what to bid

[Phil]

I will face him but time zone differences are going to be a problem.

 

I really don't care if I play you or not. Timo probably feels the same way.

 

I just have big issues with players that shoot off their mouth, and make challenges just to try to prove they have the bigger d**k.

 

Tell you what friend. Instead of trying to lose (or win ) a few dollars (quid) to me why don't you try to be a better citizen here?

 

1. Don't talk about treatments like strong direct cue bids that haven't been played since Kennedy was president as if they are commonplace. You know they aren't but you like to be contrarian. All it does is confuse newer players and that's a very bad thing and will not and should not be tolerated.

 

2. Put a little thought into card play problem instead of just what your gut tells you. If your such a great player, spend some time trying to think which is what a great player does. I don't remember Andy Bowles recently saying "well this is a tough hand but my gut tells me that the lead is more likely from a King than a Jack.

 

3. But most importantly, stop acting like you are the big dog until you've won something.

[PhilG007]

I really don't care if I play you or not. Timo probably feels the same way.

 

I just have big issues with players that shoot off their mouth, and make challenges just to try to prove they have the bigger d**k.

 

Tell you what friend. Instead of trying to lose (or win ) a few dollars (quid) to me why don't you try to be a better citizen here?

 

1. Don't talk about treatments like strong direct cue bids that haven't been played since Kennedy was president as if they are commonplace. You know they aren't but you like to be contrarian. All it does is confuse newer players and that's a very bad thing and will not and should not be tolerated.

 

2. Put a little thought into card play problem instead of just what your gut tells you. If your such a great player, spend some time trying to think which is what a great player does. I don't remember Andy Bowles recently saying "well this is a tough hand but my gut tells me that the lead is more likely from a King than a Jack.

 

3. But most importantly, stop acting like you are the big dog until you've won something.

Personally I don't care either,I'm indifferent. You say that strong direct cue bids are antiquated. I can assure you they are not..they are still very actively played...it depends on the bidding system being played and partnership agreement.

I am not a "great player" On BBO I'm only at the advanced stage. Give me credit for my honesty here instead of professing to be an "expert" as I've seen on other profiles then despairing finding out they're only an intermediate wearing an unworthy badge. You speak about "speculation" in the playing of a hand...often you have to go with your 'gut' 'instinct' hunch' call it what you will if its the only way to fulfil a contract.

You urge to stop acting like a 'big dog' until I win something. Actually I have won something....respect just, not among the ingnorant and the pompous(!)

Finally,I've noticed that in bridge schools,beginners,novices and intermediates learning this game are being taught how to win. There is a far more

valuable lesson that isn't being taught but should be....learning how to lose..how to accept defeat with good grace..not absconding from a tournament half way through just because things are running badly or acting like a Prima Donna. I have never been a quitter at this game or any other.. When I enter a tournament,I'm there from start to finish whatever the result. I take my creed from the great chess champion Bobby Fischer "I play honestly and I play to win. When I lose,I take my medicine." Spoken like a true champion

[Zelandakh]

You say that strong direct cue bids are antiquated. I can assure you they are not..they are still very actively played...

Name one world class pair that plays (1X) - 2X in this way. You can find CCs of almost all internatonal pairs online so I am sure you will be able to provide several links for such an actively played convention. Just one will do for me...

[PhilG007]

Name one world class pair that plays (1X) - 2X in this way. You can find CCs of almost all internatonal pairs online so I am sure you will be able to provide several links for such an actively played convention. Just one will do for me...

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"

by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

[gwnn]

Publication date 26 Aug 1985

[Tramticket]

Publication date 26 Aug 1985

 

No - Originally published in 1969!!

[Tramticket]

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"

by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

 

The EBU's "Standard Modern Acol System File" shows a cue bid as Michaels:

 

See Page 25: http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/convention-cards/modern-acolv2-system-file.pdf

[kenberg]

Publication date 26 Aug 1985

 

Seems like yesterday, but it was long ago.....

I'm older now but still running against the wind--- Bob Seeger

 

Anyway, back to the OP..

