[ayebee]

Perhaps the real question here should be "Should I have made a very unusual bid without first discussing it's meaning with my partner?"

You don't give the full hands but I'd be surprised if a clearer option was't available.

[mgoetze]

ayebee, on 2014-December-18, 10:13, said:

Perhaps the real question here should be "Should I have made a very unusual bid without first discussing it's meaning with my partner?"

What is unusual and what isn't is often much less obvious than people think.

[daffydoc]

for what its worth I have always played that as stopper ask - with the proliferation of 1C openers on 2 card suits it might be worth changing to preempt - I have already changed 1c 2c to natural over 2 card suit openers using 2D as michaels. In the absence of discussion with any of my regular expert partners I would have taken it as stopper ask. daffy

[jdeegan]

I recall stopper asking as coming in sometime in the early 1990's. It has been more or less standard amongst good bridge players in North America ever since.

Not that I can defend this treatment, but in the absence of discussion it should be the default.

[Giangibar]

Geographical origins lead to different interpretations as well as different standards. I am Italian and I was lucky enough to play many times in many different European countries for the Italian junior team in the past. I can say that here, in the European continent and especially in Italy, the so-called "standard" treatment is that bidding an opponent's suit is almost never natural.

The common understanding that bidding an opp's suit is always artificial is so eradicated that I assisted to the previous bidding sequence just one week ago: 1♥ (promising 4+H) - pass - pass - 1♠ - 2♣ (could be canapé with 4H and 5+C) - pass - 2♦ - 2♥ and this last 2♥ bid by the player in 4th seat was interpreted both by his partner and by my partner as a strength-showing bid with a likely Heart shortage. Instead, he had 5-5 in the Majors and wanted to bid Hearts naturally.

Conversely, I've been living in the US for 3 months and I noticed that most Americans tend to bid opps' suits much more naturally than us. For example, 1♣ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥ would be regarded as natural by the typical American player, but would be interpreted as artificial by most Europeans.

With these assumptions, I'm not surprised by OP's clarifications: he was Swedish and intended 3♣ as artificial, his partner was from the US and interpreted 3♣ as natural. These meta-agreements can only arise and be discussed in medium-to-long term partnerships and heavily depend on the cultural background.

As a final remark, 95% of Italian players and 100% of the top Italian pairs (Bocchi-Madala, Fantoni-Nunes, Lauria-Versace just to mention a few) play comprehensive 2-suited overcalls, that is they dedicate 3 bids for describing all possible combinations of 2-suiters excluding opener's suit. The most common set of comprehensive 2-suited overcalls is Ghestem: when the opponent opens 1m, then 2♦ is 5-5 in the Majors, 2NT is 5-5 in ♥ and the other minor, 3♣ is 5-5 in ♠ and the other minor. When the opponent opens 1M, on the other hand, 2M is the other Major + ♣, 2NT is minors and 3♣ is the other Major + ♦. In addition, since 1♦ - 3♣ is a non forcing black 2-suiter, 1♦ - 3♦ is used for showing a monster black 2-suiter. With this convention you completely lose the ability to bid 1m - 3m as preemptive and natural, but you gain a complete set of 2-suiter bids, which is much more useful an frequent in my opinion.

[GrahamJson]

For what it is worth, my copy of "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" says that a jump cue bid overcall asks for a stop. It makes no mention of differentiating between major and minor.

[aguahombre]

GrahamJson, on 2014-December-19, 09:42, said:

For what it is worth, my copy of "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" says that a jump cue bid overcall asks for a stop. It makes no mention of differentiating between major and minor.

As do the three sources I came across by typing "jump cuebid" into my Yahoo search engine. All this means, however, is that undiscussed I would expect that meaning --- not that it is optimal.

I thought it was written up way back in the 60's or 70's in either The Bridge World or a Max Hardy book; but I couldn't find it.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2014-December-17, 09:23, said:

I have played this game a little more recently than 40 years ago. In my opinion, it is still standard to use 3 of a minor over an opponent's 1 of a minor opening as preemptive and natural. Any other treatment would be by agreement.

I would go as far to say that I would be VERY surprised to find out that standard expert treatment would be to use the "jump cue bid" of 3 of a minor in direct seat as anything other than natural and preemptive.

Well, I one player who disagrees with you. In my neck of the woods the jump cue asks for a stopper. Two reguLar partners of mine, both excellent players, who come from Toronto and Montreal and who regularly attend NABCs (which I don't) both play it as stopper ask so it isn't simply a pacific NW regional method

[Edge_]

As an overcall, it makes sense for the meaning of this bid to be influenced by the system that your OPPONENTS are using. (Just as you may wish to adopt a different defensive when playing against precision club players)

Against 5-card major system oppenents where 1C and 1D may be 3 cards, or less, or totally artificial, then it is logical for 3C to be a natural suit and pre-emptive (because 2C/2D is usually Michaels). However not every opponent plays a <3 card club system. Against opponents using a natural system like Acol where 1C is openers longest or equal-longest suit, it makes more sense for the 3C bid to Ask partner for a stopper or control for making 3NT; Bidding 3C natural when it's sure to be openers longest suit is asking for trouble!

Therefore when most of the your opponents are the short minor/artificial club type you want to play the former meaning by default (-and agree with partner whether you will or won't switch against opponents with other systems!). However, if you usually play against natural systems/Acol opponents, then adopt the latter meaning for the default. So geography probably does make a difference here, and, if you think it can only be played one way, perhaps you need to get out and about more!

[nige1]

Even if ops play 2/1, their 1♦ opener is likely to be 4+ cards, so over opponents 1♦/1♥/1♠ opener, it seems reasonable for a jump-cue to show a strong hand with a good suit, asking for a stop.

