ though IMO.

https://www.larryco....cue-mixed-raise

[awm]

2♦ for me, this shows the values more accurately than a mixed raise, and you never know when 2♠ will buy the contract. If opponents bid 3x I can compete to 3♠ later, and I don’t really want to encourage partner to sacrifice against 4♥.

[jillybean]

Thanks, some number of diamonds is clear here.

Does changing the vulnerability to V vs. NV change anything?

[mycroft]

This is probably a silly question, but why diamonds and not hearts?

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-January-02, 09:57, said:

This is probably a silly question, but why diamonds and not hearts?

It’s a level lower, and removes any doubt as to what I’m showing/asking.

[paulg]

mycroft, on 2025-January-02, 09:57, said:

This is probably a silly question, but why diamonds and not hearts?

It's not a silly question.

Principally, none of us really believe that East has guaranteed a heart suit: perhaps it is a guarantee for an intermediate, but at higher levels there are hands that where you have to double as you don't really have a good choice and have too many points to pass - think a 3334 hand, ten points and no spade stop (you regularly see these hands in bidding competitions!).

So we like 2♥ to be natural as it can still be our best fit.

A couple of decades ago everyone played all these cue bids as spade raises because Andrew Robson and Mike Lawrence implied you could never have enough ways to raise partner. Nowadays the world seems to think that we only really need a couple of ways.

[mycroft]

Okay.

I believe that 1♦-(1♠)-X on fewer than 4 hearts is less likely than the 3% of 1♦s on 4=4=3=2, as far as suit lengths goes.

I understand taking away "potentially our best fit" and a major, but I also dislike 2♦ allowing an easy 2♥ call (are we all sure what 1♦-1♠-X-2♥; X means? Are we all sure it's "I have a 2♥ raise"? I'm not). Sure we have the spades, which is magic and all, but are we sure that they'll work out the extent of their heart fit if they don't get to bid hearts?

I asked the question, I got my answer. I'm not sure I'm buying, but it's clearly sensible. Frankly I was just surprised that everybody used diamonds as the cuebid, when there was a "known" major sitting there, and now I've heard more about "known".

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2025-January-05, 20:46, said:

Okay.

I believe that 1♦-(1♠)-X on fewer than 4 hearts is less likely than the 3% of 1♦s on 4=4=3=2, as far as suit lengths goes.

Take away the unnecessary clutter of ever bidding diamonds on 4=4=3=2 and it gets easier to clean up the rest

[mycroft]

Because, of course, I get to tell the opponents how to bid...

(currently playing 1♦ 2+, 11-13 BAL, 10-15 unbal. So I have nothing to say, do I?)

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-January-06, 11:36, said:

Because, of course, I get to tell the opponents how to bid...

(currently playing 1♦ 2+, 11-13 BAL, 10-15 unbal. So I have nothing to say, do I?)

The opponents usually know how to bid, given accurate disclosure... which I know you supply.
In strong NT world I long ago gave up worrying about 1♦ 4+ (except maybe that it should be 5+).