I much prefer the opposite agreement, that a cue always asks. There are 4 cases - we have both stops, no stop, a stop in only suit1 or a stop in only suit2. If we have both stops we can bid NT. If we have 1 stop we can make a cue. The issue comes when we have no stops. In the show agreement, there is no simple solution. In the ask agreement, we can make the cheaper cue. Partner with a stop in this suit and no stop in the second suit can cue the second suit - with a cue in both they can bid NT. This always works. There are some interesting effects of this on a deeper bidding theory level. One of the reasons for preferring the show agreement is that in some auctions, these cues eventually turn into advance cue bids, showing a control in the suit and slam interest. With the ask agreement, this results in mixed messaging when combined with standard control bidding. The solution to that is to switch to denial cue bidding or to control asking bids, which is quite a big change. This is not something that is required for the ask agreement to be slightly superior but it is something worth considering when trying to construct an optimal expert-level system structure.
Thank you for the video. I have a question. Why not keep it consistent? You said that if the opponents bid one suit then my cue bid is asking for stopper, but if opponents bit 2 suits then I am showing a stopper. So in the example you shared you could bid 3d over 2s to ask for a diamond check. This will keep the system consistent and easy to remember. No?
Thanks for watching and for your question. I would say that this is mostly a matter of preference. There is some consideration that using the cue bid to ask for a stopper allows the opponents an extra opportunity to communicate by doubling (or not doubling) that suit. But I think that is a small enough problem that ease of remembering is more important. If you find that asking for a stopper in both cases is easier to remember, then I would recommend that agreement. You would need to discuss if when two suits are bid that asking for a stopper in one of them promises a stopper in the other. Then it is simply a question of which is easier for you to remember. If you find remembering that the cue bid asks for a stopper in both cases and promises a stopper in the other suit when the opponents have bid two suits easier to remember, go with that. For my partners and students, I find that it is easier to remember the switch between asking (with one suit bid) and showing (with two) than the promise of a stopper in a suit that we are not bidding. Either way is fine. It’s just a question of what’s easier for you.
North's initial action is incorrect. North should not double with hearts and spades. North should pass. If East bids 2 Diamonds, South should bid 3 Clubs. North can then bid 3NT with no fear, since it is almost impossible for East to hold a running suit after South opens and West overcalls. Unfortunately, you have pulled this hand from BBO, which has nothing to do with bridge as it is played at the table.
One of the great things about bridge (and there are many great things about bridge!), is that there are lots of different bidding systems, approaches, styles, and indeed preferences of where to play. We support all different choices and welcome your opinion. Thank you.
This is great. There is no one agreement that suits everyone. There are different methods that suit different styles. This is part of what makes bridge such a great game.
I much prefer the opposite agreement, that a cue always asks. There are 4 cases - we have both stops, no stop, a stop in only suit1 or a stop in only suit2. If we have both stops we can bid NT. If we have 1 stop we can make a cue. The issue comes when we have no stops. In the show agreement, there is no simple solution. In the ask agreement, we can make the cheaper cue. Partner with a stop in this suit and no stop in the second suit can cue the second suit - with a cue in both they can bid NT. This always works.
There are some interesting effects of this on a deeper bidding theory level. One of the reasons for preferring the show agreement is that in some auctions, these cues eventually turn into advance cue bids, showing a control in the suit and slam interest. With the ask agreement, this results in mixed messaging when combined with standard control bidding. The solution to that is to switch to denial cue bidding or to control asking bids, which is quite a big change. This is not something that is required for the ask agreement to be slightly superior but it is something worth considering when trying to construct an optimal expert-level system structure.
Thank you for the video. I have a question. Why not keep it consistent? You said that if the opponents bid one suit then my cue bid is asking for stopper, but if opponents bit 2 suits then I am showing a stopper. So in the example you shared you could bid 3d over 2s to ask for a diamond check. This will keep the system consistent and easy to remember. No?
Thanks for watching and for your question. I would say that this is mostly a matter of preference. There is some consideration that using the cue bid to ask for a stopper allows the opponents an extra opportunity to communicate by doubling (or not doubling) that suit. But I think that is a small enough problem that ease of remembering is more important.
If you find that asking for a stopper in both cases is easier to remember, then I would recommend that agreement. You would need to discuss if when two suits are bid that asking for a stopper in one of them promises a stopper in the other.
Then it is simply a question of which is easier for you to remember. If you find remembering that the cue bid asks for a stopper in both cases and promises a stopper in the other suit when the opponents have bid two suits easier to remember, go with that. For my partners and students, I find that it is easier to remember the switch between asking (with one suit bid) and showing (with two) than the promise of a stopper in a suit that we are not bidding.
Either way is fine. It’s just a question of what’s easier for you.
North's initial action is incorrect. North should not double with hearts and spades. North should pass. If East bids 2 Diamonds, South should bid 3 Clubs. North can then bid 3NT with no fear, since it is almost impossible for East to hold a running suit after South opens and West overcalls. Unfortunately, you have pulled this hand from BBO, which has nothing to do with bridge as it is played at the table.
One of the great things about bridge (and there are many great things about bridge!), is that there are lots of different bidding systems, approaches, styles, and indeed preferences of where to play. We support all different choices and welcome your opinion. Thank you.
disagree.
This is great. There is no one agreement that suits everyone. There are different methods that suit different styles. This is part of what makes bridge such a great game.