Liversidge

My partner and I (both novices) are just getting into cue bidding for slams. Depending on which resource (internet/book) we look at, the advice varies. Some (e.g. Sandra Landy, Larry Cohen) say your first cue bid in a suit can show first or second round control. Landy says that this is'far and away the best method'! Others (Klinger et al) say you should always bid first round controls first and if you bid the suit again you are showing second round control (that's what we are starting to learn, but it's very early days and we could switch). What are the pro's and cons of each method, and does it vary depending on whether you are cue bidding for controls below/beyond game? We play RKCB, but cue bid with potential voids, such as when the bidding goes 1♠ 4♥ (splinter), or when we are worried about a small doubleton and need to know if partner has a control. Sometimes we use a combination of cue bidding and RKCB if we get the control answers we need below 4NT. We also use non-control showing cue bids below game for other reasons (UCB, trial bids, Michaels etc)

Having read these postings and done some homework trying to develop a set of continuations for Benji that I could present to my partner for discussion, I now realise that at our level it gets far too complicated. For example, at what point does responder start to show controls after a 2♣ opening or a 2♦ opening, and should we use the 2♦ response to 2♣ as a relay or a negative, and what effect does that have on continuations, and what impact does the long suit denomination have, at what point does responder show controls etc. etc.etc.. In the end I gave up. I am now strongly minded to take our advice and go for 3 weak 2's (with the 2♦ response as a negative), which makes it easier to develop a relatively simple system of continuations that can be refined over time. My partner's other partner will be happy too! One area I am still unsure about is how to agree the strength of hand required for an unbalanced 2♣ opening bid. There are many different versions around: such as " "game forcing" (does that include if partner goes beyond 3NT with a long minor?), "game in hand opposite a bust" (does this mean 11 playing tricks if your long suit is a minor?), or '10 playing tricks" or which makes no distinction between a major and minor, "9 playing tricks - within one trick of game". Partner and I can form our own view on how strong we need to be to open 2♣ but shouldn't we set a higher threshold for a minor than a major? I am wondering whether none of my references address this. Isn't a minor with 10 playing tricks just the same as a major with 9 playing tricks when contemplating whether to open at the 1 level or 2♣?

Quite right! If I can't support 1♣ then I must have four of another suit and should show it first. In practice that's what I would do, but hadn't thought about it systematically!

We respond to 1♣ in NT or a new suit with 6+ HCP, or 5 HCP if supporting clubs. We also play inverted minors. We play 2♦ 0-7 or 0-6 with a King and Ace, and 2♣-2♦-2♥/2♠-2NT is a second negative. We would like to stick with this rather than change too much at one time.

The reason I felt uncomfortable about adopting 3 weak 2's is that my partner's other partner (partner 2) retained the lower (Benji) opening 2♣ threshold of 23-24 HCP balanced or 8 playing tricks and a single strong suit, and doesn't distinguish between a long major/minor, and says responder must not pass below game. I felt that this would cause uncertainty for responder if he had a very weak hand. It would certainly make me very nervous! If my partner and I were to switch to 3 weak 2's, what is a sensible threshold for a 2♣ opening bid (hopefully a bit stronger than the above!)? Although I haven't played it I have some notes I made a while back for the requirement for this opening: With an unbalanced hand, open 2♣ with an opening hand, and with either 23-24 HCP balanced or 9-10 playing tricks (Mm). The hand should have defensive strength of at least five quick tricks in case the opposition compete at a high level and partner doubles, OR satisfy the rule of 25 (HCP plus length of two longest suits = 25). An unbalanced 2♣ opening usually shows a 6+ card suit. Does that sound sensible?

I was thinking about a situation like this with a "9 playing trick" hand that we would open 2♣ playing Benji. [hv=pc=n&w=sakh854d3cakq9876&e=s87632hdA76532c432&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2cp2dp3cp]266|200[/hv] This makes 6♣ but swop East's spades and hearts and you would make just 10 tricks against a heart lead. The void is valuable only if there are no duplicated values, and I was asking whether there was any way of communicating this without going too high. If opener jumps on his rebid to show a strong hand with a long solid suit as suggested by cyberyeti and rmnka447 then I guess East has to bid game and hope. My question was whether there is any alternative. I am now thinking not.

