[spectro46]

When partner makes a non jump bid of opponents suit after an over call how do you distinguish between a directional asking bid and an unassuming or invitational cue bid?

[DavidKok]

You normally can't, it is on partner to clarify on the next round. When playing an unassuming cue bid overcaller is expected to further explain their hand so that advancer can decide on the optimum contract or explain in more detail on the next round.

This is also a big part of why I don't like the unassuming cue bid at all. Often when I overcall I have a shapely hand with so-so values (ok, I'll be honest. 'horrific lack of values' is closer to the truth), and those hands can upgrade when there is a fit but should hit the breaks with full weight if partner has a non-fit and some scattered values. The cue bid obstructs dialogue bidding in this way, and I prefer not to play it. That does mean you need other ways to handle strong hands without a fit, and I like forcing changes of suit (well, really I like transfers, but of the natural bunch I think forcing is better than not forcing). This is the tradeoff of (not) playing the unassuming cue bid.

[spectro46]

Thanks for the reply. Would agreeing with partner to assume that a non jump repeat of the oponents suit is always an unassuming cue bid when you are not the opening side be a workaround?

[DavidKok]

You could use the cue bid as a non-fit good hand, though you'd have to find a different place for your raises. I prefer the other way around (cue promises support) because non-fit hands can often bid their own suit or notrumps, so they already have good alternatives. But either style seems playable to me.

[helene_t]

What does opener do with a strong 4441?

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-January-24, 03:43, said:

You could use the cue bid as a non-fit good hand, though you'd have to find a different place for your raises. I prefer the other way around (cue promises support) because non-fit hands can often bid their own suit or notrumps, so they already have good alternatives. But either style seems playable to me.

You have me confused here. We play that advancer's cue promises support (with a simple raise being merely preemptive) and I understood that this is what is referred to as UCB: am I wrong?

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2024-January-25, 06:58, said:

You have me confused here. We play that advancer's cue promises support (with a simple raise being merely preemptive) and I understood that this is what is referred to as UCB: am I wrong?

You're right, thank you. I had no idea, some people here played that the cue bid contains any strong hand (with or without fit) and called that 'unassuming', which I thought made sense for a name. But I see now that the UCB always promises support, and the 'unassuming' part refers to the rest of advancer's hand which is (for now) concealed.

[mycroft]

...and that's why "I don't know" what UCB is or if I play it. My cuebids show good support for partner (except in two, rare partnerships, where I play what they play together). Don't know what it's called, don't care - the name of the convention isn't sufficient disclosure anyway :-).

[Cyberyeti]

We tend to play them as specifically a 3 card raise, or strong hand that can cope with the auction.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-January-25, 12:46, said:

...and that's why "I don't know" what UCB is or if I play it. My cuebids show good support for partner (except in two, rare partnerships, where I play what they play together). Don't know what it's called, don't care - the name of the convention isn't sufficient disclosure anyway :-).

off topic
I wish you luck. I used to have a lot of fun calling our treatment over opps NT "Biggles" , only opposite pairs who tell me they play UCB's and Drury of course.

[mycroft]

"please explain" is your friend.

There are several conventions I don't know, even if I play them. "West Coast" is one cool one played around here. "Good/Bad 2NT", "UCB", "Birthright", "Picture Bids" are others that I'm pretty certain I play in at least one partnership, even though we probably don't have the responses people would expect, or exactly what they would have,... I Just Don't Need to know the names, just how to play it.

I do realize there are those who are the opposite - if they don't have a convention name, they can't assimilate the explanation of the actual bid. I do not understand them; but I know they exist because they ask me (or prompt me with a name, to which I frequently say "no" - but frequently say "yes", too) after I give the explanation.

"I'm sorry, I don't know what that is, please explain" - especially when it is obvious that you are experienced enough that you know how to play - is a good way to restate "the name of the convention is not sufficient disclosure". As long, of course, as you don't get too pedantic about it, and ask only when you don't know (or when the "name of the convention" doesn't tell you anything because it's played N different ways, and they all think they're playing "the convention". See: Bergen, Drury, Inverted minors, ...)

And yes, I've been known to explain my systems correctly, but in equally useless ways, to those who not only do this, but have an issue with people continuing to ask. I bet many here know Namyats, but my players don't. or South African Texas, or Keri, or "4415 minus a card", or Fit Jump, or 123Stop, or ...

A different but similar issue is "explaining what I'm going to do, not what she's saying/asking for". I do remember one time the explanation of (1NT)-2♣ was "asking me to bid 2♦ so she can show her hand". Again, useless. But since we play systems on over 2♣ (whatever it means), and since we play Keri, I was getting absolutely ready to explain partner's double as "asking me to bid 2♦, so she can show her hand." Of course I would never do that except to make the point.

Getting back to even slightly on topic: again, this is another reason I try not to use convention names - especially ones not in common use (or only in regional use) - when discussing online. The insular world of bridge, world-wide though it may be, means that what "ConventionX" is is clear to everybody at the bar/in the club, and auction-breakingly different to the "clear" way it means al cantina/en el torneo.

[ETA: for instance, I have no idea what a "directional asking bid" is. Or, as discussed, an "unassuming" cuebid and its difference (if any) from an "invitational" one. My cuebids in these auctions (again, except for two very occasional partnerships, where I play what they play with each other) are "limit (or better) [partner's suit] raise"s. So I literally could not answer the OP's question, except by saying "this is what I and all my world plays".]

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-January-26, 10:55, said:

The insular world of bridge, world-wide though it may be, means that what "ConventionX" is is clear to everybody at the bar/in the club, and auction-breakingly different to the "clear" way it means al cantina/en el torneo.

Plus of course the usefulness of reminding partner (without screens) that we actually play "weird stuff xxx", both as a warning (if he is forgetful) or a wakeup to something about actual hand (if he is not).
A recent phenomenon around here (where it is normal to open 1♦ 4+, 1♣ 4=4=3=2) is an insurgence in pairs illegally announcing or alerting "better minor" (usually turning out to be the same thing except that they open 1♦ with 4=4=3=2, if you grill them enough) when they should simply announce "3+ cards" and explain further on request.
Cynics will have no problem imagining their actual hand.