[Lovera]

Yes via google it is possible to found more and comparate it. The ambiguity is higher if you have to consider of cueing responding partner that was the opener and this case must be separate considering only contested bidding such as 1♣ by opener -1♠ first overcall- p- ?.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2016-May-25, 13:06, said:

Yes via google it is possible to found more and comparate it. The ambiguity is higher if you have to consider of cueing responding partner that was the opener and this case must be separate considering only contested bidding such as 1♣ by opener -1♠ first overcall- p- ?.

Not really because you also have an additional level of bidding. With a limit raise you cue and do not bid beyond 2♠. With what would be a minimum GF opposite an opening you cue and commit to the 3 level. And with a stronger hand still you have enough for game even opposite an overcall. There are other ways of playing of course but this is an easy one even for intermediates to follow.

[Wackojack]

The book "Competitive Bidding" by jeremy Flint and Richard Sharp published 1980 describes the UCB as a useful modern gadget.

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-25, 15:12, said:

Not really because you also have an additional level of bidding. With a limit raise you cue and do not bid beyond 2♠. With what would be a minimum GF opposite an opening you cue and commit to the 3 level. And with a stronger hand still you have enough for game even opposite an overcall. There are other ways of playing of course but this is an easy one even for intermediates to follow.

Perhaps i am partially agree with you (but see it later). About ambiguity this is referred at the way in which the argoument is talked around considering "togheter/contemporaneally(=line of opener vs defence)" this type of bidding. So, i think, is less clear.

[Lovera]

How already told in others topic this bidding (named also Unusual Cue Bid=UCB) is reserved for opponents and anytime, if is the case, there is the eventuality to have two bids for cue (or this one can occur implicity in a Michaels diamond bidding). I think that the lower cue has to be reserved for indication of 10/11 force points whilest the higher for 12/13 with four cards support.

[Lovera]

At the other side as i told, a similar cue becoming on the line of opener when the first opp immediatly overcall and partner has, then, the possibility to use cue bidding in third seat. If this cue remain at second level the range of force should be 10/11 p., forcing level three when jumping is 12/13 (and this range if opp bids jumping too). Instead if bidding remains at level but forces three (i.e.1♠-(2♥)-"3♥") the cue at this moment should be reserved to show a better hand with 14/+ points and same support as in UCB.

[Stephen Tu]

For your last 1s-2h-3h sequence, it depends on how you play the alternative 3s jump raise. These days the vast majority play the jump raise as weak, not invitational. The idea being to disturb the opps accuracy in determining whether to bid game in hearts, or find a fit in another suit, and to allow partner to judge to bid 4s either as a sac or to make knowing of at least 4cd support. If you play the jump raise as weak, that means the cue had to handle invitational hands, so it is good 10+. Opener assumes the lower range, if he attempts sign off in 3, then responder with more simply bids on.

An older style barmar mentioned keeps the jump raise as invitational so the cue is gf. This makes some slam bidding easier since responder promises about a K more but gives up the ability to preempt with the weak hand. If this is the case your range of 14+ would be weird, because people want to force game with 13 only and many 12s also. And the invite jump raise should include 11s and many 10s because raising to 2 only would be insufficiently encouraging.

[Lovera]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-26, 13:25, said:

For your last 1s-2h-3h sequence, it depends on how you play the alternative 3s jump raise. These days the vast majority play the jump raise as weak, not invitational. The idea being to disturb the opps accuracy in determining whether to bid game in hearts, or find a fit in another suit, and to allow partner to judge to bid 4s either as a sac or to make knowing of at least 4cd support. If you play the jump raise as weak, that means the cue had to handle invitational hands, so it is good 10+. Opener assumes the lower range, if he attempts sign off in 3, then responder with more simply bids on.

An older style barmar mentioned keeps the jump raise as invitational so the cue is gf. This makes some slam bidding easier since responder promises about a K more but gives up the ability to preempt with the weak hand. If this is the case your range of 14+ would be weird, because people want to force game with 13 only and many 12s also. And the invite jump raise should include 11s and many 10s because raising to 2 only would be insufficiently encouraging.

If you are referring at when pairs bidding is not interferred than a direct jumping (i.e. 1♠-p-3♠ is strong (14-18 points) otherwise, if is interferred to favourite intervention for other lower biddings the range of force is amplied by system (that combines alternatively direct and delayed for raising ). About my observation on 3♥ i have indicated this force (14/+) considering a different type in bidding (=not jumping) that, for mine advise, allow to insert it.

