Raising the suit of opponent

[Lovera]

I have seen, playing anymously vs Bots, that is on a new figure: the raise of opp meaning support bidding previously by partner. It can be interesting, but to verify for goodness, to apply always with compatibilty with own system used. The raise can be also with jumping. An example can be:(p -p-1♣- 1♠, p-2♣ by defender having for cards on supporting spade and 10/11 points (than if is forced the third level should be 12/13). I having saw it had to prove with a bidding like this:1♦-(2♠)-3♠ having Kxxx in diamond and AKQx in heart suits-p, 4♣-p-4♦-p,4♠-p-5♦ all passing. There was it playing vs J10xx but Gib doesn't impasse (dummy with Axxx in diamond) while another bidded 6♦-1. Although i saw another bidding :2♣-3♣ by my Gib partner-p-p, X-p-4♣ with four cards in heart and diamond suits-p-4♦-p-5♦- doubled by me for -1 down. This "mixed raise" already talked about in this forum (probably by an italian team idea) was threated but in a "almost theoric way" (it is better to explain with example hands) should be termed so because is raised also the opp suit when usually is that of partner. What is the official and original convention ? What is changed about the other type of raising ? How to apply, if this is not yet on proving, with occasional/random partnership ? Thanks in advance.

[hrothgar]

I have seen, playing anymously vs Bots, that is on a new figure: the raise of opp meaning support bidding previously by partner. It can be interesting, but to verify for goodness, to apply always with compatibilty with own system used. The raise can be also with jumping. An example can be:(p -p-1♣- 1♠, p-2♣ by defender having for cards on supporting spade and 10/11 points (than if is forced the third level should be 12/13). I having saw it had to prove with a bidding like this:1♦-(2♠)-3♠ having Kxxx in diamond and AKQx in heart suits-p, 4♣-p-4♦-p,4♠-p-5♦ all passing. There was it playing vs J10xx but Gib doesn't impasse (dummy with Axxx in diamond) while another bidded 6♦-1. Although i saw another bidding :2♣-3♣ by my Gib partner-p-p, X-p-4♣ with four cards in heart and diamond suits-p-4♦-p-5♦- doubled by me for -1 down. This "mixed raise" already talked about in this forum (probably by an italian team idea) was threated but in a "almost theoric way" (it is better to explain with example hands) should be termed so because is raised also the opp suit when usually is that of partner. What is the official and original convention ? What is changed about the other type of raising ? How to apply, if this is not yet on proving, with occasional/random partnership ? Thanks in advance.

 

I find it surprising that you are expressing opinions about mixed raises when you seem completely unfamiliar with a cue bid...

[Lovera]

I find it surprising that you are expressing opinions about mixed raises when you seem completely unfamiliar with a cue bid...

Infact not having seen before, to better valute, i am asking informations about it.

[Zelandakh]

I would suggest entering "unassuming cue bid" into Google and reading the pages that come up, then come back here if any questions remain.

[Lovera]

I would suggest entering "unassuming cue bid" into Google and reading the pages that come up, then come back here if any questions remain.

I have just now seen it but if standing at Gib indications doesn't UCB properly. Such as :in 2♣ bidding example Gib opp had 4 points (K+J) and the hand was 3-4-4-2 and bidded 4♣ cueing 3♣ by my Gib partner starting sequence ending in 5♦ (for a down). However ?

[Stephen Tu]

Gib has tons of bugs in it so don't treat all of its bidding as normal by human standards.

 

After 1 of a suit - (overcall) - cue bid in overcall suit, it's super common for this to guarantee support absolutely. Because without support, generally one can fall back on negative double, or a forcing free bid in a side suit. But it should deny interest in an unbid major, so if GIB bid 1d-(2s)-3s on ?? AKQx Axxx ??? that was a mistake, it should look for 4 cd heart support first by negative doubling.

 

It's also common for cue bid in response to an overcall, (1 of a suit) - overcall - p - cue opening suit to be 10+ raise of the overcalled suit (or possibly some other hand types, but raise is most common). Again because with other hands you usually have alternatives.

 

Cue bids in other situations tend to be other things, either looking for a stopper for NT or asking for choice of suits. If opening bidder cue bids after responder has shown a major, it's usually not support, since the opening bidder could alternatively just raise the major directly. So it's either looking for a stopper, or really strong hands looking for slam too strong to just raise the major to game.

 

Cues in response to takeout doubles are usually looking for choice of suit, when bidding a suit is unattractive for some reason. For example with both majors in response to takeout double of a minor, with a strong enough hand you usually cue, to get partner to show a 4 cd suit unambiguously, rather than guessing which major to bid. Or one might bid that way to set up a GF when bidding game directly is unattractive for whatever reason. On your 2c opening auction, 2c-3c-p-p-x-p-? probably responder shouldn't cue bid with x44x, and should just bid 3h instead, since in a gf already from the 2c opening no need to jack the bidding, can bid diamonds later if partner doesn't raise or bid 3nt.

