Raising the suit of opponent

[Lovera]

At the other side as i told, a similar cue becoming on the line of opener when the first opp immediatly overcall and partner has, then, the possibility to use cue bidding in third seat. If this cue remain at second level the range of force should be 10/11 p., forcing level three when jumping is 12/13 (and this range if opp bids jumping too). Instead if bidding remains at level but forces three (i.e.1♠-(2♥)-"3♥") the cue at this moment should be reserved to show a better hand with 14/+ points and same support as in UCB.

[Stephen Tu]

For your last 1s-2h-3h sequence, it depends on how you play the alternative 3s jump raise. These days the vast majority play the jump raise as weak, not invitational. The idea being to disturb the opps accuracy in determining whether to bid game in hearts, or find a fit in another suit, and to allow partner to judge to bid 4s either as a sac or to make knowing of at least 4cd support. If you play the jump raise as weak, that means the cue had to handle invitational hands, so it is good 10+. Opener assumes the lower range, if he attempts sign off in 3, then responder with more simply bids on.

 

An older style barmar mentioned keeps the jump raise as invitational so the cue is gf. This makes some slam bidding easier since responder promises about a K more but gives up the ability to preempt with the weak hand. If this is the case your range of 14+ would be weird, because people want to force game with 13 only and many 12s also. And the invite jump raise should include 11s and many 10s because raising to 2 only would be insufficiently encouraging.

[Lovera]

For your last 1s-2h-3h sequence, it depends on how you play the alternative 3s jump raise. These days the vast majority play the jump raise as weak, not invitational. The idea being to disturb the opps accuracy in determining whether to bid game in hearts, or find a fit in another suit, and to allow partner to judge to bid 4s either as a sac or to make knowing of at least 4cd support. If you play the jump raise as weak, that means the cue had to handle invitational hands, so it is good 10+. Opener assumes the lower range, if he attempts sign off in 3, then responder with more simply bids on.

 

An older style barmar mentioned keeps the jump raise as invitational so the cue is gf. This makes some slam bidding easier since responder promises about a K more but gives up the ability to preempt with the weak hand. If this is the case your range of 14+ would be weird, because people want to force game with 13 only and many 12s also. And the invite jump raise should include 11s and many 10s because raising to 2 only would be insufficiently encouraging.

If you are referring at when pairs bidding is not interferred than a direct jumping (i.e. 1♠-p-3♠ is strong (14-18 points) otherwise, if is interferred to favourite intervention for other lower biddings the range of force is amplied by system (that combines alternatively direct and delayed for raising ). About my observation on 3♥ i have indicated this force (14/+) considering a different type in bidding (=not jumping) that, for mine advise, allow to insert it.

[barmar]

If you are referring at when pairs bidding is not not interferred than a direct jumping (i.e. 1♠-p-3♠ is strong (14-18 points)

Most people these days don't play that as strong. It's usually a limit raise (10-12 points, and probably a 4-card suit). But people who play Bergen Raises use it as a preemptive (weak) raise. Strong raises are usually shown with artificial conventions, such as Jacoby 2NT.

[Stephen Tu]

If you are referring at when pairs bidding is not not interferred

No, I was only talking about bidding when there is competition. 1♠-(2♥)-3♠ is usually played as weak (0-~6), or weak mixed (~4-7), not invitational (10-12).

 

than a direct jumping (i.e. 1♠-p-3♠ is strong (14-18 points)

People haven't played jump raises as strong in duplicate circles for many, many decades (still used in some rubber bridge clubs that don't use any modern bidding methods). You need to stop using books published before 1950 as your references. At least restrict yourself to books published after 1980. Nobody uses 1♠-p-3♠ as strong/forcing anymore, it's invitational (10-12) or weak.

 

Also, requiring 14 points to GF is way too conservative. 13 is enough to GF, as are good 12s. And even fewer HCP when shapely and having ruffing values.

[Lovera]

No, I was only talking about bidding when there is competition. 1♠-(2♥)-3♠ is usually played as weak (0-~6), or weak mixed (~4-7), not invitational (10-12).

 

 

People haven't played jump raises as strong in duplicate circles for many, many decades (still used in some rubber bridge clubs that don't use any modern bidding methods). You need to stop using books published before 1950 as your references. At least restrict yourself to books published after 1980. Nobody uses 1♠-p-3♠ as strong/forcing anymore, it's invitational (10-12) or weak.

 

Also, requiring 14 points to GF is way too conservative. 13 is enough to GF, as are good 12s. And even fewer HCP when shapely and having ruffing values.

Yes and for instance i have not books (to use for) published before 1950. The indication was, among other ones, for a direct raising at 3rd level in system but not the lonely for this aim (and the same for pointing). Althoug, playing in clubs as already told, i have had rescountring by players and score in this (i know old-fashioned) way. Infact this topic try to explore bidding for up-to-dating/integrating in system that i use.

