Timeline for Was I wrong to open with a singleton lead in this situation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12 at 12:55 | comment | added | AlDante | I really like discussing bridge theory and the various merits of different questions, and I will certainly read the article you posted a link to, but I really don't understand what all the discussion has to do with my original answer. Yes, a cue bid can have a different meaning. But it is definitely a UCB if you've agreed to play UCB's with partner, as opposed to Limit+ or Bergen or whatever else. | |
| Aug 12 at 12:53 | comment | added | AlDante | 7. You then say "Obviously UCBs don't guarantee a fit nor a stopper". They definitely guarantee a fit, that's their whole point. You also say "Responder's cue bid can be either (Limit+ raise or UCB), even in the UK ". Yes, exactly. People play different conventions. And I did say "Other conventions may use the same bid for different things". All of this, both your and Alex's comments, are in response to my answer showing that UCB's give the OP a chance to distinguish between a sound raise of partner's suit and a competitive raise. (Continued in next comment) | |
| Aug 12 at 12:40 | comment | added | AlDante | Possibly we should take this offline, I'm getting confused :-) My understanding is the following: 1. Alex posted a comment. 2. I clarified that the convention that he is referring to is the UCB. 3. He proposed alternative terminology. 4. I respectfully stuck to my guns. 5. You added a friendly postrational interpretation that it might be called Limit+. You also posited that "It must be merged with another bid eg a stopper ask, to justify the label Unassuming Cue Bid". 6. I respectfully disagreed that UCB has anything to do with stoppers. (Continued in next comment) | |
| Aug 11 at 15:25 | comment | added | postrationalist | @AlDante, I thought it was you suggesting the UCB and Alexander the Limit+ raise meaning? Obviously UCBs don't guarantee a fit nor a stopper, but a 'something' since forcing, and warrant markedly different 2NT responses from opener (UCB replies more 4SF-like, than trial-bid-like). Responder's cue bid can be either (Limit+ raise or UCB), even in the UK - just see Neil Rosen's EBU article. bridgewebs.com/chislehurst/EBUNRUnassumingCueBidsJune2012.pdf ... (PS for Responder's Uncontested initial raise to 3H, Bergen usually dictates 3H as another a weaker-than-10-point bid) | |
| Aug 11 at 6:39 | comment | added | AlDante | An unassuming cue bid is a bid of the opponent's suit after their opening and partner's overcall. Other conventions may use the same bid for different things, but an unassuming cue bid does not, and indeed cannot require a stopper ask beforehand. andrewrobson.co.uk/article/tips_for_intermediates/1389 | |
| Aug 9 at 15:21 | comment | added | postrationalist | I believe the opener-responder cue bid of opponent's suit is usually termed a Limit+ raise ( clue is in the name!). It must be merged with another bid eg a stopper ask, to justify the label Unassuming Cue Bid (which should then result in contracts in other suits, with some regularity). Generally I find the former use more common than the latter. | |
| Mar 28 at 19:14 | comment | added | AlDante | It's rare that I think that I'm right and you're not, but in this case I beg to differ. Unassuming refers to the difference between a pre-emptive raise and a full-strength raise. Directly raising partner's suit is competitive; a sound raise is shown by cue bidding the opponent's suit. And that can be done regardless of whether partner opened or the opponents. SAYC and other forms of Standard American are still played in the US; as the OP didn't specify their bidding system, I felt that mentioning SAYC was ok. Really, as SO is global, any bidding system answer should be fine. | |
| Mar 28 at 17:05 | comment | added | Alexander Woo | this is a difference in terminology - "Unassuming Cue Bids" is usually used (in US and UK) to refer to the cue bid when partner overcalls - it's "unassuming" because it does not assume support for partner's suit, as, in that situation, new suits are nonforcing and so the cue bid has to be made with a forcing strength hand even without support. Almost every good player in the US is now playing 2/1 - the few playing Standard American are playing a very sophisticated form. | |
| Mar 28 at 16:29 | comment | added | AlDante | Oh, and if you are playing Unassuming Cue Bids, then yes, of course 3H would be weak. That's the point of the convention. | |
| Mar 28 at 16:28 | comment | added | AlDante | Hi Alexander, 2S as a sound raise to 3H is the Unassuming Cue Bid convention, which may be so common in the USA as to be counted as part of the system. They do not require the opponents to open. bridgewebs.com/alton/Unassuming%20Cue%20Bids.pdf I don't play any form of Standard American, so I checked with some sources online before answering. kwbridge.com/2over1.htm For SAYC, Downey & Pomer's "Standard Bidding with SAYC" (p. 69): "Your partner opens 1♥. With 3- or 4-card support for partner’s major and 10-12 points, your response is a limit raise of 3♥." | |
| Mar 28 at 1:59 | comment | added | Alexander Woo | I do not know a single good player who would play 3H as a limit raise in this situation; it's universally played as weak. Given partner opened, not opponents, 2S is unambiguously a raise of hearts, not unassuming. If my only choices were 2H, 3H, and 2S, I would raise to 2H on this hand but wouldn't object to 2S. If my partnership had a bid for a mixed raise I would make that. I wouldn't let the bidding die at 2S though - at MPs with opps vulnerable, I might venture a double but would never pass; +100 looks like a terrible score. | |
| Mar 27 at 23:43 | history | answered | AlDante | CC BY-SA 4.0 |