[barmar]

Lovera, on 2016-May-27, 08:15, said:

If you are referring at when pairs bidding is not not interferred than a direct jumping (i.e. 1♠-p-3♠ is strong (14-18 points)

Most people these days don't play that as strong. It's usually a limit raise (10-12 points, and probably a 4-card suit). But people who play Bergen Raises use it as a preemptive (weak) raise. Strong raises are usually shown with artificial conventions, such as Jacoby 2NT.

[Stephen Tu]

Lovera, on 2016-May-27, 08:15, said:

If you are referring at when pairs bidding is not not interferred

No, I was only talking about bidding when there is competition. 1♠-(2♥)-3♠ is usually played as weak (0-~6), or weak mixed (~4-7), not invitational (10-12).

Quote

than a direct jumping (i.e. 1♠-p-3♠ is strong (14-18 points)

People haven't played jump raises as strong in duplicate circles for many, many decades (still used in some rubber bridge clubs that don't use any modern bidding methods). You need to stop using books published before 1950 as your references. At least restrict yourself to books published after 1980. Nobody uses 1♠-p-3♠ as strong/forcing anymore, it's invitational (10-12) or weak.

Also, requiring 14 points to GF is way too conservative. 13 is enough to GF, as are good 12s. And even fewer HCP when shapely and having ruffing values.

[Lovera]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-27, 09:40, said:

No, I was only talking about bidding when there is competition. 1♠-(2♥)-3♠ is usually played as weak (0-~6), or weak mixed (~4-7), not invitational (10-12).


People haven't played jump raises as strong in duplicate circles for many, many decades (still used in some rubber bridge clubs that don't use any modern bidding methods). You need to stop using books published before 1950 as your references. At least restrict yourself to books published after 1980. Nobody uses 1♠-p-3♠ as strong/forcing anymore, it's invitational (10-12) or weak.

Also, requiring 14 points to GF is way too conservative. 13 is enough to GF, as are good 12s. And even fewer HCP when shapely and having ruffing values.

Yes and for instance i have not books (to use for) published before 1950. The indication was, among other ones, for a direct raising at 3rd level in system but not the lonely for this aim (and the same for pointing). Althoug, playing in clubs as already told, i have had rescountring by players and score in this (i know old-fashioned) way. Infact this topic try to explore bidding for up-to-dating/integrating in system that i use.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-27, 09:40, said:

People haven't played jump raises as strong in duplicate circles for many, many decades (still used in some rubber bridge clubs that don't use any modern bidding methods). You need to stop using books published before 1950 as your references.

What's your problem with the Culbertson system

[MrAce]

Lovera, on 2016-May-17, 10:17, said:

I don't want to say but i have seen it only few time ago and not in Rel. or Main Club where i used to play for a long time.

I teach it to my students as soon as we come to the part where opponents bid too. I never teach them michaels or other conventions that requires cuebid. . They learn that it means either support +11+ hcp or asks stopper for 3 NT in competitive auctions or to create a forcing auction (for example responding to a T/O double etc) and teach them how to separate them from each other. I mainly focus on these 3 functions of cue bids.

I am also surprised just like Richard and Barmar that you have not seen this being used among real players just like GIB.

From your posts you sound like a logical person. Let me try to tell why it is important, especially when the suit is a major suit. If you do not use cue as a support, then as you mentioned already, you will have to raise the suit. You will raise to 2 and 3 or 4. Depending on your strength. Here is why this is not optimal use of them

• You do not want to end up at 3 level when you have to jump to 3, especially with only 3 card support.
• You lose a lot of space just to show 3 vard fit and 11 hcp.
• 4 card fit is very vital. We all desire to know whether we have a 5-4 or 6-4 fit or a 5-3 fit. This helps us a lot to re evaluate our hand. It is not optimal to disable yourself from showing this to partner just because you do not have strength to jump to 3. And pd will never know with how many trumps you support him. So cues allow you to jump raise pd with 4-5 trumps and weak hands.
• IF your cue does not promise a support, partner, instead of being able to jump to game, not being sure there is a fit, will be forced to make bids that can be used for much better purposes had he/she known the fit.

[barmar]

Lovera, on 2016-May-27, 11:03, said:

Yes and for instance i have not books (to use for) published before 1950.

Don't be so literal, he was exaggerating to make the point that whatever you're learning from seems to be very old fashioned.

[Lovera]

barmar, on 2016-May-28, 12:05, said:

Don't be so literal, he was exaggerating to make the point that whatever you're learning from seems to be very old fashioned.

And infact i have told "to use for" meaning bidding in real play but excluding although for ideas that from when bridge "was instituied" are in a great number and anytime forgotten.

[Lovera]

barmar, on 2016-May-27, 09:36, said:

Most people these days don't play that as strong. It's usually a limit raise (10-12 points, and probably a 4-card suit). But people who play Bergen Raises use it as a preemptive (weak) raise. Strong raises are usually shown with artificial conventions, such as Jacoby 2NT.

