[profhsg]

Playing 5 card majors and 2/1 GF you have the following auction:

Opener Responder

1 minor 1 major
2 of Responder's major 2NT

Responder's 2NT rebid asking the nature of opener's raise. Step responses, 3♣ 3 card raise min. opening, 3♦ 4 card raise sound opening, etc.

Around my club the 2NT rebid is given the name of a local player who uses it. A Google search revealed that the name used at our club doesn't extend much beyond the four walls of our club. Does anyone know what this convention is called?

I realize that given the global extent of this board's users I'm likely to get a variety of answers. That's perfectly OK with me.

Thanks in advance.

[HardVector]

profhsg, on 2019-August-24, 10:11, said:

Playing 5 card majors and 2/1 GF you have the following auction:

Opener Responder

1 minor 1 major
2 of Responder's major 2NT

Responder's 2NT rebid asking the nature of opener's raise. Step responses, 3♣ 3 card raise min. opening, 3♦ 4 card raise sound opening, etc.

Around my club the 2NT rebid is given the name of a local player who uses it. A Google search revealed that the name used at our club doesn't extend much beyond the four walls of our club. Does anyone know what this convention is called?

I realize that given the global extent of this board's users I'm likely to get a variety of answers. That's perfectly OK with me.

Thanks in advance.

Around here (California), it's called Spiral. It's the step bid after the raise, however. So, after 1m-1h-2h, 2s is the asking bid.

[steve2005]

Yes, is called Spiral here in Ontario Canada and use 2♠ as ask

[Stephen Tu]

I thought Spiral had more complicated response structure (many variants, mostly roll your own) showing 3cd raise side shortness, etc. The simpler variant I've heard simply called "3344", don't know of any official name.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-August-24, 12:18, said:

I thought Spiral had more complicated response structure (many variants, mostly roll your own) showing 3cd raise side shortness, etc. The simpler variant I've heard simply called "3344", don't know of any official name.

Gavin Wolpert has one description of spiral raises showing shortness

Spiral Raises

[pescetom]

profhsg, on 2019-August-24, 10:11, said:

Responder's 2NT rebid asking the nature of opener's raise. Step responses, 3♣ 3 card raise min. opening, 3♦ 4 card raise sound opening, etc.

Around my club the 2NT rebid is given the name of a local player who uses it. A Google search revealed that the name used at our club doesn't extend much beyond the four walls of our club. Does anyone know what this convention is called?

Here in Italy it is normal to play the 2NT rebid as forcing to 3 trumps, with semi-natural replies:
- 3 in opening suit is natural 5+, with 3-card trump fit
- 3 trumps is NF with minimum
- new suit below 3NT shows extras
- 3NT shows a good hand suitable for NT
- higher bids are splinters with probable 4-card fit.
Doesn't have a name that I am aware of.

[pwqn]

in addition to spiral I have often heard this referred to as quantitative qualitative which helps to remember 3 3 4 4

[barmar]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-August-24, 12:18, said:

I thought Spiral had more complicated response structure (many variants, mostly roll your own) showing 3cd raise side shortness, etc. The simpler variant I've heard simply called "3344", don't know of any official name.

We also call it Spiral in New England, with the same 3344 structure.

There are other things called "Spiral", though. Rosenkrantz's Denial Cuebid structure is also called Spiral Scan Cuebids.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-August-25, 15:15, said:

We also call it Spiral in New England, with the same 3344 structure.

There are other things called "Spiral", though. Rosenkrantz's Denial Cuebid structure is also called Spiral Scan Cuebids.

I'm not sure Rosenkrantz ever called it "Denial Cuebids". AFAIK, he always called it "the spiral scan". In the modern era "cuebid" would be a misnomer anyway.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-27, 14:19, said:

In the modern era "cuebid" would be a misnomer anyway.

Why? Everyone I know uses the term "cuebid" to mean "control bid". It's only the regulations that define it to refer only to bidding an opponent's suit. Players in general use it with multiple meanings, distinguished by context.

Language is defined by use, not by pronouncements from authorities.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-August-28, 09:13, said:

Language is defined by use, not by pronouncements from authorities.

