Jump Cuebid

[UdcaDenny]

Today I played 3C with J9 in dummy and singleton on my hand. Opponents opened one C, better minor and I bid 3C meant as asking for a stopper. I had a solid 7 card diamond. My partner passed with J9 in C and said that in standard american and 2/1 I showed a real suit. I never heard of that and why shud I jump in C if they open my suit. I would pass and see what happens. Would like to hear other good players opinion about the meaning of the bid.

[ArtK78]

Absent a partnership agreement to the contrary, 3 of a minor over the opponent's one of a minor is natural and preemptive. This is very standard and, as far as I know, dates back to well before I started playing (which is over 40 years).

 

The obvious reason is that your RHO rates to have a balanced hand and by not bidding you are allowing your opponents to conduct an unimpeded constructive auction. They will find their fit in one or both majors at a low level.

[Jinksy]

Few systems that date back over 40 years can now be described as 'very standard'. Without discussion, I would have taken it the same way the OP meant it.

 

Also it has nothing to do with Standard American or 2/1. The opponents have opened, so your system is all off except where you've agreed otherwise. More relevant than what you play is what they play - if they were playing 4cm and a strong NT, 3♣ preemptive seems pretty bent. If they're playing strong NT and 1♣ as any balanced, it seems like a pretty sensible choice. Anywhere in the middle is partnership agreement or, without discussion, partnership prayer.

[ArtK78]

Few systems that date back over 40 years can now be described as 'very standard'. Without discussion, I would have taken it the same way the OP meant it.

 

Also it has nothing to do with Standard American or 2/1. The opponents have opened, so your system is all off except where you've agreed otherwise. More relevant than what you play is what they play - if they were playing 4cm and a strong NT, 3♣ preemptive seems pretty bent. If they're playing strong NT and 1♣ as any balanced, it seems like a pretty sensible choice. Anywhere in the middle is partnership agreement or, without discussion, partnership prayer.

I have played this game a little more recently than 40 years ago. In my opinion, it is still standard to use 3 of a minor over an opponent's 1 of a minor opening as preemptive and natural. Any other treatment would be by agreement.

 

I would go as far to say that I would be VERY surprised to find out that standard expert treatment would be to use the "jump cue bid" of 3 of a minor in direct seat as anything other than natural and preemptive.

[whereagles]

indeed, it is my impression that most play

 

(1m) 3m = pree

(1M) 3M = ask stop w/ long running minor

 

This is very different from

 

(1m) pass (pass) 3m

 

where with a pree in m you just pass it out :)

[aguahombre]

This is interesting. I have always thought that without discussion the direct jump cue of a minor or of a major was treated as one of those stopper-ask things.

 

Having dabbled at the game, half-off half-on since the sixties, I remember self or partner asking for a stop this way perhaps once a year.

 

Of the times the opponents have done it (slightly more frequently), a couple club players and a couple pairs whom I don't know have actually thought it was a natural preempt.

 

I have only seen experienced pairs use it as a stopper ask or something conventional and entirely different from those two choices. Perhaps my observations are not everyone's, because it just doesn't come up very much.

 

It was fun when one of the two club opponents thought differently from his partner.

[Jinksy]

I would go as far to say that I would be VERY surprised to find out that standard expert treatment would be to use the "jump cue bid" of 3 of a minor in direct seat as anything other than natural and preemptive.

 

I very much dislike conflating 'standard' and 'standard expert treatment'. In this country, you'll find 2♦ as a Benji bid is possibly the closest thing we have to a standard bid of 2♦, and 2N in response to partner's 1N very much has a standard meaning (esp without discussion) of 'inviting 3N'. But I doubt you'll find any top pairs playing the former, and very few playing the latter.

 

'Standard expert treatment' is irrelevant to this thread. The OP's partner's assertion was effectively 'so many regular players play it my way that you made a mistake by not understanding it that way'.

 

The honest/humbler response is to recognise that with so many different systems around, and no easily accessible authoritative respository of bids labelled as 'standard', there's no such thing - and therefore that each time P make a misinterpretable bid, he's taking a risk that you're on the same wavelength. That might be a deliberate calculated risk if he's aware of different interpretations and either expects you to share his or thinks he'll be able to scramble something sensible if you don't, or an accidental risk if he didn't even realise you might take it differently (as in the OP).

 

In neither case is it helpful for you (or anyone else) to assert any standard. You can most helpfully tell him how you understood it, clarify with him what it will mean if it comes up again, and perhaps tell him that in your experience, most people play it your way without discussion, so he can update his future priors. The whole concept of 'standard' seems like a cheap way to seek a moral highground when partnership understanding has come off the rails.

[WellSpyder]

The whole concept of 'standard' seems like a cheap way to seek a moral highground when partnership understanding has come off the rails.

How true - except, of course, that MY understanding is indeed "standard"....

 

My partner finds it just as annoying when I try to present something as "standard" in the context of what our future agreement should be, let alone our implicit current agreement.