[johnu]

People haven't played jump raises as strong in duplicate circles for many, many decades (still used in some rubber bridge clubs that don't use any modern bidding methods). You need to stop using books published before 1950 as your references.

 

What's your problem with the Culbertson system :)

[MrAce]

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.

 

I teach it to my students as soon as we come to the part where opponents bid too. I never teach them michaels or other conventions that requires cuebid. . They learn that it means either support +11+ hcp or asks stopper for 3 NT in competitive auctions or to create a forcing auction (for example responding to a T/O double etc) and teach them how to separate them from each other. I mainly focus on these 3 functions of cue bids.

 

I am also surprised just like Richard and Barmar that you have not seen this being used among real players just like GIB.

 

From your posts you sound like a logical person. Let me try to tell why it is important, especially when the suit is a major suit. If you do not use cue as a support, then as you mentioned already, you will have to raise the suit. You will raise to 2 and 3 or 4. Depending on your strength. Here is why this is not optimal use of them

• You do not want to end up at 3 level when you have to jump to 3, especially with only 3 card support.
• You lose a lot of space just to show 3 vard fit and 11 hcp.
• 4 card fit is very vital. We all desire to know whether we have a 5-4 or 6-4 fit or a 5-3 fit. This helps us a lot to re evaluate our hand. It is not optimal to disable yourself from showing this to partner just because you do not have strength to jump to 3. And pd will never know with how many trumps you support him. So cues allow you to jump raise pd with 4-5 trumps and weak hands.
• IF your cue does not promise a support, partner, instead of being able to jump to game, not being sure there is a fit, will be forced to make bids that can be used for much better purposes had he/she known the fit.

[barmar]

Yes and for instance i have not books (to use for) published before 1950.

Don't be so literal, he was exaggerating to make the point that whatever you're learning from seems to be very old fashioned.

[Lovera]

Don't be so literal, he was exaggerating to make the point that whatever you're learning from seems to be very old fashioned.

And infact i have told "to use for" meaning bidding in real play but excluding although for ideas that from when bridge "was instituied" are in a great number and anytime forgotten.

[Lovera]

Most people these days don't play that as strong. It's usually a limit raise (10-12 points, and probably a 4-card suit). But people who play Bergen Raises use it as a preemptive (weak) raise. Strong raises are usually shown with artificial conventions, such as Jacoby 2NT.

..that i cannot use having it for other use and art. conv. have to be compatibile with a natural system.

[Lovera]

I teach it to my students as soon as we come to the part where opponents bid too. I never teach them michaels or other conventions that requires cuebid. . They learn that it means either support +11+ hcp or asks stopper for 3 NT in competitive auctions or to create a forcing auction (for example responding to a T/O double etc) and teach them how to separate them from each other. I mainly focus on these 3 functions of cue bids.

 

I am also surprised just like Richard and Barmar that you have not seen this being used among real players just like GIB.

 

From your posts you sound like a logical person. Let me try to tell why it is important, especially when the suit is a major suit. If you do not use cue as a support, then as you mentioned already, you will have to raise the suit. You will raise to 2 and 3 or 4. Depending on your strength. Here is why this is not optimal use of them

• You do not want to end up at 3 level when you have to jump to 3, especially with only 3 card support.
• You lose a lot of space just to show 3 vard fit and 11 hcp.
• 4 card fit is very vital. We all desire to know whether we have a 5-4 or 6-4 fit or a 5-3 fit. This helps us a lot to re evaluate our hand. It is not optimal to disable yourself from showing this to partner just because you do not have strength to jump to 3. And pd will never know with how many trumps you support him. So cues allow you to jump raise pd with 4-5 trumps and weak hands.
• IF your cue does not promise a support, partner, instead of being able to jump to game, not being sure there is a fit, will be forced to make bids that can be used for much better purposes had he/she known the fit.

Hi, tkx for your post: about the first part, i already knew and agree with you. And i too wonder myself for this type of bidding (UCB,..) because also in book(s) was not threated (i don't speak of Michaels or T/O reponse) but also Gib, i think, last year didn't use this bidding and in GCC there is not any indication.

[barmar]

And infact i have told "to use for" meaning bidding in real play but excluding although for ideas that from when bridge "was instituied" are in a great number and anytime forgotten.

Anyone have their Lovera-to-English dictionary handy?

