BBO Discussion Forums: Cue bid after preempt - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Cue bid after preempt

#1 User is offline   BebopKid 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 2007-January-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

Posted 2007-August-29, 20:40

If your LHO opens 2 (weak), and your partner overcalls 3, what should 3 mean in SAYC and 2/1?

Is it Michaels or something else?


BebopKid (Bryan Lee Williams)

"I've practiced meditation most of my life. It's better than sitting around doing nothing."
(Tom Sims, from topfive.com)

0

#2 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2007-August-29, 20:49

Depends. Lots of things are playable.

If 4 and 4 each show that minor and spades, then the usefulness of 3 as Michaels decreases (or if Roman Jumps are used). 3 could then be a classic strong takeout with first-round heart control (weird) or maybe inviting 3NT if Responder has a stop (typically semi-gambling).
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#3 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-August-29, 21:41

Over a weak 2, it is quite common to play 4m as leaping Michaels (that minor plus unbid major) and the cuebid as showing a decent hand with a long running suit (aka stopper ask).
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#4 User is offline   zasanya 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 747
  • Joined: 2003-December-24
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thane,Mumbai,Maharashtra,India
  • Interests:Chess,Scrabble,Bridge

Posted 2007-August-30, 02:12

I play it as a stopper inquiry for 3 NT.The system could be any.
Aniruddha
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius".
0

#5 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,727
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2007-August-30, 12:57

I'm used to playing 4m as leaping Michaels and the direct cue as a strong (solid) 1-suiter, ostensibly asking for a stopper, but you're not always going to pass 3NT from partner. That is, you could have higher aspirations than just game.
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#6 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2007-August-30, 14:45

cherdano, on Aug 29 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Over a weak 2, it is quite common to play 4m as leaping Michaels (that minor plus unbid major) and the cuebid as showing a decent hand with a long running suit (aka stopper ask).

This is what I would expect playing with a strong player and we hadn't discussed this sequence.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#7 User is offline   karlson 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 974
  • Joined: 2005-April-06

Posted 2007-August-30, 16:58

I used to play it as exactly 4 cards in the other major and a longer minor (typically 6), an awkward hand to show.

But eventually we switched it back to stopper ask, judging that you're really stuck without the stopper ask, and it comes up at least as frequently.
0

#8 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,397
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Odense, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2007-August-30, 17:26

I'm with Harald but a random p is more likely to take it as michaels, I think
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#9 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2007-August-31, 01:13

helene_t, on Aug 31 2007, 08:26 AM, said:

I'm with Harald but a random p is more likely to take it as michaels, I think

I agree with Harald and would believe that at least 90 % of my pick upd pds will understand it this way too.
Kind Regards

Roland


Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

#10 User is offline   vang 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 2004-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Romania
  • Interests:Linux

Posted 2007-August-31, 04:51

iirc, it's stopper ask in bridge world standard.
0

#11 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2007-August-31, 07:10

asks stopper...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#12 User is offline   keylime 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: FD TEAM
  • Posts: 2,735
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, TN
  • Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)

Posted 2007-August-31, 09:30

Depending on level - with a lesser player Michaels, with my peers, stop ask.

Alluded to other posts, Freeman-Nickell got to an elegant slam using this method.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
0

#13 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,727
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2007-August-31, 09:59

helene_t, on Aug 31 2007, 01:26 AM, said:

I'm with Harald but a random p is more likely to take it as michaels, I think

A 'random' pick up partner in my environment would take it as stop ask without any discussion. What I should expect elsewhere I don't know. Playing with a high level partner I'd expect stopper ask and leaping Michaels to be standard.
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#14 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-August-31, 18:13

I'd also say that leaping Michaels and "stopper ask" (should be a better term for that) is standard.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#15 User is offline   ralph23 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 2007-July-11

Posted 2007-August-31, 19:06

Hannie, on Aug 31 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

I'd also say that leaping Michaels and "stopper ask" (should be a better term for that) is standard.

We call it (the 3-level cue bid) the "Western Cue Bid" i.e. the stopper-asking bid. I believe the "Eastern Cue Bid" shows a stop rather than asks for one. This is discussed somewhere in Root & Pavlicek.....

WQB comes up with some regularity but needs partnership discussion as to when it applies, i.e. distinguish situations where partner has OPENED: 1 by partner (opening), 2 overcall, then 3 by me. In our methods, the cuebid is a raise.

Or where partner has overcalled: 2 opening by the dealer on my left, partner overcalls 2; after a pass by my RHO, I bid 3. Again, we play CARLOS(Cuebids Are Raises, Limit Or Stronger) here.

Regular Michaels would be a weird interpretation imo and certainly not part of the Michaels convention description; Leaping Michaels works pretty well and would be advanced standard, imo.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-31, 19:12

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken.
0

#16 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-August-31, 22:00

ralph23, on Aug 31 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

Hannie, on Aug 31 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

I'd also say that leaping Michaels and "stopper ask" (should be a better term for that) is standard.

We call it (the 3-level cue bid) the "Western Cue Bid" i.e. the stopper-asking bid.

You missed my point. There are auctions where the name "stopper ask" is justified, for example:

1D - (1S) - 2D - (2S)
3S

Here the 2D bidder should (virtually) always bid 3NT with a stopper.

However (2) - 3 is not so much an asking bid as a showing bid: it shows a very good hand with a long strong minor (usually). It is not unlikely that responder will choose not to bid 3NT with a stopper, for instance to search for slam.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#17 User is offline   ralph23 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 2007-July-11

Posted 2007-September-01, 05:48

Hannie, on Aug 31 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

You missed my point.

I didn't miss it, rather you just didn't state it or imply it. But it's interesting now that you do.
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users