Lovera

In my post #39 the opening bidding by North is 1♣ and not as you (wrongly) indicates 1♠.

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 ..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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- ?.

I have found this one in N. Ghelli book "Le convenzioni nel bridge" (first edition 1973): "P.17. Cue-bid inviting. The overstatement of the opponent opening suit by the second defender after immediate interference of their partner, indicates a strong hand 12-14 H and asks his companion to conclude at game if his interference was carried out with maximum force, or do a limiting statement otherwise. This is such a statement released can no longer even be considered as such: its use is especially useful when the cue-bid of the second defending implies aid of partner suit."

That a sort of "freedom" there is on BBO can be ok. But can be accepted if this one that seems a bug take a fuorviant consideration of any type ? I don't like much the "claim" as formulated because anytime if quickly cliked can have a mistake on resulting (than it is convenient to delete continuing to play till end that is the same thing but with the correct resulting).

The things are in this way:when you are kib at table you see the four hands and what play is made so you can have an idea for yourself and can watch commenting listed via table by players about hand and how is played. There is also the possibility to enter at table when a player leave it (usually beginning talking "it is my last, tkx all..") if you click on position free (i.e "South") yet if appears "..not allowed seat..".(Lovera)

I think that this situation can have been determinated after that Gib was up-to-date including some improving and bypass for any bug. Infact, as told, neither in partnership nor by defence i got to remember a bidding like this one we are talking about and simply to see (yet because i use to analyze and than reviewing my hands for study).Clearly it being a cue had to consider the top values in range and support and, than, the indications in my post#1 should be the expression of it. I also asked about source and this because data reveining by Gib indication could be partial and not indicative (in P.A. there is not memory of hands when you off).

Yes, actually from an year and more that i'm playing on BBO in Main and Relaxed Clubs. The occasional partner takes a kind of variabilty about play that can be mitigate if your partnership is with an advanced or expert player.

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.

The title of topic has not to intend generically otherwise we risky to open this argoument too much. Instead and how you can see for my first example, it is limited to explore and verify this "new" way to support partner in a defensive situation with adeguate range of force for the level to end bidding for partnership that apply it. I think that high level intervention of this type (as in 2♣ bidding) has to be thinked for avoiding to lose possibilty to double opponents. Anew i say that if all this is becaming by an already statued convention is to see if to accept "all-the-pack" or what part has to be considered to export in own system if anyone wants to be agree.

Athough if anyone want to review the "Eurovision Song Contest" 2016 i can tell him/her how to do (via a my topic).

Yes and not this one only, there is the name of De Nexton too. CARDCOMMITTEEOFTHEPORTLANDCLUBSIRA.NOELMOBBS,K.C.V.O.,O.B.E.,ChairmanLT.-COL.J.C.CRAIGIE,M.C.H.H.RENSHAWDR.N.WOODHILLJ.O.HASTIEARNOLDWARDF.E.PERRYK.HURST-BROWNGEOFFREYBUTLERSIRGUYDOMVILLE,BT.COL.G.G.J.WALSHEBARONR.DENEXON

Yes and not this one only, there is the name of De Nexton too.

Thanks, you are always most detailing. To answer you: it perhaps may be "super common" but i have seen only lately, as told, and also when i was playing on clubs i had not to see this bidding ever. As 3♠ by me (it is true that i wanted to verify) it, if i remember well, was in mine bidding indication to choise. Obviuosly i report it to my used system eventually for an integrative and compatible bidding in raise. About Gib E opener with 2♣ there is another Gib bidding by resulting :2♣-3♣-p-4♣, X-p-5♣(! cue) and then 5♦ for down.

Russia has dedicated the juggling so it can be assumed that will pull the rabbit out of the hat. To me have liked Georgia, Cyprous, Serbia and also the winner.

I have the complete law of bridge of 1948 (it is in the text by E. Culbertson).