Going a bit off topic (apologies) but you have hit on a current hot issue at our club. When I started playing 3 years ago my partner played Benji, and he played (and still does) with another partner who used the same system. I acquired Mr Bridge Software, Bernard Magee's "More Acol Bidding" that advocates Benji as a progression from standard Acol 2♣, so until your comment I had presumed it was a fairly modern system. Recently my partner's other partner has switched to weak 2's in ♦ , ♥ and ♠. My partner still plays it with his other partner but having persuaded me (reluctantly) to do the same he has now asked me to revert back to Benji as he doesn't think the weak 2♦ has much preemptive value and we lose some precision with only having one strong bid, a view that I and some others at the club share. But others (that have never used it!) are vehement that Standard Acol 2♣ with weak 2's in three suits is all you need. Looking to the future, what would you recommend as an alternative to Benji, so I can look more closely at it? Are there any sources showing possible "subtle agreements" you could point me too.

When I asked one of the best players at our club about this problem last night he did not have an answer to the 'void' question but asked why I bothered with Benji 2♦ as part of our system at all. (This is a current debate topic at our club, but that's a different suject) He said that he would bid 2♣ and after a negative 2♦ he would jump to 3♥ or 3♠ to show the equivalent of a Benji 2♦ hand. Not the same as you are suggesting but partner and I had not got a jump rebid in the strong suit as part of our system, and we should give some meaning to it. (We are novices so our systems are not very refined) I take it that you are suggesting that if we use Benji then this sequence shows a particular type of game forcing hand, with a long solid suit, and if the suit is not solid but I have my 10+ tricks then I use the 2♦ bid? If so, with such a hand it might also be important to have a way for partner to show a void, in which case we could use Manudude3's cue bid system, if I am following you both?

Partner and I play Benji Strong 2♦. We didn't know how to check for slam with hand 1 where responder has a diamond void and only 3 honour points. Even with a bust a small slam is solid. Swop responder's minors and even a small slam goes off against a diamond lead. Cue bidding 4♦ to show a control would work here, but we are not sure if cue bidding works in general, for example a slightly weaker hand that opens 2♣ where responder has just one honour trick but is unsure what to bid after 2♣- 2♦ - 2♥ and wants some way of alerting partner to potential extra ruffing tricks. Hand 1 [hv=pc=n&s=sk9742h876dct9854&n=sahakqt543d763cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2dp2hp]266|200[/hv] hand 2 [hv=pc=n&s=sk9742h876dt9854c&n=sahakqt543d763cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2dp2hp]266|200[/hv]

Thanks. I had just remembered an "inverted minors' reference in a book partner and I use (Understanding the Uncontested Auction' - Klinger and Kambites'). It gives an example hand almost identical to this one, and it works well. Something for us to consider down the line. Meanwhile I will risk 3NT.

OK, I will own up. I did bid 1♥ and we did end up in 4♥ and went 1 off. At the time I just didn't feel it was right to leap to 3NT with no spade cover. I will be prepared next time.

Thanks. I am too embarrassed to say how the bidding went. Suffice to say I didn't bid 3NT because I felt sure there must be some way of exploring at a lower level and messed up!

[hv=pc=n&s=s542hkj6dkj973caq&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp]133|200[/hv] I can't bid 3 Diamonds or 2NT which show 10-12 points, and I don't have a second 4 card suit. Looking at my honour strength then presumably partner is very likely to have spade honours. We play Acol - 4 card majors.

I thought at first that 'negative' was an error and you meant 'penalty'. Until now I have never come across the negative double used after partner's 1NT has been overcalled, but having googled it I have found it on Larry Cohen's site, in the 'advanced' section! As partner and I are just getting the hang of the standard negative double and have Rubensohl in sight for the future, I think it is probably better to agree for the double to show penalty based on what I have been picking up from answers so far.

1NT (2♥) X (P) ? Penalty or takeout? (We aren't yet up to taking on Rubensohl)

We play Acol, Stayman and Transfers with a 2♠ after partner's 1NT being a transfer to a long minor. That seems to leave 1NT - 2♣ - 2X - 3♣redundant. Is there any good alternative use for this sequence?