That is not necessarily true.

barmar, on 2019-August-28, 09:13, said:

Why? Everyone I know uses the term "cuebid" to mean "control bid". It's only the regulations that define it to refer only to bidding an opponent's suit. Players in general use it with multiple meanings, distinguished by context.

The original term was "control showing cue bid". However, a cue bid is currently, by definition, a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent. A "control showing cue bid" does not necessarily fit that definition. It is illogical to shorten "control showing cue bid" to "cue bid", making it ambiguous and in conflict with the meaning of "cue bid" in a contested auction. It is logical to shorten the phrase to "control bid". I think you'll agree that people are not always logical.

'Everyone I know uses the term "cuebid" to mean "control bid"' is a false statement. You know me, if only from postings here and on Bridge Winners.

Are you sure the correct meaning is always distinguishable by context?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-29, 16:31, said:

'Everyone I know uses the term "cuebid" to mean "control bid"' is a false statement. You know me, if only from postings here and on Bridge Winners.

You (barmar) also "know" me. I use "control bid" consistently in the (probably vain) hope of convincing others to do the same.

[mikestar13]

The first reference to a "control bid" rather than "cue bid" as the shortened form of "control showing cue bid" I saw in print was in Root and Pavlicek's classic Modern Bridge Conventions, the change was presented as a deliberate attempt to alter bridge terminology for the better by removing the ambiguity in the use of "cue bid". This effort was largely but not universally successful, judging by subsequent bridge book by many authors. It's unsurprising that many players still use "cue bid" and disambiguate by context. This is logically inferior but not often misunderstood.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-29, 16:31, said:

That is not necessarily true.

Ask most linguists and lexicographers.

Quote

The original term was "control showing cue bid". However, a cue bid is currently, by definition, a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent. A "control showing cue bid" does not necessarily fit that definition. It is illogical to shorten "control showing cue bid" to "cue bid", making it ambiguous and in conflict with the meaning of "cue bid" in a contested auction. It is logical to shorten the phrase to "control bid". I think you'll agree that people are not always logical.

People do lots of illogical things. Language (and bridge in general) is primarily learned by copying what one's peers do, not by reference to authorities or official pronouncements. Most bridge players don't read bridge books, so what the authors say has less influence than popular style.

As for the counter-examples to my phrase "everyone I know" -- I've had it up to here with people taking phrases like that literally. The exceptions prove the rule.

[pescetom]

mikestar13, on 2019-August-30, 07:32, said:

It's unsurprising that many players still use "cue bid" and disambiguate by context. This is logically inferior but not often misunderstood.

Not often misunderstood if you have a sound bridge culture and English is your native language. Otherwise, "cue bid" is often considered to mean control showing and creates confusion when used in other contexts - particularly if the national language has a specific term for bidding the opponents' suit. Yet another reason to move to "control bid".

[jillybean]

Fast forward 2023
Is Spiral still in use?

[DavidKok]

Yes. There's dozens of flavours. The "Dutch Spiral" is somewhat popular, and (in my opinion) one of the more optimised ones.

[jillybean]

1m 1M
2M 2M+1 is the inquiry


3m (3 card, minimum)
3om(4 card, minimum)
3M (4 card, minimum)
2NT/2♠
or
3♥/2NT (4 card, maximum)

Next step asks for shortness (simple version)

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-April-28, 18:02, said:

1m 1M
2M 2M+1 is the inquiry


3m (3 card, minimum)
3om(4 card, minimum)
3M (4 card, minimum)
2NT/2♠
or
3♥/2NT (4 card, maximum)

Next step asks for shortness (simple version)

It’s common to play that in, say, 1D 1S 2S 2N, 4C and 4H show shortness, 4 card support and a max. Doesn’t mean one can’t ask for shortness after other responses to 2N….just thought I’d add this

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2023-April-28, 19:38, said:

It’s common to play that in, say, 1D 1S 2S 2N, 4C and 4H show shortness, 4 card support and a max. Doesn’t mean one can’t ask for shortness after other responses to 2N….just thought I’d add this

Thanks. I am trying to imagine a hand which can only raise to 2S and now has a gf
Qxxx,AQx,AKxxx,x Holding this hand I am unable to bid 1NT after 1D 1S (playing 12-14NT) to show the strength, is 2S an underbid?