[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-29, 01:59, said:

to understand a convention you need then to understand the problem it solves, otherwise they will never use it properly. What does the cuebid solve?, well 2 things, first space for slam exploration and second freeing up 3♥ for competitive purposes.

So for them to learn I think best is to give them a bunch of competitive hands and see what problems it creates to opponents and what problems it solves for you.

This

[sfi]

32519, on 2012-September-29, 23:54, said:

What has happened to all the experts?

This might go some way to answering your question.

[barmar]

semeai, on 2012-September-28, 17:21, said:

Unlike that situation, in bridge there is no one correct way to bid.

While this is true, some ways are better than others. There's a reason why practically all good players use jump raises in competition as preemptive, not strong. Decisions about what is the "correct" way to bid should be made by players who know what they're doing -- students are not usually qualified to do this for themselves.

However, a practical balance has to be made between bidding theory and the player's memory capacity. If learning something new overloads your brain, you're not going to get its value.

Quote

If you're teaching beginners and they can't handle the conventions you introduce, it's always an option to go back to how they played before you introduced the convention.

The teacher has to judge when the students are ready to learn something new, of course -- you can't throw everything at them at once. But once you decide it's time to teach them this, I tnink you're doing them a disservice by just giving up. When they screw it up, you need to point out to them, and hopefully it will eventually sink in.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-28, 22:42, said:

Interesting. Do you think your good results with Romex were because the system was good, or because it was unusual/unanticipated?

I think that our good results were the result of playing a sound system and thinking soundly.

One of the things that the original Romex system forced one to do was to be disciplined. As a relatively new player (started playing at the age of 16 in 1972) I learned Romex in the mid-70s after dabbling with Goren, Schenken, Precision and Blue Team.

As Romex is a natural, disciplined and predominantly sound system, I cannot say that our good results were a result of it being unusual or unanticipated. Aside from the way one handles the strong hands, all hands are handled in a very natural manner. The only thing that is "unusual" to the opps would be the lack of a "strong" NT opening. Balanced hands with 15-18 HCP are opened one of a suit. Of course, when you open one of a suit the opps don't know whether you have the usual 12-15 HCP opener or a stronger opener, but it is not something that really concerns them.

Speaking of forcing one to be disciplined, I found that the same could be said of playing the CC Wei/Goren version of Precision that I learned in the early 70s. The fact that the system was set forth in some detail and any deviation from the stated system would cause all sorts of problems forced those learning the system (especially new players with limited experience in hand valuation) to follow the system in a very disciplined manner. Romex forced discipline in two ways - one was the need to follow the system, and the other was the fact that the system, as originally written, was a very sound opening system leaving little room for flights of fancy.

My original Romex partner still plays Romex with his now regular partner in the Washington DC area. They have had some successes, including a second place finish in the 0-5000 LM pairs and at least one win in the open flight of the District 6 GNT (which is not an easy district to win).

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-September-28, 23:48, said:

When does –
1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?
2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?

If you are playing relatively standard methods

1. Always*
2. Never

*With the obvious caveat that that "11 HCP" does not a limit raise make

[32519]

32519, on 2012-September-29, 23:54, said:

What has happened to all the experts? I have added a third possibility to this list –

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?
2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?
3. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a game forcing cue-bid, whenever partner is an unpassed hand? I have seen this played by a few partnerships. Partner has either a big distributional fit with opener, or a big hand of his own. With a big hand, all (or nearly all) of the HCP are located in 3 hands. Finessing the overcaller for the missing HCP becomes a no-brainer.

So how exactly do you differentiate between these 3 sequences?

Richard was brave enough to offer an answer here. I’ll make an alternate one and see how others react to it.

The simple truth is that you and partner need to agree on what each bid means in different bidding sequences.

1. So in the auction posted by the OP:
1♥-(1♠)-2♠ I don’t believe that the 2♠ bid in this sequence should ever be used to show the limit plus raise (10-11 HCP) as responder is an unpassed hand. Neither should it be used as a Western Cue-Bid. Which therefore leaves it as a game-forcing cue-bid (option 3 above).
2. In a different auction:
P-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
2♠ by the player in first seat now becomes the limit plus raise (option 1 above).
3. In yet another different auction:
1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
2♣-(P)-2♠ The 2♠ bid in this sequence becomes the Western Cue-Bid, asking for a ♠ stopper to play in NT. A direct 2NT bid would indicate that the player has the ♠ stop himself.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2012-September-29, 23:54, said:

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?
2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?
3. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a game forcing cue-bid, whenever partner is an unpassed hand? I have seen this played by a few partnerships. Partner has either a big distributional fit with opener, or a big hand of his own. With a big hand, all (or nearly all) of the HCP are located in 3 hands. Finessing the overcaller for the missing HCP becomes a no-brainer.

