Any chance to cue bid at 3 level?

[cnszsun]

I want to ask a general bidding concept. Is there any situation for a 3 level bid to be interpretd as cuebid?

Personally, i don't like idea to cue at 3 level. I feel 3 level bid is best to be kept as natural meaning, for example: natural suit, pattern out, stop asking. Even if you show slam interest later, your previous 3 level side suit bid should not be taken as advance cue bid, but as where your high cards are and may not have control, like KJx or QJx, but never short suit.

Did what i thought make sense?

[cherdano]

I almost entirely agree with you. I think 3-level bids can be cues for a minor (often advance cues, where you clarify your intent by removing 3N to 4m), but pretty much never for majors.

 

1S-2D-2H-2S: Now any 3-level bid is just patterning out.

 

1C-3D (splinter): I think 3H and 3S are cue bids now.

 

1S-2C-2S-3C (GF): Now 3-level bids are initially probes for 3N, but if you remove to 4C, they become cues.

 

1D-3D (invitational): Now 3H and 3S are initially probes for 3N, but if you remove 3N they were actually natural slam tries.

[Walddk]

Here is a simple solution regarding cue bids at the 3-level:

 

1. It's a cue bid if a major is agreed and we bid another suit beyond the 3-level of the agreed major. The lowest cue bid will be 3♠ (hearts agreed).

 

2. It's a cue bid as part of a convention (Jacoby for instance):

 

1♠ - 2NT

3♦ - 3♥

 

3♦ = singleton.

3♥ = cue bid.

 

You can obviously come up with more sophisticated methods, but the one I suggest is easy to remember and makes sense.

 

Roland

[kenrexford]

There are different schools of thought here, of course. My preference is for a technique where cuebids can occur even at the two-level (a 2♠ call after hearts are agreed). Accordingly, three-level cuebids are more than common.

 

The debate concerns whether "patterning out" is more useful or whether lowering the level for cuebidding sequences to start is more valuable. When I, years ago, used a canape system, where pattern recognition and the like were integral, I found patterning out to be extremely useful, as it seemed to maximize cover-card analysis from a LTC perspective. I now question this thinking.

 

A simple example of why. Imagine two side suits. ♦xxx ♣AQx opposite ♦x ♣Kxx. If the one partner can pattern out to show 1-3 in the minors (1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-2♠-P-3♣, for example), Responder (with ♦xxx ♣AQx) realizes that his covers are fitting.

 

However, change the pattern to ♦Axx ♣AQx opposite ♦xxx ♣K. This is just as effective, if not better. However, patterning out fails to solve this problem well. Similarly ♦Axx ♣AKx opposite ♦xx ♣Qx. Cuebidding works well here.

 

One might protest that a style should not cater to the rare, but to the common. The reality is, though, that simple cuebidding also handles well the situations where patterning out is effective. Cuebidding, at least when good techniques are used, manages to "pattern out" relevant cards. For example, denying control in a suit forces that suit to contain at least two cards. Denying tertiary control forces a third card. These cards reduce length in other suits. Picture Jumps (Splinters and the like) cover a number of "pattern out" holdings.

 

Patterning out does "make sense." It is a style choice. Study different theories and decide what you like.

[kenrexford]

After quite a long time thinking about this, I just now realized another argument for cuebidding versus patterning out.

 

Consider an example auction. 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♥.

 

If the auction was one done as a patterning out methodology, in the contextv of 2/1 GF for example, we know that Responder has something in clubs, a spade fit, and at least opening strength. We know that Opener has probably 5341 pattern and at least opening strength. However, we have skipped a lot of space for the sole message of pattern.

 

Contrast this same auction with cuebids. We know the same thing about Responder's hand. However, Opener's hand has quite a bit of control messages exchanged. If 2NT would have denied good trumps, we know that Opener has good trumps (two top honors). If 3♣ would have shown one top club honor, we know that Opener does not have any filler honors for Responder's clubs. If 3♦ would have shown two of the top three diamonds, we know that Opener has a poor diamond suit. We also know that Opener has a heart control.

 

This type of exchange also allows the first cuebid by Responder to tell a lot more of the tale. After a patterning-out call, Responder simply sends a message about a suit he cuebids, plus negative messages about suits he did not cuebid but that were cheaper than the one he did make. In contrast, after Opener has made a cuebid, Responder might be able to send direct messages (the cuebid made), negative messages (cuebids skipped), and inferential cuebids (cuebids made after a hold identified by Opener must be filled to keep cuebidding).

