Cuebidding opponents suit?

[oryctolagi]

I thought such a sequence as 1♠ 2♠ i.e. immediate overcall of opponent's suit, indicates first round control and game-forcing. At least, that's what I've read in the Acol books in the past. But it seems to be not understood by some players in the Acol club. Could someone explain?

[manudude03]

That has long gone out of date. Pretty much everyone plays it as some 2-suited hand these days for frequency reasons, whether it be Michaels (standard) or some form of Ghestem.

[oryctolagi]

Thanks. Wish I'd known that. Why does Bridge have to keep changing, becoming more artificial? It merely serves to make it more difficult, especially for us older players, to keep up.

 

Maybe I should put in a request for an 'over-60s-only' section of BBO. Or has that been asked for already?

[manudude03]

Thanks. Wish I'd known that. Why does Bridge have to keep changing, becoming more artificial? It merely serves to make it more difficult, especially for us older players, to keep up.

 

Maybe I should put in a request for an 'over-60s-only' section of BBO. Or has that been asked for already?

 

Not yet, but once you remove forumers and juniors, there aren't that many under-60's left!

[wank]

Why does Bridge have to keep changing, becoming more artificial?

 

your book's meaning for 2S is artificial too, just artificial and pointless, as opposed to artificial and useful.

[rmnka447]

The original formulation of bidding systems followed a logical way of doing things. But as time passed, people found that some bids would be more useful as something else because of the low frequency with which they came up and a plausible different way to convey the same information. Witness the double of an overcall becoming takeout (i.e., negative double) instead of penalty, 1 M - 3 M raise as limit raise instead of a strong and forcing raise, etc.

 

In the case of the direct cue bid, making a takeout double then making a cue bid on the next round was found to be a workable way to show the big hand. The direct cue could then be used to show certain 2 suited hands that occurred much more frequently and proved difficult to show by overcalling and then trying to show the second suit.

[oryctolagi]

Ah well - so be it then. I simply thought, having been brought up on a diet of virtually pure Acol, that it was an almost entirely 'natural' bidding system. And that cue-bids and takeout doubles were indeed part of this natural process. Indeed, the only completely artificial bids that we used to use, back in those days, were 2♣ and 4NT blackwood. But it seems we have to live and learn. Certainly I've needed to learn quite a lot of new stuff just to keep my chin above water, here on BBO. But I didn't realise just how much stuff I also needed to 'forget'....

 

OK then, just for info, tell me how to bid this.

[hv=pc=n&s=sha92dakjt932ckq7&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1s]133|200[/hv]

 

It's too embarrassing to explain how the bidding actually went - and how we landed just about the worst IMP pairs score (almost -16) I've yet had in BBO! :blink: Happily, my partner was very understanding and sympathetic about it, which meant a good deal to me.

[Lovera]

This is a strong hand about interference requiring almost two different biddings to show its force than you can initially double and then jumping on diamond to indicate own suit in this type hand and eventually inserting spade cue (if it is possible). About bidding old style not much is changed but there are many efficently revisiting (i.e. the old Blackwood is now used less, about the slam approach are now used RKCB or Minorwood or Kickback whilest the strong twos were simply a remembering and transferts has to use frequently and in many ways on strong 1NT 15-17) but instead any old convention must remain to study its implication on bidding with opponents and what happening and change lacking that one because those ideas by author has improve bridge (at their times).

[Stephen Tu]

OK then, just for info, tell me how to bid this.

[hv=pc=n&s=sha92dakjt932ckq7&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1s]133|200[/hv]

 

You can either bid (1♠)-3♠ asking for a stopper for 3nt (jump cue of a major is used for these strong one suited hands that think 1 stopper + 8 tricks in hand will make 3nt), or you can double and bid diamonds later. I would choose the jump cue personally.

 

Jump cue of a major is pretty standard to be used this way by better players. Jump cue of a minor on the other hand, especially in 5 cd major countries where 1m is often bid on bad 3 cd suits, is often used as natural and weak.

 

Neither action here is going to work out perfectly all the time. The problem with 3♠ is that one stopper might not be enough, since you are missing the DQ; if you don't pick up that card they may run the spades, perfect hand for jump cue has a solid suit to run. The problem with double is that if the auction gets competitive (1♠-dbl-3♠-?), partner will often bid hearts even with a spade stopper and a few diamonds, and it will turn out that you lose a few trump tricks and a club when 3nt was just easier.

[helene_t]

Thanks. Wish I'd known that. Why does Bridge have to keep changing, becoming more artificial? It merely serves to make it more difficult, especially for us older players, to keep up.

 

Maybe I should put in a request for an 'over-60s-only' section of BBO. Or has that been asked for already?

You could play in the WP Refuge club on BBO where many players play something like 1970 Goren.

 

But even there, my guess would be that most people play the direct seat cuebid as showing five hearts and a five-card in a minor.

 

Think about it - your first priority is to find a fit and find out if you have combined values for game. Showing a control in a specific suit is fine but you need to know which denomination you will be playing in first.

[Lovera]

If doubler has its own long and strong suit can show it and the strength of his hand is the level to which reveals its one: (89) ♠ AKQ543 ♥ KQ7 ♦ A52 ♣ 6 1♥-X-p-2♣ , p-? "Bid 3 ♠: A double followed by a jump to the level of three shows that the doubler can make 9 tricks with his cards and requires the heat input from only a trick by partner.(Stayman system The second bidding of doubler pagg. 275-276 Chpt XV about the many types of informative double).

[Charlie Yu]

Ah well - so be it then. I simply thought, having been brought up on a diet of virtually pure Acol, that it was an almost entirely 'natural' bidding system. And that cue-bids and takeout doubles were indeed part of this natural process. Indeed, the only completely artificial bids that we used to use, back in those days, were 2♣ and 4NT blackwood. But it seems we have to live and learn. Certainly I've needed to learn quite a lot of new stuff just to keep my chin above water, here on BBO. But I didn't realise just how much stuff I also needed to 'forget'....

 

OK then, just for info, tell me how to bid this.

[hv=pc=n&s=sha92dakjt932ckq7&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1s]133|200[/hv]

 

It's too embarrassing to explain how the bidding actually went - and how we landed just about the worst IMP pairs score (almost -16) I've yet had in BBO! :blink: Happily, my partner was very understanding and sympathetic about it, which meant a good deal to me.

Takeout double, then cue bid ♠, then ♦ to show your big hand.