So how exactly do you differentiate between these 3 sequences?

IANAE but:-

1. If you have agreed Unassuming Cue Bids.
2. This would be an unusual treatment and require a special agreement.
3. This is the usual agreement for (non-Beginner) pairs that have not agreed UCBs and do not play transfers

How do you mean differentiate? This is like asking how one differentiates between a 2♦ opening meaning Multi, Mexican or Ekrens. You differentiate by having an agreement with partner. Default with a good partner is generally UCBs; default with someone still learning is generally a limit raise.


Edit: in your most recent post, auction 3 is completely different from the others and not comparable. In auction 1, why do you think a limit raise or better is inappropriate for an unpassed hand?

[MrAce]

32519, on 2012-October-01, 00:19, said:

Richard was brave enough to offer an answer here. I’ll make an alternate one and see how others react to it.

My reaction is and i will explain you why.

32519, on 2012-October-01, 00:19, said:

1. So in the auction posted by the OP:
1♥-(1♠)-2♠ I don’t believe that the 2♠ bid in this sequence should ever be used to show the limit plus raise (10-11 HCP) as responder is an unpassed hand. Neither should it be used as a Western Cue-Bid. Which therefore leaves it as a game-forcing cue-bid (option 3 above).

This looks like pretty much a comment about your choice, since you provided no explenation whatsoever about "I don’t believe that the 2♠ bid in this sequence should ever be used to show the limit plus raise (10-11 HCP)"

32519, on 2012-October-01, 00:19, said:

2. In a different auction:
P-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
2♠ by the player in first seat now becomes the limit plus raise (option 1 above).

Cuebidder is a passed hand, it is limit raise, not limit +

32519, on 2012-October-01, 00:19, said:

3. In yet another different auction:
1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
2♣-(P)-2♠ The 2♠ bid in this sequence becomes the Western Cue-Bid, asking for a ♠ stopper to play in NT. A direct 2NT bid would indicate that the player has the ♠ stop himself.

And this is the most dramatic part, this is what happens if someone spends too much time with conventions instead of spending enough time for bidding logic first. A cue here can be made for many more reasons rather than stopper ask, in fact it is not even priority for opener to show his stopper over this cuebid since they still has ***** loads of space to ask for it if they need to. Responder will start with cue with almost all hands that wants to create a forcing auction.

You asked our reaction, you got mine. My overall reaction is you should immediately stop reading/being fascinated/obsessed/ with conventions and make sure you understand what a forcing and non forcing bid is ( number 3 obviously shows you have issues on that part of bidding if you believe this should be a western cue), and then you practice how to make them and/or recognize them when pd makes. But if you are going to do what you want to do anyway (which i am sure you will) then at least have a grasp of the convention you are giving lectures. Western cues are usually used at 3 level, not 2. Check the net, check the books, all examples will be at 3 level and all 2 level cuebids will be defined as a gate to create a forcing auction. 2♠ does not even deny a spade stopper. A version of western cue can be used at 2 level sometimes but thats when they bid 2 suits and you want to show a stopper rather than ask by bidding their suit which you have stopper in. Even then if it is still the only way to create a forcing auction, it can't be called a western cue.

You seem like to invest a lot of time and effort in this game, and whether you agree with me or not i believe you are making your investment in the wrong part of this game. Imo with your determination and love for this game and effort, if use it in the right direction you may save yourself years if not decades untill you reach to the peak point possible for yourself and enjoy it.

[mycroft]

To the OP - I think you're focusing on the wrong half of the equation (or at least it's being presented this way).

Frankly, switching the limit raise from 3M to cue is a *bad* treatment; you're giving the opponents more calls to work out when to compete/sacrifice than they would have otherwise (the argument is, of course, that the extra calls will help them less when you have the balance of power than other meanings of the call (or no meaning for the call!), and the benefits your side gets from giving them those extra calls in LR+ auctions are worth much more than the costs). If you explain that it's a *better* way to do it, you'll confuse.