Many hands can be handled reasonably without conventions. This isn't one of them. If 2D is not agreed to be artificial and forcing, or if you are not sure whether partner treats it that way, I don't know what you should do. Even if 2D is forcing there could be problems. You bid 2D he bids 2H. For some this denies three spades. For others, holding four hearts and three spades they start by bidding 2H. Of course (?) after 2D-2H a bid of 3C should be natural and forcing, and it gives him room to show his three spades if he has them. If, instead, he bids 2S over 2D I suppose that shows not only that he has three spades but that he has a minimum. If he had a max he could have bid 3S.

 

But if partner has the club Q and Qxx in spades I can already count a probable nine tricks and I have accounted for only four of partner's presumes 12 count. If he has the two red aces I am up to 12 tricks.

But that's placing a lot of specific cards in his hand.

 

Anyway, I start with 2D if it is known to be forcing. If nothing is known to be forcing then I dunno, I probably just bid 4S. If I don't have tools, I make my best guess. Or what appears to me to be my best guess. It would not amaze me if 6C is on ice, but how to see when it is and when it isn't?

 

An observation: If partner does not have either three spades or four hearts then he has four clubs. Actually he has five clubs if he opens 1D when he is 4-4 in the minors. So if it starts 1C-1S-1N-2D-2NT I will be very optimistic about a club slam. My next call would be 3C as long as I need not worry partner will pass it. Kx in hearts will stop them from taking the first two tricks in hearts in 6C, which is not the case in 6S.

 

Anytime he doesn't have three spades he has four clubs.

[masse24]

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"

by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

 

Surely this is intended as a joke? Citing material from a half-century ago and trotting it out as "authoritative" would seem to be poor tactics in an online disagreement.

 

But maybe that is intended, with the "gotcha!" statement to follow?

[Jinksy]

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"

by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

 

I live in England and regularly play club bridge in which people often describe their system as 'Acol'. Not once have I seen any of them using a direct cue as a game-forcing hand. You can claim it's not strictly Acol if you like, but then your claim that it's 'the dominant system in the United Kingdom' is ludicrous.

[billw55]

More to the point, the strong cuebid was abandoned because it was so rarely useful, and because that hand type can be easily accommodated starting with a double. This frees up the direct cuebid for hand types that occur much more frequently. This is all fairly easy to understand, and it was widely realized several decades ago.

 

PhilG, how often do you expect to hold a game force in your own hand after opponents have opened the bidding? On the other hand, how often do you have a distributional two suiter in the 8-15 range? I think if you are honest you will admit that the latter is much more common.

[1eyedjack]

More to the point, the strong cuebid was abandoned because it was so rarely useful, and because that hand type can be easily accommodated starting with a double.

Thread drift alert.

 

Oddly enough, when playing with robots I would much prefer that it abandoned Michaels in favour of a stone-age GF cue. Low frequency it may be, but when it arises you are better placed than via double when (not unexpectedly) the auction is aggressively contested and comes back to you at the 3 or 4 level. Aside from the fact that Gib is not great at followup after a Michaels cue, it is (currently) incapable of accepting that a double may have fewer than 3 cards in all side suits.

[PhilG007]

I live in England and regularly play club bridge in which people often describe their system as 'Acol'. Not once have I seen any of them using a direct cue as a game-forcing hand. You can claim it's not strictly Acol if you like, but then your claim that it's 'the dominant system in the United Kingdom' is ludicrous.

Prove it

[Zelandakh]

Prove it

In the normal scheme of things the onus is on the poster that makes a ludicrous statement to prove their idea rather than on those that question it. For example, I could say that the universe was created by the mating ritual of an inter-dimensional worm. It would be difficult to disprove this but that does not mean that anyone should take such a claim on face value.

 

I also note that you have still failed to provide one world class pair using a GF cue bid in current competition. Once again, a claim made as authoritative without backing it up in any way, instead just oving onto another ridiculous claim.

 

And I am quite sure you are well aware that these claims are silly. Just as I am quite sure you were aware about why you received criticism before starting the "is it me" thread. It is the combination of these attributes that leads one to think in the direction of trolling. It is little different from going to a religious website and "joining in the debate" on abortion.

 

It would be nice if you really did join in the debates, presenting your opinions without dressing them up in some sort of authoritative manner to imply that yours is the only valid way. Perhaps you even have something useful to add. The last couple of threads I have seen from you have been pure troll-bait though. That is not a good direction to be moving in if you want to enjoy this community over a longer period. So please take a moment to think about what you want from BBF and how you can integrate.