 

In other words, my experience convinces me that cuebidding gains over pattern bidding because it maximizes information exchange by attributing meaning to skipped options, thereby "scooping up" all skipped options in defining a specific call. Patterning out, in contrast, sends only one specific message, often at much cost in space.

[barmar]

If you're interested in some really elaborate cue-bidding agreements, get Ken Rexford's book "Cuebidding at Bridge". He has a whole system of cue bids that starts as soon as you've established a major fit in a game-forcing auction.

[000002]

Cue bid on level3 is a very good concept,OFCZ it need something help.

 

for example,assume cuebid promise 2nd control only.

1)we can sign-off 3nt with 28Hcps ,it's better than 4!h/!s almost.

2) when we want to seek shape which singleton/void hoilding,we can recue it or recue partner's cuebid( or hint).

3)when i want to show the key card on side-suit which showed by partner(1h-2c,2d-2h,side suit is !c),i can over cue to show 2key card.

for instance:(1h-2c,2d-2h,3d-3h),the opener 3!d denies !s & !C control,then his

3!s==recue pd's control :my !s is singleton

4!c==recue pd's control :my !c is singleton

4!d==recue myself,but why not bid 3nt?it's over cue bid apparently:i have 2key card on !c,OFCZ is !c QJ now.

 

if we cue bid to ensure 1st control,it's many messages to show too,when we combine it.

 

regards to u

 

000002

[barmar]

LOL, I didn't even notice whose post was right above mine when I wrote the above book recommendation. :lol:

[WrecksVee]

Add another suggestion to get Ken Rexford's book "Cuebidding at Bridge: a modern approach". Note in the above posts Rexford was modest and did not mention it.

 

My wife gave it to me for Christmas. I started reading it yesterday on my daily commute. Even if you do not agree with his approach it is interesting theoretically. And who could resist wanting to play "Yummy Toes" asking bids. ;)

 

See Ken Rexford's second post above where he describes a part of his method. If that is intriguing then you will want to read this book.

 

I suspect my current partner's taste's will not run to this idea (SIGH :lol: ). One downside is that both partners need to do some serious study to learn a new bridge dialect. But from what I have read so far, a third or so, the book will give you excellent ideas and spur discussion of your methods.

[barmar]

I'm about 2/3 of the way through Ken's book, and I have the same feeling as WrecksVee. My regular partner and I prefer mostly natural bidding, and the Yummy Toes stuff is more like a relay system (I suspect Echognome and jchiu would be interested). I'm hoping to be able to adopt some pieces of his approach, but it looks like it's difficult to pick apart into usable subsets (especially since much of it is predicated on playing 2/1 GF, and we play something more like SAYC).

[keylime]

I need to get a copy. Where tho, besides the regular guilty parties, is the question....hmmmm.

 

Yummy Toes Ken...how did we get a topical name for cuebidding agreements from a syntax of let's say, a 4-5-6 year old? :)

[barmar]

I bought it from Baron Barclay at the last NABC.

 

Yummy Toes is a mnemonic for remembering the abbreviation YMTO, which stands for Your suit, My suit, Their suit, and Our suit. Once you've switched from cue bidding to asking bids, this abbreviation specifies the correspondence between each step and which suit it's asking about. This is for a bidding sequence where each partner has shown one side suit before they've agreed on a suit; that's Our suit, and the unbid suit is Their suit.

[kenrexford]

A friend of mine suggested "YOm TOv Asking Bids" for the Hebrew speakers.

[jikl]

Another simple example is:

 

1♦ - 2♣

2♥ - 3♥ (suit setting and slam interest)

3♠

 

I'll open myself to ridicule on this one :)

 

Sean

[000002]

i found it isn't chance to cuebid on 3rd level after i met a covey of player who get used to show their inferior high card with a cuebid on level3 .

 

for example

1♣ 1♥

1nt 2♦

3♣

(they use precision sys)

 

in their way,they cuebid 3♣ to show ♣ king or ♣ queen,without ♠ KorQ ,concatenating the trump is ♦.

 

 

 

 

regards 000002