What I would try to teach is the holy grail of 3M right away with a bad hand and a fit, in competitive situations - and do so by comparing it to preempts and WJOs. Show them how much harder it is to compete after 1H-1S-3H, when the overcaller is wide-ranging and fourth hand has some spades and some points (or some spades and few points; if they bid 3S with both hands, how does partner avoid hopeless games?) You have to show them what it looks like from the other side, or it will never take.

Once they see that, show them that without the competition, there's "too many" raises to make, so they have to make 3M the limit raise (and maybe mention that the chance of needing the pre-competition, especially in restricted games, is less when second hand passes) to get all of them in. But with competition:
- you get another call;
- the chance of having a GF on power goes down;
- and the need to win the partscore battle goes up, to the point where "getting to the right contract" is superseded by "get to the rightish contract right away, make them guess"

and so we can use the extra call as the LR+ so that the 3M can be the desired preempt. Once they realize the key thought that "in competition, jump raises are weak, no matter what they were uncontested", then it's a function of what to do with the stronger hands, and they might remember those (I have found that the cuebid raise is easy for newer players to remember, but the Truscott/Dormer 2NT over double is *not*. Don't even think about discussing flip-flop Dormer :-).

Warning - they might learn that using 1M-p-3M as a preemptive raise isn't such a bad idea, and want to do something odd like Bergen Raises or 1M-2NT LR+! Ah well, the danger of education...

[Stephen Tu]

32519, on 2012-September-29, 23:54, said:

What has happened to all the experts? I have added a third possibility to this list –

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?
2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?
3. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a game forcing cue-bid, whenever partner is an unpassed hand? I have seen this played by a few partnerships. Partner has either a big distributional fit with opener, or a big hand of his own. With a big hand, all (or nearly all) of the HCP are located in 3 hands. Finessing the overcaller for the missing HCP becomes a no-brainer.

So how exactly do you differentiate between these 3 sequences?

99% of people play (1) these days. I haven't seen anyone play Western/Eastern cue bids in this "cue bid of direct seat overcall" position for as long as I can remember. Why is this the case? Because people want to play 3h, the jump raise, as weak, not inv. If you do this you are almost forced to use the cue bid as limit+, as what else can you reasonably use, especially if the overcall took up more space, like 1h-(2d)? The people using Eastern cues were still using the jump raise as inv, so they could do things such as bid 3nt as an artificial forcing major raise. This doesn't work if you want to be able to stop at the 3 level.

As for using the cue as a game forcing cue-bid, arguably it is unnecessary in this position. Without a fit, you can bid a new suit forcing 1 round, then show extras later (when not playing negative free bids), or make a negative double. This avoids opponents jamming your auction and you unable to show your suit until an inconvenient level. With a fit, you can sometimes splinter, sometimes blackwood, sometimes cue-bid as LR+ and catch up later, sometimes show your side suit before raising partner, make a fit-showing jump if you have that agreement, depending what your hand looks like. Now, it is arguably helpful to distinguish between true GF raises and just limit raises immediately (keeps partner from just jumping to game when you'd rather preserve space for slam exploration, can also help when opps preempt further since partner has a tighter bound on your range), but the times it really makes a difference in the end are infrequent. And people who worry about that sometimes use 2nt as an artificial raise over the overcall, although many think the distinction should be between 4cd raises and 3cd raises instead of inv vs. GF.

In *other* auctions, not these responder's first bid after an overcall auctions, cue bid as a stopper ask is a lot more common, because often in these cases:
- new suits are often non-forcing, you need a way to force, 3nt is often the target since with a major suit fit you can just bid game in your side's major
- you've already shown some minimum amount of strength by bidding before, you don't have to cater to weak hands, and can just raise with a fit.

[32519]

Hanoi5, on 2012-September-28, 12:19, said:

Say you teach students that:1♥-(1♠)-2♠ shows 11+ with a heart fit instead of 1♥-(1♠)-3♥ (which then can and will be used to show a weak hand with an extra fitting heart).
Even though they know this both students continue playing 1♥-(1♠)-3♥ as showing 11-12, even though both have agreed and discussed that the sequence will show a weak hand and the cue-bid the limit + hand.