[wank]

and among stronger players, many play it as natural and strong.

 

opening the suit, even if it doesn't promise more than 3 or whatever, makes the suit more likely to split badly, so overcalling 3m on a normal pre-empt is a mugs' game.

[ArtK78]

I very much dislike conflating 'standard' and 'standard expert treatment'. In this country, you'll find 2♦ as a Benji bid is possibly the closest thing we have to a standard bid of 2♦, and 2N in response to partner's 1N very much has a standard meaning (esp without discussion) of 'inviting 3N'. But I doubt you'll find any top pairs playing the former, and very few playing the latter.

 

'Standard expert treatment' is irrelevant to this thread. The OP's partner's assertion was effectively 'so many regular players play it my way that you made a mistake by not understanding it that way'.

 

The honest/humbler response is to recognise that with so many different systems around, and no easily accessible authoritative respository of bids labelled as 'standard', there's no such thing - and therefore that each time P make a misinterpretable bid, he's taking a risk that you're on the same wavelength. That might be a deliberate calculated risk if he's aware of different interpretations and either expects you to share his or thinks he'll be able to scramble something sensible if you don't, or an accidental risk if he didn't even realise you might take it differently (as in the OP).

 

In neither case is it helpful for you (or anyone else) to assert any standard. You can most helpfully tell him how you understood it, clarify with him what it will mean if it comes up again, and perhaps tell him that in your experience, most people play it your way without discussion, so he can update his future priors. The whole concept of 'standard' seems like a cheap way to seek a moral highground when partnership understanding has come off the rails.

OK. Let's phrase it another way.

 

I would be willing to venture that, without discussion, at least 2/3 (perhaps 3/4) of regular tournament players in North America would consider an overcall in direct seat of 3 of opener's 1 of a minor to be natural and preemptive.

 

There. I didn't use the word "standard" once in that sentence.

 

and among stronger players, many play it as natural and strong.

 

opening the suit, even if it doesn't promise more than 3 or whatever, makes the suit more likely to split badly, so overcalling 3m on a normal pre-empt is a mugs' game.

 

I never said that bidding 3 of opener's minor showed a "normal" preempt, whatever that is. I just said it was natural and preemptive. I would be willing to bet that no one would consider KQTxxx of clubs and out a 3♣ overcall of RHO's 1♣ opening, but some might open 3♣ at favorable vulnerability.

 

As for playing a "jump cue-bid" in a minor as strong, I note that this treatment does exist - I found references to it on the internet. I have never seen it or heard of it prior to googling "jump cue-bid" earlier this morning.There are also references to using the jump cue-bid of any opening bid as a stopper ask. In the case of a minor suit, I would not spring this on a partner without prior discussion.

[aguahombre]

But, 3m over 1m IS preemptive, by definition. The question is what it shows..the suit? something else? strength? weakness? It is still preemptive.

[ArtK78]

But, 3m over 1m IS preemptive, by definition. The question is what it shows..the suit? something else? strength? weakness? It is still preemptive.

In common bridge terminology, a preemptive bid denotes a long suit and a weak hand. Strength showing bids are typically not referred to as preemptive even if made by a jump bid.

 

You may note that I referred to the bid of 3m in direct seat over the opponents bid of 1m as "natural" and "preemptive," meaning, as those terms are commonly used in bridge terminology, a long suit holding in "m" and a weak hand.

[Jinksy]

I would be willing to venture that, without discussion, at least 2/3 (perhaps 3/4) of regular tournament players in North America would consider an overcall in direct seat of 3 of opener's 1 of a minor to be natural and preemptive.

 

There. I didn't use the word "standard" once in that sentence.

 

True, but the words 'in North America' were equally unhelpful. OP never mentioned their location (and we still don't know what the opps' system was).

 

I also don't know what value the subset of regular tournament players has. They're still a hefty minority. At least appealing to experts gives you some inkling of what the optimal system might be. Tournament players come with too much random noise to provide much evidence for anything.

[ArtK78]

True, but the words 'North America' were equally unhelpful. OP never mentioned their location (and we still don't know what the opps' system was).

OP referred to "standard american" and "2/1" in OP's post, so I am going to assume that OP was playing one or the other. OP certainly did not say that they were NOT playing standard american or 2/1.

 

And, since North America is the home of "standard american" and "2/1" bidding, I am using North America as my basis for asserting the common use of the jump to 3 of the opponent's opening minor suit bid. If you want to compare it to the common treatment of this type of bid in some other location, feel free. But I don't believe you will be responding to the OP.

[Jinksy]

Both systems are in common use throughout the world, so tell us little about where they were playing, and still less about the opponents' system, which matters more here. Jumping from that statement to the idea that the alleged North American standard should be the OP's seems presumptuous to me.