..that i cannot use having it for other use and art. conv. have to be compatibile with a natural system.

[Lovera]

MrAce, on 2016-May-28, 10:26, said:

I teach it to my students as soon as we come to the part where opponents bid too. I never teach them michaels or other conventions that requires cuebid. . They learn that it means either support +11+ hcp or asks stopper for 3 NT in competitive auctions or to create a forcing auction (for example responding to a T/O double etc) and teach them how to separate them from each other. I mainly focus on these 3 functions of cue bids.

I am also surprised just like Richard and Barmar that you have not seen this being used among real players just like GIB.

From your posts you sound like a logical person. Let me try to tell why it is important, especially when the suit is a major suit. If you do not use cue as a support, then as you mentioned already, you will have to raise the suit. You will raise to 2 and 3 or 4. Depending on your strength. Here is why this is not optimal use of them

• You do not want to end up at 3 level when you have to jump to 3, especially with only 3 card support.
• You lose a lot of space just to show 3 vard fit and 11 hcp.
• 4 card fit is very vital. We all desire to know whether we have a 5-4 or 6-4 fit or a 5-3 fit. This helps us a lot to re evaluate our hand. It is not optimal to disable yourself from showing this to partner just because you do not have strength to jump to 3. And pd will never know with how many trumps you support him. So cues allow you to jump raise pd with 4-5 trumps and weak hands.
• IF your cue does not promise a support, partner, instead of being able to jump to game, not being sure there is a fit, will be forced to make bids that can be used for much better purposes had he/she known the fit.

Hi, tkx for your post: about the first part, i already knew and agree with you. And i too wonder myself for this type of bidding (UCB,..) because also in book(s) was not threated (i don't speak of Michaels or T/O reponse) but also Gib, i think, last year didn't use this bidding and in GCC there is not any indication.

[barmar]

Lovera, on 2016-May-28, 13:48, said:

And infact i have told "to use for" meaning bidding in real play but excluding although for ideas that from when bridge "was instituied" are in a great number and anytime forgotten.

Anyone have their Lovera-to-English dictionary handy?

[Lovera]

I have found two hands and relative biddings in "BRIDGE GAGNANT Tous les secrets de la réussite" by Bertrand Romanet. The first (pag.151):N ♠ AKxx ♥ 9xxx ♦ xx ♣ KQx E ♠ 10xx ♥ AJ ♦ K10xxxx ♣ xx S ♠ QJxx ♥ 10xx ♦ x ♣ AJxxx W ♠ xx ♥ KQxx ♦ AQxx ♣ xxx. Bidding: 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♣-cue), 2♠-(p)-3♣-(3♦), 3♠-(p)-p-(4♦), p-(p)-4♠-(p), p-(double)-all passing. Here there is perhaps the possibility to jumping in club or also cue in spade by W. The second hand (pag.215)is: N ♠ QJx ♥ Q97x ♦ Jxxx ♣ KJ S ♠ xx ♥ A106x ♦ AKx ♣ 98xx E ♠ K10xx ♥ KJ8x ♦ 102 ♣A10x. Bidding (pairs): (p)-p-(1♣)-1♥,(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)-p, (p)-3♥-(double)-all passing. Here instead of 2♥ by N could be bidded 2♣ meaning 10/11 points and four cards (with almost an honor card) in heart suit ..

This post has been edited by Lovera: 2016-May-29, 14:18

[johnu]

I reformatted Lovera's post for anybody who had trouble reading it.

Ihavefoundtwohandsandrelativebiddingsin"BRIDGEGAGNANTTouslessecretsdelaréussite"byBertrandRomanet.Thefirst:N♠AKxx♥9xxx♦xx♣KQxE♠10xx♥AJ♣K10xxxx♦xxS♠QJxx♥10xx♦x♣AJxxxW♠xx♥KQxx♦AQxx♣xxxBidding1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♣),2♠-(p)-3♣-(3♦),3♠-(p)-p-(4♦),p-(p)-4♠-(p),,p-(double)-allpassing.Herethereisperhapsthepossibilitytojumpingincluboralsocueinspade.Thesecondhandis:N♠QJx♥Q97x♦Jxxx♣KJS♠xx♥A106x♦AKx♣98xxE♠K10xx♥KJ8x♦102♣A10xBidding(pairs)(p)-p-(1♣)-1♥,(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)-p,(p)-3♥-(double)-allpassing.Hereinsteadof2♥byNcouldbebidded2♣meaning10/11pointsandfourcards(withalmostanhonorcard)inheartsuit..