7 diamonds

[sfi]

Why is there still no comment on my bidding line (explained in # 15 and further clarified in # 18) ?

Because it's nonsense. You seem to think partner will bid 3S on all hands, so you're starting off with poor assumptions. On the actual hand partner will bid 3H and now won't have a 4H cuebid over your 4D. Or partner might bid 3D and good luck finding a sensible auction with nothing to cue.

 

But let's assume it does go as planned and you get to bid 4D, partner gets to cue 4H, and everyone agrees this is what the bids show. You've suggested bidding 4NT to ask for keycards. What's your plan when partner shows you two aces? Now you get to a slam on hands where partner has the HA and two or three small clubs, and that's not going to play well.

[Lovera]

Because it's nonsense. You seem to think partner will bid 3S on all hands, so you're starting off with poor assumptions. On the actual hand partner will bid 3H and now won't have a 4H cuebid over your 4D. Or partner might bid 3D and good luck finding a sensible auction with nothing to cue.

 

But let's assume it does go as planned and you get to bid 4D, partner gets to cue 4H, and everyone agrees this is what the bids show. You've suggested bidding 4NT to ask for keycards. What's your plan when partner shows you two aces? Now you get to a slam on hands where partner has the HA and two or three small clubs, and that's not going to play well.

 

As for the other bids at 3 ♠ having already hypothesized a simply overcalled I don't think it can say 3 ♥ not having the characteristics and strength (i.e. 5-5- × - ×) and much less 3 ♦ before that I declare again clarifying that I have a strong hand but can only develop the play on ♦. Therefore the other tricks come mainly from the ♠ and something in the cards must also have (= not only 2 Aces) such as to complete a possible contract of 6 ♦.

[AL78]

No, I'm not guilty of double dummy bidding. But it is the hand that is too strong and is treated in this way by the further extension of UCB which therefore must be able to be used.

 

If you play a change of suit as forcing, you can keep the bidding low and use the UCB as an invitational+ hand with support. East knows they want to be in game but doesn't know which game, so if he can keep the bidding low with a forcing 2♦, it maximises room for investigation into the best game contract. There is a risk the opponents will jam the auction with a club raise but I'm not sure that is any worse than cue bidding then trying to get across a solid diamond suit at the four level.

[johnu]

Pilowsky got over 60% for playing in a part-score.

 

I can't really figure out how playing in 3♦ got 62.5%. Any game or slam in diamonds makes. Up to 6♠ makes, and spade partials score more than 3♦.

 

Maybe other tables played in 3NT losing the 1st 5 tricks or let the opponents play some number of clubs which wasn't doubled. Or did other tables match the result of playing in a diamond partial? Only pilowsky knows.

[Lovera]

If you play a change of suit as forcing, you can keep the bidding low and use the UCB as an invitational+ hand with support. East knows they want to be in game but doesn't know which game, so if he can keep the bidding low with a forcing 2♦, it maximises room for investigation into the best game contract. There is a risk the opponents will jam the auction with a club raise but I'm not sure that is any worse than cue bidding then trying to get across a solid diamond suit at the four level.

 

Only one couple in the club used UCB and it was like this after E bid 2 ♦ and then W bid 3 ♣ to agree but the bid ended in 3 ♦. This means that you first devalue your hand and then you are forced to reevaluate it and can lead to problems that do not allow you to easily get where you want in addition to bidding extensions. For this reason the bidding I have chosen (3 ♣ before for 4 ♦ after), as well as being foreseen, represents all the strength and distribution to the partner who will be able to act consequently in order to start the search by me for any slam without remain at an unsuitable level of play (having also the opportunity to fully apply the convention).

 

 

[pilowsky]

Only pilowsky knows.

 

Sometimes true.

 

 

1 of 5♦X= for 100%

1 of 5♦+2 for 93.75%

1 of 5♦ __for 87.5%

4 of 3♦+4 for 62.5%

3 of 4♦+3 for 62.5%

6 of 3♦+3 for 18.75%

1 of 4♦+2 for 18.75%

[smerriman]

Still rather baffling how 9 people managed to not take 13 tricks in diamonds.

[AL78]

Still rather baffling how 9 people managed to not take 13 tricks in diamonds.

 

Doesn't surprise me. This is the sort of traveller we'd end up with at my club with its high variance in standard and a lot of inexperienced players. I've quickly spotted one from last Friday where someone managed to go off in 3NT with eight tricks off the top when the opening lead gave them a free finesse, KQ in a suit, and no chance of the defence establishing and running a suit.

[Cyberyeti]

Still rather baffling how 9 people managed to not take 13 tricks in diamonds.

 

3♠ lead, go up with the ace thinking it's stiff ?

 

5♦= is the headscratcher

[Gilithin]

Why is there still no comment on my bidding line (explained in # 15 and further clarified in # 18) ?

Some pairs play that a cue advance shows general strength and for those pairs this seems like a good approach. But you specified that the cue is a UCB, which is a way of showing a limit raise or better. Within a typical UCB structure, there is a simpler way of creating a constructive auction that keeps the bidding even lower than 3♣, namely 2♦. Several posters have suggested this and I see no reason to repeat what has already been written. I suggest you read a little to understand why your approach may not be optimal.

[Lovera]

Some pairs play that a cue advance shows general strength and for those pairs this seems like a good approach. But you specified that the cue is a UCB, which is a way of showing a limit raise or better. Within a typical UCB structure, there is a simpler way of creating a constructive auction that keeps the bidding even lower than 3♣, namely 2♦. Several posters have suggested this and I see no reason to repeat what has already been written. I suggest you read a little to understand why your approach may not be optimal.

So what happened in the club will happen, namely that W, weak side, has declared 3 ♣ (= UCB) and I run the risk of finding myself in 5 ♦. The strong part can do it as I said by applying the UCB Further Extension. You are right to say that we are on the fourth level and that is what holds you back.

 

 

 

https://www.pattayab...ingcue_main.htm

[Lovera]

In the club they tried to stop at 3 ♦, 4 ♦ and then even 5 ♦ evidently because the points of the two hands of E and W did not allow them to go further. It is clear that something different is needed to give a strong signal to the partner and at this point the cue of him/her to ♥ to agree in ♦ is automatic. However, the suggestion remains that you must at least get to the small slam but reaching the big one is easier than it seems.