[MrAce]

I play it natural and preemptive over 1m. I can write so many reasons why I like it, but mainly;

 

• solid suit + no stopper in club suit + other suits covered,comes very rare
• when it comes, I wanna play 3 NT regardless of we have stopper in club suit or not, if everything else is fine. After 1♣-3♦-p-3NT opener is in dark about what to lead. They often don't have enough tricks in club suit to defeat. When they do have it is hard to lead them, unless you are drawing their attention to this suit via stopper asking bid. It escapes me by a mile why would anyone think it is important to have a club stopper when we have a decent shot at 3 NT, especially at imps. The chances of making 3 NT will be higher than the average games we routinely bid everyday.
• Art already mentioned the the reasons for why it is good to preempt with natural suit.

 

[mgoetze]

I have no idea what "standard" would be since this pretty much never comes up. Then again, I usually play (1♣)-2♣ as natural - if I didn't do that I would certainly hope that 3♣ is natural!

[the hog]

Absent any prior discussion I would certainly have thought it was a Californian Cue bid.

[UdcaDenny]

First of all thanks for all replies. To clarify we play in a bridgeclub in Chiangmai, Thailand and we play 2/1 by Max Hardy. My partner is a New Yorker and Im from Sweden. In Sweden most players use a jumping cuebid to show a long solid minor and I never heard of anyone having same suit as opener. On the other hand my american partner never heard of stopperasking. Maybe I shud make a takeoutdouble with my strong hand AKx Jx AKQJ10xx x but since my p was a passed hand I thought 3NT was a more likely contract than 6D. Regarding my bad H holding I just took a chance my p had at least Qxx to make a stopper if that suit was the lead. My p had Q109xxx K985 x J9 and didnt bid 3S which I would have raised to 4 so I played 3C 5 down.

[aguahombre]

There definitely is something to be said for showing your playing strength and letting partner look at her cards to see if she has a stopper, all by herself.

 

My earlier reply was merely what I have observed -- not an opinion of good or bad about methods.

[ayebee]

Perhaps the real question here should be "Should I have made a very unusual bid without first discussing it's meaning with my partner?"

 

You don't give the full hands but I'd be surprised if a clearer option was't available.

[mgoetze]

Perhaps the real question here should be "Should I have made a very unusual bid without first discussing it's meaning with my partner?"

What is unusual and what isn't is often much less obvious than people think.

[daffydoc]

for what its worth I have always played that as stopper ask - with the proliferation of 1C openers on 2 card suits it might be worth changing to preempt - I have already changed 1c 2c to natural over 2 card suit openers using 2D as michaels. In the absence of discussion with any of my regular expert partners I would have taken it as stopper ask. daffy

[jdeegan]

I recall stopper asking as coming in sometime in the early 1990's. It has been more or less standard amongst good bridge players in North America ever since.

 

Not that I can defend this treatment, but in the absence of discussion it should be the default.

[Giangibar]

Geographical origins lead to different interpretations as well as different standards. I am Italian and I was lucky enough to play many times in many different European countries for the Italian junior team in the past. I can say that here, in the European continent and especially in Italy, the so-called "standard" treatment is that bidding an opponent's suit is almost never natural.

 

The common understanding that bidding an opp's suit is always artificial is so eradicated that I assisted to the previous bidding sequence just one week ago: 1♥ (promising 4+H) - pass - pass - 1♠ - 2♣ (could be canapé with 4H and 5+C) - pass - 2♦ - 2♥ and this last 2♥ bid by the player in 4th seat was interpreted both by his partner and by my partner as a strength-showing bid with a likely Heart shortage. Instead, he had 5-5 in the Majors and wanted to bid Hearts naturally.

 

Conversely, I've been living in the US for 3 months and I noticed that most Americans tend to bid opps' suits much more naturally than us. For example, 1♣ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥ would be regarded as natural by the typical American player, but would be interpreted as artificial by most Europeans.

 

With these assumptions, I'm not surprised by OP's clarifications: he was Swedish and intended 3♣ as artificial, his partner was from the US and interpreted 3♣ as natural. These meta-agreements can only arise and be discussed in medium-to-long term partnerships and heavily depend on the cultural background.

 

As a final remark, 95% of Italian players and 100% of the top Italian pairs (Bocchi-Madala, Fantoni-Nunes, Lauria-Versace just to mention a few) play comprehensive 2-suited overcalls, that is they dedicate 3 bids for describing all possible combinations of 2-suiters excluding opener's suit. The most common set of comprehensive 2-suited overcalls is Ghestem: when the opponent opens 1m, then 2♦ is 5-5 in the Majors, 2NT is 5-5 in ♥ and the other minor, 3♣ is 5-5 in ♠ and the other minor. When the opponent opens 1M, on the other hand, 2M is the other Major + ♣, 2NT is minors and 3♣ is the other Major + ♦. In addition, since 1♦ - 3♣ is a non forcing black 2-suiter, 1♦ - 3♦ is used for showing a monster black 2-suiter. With this convention you completely lose the ability to bid 1m - 3m as preemptive and natural, but you gain a complete set of 2-suiter bids, which is much more useful an frequent in my opinion.