Using 2nd round control bids

[kgr]

I play 2nd round control bids (Also called Italian cues?). A control bid showing A, K, void or singleton.

But sometimes it seems better to only cue first round controls.

Playing 2nd round controls, what is the best way/standard to change to first round control?

Some examples to clarify my question, but not suggesting that they are ok:

- if the first cue is done on 4/5 level then it is always 1st round control?

- if opener shows a strong on suited hand (like 2C-2D-3H showing 10+ tricks in H) then cues are 1st round control (2C-2D-3H-3S showing SA or S void?)?

 

Thanks,

Koen

[Miron]

I play first or second round cuebids and there is actually no problem (even on high levels). Befero the first cuebid, you usually know a lot about your partner to be able to decide the final contract.

 

However, in precision make sence to play from the strong one only first round and from the weak one also third round (depends a lot on bidding).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you play mixed cue bids, i.e. a cue could be

1st or 2nd round controll, you need to use RKCB.

 

Cue Bids on the 5 level are 1st round control, usually

implying a void because of the failure to use RKCB.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mr1303]

Be careful though. If you're going to be declarer, it's safe for you to cue-bid a king, since the lead is going to come round to your king. If you're going to be dummy, this isn't the case, since your king is vulnerable to attack from the opening lead.

 

A holding such as KQ is always safe to cue-bid.

[hrothgar]

Hi,

 

if you play mixed cue bids, i.e. a cue could be

1st or 2nd round controll, you need to use RKCB.

 

Cue Bids on the 5 level are 1st round control, usually

implying a void because of the failure to use RKCB.

Interesting comment:

 

I'll note that the Blue team used a cue bidding style based on showing 1st and 2nd round controls. Moreover, these partnerships had agreements that 4NT was not used as RKCB once they had started a cue bidding sequence.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you play mixed cue bids, i.e. a cue could be

1st or 2nd round controll, you need to use RKCB.

 

Cue Bids on the 5 level are 1st round control, usually

implying a void because of the failure to use RKCB.

Interesting comment:

 

I'll note that the Blue team used a cue bidding style based on showing 1st and 2nd round controls. Moreover, these partnerships had agreements that 4NT was not used as RKCB once they had started a cue bidding sequence.

Ok .-),

 

But I assume they had a way to determine,

if they were off two cashing Aces.

Maybe via a 2nd cue bid on the 5 level.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luis]

Be careful though. If you're going to be declarer, it's safe for you to cue-bid a king, since the lead is going to come round to your king. If you're going to be dummy, this isn't the case, since your king is vulnerable to attack from the opening lead.

 

A holding such as KQ is always safe to cue-bid.

You can't "be careful" if you play 1st/2nd round controls and you have the King you can't just decide not to cuebid because of any reason. Pd may be needing that control for the slam. It's true that the lead might come through the king but it is also true that pd can have the queen in that suit or they might lead something else. The point is that the cuebid is mandatory, nothing to be careful of.

 

Luis

[Finch]

Cue Bids on the 5 level are 1st round control, usually

implying a void because of the failure to use RKCB.

This is the sort of remark that gets my back up (sorry).

I've seen it elsewhere when discussing defensive problems "he must have a void because he didn't use blackwood".

 

Here are some of the reasons you wouldn't use RKCB, most common one first:

 

- You don't know if you want to be in slam or not. You want to ask partner's opinion.

- You have no control of one particular suit, so just the number of aces opposite won't help you

- You are looking for controls in a particular suit, not just the number of them (you have KQJxxx x in two suits: the ace of the former means you run 6 tricks, the ace of the latter means you still have to lose the lead to set your suit up)

- Partner might have a void and not know whether to show it or not

 

(Now I'll get flamed for changing the subject and not answering the original question.)

[hrothgar]

But I assume they had a way to determine,

if they were off two cashing Aces.

Maybe via a 2nd cue bid on the 5 level.

The books on BTC address this point - slams off two aces - specifically. My Italian isn't all that good, but best I can figure out the relevant quote is "***** happens".