To keep your methods simple and consistent, you might as well play the same way over opponent's 1♣ opener. And you can use the jump cue to show a strong and with any suit -- not just a minor.

Another interesting question is how to reply to the jump-cuebid. e.g. (1♥) 3♥ (P) ? Perhaps a fairly intuitive schema, something like ...

• 3N = NAT ♥ stop (As requested).
• 4♣ = P/C (Cheaper minor) Weak, no stop.
• 4♥ = CUE Good hand without long good suit.
• 3♠ = F/1 NAT (New major) = 5+ cards suggesting game in that suit.

[thepossum]

Sorry if its not relevant but I saw cue bid and thought it may be an appropriate place to mention a wonderful 4th level cue bid over a weak 3-level overcall that forced me to 5-level game in a very weak major opening suit. What can you do?

[Zelandakh]

Nice 6 year necro here. My crazy suggestion:-

1♣
==
2♣ = ♥ or ♠, weak; or ♠ + ♦, strong
2♦ = nat
2♥ = ♥ + ♠, weak
2♠ = ♠ + ♦, weak
2NT = ♥ + ♦, weak/strong
3♣ = ♥ + ♠, strong
--

1♦
==
2♦ = ♥ or ♠, weak; or ♠ + ♣, strong
2♥ = ♥ + ♠, weak
2♠ = ♠ + ♣, weak
2NT = ♥ + ♣, weak/strong
3♣ = nat
3♦ = ♥ + ♠, strong
--

1♥
==
2♥ = ♠ + minor, weak/strong
2♠ = nat
2NT = ♣ + ♦, weak/strong
3m = nat
3♥ = stop ask with long running minor
--

1♠
==
2♠ = ♥ + minor, weak/strong
2NT = ♣ + ♦, weak/strong
3m = nat
3♥ = nat
3♠ = stop ask with long running minor
--

[Vampyr]

GrahamJson, on 2014-December-19, 09:42, said:

For what it is worth, my copy of "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" says that a jump cue bid overcall asks for a stop. It makes no mention of differentiating between major and minor.

Natural and weak would not even have occurred to me.

[AL78]

Edge_, on 2020-November-21, 09:08, said:

Against 5-card major system oppenents where 1C and 1D may be 3 cards, or less, or totally artificial, then it is logical for 3C to be a natural suit and pre-emptive (because 2C/2D is usually Michaels). However not every opponent plays a <3 card club system. Against opponents using a natural system like Acol where 1C is openers longest or equal-longest suit, it makes more sense for the 3C bid to Ask partner for a stopper or control for making 3NT; Bidding 3C natural when it's sure to be openers longest suit is asking for trouble!

If you are going to play (1C) - 3C as natural and weak, why would you not also play (1C) - 2C a natural two level overcall? It doesn't make sense to me to treat one bid in the opponent's suit as natural and another as artificial, and I'm not sure holding a suitable Michaels hand is significantly more likely than a good holding in opener's minor worth an overcall.

[Stephen Tu]

AL78, on 2020-November-23, 14:34, said:

If you are going to play (1C) - 3C as natural and weak, why would you not also play (1C) - 2C a natural two level overcall? It doesn't make sense to me to treat one bid in the opponent's suit as natural and another as artificial

You have to consider things like how important it is to be able to show a particular hand type, how often this allows you to win the auction at a reasonable level, what the other uses for the bid are, and if there are other ways to show the hand you want.

Both majors is very important to be able to show. You can win the auction more easily at lower levels since you have the ranking suits. Game is easier to make since only 10 tricks required. If you overcall spades, hearts might be lost if opps heavily preempt, or partner can't scrape up a bid, and it helps partner a lot to gauge how high to bid/compete knowing you have a fifth heart rather than being in the dark if you just bid spades followed by hearts if that can be 5-4 only. Also it's harder to show 5-6 in at reasonable level without a bid to show both majors.

Natural 2c when you don't have that many of them is somewhat less useful, because sometimes you will run into bad break when they really have the clubs, and even if not, the opps will often have a major fit to outbid you with. So to me, I'd much rather have a bid to show both majors, than to have a natural 2C.

But when you get to 1c-(3c), now the question is whether natural is better or not than solid suit. The thing is the solid suit comes up very rarely compared to natural preempt. Plus when you have a solid suit you have the option of overcalling or perhaps doubling first then jumping in your suit. Or if your suit is a major perhaps just overcalling 4M and only losing when 3nt makes but 4M doesn't.


I think in America, 1M-(3M) is stopper asking without discussion, 1m-(3m) if is on shakier ground depending on region and age of partner but I think natural is consensus.

[Zelandakh]

AL78, on 2020-November-23, 14:34, said:

If you are going to play (1C) - 3C as natural and weak, why would you not also play (1C) - 2C a natural two level overcall?

In some parts of the world it is completely standard for (1♣) - 2♣ to be natural and to move the "both majors" hand up to (1♣) - 2♦.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2020-December-20, 06:16, said:

In some parts of the world it is completely standard for (1♣) - 2♣ to be natural and to move the "both majors" hand up to (1♣) - 2♦.

Fairly standard here in Italy, where (1♣) is almost always 2+ these days. I play it as natural with most partners to avoid misunderstandings, but my preference is both majors.

[mycroft]

I've just found out (was asked about a ruling) about one pair for whom (1m)-3m is the "Ghestem 3♣" - top and bottom. Never heard that one before.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2020-December-20, 13:06, said:

I've just found out (was asked about a ruling) about one pair for whom (1m)-3m is the "Ghestem 3♣" - top and bottom. Never heard that one before.

See Ghestem variant #3.

[mycroft]

I see nothing there where (1♦)-3♦ shows the blacks. 3♣, sure.