[Lovera]

I have found two hands and relative biddings in "BRIDGE GAGNANT Tous les secrets de la réussite" by Bertrand Romanet. The first (pag.151):N ♠ AKxx ♥ 9xxx ♦ xx ♣ KQx E ♠ 10xx ♥ AJ ♦ K10xxxx ♣ xx S ♠ QJxx ♥ 10xx ♦ x ♣ AJxxx W ♠ xx ♥ KQxx ♦ AQxx ♣ xxx. Bidding: 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♣-cue), 2♠-(p)-3♣-(3♦), 3♠-(p)-p-(4♦), p-(p)-4♠-(p), p-(double)-all passing. Here there is perhaps the possibility to jumping in club or also cue in spade by W. The second hand (pag.215)is: N ♠ QJx ♥ Q97x ♦ Jxxx ♣ KJ S ♠ xx ♥ A106x ♦ AKx ♣ 98xx E ♠ K10xx ♥ KJ8x ♦ 102 ♣A10x. Bidding (pairs): (p)-p-(1♣)-1♥,(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)-p, (p)-3♥-(double)-all passing. Here instead of 2♥ by N could be bidded 2♣ meaning 10/11 points and four cards (with almost an honor card) in heart suit .. Edited May 29, 2016 by Lovera

[johnu]

I reformatted Lovera's post for anybody who had trouble reading it.

 

Ihavefoundtwohandsandrelativebiddingsin"BRIDGEGAGNANTTouslessecretsdelaréussite"byBertrandRomanet.Thefirst:N♠AKxx♥9xxx♦xx♣KQxE♠10xx♥AJ♣K10xxxx♦xxS♠QJxx♥10xx♦x♣AJxxxW♠xx♥KQxx♦AQxx♣xxxBidding1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♣),2♠-(p)-3♣-(3♦),3♠-(p)-p-(4♦),p-(p)-4♠-(p),,p-(double)-allpassing.Herethereisperhapsthepossibilitytojumpingincluboralsocueinspade.Thesecondhandis:N♠QJx♥Q97x♦Jxxx♣KJS♠xx♥A106x♦AKx♣98xxE♠K10xx♥KJ8x♦102♣A10xBidding(pairs)(p)-p-(1♣)-1♥,(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)-p,(p)-3♥-(double)-allpassing.Hereinsteadof2♥byNcouldbebidded2♣meaning10/11pointsandfourcards(withalmostanhonorcard)inheartsuit..

[Lovera]

[MrAce]

Lovera

 

I appreciate and respect that you are trying to communicate with us in a language that you are not comfortable with. You are either translating from google or trying to make sentences using Italian grammar with English words. So we are having hard time to understand.

 

I strongly recommend you to avoid long sentences. I know you are trying and I respect your afford, I really do.

[Zelandakh]

I have found two hands and relative biddings in "BRIDGE GAGNANT Tous les secrets de la réussite" by Bertrand Romanet.

Do you have any books from this side of 1970?

 

On the first hand, how many modern players do you think would open ♠AKxx ♥9xxx ♦xx ♣KQx with 1♠? Sorry but it is not worth looking further given the formatting issues.

[Lovera]

Do you have any books from this side of 1970?

 

On the first hand, how many modern players do you think would open ♠AKxx ♥9xxx ♦xx ♣KQx with 1♠? Sorry but it is not worth looking further given the formatting issues.

In my post #39 the opening bidding by North is 1♣ and not as you (wrongly) indicates 1♠.

[Lovera]

Lovera

 

I appreciate and respect that you are trying to communicate with us in a language that you are not comfortable with. You are either translating from google or trying to make sentences using Italian grammar with English words. So we are having hard time to understand.

 

I strongly recommend you to avoid long sentences. I know you are trying and I respect your afford, I really do.

Thanks. I think also that posts #40 and #41 could be removed if useless.

[Zelandakh]

In my post #39 the opening bidding by North is 1♣ and not as you (wrongly) indicates 1♠.

While you are editing, you might want the overcalling hand to change from ♠10xx ♥AJ ♣K10xxxx ♦xx. More to the point though, what exactly are your questions for these two hands from a 1968 book that are not answered by googling "unassuming cue bid" as already suggested?

[Lovera]

While you are editing, you might want the overcalling hand to change from ♠10xx ♥AJ ♣K10xxxx ♦xx. More to the point though, what exactly are your questions for these two hands from a 1968 book that are not answered by googling "unassuming cue bid" as already suggested?

About this one maybe 3♣ is more "disturbing" opp. The possibility to have two bids for overcalling should be used to differentiate force levels (10/11 lower -club, 12/13 higher - spade). About the second hand that in the book had not cued(=2♥), i have indicated it for request support (four cards and almost an honor).

[Lovera]

This url (via Chrome) of site seems simply and clear about the explaining of it: http://www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/Unassumingcue_main.htm If you use, instead, the "strong" raise than with the Hand 2 and 3 the bidding it will be 2♠, with the Hand 4 is better 4♣(=1 keycard Oklahoma) reserving 4♠ if the King is in club and Queen in spade and for the Hand 7 directly bidding 3♠.