 

In all seriousness, there are pluses and minus to any style. If your goal is "perfection", given up on bridge because you aren't going to find that here. Cue bidding styles based on first and second round controls have some very significant advantages. Most notably, you get to stay nice and low on some hands where a suit is wide open. Balanced against this, there is a (slight) chance that you'll end up in slam off two Aces.

 

You could certainly use 4NT as a checkback sequence, but here once again, you lose out on a wide variety of alternative meanings for the call. The Blue Team had incredibly complex agreements regarding what 4NT meant during different sequences. In general, 4NT seemed to be a catch all bid designed to focus attention on some salient characteristic of the hand. (Using the bid this way required enormous trust that both members of the partnership could create spontaneous agreements about what 4NT should mean)

[Walddk]

We have two schools of cue bidding: the British/American and the Italian. The former tells you that your first cue bid must be a first round control (ace or void), the latter that any control (1st or 2nd) is cue biddable. To most expert players, however, there is a rule that your first cue bid in partner's first suit must be an honour.

 

There is no doubt in my mind. The Italian way of cue bidding is superior, and it's easy to see that still more top players in North America also subscribe to that method. In my opinion, the best thing about the Italian school is that it's easy for partner to judge if you skip a suit (sometimes even two suits); then you have no control in that or those suits.

 

Here is an example:

 

♠ AKQ954

♥ K4

♦ Q92

♣ A7

 

1♠ - 3♠*

4♣ - 4♥

 

* limit

 

If your first cue bid must be a 1st round control, responder could still have a singleton diamond or the king. On the other hand, the 5-level is not at all safe since you may be facing three small diamonds.

 

Playing the Italian way on this auction, opener now knows that it's right to sign off in 4♠. Responder does not have a diamond control.

 

As Luis rightly points out: sometimes you cue bid a king where partner has nothing. Then you may go off in slam if the opponents lead the suit and the ace is off side. But you have two chances that favour the odds, provided that all other suits are solid:

 

1. They don't lead the suit.

2. The ace is on side.

 

As far as the 5-level is concerned, I don't like cue bidding at that level unless you are certain that the partnership is not off two key cards. Either you know that you are not by looking at your own hand, or you have checked it through rkcb first.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

Pretty much the only time I won't cuebid a second round control is if I think it won't be useful (i.e. my king opposite partner's shortness or my stiff in his suit). Also, most cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand (such as 3H 5D p 5H).

[Walddk]

Makes a lot of sense, Justin, and whereas the Brits seem to stick to the old school of first round control cue bidding at the 4-level, I think it's dead and buried as soon as you cross the Channel - in most instances apparently also if you head West across the pond.

 

To be fair, I also know (of) British top pairs who do cue bid the Italian way these days.

 

Roland

[zasanya]

Can anybody give an example from a top level international tournament where a slam was defeated after Italian style cue bidding because 2 aces were missing?

I know at least one example where in a Eauropean championship match Blackwood was used ,Grandslam was reached and 4 aces were missing. :(

[MickyB]

Mixed cues are taking over in Britain too I think, wouldn't like to hazard a guess at proportions though - Frances?

 

Personally I think showing only first round controls is fundamentally flawed.

[Winstonm]

In the book Blue Team Club the author discussed these auctions, and I always thought it interesting that his comment about aces was that the team felt that there were worse things that could happen in bridge than bidding a slam off two cashing aces.

 

I think he is right - allowing a slam that is off two cashing aces to make is worse. :(

 

Winston

[kgr]

Remark about second round controls:

Beside the advantages it has, it also has some important disadvantages:

1. You give away important information to the opps about what suit they should lead. (Maybe first round controls do have the same disadvantage?).

Last weak I did show 2nd round control in club - denying a Spade control at the same time. My partner did show Diamond control - showing a Spade control at the same time - and he did end in 6H. We had in Club Q opposite Kxx. Opp did lead a Club through my control for his partner's Ace and we still had to loose a trick in trump. Without the control bidding we would have got a diamond lead and the club Q could go away on dummy's Diamonds.