[msjennifer]

It could be DAB,DYB(describe your hand further) or the cheapest cue bid.As to what it is will be clear with his next bid.

[Lovera]

Gib has tons of bugs in it so don't treat all of its bidding as normal by human standards.

 

After 1 of a suit - (overcall) - cue bid in overcall suit, it's super common for this to guarantee support absolutely. Because without support, generally one can fall back on negative double, or a forcing free bid in a side suit. But it should deny interest in an unbid major, so if GIB bid 1d-(2s)-3s on ?? AKQx Axxx ??? that was a mistake, it should look for 4 cd heart support first by negative doubling.

 

It's also common for cue bid in response to an overcall, (1 of a suit) - overcall - p - cue opening suit to be 10+ raise of the overcalled suit (or possibly some other hand types, but raise is most common). Again because with other hands you usually have alternatives.

 

Cue bids in other situations tend to be other things, either looking for a stopper for NT or asking for choice of suits. If opening bidder cue bids after responder has shown a major, it's usually not support, since the opening bidder could alternatively just raise the major directly. So it's either looking for a stopper, or really strong hands looking for slam too strong to just raise the major to game.

 

Cues in response to takeout doubles are usually looking for choice of suit, when bidding a suit is unattractive for some reason. For example with both majors in response to takeout double of a minor, with a strong enough hand you usually cue, to get partner to show a 4 cd suit unambiguously, rather than guessing which major to bid. Or one might bid that way to set up a GF when bidding game directly is unattractive for whatever reason. On your 2c opening auction, 2c-3c-p-p-x-p-? probably responder shouldn't cue bid with x44x, and should just bid 3h instead, since in a gf already from the 2c opening no need to jack the bidding, can bid diamonds later if partner doesn't raise or bid 3nt.

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.

[Lovera]

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.

[barmar]

It may be new to you, but experienced bridge players have been using a cue bid to show a good raise of partner's suit for decades.

[Lovera]

It may be new to you, but experienced bridge players have been using a cue bid to show a good raise of partner's suit for decades.

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.

[barmar]

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.

You've apparently led a very sheltered bridge life. Do you play in the real world with experienced players at clubs and tournaments, or only with randoms online?

[hrothgar]

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.

 

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

[johnu]

It may be new to you, but experienced bridge players have been using a cue bid to show a good raise of partner's suit for decades.

 

It probably wasn't in the bridge textbooks that Lovera reads that were written in the 1950's and before.

[barmar]

It probably wasn't in the bridge textbooks that Lovera reads that were written in the 1950's and before.

Most of the rest of us have moved on from Goren et al as our bidding teachers.

 

Mike Lawrence starts discussing cue bids on page 63 of my 1992 copy of "The Complete Guide to Contested Auctions". His recommended style there is that a cue bid is a game forcing raise, and jump raises are still used to show an invitation, but I think most advanced players these days play the cue as limit or better and use a jump raise as preemptive (anyone know if this has changed in newer editions?).

[Stephen Tu]

Mike Lawrence starts discussing cue bids on page 63 of my 1992 copy of "The Complete Guide to Contested Auctions". His recommended style there is that a cue bid is a game forcing raise, and jump raises are still used to show an invitation, but I think most advanced players these days play the cue as limit or better and use a jump raise as preemptive (anyone know if this has changed in newer editions?).

Don't think Lawrence released any newer editions of that one.

 

 

 

[Lovera]

You've apparently led a very sheltered bridge life. Do you play in the real world with experienced players at clubs and tournaments, or only with randoms online?

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.

[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).

[Lovera]

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."

[Zelandakh]

I have found this one in N. Ghelli book "Le convenzioni nel bridge" (first edition 1973)

<some ancient rubbish snipped>

I would suggest entering "unassuming cue bid" into Google and reading the pages that come up, then come back here if any questions remain.

[Lovera]

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- ?.

[Zelandakh]

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- ?.

Not really because you also have an additional level of bidding. With a limit raise you cue and do not bid beyond 2♠. With what would be a minimum GF opposite an opening you cue and commit to the 3 level. And with a stronger hand still you have enough for game even opposite an overcall. There are other ways of playing of course but this is an easy one even for intermediates to follow.

[Wackojack]

The book "Competitive Bidding" by jeremy Flint and Richard Sharp published 1980 describes the UCB as a useful modern gadget.

[Lovera]

Not really because you also have an additional level of bidding. With a limit raise you cue and do not bid beyond 2♠. With what would be a minimum GF opposite an opening you cue and commit to the 3 level. And with a stronger hand still you have enough for game even opposite an overcall. There are other ways of playing of course but this is an easy one even for intermediates to follow.

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.

[Lovera]

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.