My (I think) addition to theory(3nt in cuebidding)
#1
Posted 2010-April-02, 08:16
The two most popular are:
a)serious/frivolous 3NT
b)3NT showing a hand without shortness and cuebids being from shortness.
I think those two can be improved in the following way:
-if ♠ are trumps nothing changes
-if ♥ are trumps the meaning of 3NT and 3♠ calls is reversed. 3NT bid after 3♠ (which is now serious/frivolous/no shortness) indicates ♠ cue.
What you gain:
♠ cue is not lost due to usage of 3nt and you don't need to go above game to find out about it.
Classical version:
1♥ 2♣
2♥ 3♥
3NT (no shortness!) - 4♣
4♦ - here we don't know about ♠ cue
My version:
1♥ 2♣
2♥ 3♥
3♠ (no shortness) - 3NT = I have ♠ cuebid, 4♣ would deny it.
What you lose:
nothing ?!
Comments ?
#2
Posted 2010-April-02, 10:04
1NT 2♣, 2♥
4♠ as quantitative with 4 spades in case opener wants to pass, 4NT as exclusion in spades.
1♥ 3♥ (or whatever), 4NT 5♥
5♠ as the king ask with 5NT showing the spade king, 5NT as an ask about spades.
etc.
Btw there are plenty of other meanings of 3NT after trumps are agreed. Justin and I played it was natural and NF but promised extras, which helped for both game and slam bidding.
#3
Posted 2010-April-02, 10:29
RGB Posting, 18th November 2000
#4
Posted 2010-April-02, 10:34
So the interesting questions are who was the first and when did they think of it?
#5
Posted 2010-April-02, 11:42
1♠ - 2♥
3♥ - 3♠ frivolous or ♠ raise?
For those who play frivolous 3♠, what does this 3♠ mean for you?
#6
Posted 2010-April-02, 12:50
Spade/NT switches over hearts come up pretty frequently in a lot of auctions. Friv 3S worked really well for me irl, and is obviously very logical.
#7
Posted 2010-April-02, 12:53
Jlall, on Apr 2 2010, 01:50 PM, said:
Let's see:
At the one level: Kaplan inversion
At the two level: 1H 2H 2S = unspecified shortness, 1H 2H 2N = spade game try
At the 3-level: frivolous 3S/serious spade cue 3N
At the 4-level: kickback
At the 5-level: beats me
#8
Posted 2010-April-02, 12:55
cherdanno, on Apr 2 2010, 01:53 PM, said:
5♠ asking specific kings after reply to keycard (or kickback of course); 5NT as specific suit ask in spades.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#9
Posted 2010-April-02, 12:59
awm, on Apr 2 2010, 01:55 PM, said:
cherdanno, on Apr 2 2010, 01:53 PM, said:
5♠ asking specific kings after reply to keycard (or kickback of course); 5NT as specific suit ask in spades.
Yeah and then over 5S king ask, 5N can show the SK etc.
#10
Posted 2010-April-02, 13:14
Jeff Rubens wrote about that principle in 1980.
His first example is using 3♠/3NT to show an undisclosed shortage.
Over the years I have used this principle in many situations:
modifying Jacoby 2NT (or similar forcing raise);
2♠/2NT enquiry over weak twos;
4♠ Ace asking with hearts agreed (with or without kickback in the minors);
5♠ Grand Slam Force over hearts;
In some cue-bidding auctions we use the extra step created by no trumps to show extras (an abundance of queens and jacks or maybe extra shape) but with nothing to cue. When hearts are agreed 4♠ shows the extras and 4NT is a spade cue;
Serious 3♠/3NT and later we changed to frivolous 3♠/3NT.
There are probably more.
Once you know the general idea of the "useful space principle" its trivial to apply it to different situations.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#11
Posted 2010-April-02, 15:11
Whenever ♥ are trumps, "normal" meanings of ♠ and NT are swapped.
#12
Posted 2010-April-02, 15:53
#13
Posted 2010-April-02, 18:28
-P.J. Painter.
#14
Posted 2010-April-03, 07:04
Cascade, on Apr 2 2010, 08:14 PM, said:
Jeff Rubens wrote about that principle in 1980.
I suspect that Romex game-tries preceded this.
#15
Posted 2010-April-03, 11:27
#16
Posted 2010-April-06, 02:14
kenrexford, on Apr 3 2010, 01:28 AM, said:
Something new isn't that difficult, something NEW that's also GOOD will indeed be difficult
#18
Posted 2010-April-09, 04:40
Free, on Apr 6 2010, 03:14 AM, said:
kenrexford, on Apr 3 2010, 01:28 AM, said:
Something new isn't that difficult, something NEW that's also GOOD will indeed be difficult
Well, I happen to think I've done that. But it goes into an article instead of the forum. Got one accepted for TBW, another one to be submitted.
Edit: Above refers to cuebidding. Submitted articles on other bidding areas as well.
- R. Buckminster Fuller