 

Note: please do not think I am suggesting you need to change your opinions to fit in here. I would suggest that it might improve your bridge to open yourself to some new ideas but that is another thing entirely.

[1eyedjack]

Prove it

 

There are a lot of assertions in the quoted text. Any particular one or more that you would like him to prove?

 

That he lives in England?

That he regularly plays club bridge?

That the people in said clubs often describe their system as Acol?

That they have never been known to cue bid to show a GF hand?

That the GF cue is not the dominant method in the UK?

 

Any particular mixture of the above?

 

Any particular reason to doubt the veracity of any of his observations such as to justify an application for proof?

 

My penny's worth is that my experience is the same. I don't know Jinksy but it would be an unlikely coincidence if we move in the same circles.

 

I did once see someone make a GF cue in a rubber club at the Kings Road (probably the club no longer exists now). I suspect that if you play at Crockfords you would be required to pay the GF cue (Michaels would certainly be banned).

[Vampyr]

My penny's worth is that my experience is the same. I don't know Jinksy but it would be an unlikely coincidence if we move in the same circles.

 

I don't know either of them but my experience is the same.

 

I would guess that Michaels is not allowed in any rubber bridge club, so the GF cue would be the dominant method among rubber bridge players (although many rubber bridge players play duplicate too, and would at those times play Michaels or top-bottom or whatever).

[Cyberyeti]

Prove it

 

Well I've played duplicate bridge in the UK for 40 years, and I don't think I've seen the rock crusher cuebid in 30 years, yes it WAS the common method, but hasn't been for a loooong time.

[Tramticket]

I concur with Cyberyeti, Vampyr, 1EyedJack, Zelandakh above.

 

Even at beginner level, Michaels is taught in the UK.

[StevenG]

I started playing in clubs in 1993, and it was still used sometimes, either by older players who had been strong in their time, or by life intermediates who'd read a bit. I played it myself (having read "All About Acol" and similar) until I learned there was something better. I haven't seen anyone play it for many years.

[billw55]

I don't know either of them but my experience is the same.

 

I would guess that Michaels is not allowed in any rubber bridge club, so the GF cue would be the dominant method among rubber bridge players

Any logic as to why one artificial use of the cuebid is allowed, but another is not? What do they think the difference is?

[mycroft]

The "Big" hand is "Natural" for versions of Natural including "Played in 1930, when Rubber Bridge was ossified". Note that "the play" is what is important.

 

To be less cynical for a moment, cutaround rubber really does have the issue that you should only be playing systems that anybody you happen to cut in that club would understand immediately. And they do want the play to be the thing. And a lot of duplicate conventions (not Michaels cuebids, but a lot of them) are strongly designed around "no legs" scoring that duplicate provides and would be much less effective when some of the time, "forcing 1NT' for instance is game - or when 2♠+1 is not the same score as 3♠=.

 

But mostly, it's just a different game, played by different players, with different attitudes to what the game is. That happens.

 

(It's also one of the many reasons I don't play rubber bridge. So I could very easily be talking ad fundamentum extractum. But even as a no-rubber-bridge player, I can certainly tell at the duplicate table who the "ex-rubber" players are!)

[Vampyr]

Any logic as to why one artificial use of the cuebid is allowed, but another is not? What do they think the difference is?

 

Well, the strong cuebid came first, but it is more than that. Michaels requires some agreements (weak/strong or all strengths)? Plus agreements about defending against it. This does it work when the discussion as you sit down across from someone consists of: Four or five? Weak or atrong? And the answers to those questions.

[Vampyr]

To the OP:

 

You start with 2♦ - and hope that partner isn't so old-fashioned that he passes.

 

I think this is very location-dependent. In some places NMF is popular; in others simple checkback is more common.

[mycroft]

I think that if you caught someone for whom 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2♦ was NF *because 2♣ is ART, F*, you'd be very unlucky.

 

If you caught a partner for whom 2♦ is NF, and so is 2♣, then ah, well, rubber. Hard to bid this hand.

 

If you caught a partner for whom 2♦ is F (New suit by unpassed responder) and you end up in 6♦ because you've absolutely promised 4♦ to go with your 5♠, then oh well, as well.

 

I think the last two sets of people have died out away from the rubber table; I think the first group would know enough to not expect that random plays that way without discussion. ICBveryW.