[hv=pc=n&s=shakda842caj98653&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1cpp1sppp]133|200[/hv] We play Acol and the Club opening bid was natural. I was playing with a pickup partner in a friendly non-competitive game. I'd like to understand where I got it wrong, as several players I spoke to afterwards said I should have doubled and then bid clubs. I reckoned opener was likely to have five clubs so partner would have a singleton or void and I would find it hard to establish the clubs or spades for 3NT as I would have to lead both suits from the long hands. Should I just have doubled and then bid clubs, intending to have a punt at 3NT if partner made the right noises? We made 1♠. <_<

Many thanks!

I have had a good look at Rubensohl and I so far I do prefer it to lebensohl, for several reasons (transfer, ability to show your suit right away in case of intervention). When you mention "refinements" does that include a modification to Stayman where a response of the overcall suit prioritises the lack of a stop over the presence or otherwise of a four card major? I came across this from one source and although it adds another layer of complexity maybe its worth learning / adopting from the start.

What exactly does it mean when a bid is described as "game forcing"? Do they just mean that the partnership must not stop below game under any circumstances or does it just mean that the partnership must not stop below 3NT but might in some circumstances settle for 4 in a minor? And is 'unequivocally game forcing" just the same thing but with added emphasis? For example, in lebensohl the sequence 1NT (2♠) 3♥ is described (in my book anyway) as game forcing, but the choices for opener's next bid are to raise to game with three cards, or bid 3NT with a stopper, or find a better game. [hv=pc=n&s=s765haq864dk4caj5&n=sj94ht7daq85ckq82&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2s3hp]266|200[/hv] If the bid is game forcing then only alternatives here seem to be to bid 3NT or 4♥. I assume opener has to bid regardless of any doubts he might have, and just accept it as one of those things?

Thanks. My Acol reference (Complete Book of Bridge - Klinger & Dormer) recommends Rubensohl rather than lebensohl, so I will start there. We had another hand tonight where we could have done with it so that's my next study task!

Thanks. That deals with my first idea - double then jump. But what about the second idea, asking for a stop?: [hv=pc=n&e=st94hajdak9753cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdp2cp2sp2nppp]133|200[/hv][hv=pc=n&e=st94hajdak9753cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdp2cp2sp3nppp]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&e=st94hajdak9753cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdp2cp2sp3cppp]133|200[/hv] If I don't cue bid what other way is there for checking if partner has a spade stop if game in the minor is not on but possible in No Trumps. I quite liked the "Yes" idea of a response of 2NT when weak (0-4) with a stop and 3NT if a bit stronger. Is there another way? You meant your second example to show West's hand. :)

I have come across two different recommendations for the 'double then cuebid' sequence: One suggests using "Double" then "cue bid" then "suit" to show a 21+ hand with a good 6+ suit, asking partner to bid game in all but the weakest hands. For example: [hv=pc=n&e=s87hakq973dkjcaq5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdp2dp2sp3dp3hp4hppp]133|200[/hv] Another source suggests using it with a 19+ hand with a long minor and without a stop in the overcall suit, asking partner to bid No Trumps with a good stop: For example: [hv=pc=n&e=st94hajdak9753cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdp2cp2sp2np3nppp]133|200[/hv] Not sure if I have given good examples here, but I would have thought the second situation is likely to come up more often. Maybe we could combine the two and ask responder to prioritise responding 2NT with a good stop even though that might not be what partner is concerned about.

Don't know where the best place is to post this, but just wanted to give a BIG THANK YOU all the top class experts who give such great advice so promptly to my questions. I never know when to say thanks on any individual thread, as the responses keep coming and there never seems to be a good time. If I thank one responder it might appear I am dismissing others, and if I thank everyone it gets very tedious for everyone, but it is much appreciated and I keep telling my bridge friends what a great place this is for help.

Does the "double for takeout / penalty subject to agreement" not still apply over a weak No Trump. I asked the club director what she would have taken my double to mean and she thought about it for a bit and then said the same - either, subject to agreement. I think I'd prefer to play safe and use it for takeout, as I suspect that situation is more likely to arise, but I am guessing here.