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-01, 02:29, said:

IANAE

In auction 1, why do you think a limit raise or better is inappropriate for an unpassed hand?

I too am a bridge teacher, giving classes to novices and beginners (sometimes intermediates as well). I teach them SAYC for two reasons –
1. It’s the least complicated to learn.
2. Some of those students go on to play on BBO where SAYC is the default system.

From the OP I can tell that Hanoi5 is probably teaching his students 2/1 who are familiar with SAYC. In the auction posted, SAYC and 2/1 differ substantially.

Some extracts from the SAYC booklet:
1M-3M = limit raise (10-11 HCP with 3+ trump support)
1M-4M = 5+ trump support, singleton or void, less than 10 HCP
COMPETITIVE BIDDING
Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid [So if SAYC was being taught, then 3♥ would still show the limit raise, despite the opposition intervention. The fact that your students keep bidding this way is probably an indication that they are familiar with SAYC].
Cue-bidding right-hand opponent’s suit shows values for game without clear direction for the moment. This is often used to show a game-forcing raise: e.g. 1♠-(2♣)-3♣ = game force; usually a raise.

Max Hardy and Steve Brunno’s book on 2/1 agrees with the limit raise except for showing 10-12 HCP (versus 10-11 HCP). Ok, so this book is old and bidding theory has moved on.

Paul Thurston’s Pocket Guide to 2/1 is more modernized. Using this as a reference then:
1M-2M = 3-card raise 7-10 HCP
1M-3M = 4(5)-card pre-emptive raise, less than 7 HCP
1M-4M = 5+ card support, less than 10 HCP, singleton or void (same as SAYC)
Paul uses Bergen raises to show the in-between raises with 4(5) card support. To show a 10-12 HCP and a 3-card limit raise, he goes via 1NT and then a jump to 3M. With GF values, responder’s first bid is obviously a 2/1 bid.
When the opponents overcall, the cue-bid raise is used to show 4+ card support and limit+ raise (includes the possibility of GF strength). An exception to this rule occurs when responder has a limit raise but only 3-card support. A negative double followed by a raise to 3M shows the limit+ raise.

SAYC and 2/1 have a lot in common. My suggestion to you to fix this problem is this:
Compile a conversion table from SAYC to 2/1. You might be pleasantly surprised to see how little actually changes from SAYC to BASIC 2/1. Obviously the more conventions you start adding on increases the complexity.

Good luck. I have a full understanding of your frustrations!

(Zel: What does IANAE stand for?)

[Zelandakh]

IANAE = I am not an expert. You asked for expert answers but I responded anyway, therefore with the disclaimer.

Also, to Stephen, you can distinguish between limit and GF raises if you want by using another bid for one of them, for example 2NT or a jump cue. However it is arguably more important to show different levels of support so those who use these bids artificially often choose to split them as limit+ with 3 card versus 4 card support and the third as a mixed raise.

Those pairs that use the cue as a general force, not promising support, tend to do this in combination with non-forcing change of suit bids. This is a perfectly playable style but is probably more difficult for the average player to cope with, if for no other reason than unfamiliarity.

[mycroft]

The OP need not be teaching 2/1 to be teaching later-than-1970s Standard American - it's just not Yellow Card.

Having played non 2/1 SA for years (granted, massively gadgety, and with a weak NT, but without the key 2/1 concepts of 1M-2m being game forcing and 1M-1NT F1R), I can reasonably state that there's more to standard bidding than YC and 2/1.

When I learned, one learned 2/1 because at the partnership desk, you knew if you got a 2/1 partner that you got all the toys that filled the major SA holes: inverted minors, 4SF, NMF, limit raises, and so on. If you got an SA partner, you didn't. You put up with the silly 2/1 nonsense (and with a pickup, you can even be *behind* in 2/1 auctions over "everybody knows" SA) for the benefit of knowing that the holes are gone.

One plays 2/1 now because at the partnership desk, if you can't play 2/1, you get a partner that can't play.

[blackshoe]

A few years ago, I played with a local expert for a while. He wouldn't play 2/1. He said he preferred SA because it allowed him more freedom to use his judgement. I replied that my judgement wasn't that good. He acknowledged that, but still insisted on SA.