[Lovera]

johnu, on 2022-July-01, 15:25, said:

Since you nicely asked

1. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

3. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

Thank you and I can answer that: what drives the bid is the solid suit of ♦ and a hand that is worth 19 / + points and it is expected that in this way we can show strength and distribution while keeping the bid low. As for the hypothesis that the partner jumps to 4 I have not even considered it since S has opened and W has simple overcalled and I have a very strong hand. Regarding the support Qx can be equivalent to xxx but a card cannot prevent me from using and completing the UCB convention (which I adopted talking about it in "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD in June 2016 ") with the "Ultherior Extension of UCB "which happens a few times. The bidding and the relative development allows us to stop at 5 ♦ after the RKB when we discover that it has only one keycard but proceeds automatically giving the unexpected 5NT that projects the game up to grand slam. But as you can see I say almost 6 ♦. On the other hand, what can S have if not the missing honors with a hand made of Kings in the major suits (to ♣ it does not matter because we have the void) that directs the planning play?

[johnu]

Lovera, on 2022-July-02, 02:10, said:

Thank you and I can answer that: what drives the bid is the solid suit of ♦ and a hand that is worth 19 / + points and it is expected that in this way we can show strength and distribution while keeping the bid low. As for the hypothesis that the partner jumps to 4 I have not even considered it since S has opened and W has simple overcalled and I have a very strong hand. Regarding the support Qx can be equivalent to xxx but a card cannot prevent me from using and completing the UCB convention (which I adopted talking about it in "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD in June 2016 ") with the "Ultherior Extension of UCB "which happens a few times. The bidding and the relative development allows us to stop at 5 ♦ after the RKB when we discover that it has only one keycard but proceeds automatically giving the unexpected 5NT that projects the game up to grand slam. But as you can see I say almost 6 ♦. On the other hand, what can S have if not the missing honors with a hand made of Kings in the major suits (to ♣ it does not matter because we have the void) that directs the planning play?

Sorry, my fault for not making my response clear. Here's another attempt.

1. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

3. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

4. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

5. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

[Lovera]

johnu, on 2022-July-02, 15:00, said:

Sorry, my fault for not making my response clear. Here's another attempt.

1. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

3. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

4. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

5. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

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.

[Douglas43]

This is one to consider tactics as well as perfect outcome. Pilowsky got over 60% for playing in a part-score. Don't think he mentioned what 6♦ scores but it is presumably well over 90%. At that point, the grand is for the birds. The spade finesse is better than an 80% chance, but that isn't good enough. Even seeing both the East-West hands (which means being able to know that AJ10 is opposite Qx) I'd want to stop in 6.

[Lovera]

Douglas43, on 2022-July-03, 02:26, said:

This is one to consider tactics as well as perfect outcome. Pilowsky got over 60% for playing in a part-score. Don't think he mentioned what 6♦ scores but it is presumably well over 90%. At that point, the grand is for the birds. The spade finesse is better than an 80% chance, but that isn't good enough. Even seeing both the East-West hands (which means being able to know that AJ10 is opposite Qx) I'd want to stop in 6.

Bravo was what I thought. It is misleading to have obtained that score when there is 7 ♦ from the double dummy solve analysis. Several couples in the club under-declare and stop much earlier but on the whole those who go forward are on the same line and this gives the division of the points (the maximum is reached with 5 ♦ X which is partially justified) but at least no one hypothesizes the possibility of the little slam and does something about it.
(There were the url of the club in #1:is it possible to have that indication again, thanks) ?

[sfi]

Lovera, on 2022-July-01, 07:52, said:

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]

sfi, on 2022-July-03, 04:34, said:

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]

Lovera, on 2022-July-03, 02:02, said:

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]

Douglas43, on 2022-July-03, 02:26, said:

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]

AL78, on 2022-July-03, 11:54, said:

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]

johnu, on 2022-July-03, 16:05, said:

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]

smerriman, on 2022-July-04, 01:13, said:

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]

smerriman, on 2022-July-04, 01:13, said:

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]

Lovera, on 2022-July-01, 07:52, said:

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]

Gilithin, on 2022-July-04, 15:14, said:

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.