2. Second round controls can be less clear for your partner what you have.

With first round controls a cue opposite Axxx clearly shows a void; with 2nd round controls this can be K, singleton or void.

At the other hand no cue opposite Axxx give no info; with 2nd round controls no cue shows min 1 looser in this suit.

3. sometimes you just need 1st round controls

[kgr]

Ok, I got:

- most cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand (such as 3H 5D p 5H).

... seems to be a valid rule. I will change it to: All cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand.

 

- I wonder if partner showed a good one-suited hand like

2C-(3H)-P-(P)

4S-(P)-?

Showing a strong hand with 10 tricks in Spades. I have the feeling that the value of Aces and voids is so much higher after this bidding. Is it not better to play 1st round controls here? eg 5H showing a void like xxx-void-xxxxx-xxxxx?

[Winstonm]

Ok, I got:

- most cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand (such as 3H 5D p 5H).

... seems to be a valid rule. I will change it to: All cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand.

 

This is not quite right IMO.

 

1S-3S

4D-4S

5C-5D

 

Here responder is showing a second round control in diamonds as opener's choice of cue bidding diamonds then clubs was purposely in leaving this bid available.

 

I would imagine a hand such as: AKQxxx, void, AJ9xx, Ax for this auction.

 

Winston

[kenrexford]

People have differing theories as to the "best" method of cuebidding. Critical is knowing which method you use and applying it consistently. Cuebidding is terrible when people elect to not cuebid because "I am afraid of a lead through my King" or "I do not think this is a useful value." Why? Failure to cuebid sends inferences to partner. If you fail to cuebid, say, diamonds, then partner will expect your already-shown values to be outside of diamonds. Sometimes a cue of a "useless card" lets partner in on the secret that the deal contains wasted values, like Kings opposite voids. Plus, most auctions make it difficult to know what partner needs.

 

I, personally, prefer an Italian-style cuebidding scheme, because it seems best when analyzing a number of real deals. I also believe, for what it is worth, that five-level calls usually are better reserved for asking bids. Sometimes, the asking bid is Exclusion RKCB. Sometimes, it is a strange version of RKCB where trumps are known but the "key cards" are in a side suit. Sometimes other asking bids are useful. I also agree that many Italian auctions result in 4NT not being useful as Ace-asking, often because the number of Aces is already known. This is usually the case by negative inference (aces denied).

 

It is rather difficult, however, to answer the question of what five-level bids should mean outside the context of a unified theory of cuebidding. Five-level calls should compliment the preceding auction and the agreements of the partners at the lower levels of cuebidding. Posts are too short a format for such questions, as even the base agreements for cuebidding style cannot fit well into a short little post.

[luis]

Remark about second round controls:

Beside the advantages it has, it also has some important disadvantages:

1. You give away important information to the opps about what suit they should lead. (Maybe first round controls do have the same disadvantage?).

Last weak I did show 2nd round control in club - denying a Spade control at the same time. My partner did show Diamond control - showing a Spade control at the same time - and he did end in 6H. We had in Club Q opposite Kxx. Opp did lead a Club through my control for his partner's Ace and we still had to loose a trick in trump. Without the control bidding we would have got a diamond lead and the club Q could go away on dummy's Diamonds.

2. Second round controls can be less clear for your partner what you have.

With first round controls a cue opposite Axxx clearly shows a void; with 2nd round controls this can be K, singleton or void.

At the other hand no cue opposite Axxx give no info; with 2nd round controls no cue shows min 1 looser in this suit.

3. sometimes you just need 1st round controls

I completely disagree with everything you said.

I don't want to start a debate but since you made your points as if they were facts I just have to say I disagree with the 3 of them.

 

Luis

[Finch]

Makes a lot of sense, Justin, and whereas the Brits seem to stick to the old school of first round control cue bidding at the 4-level, I think it's dead and buried as soon as you cross the Channel - in most instances apparently also if you head West across the pond.

 

To be fair, I also know (of) British top pairs who do cue bid the Italian way these days.

 

Roland

becoming more popular in England is to play trial bids.

Uncontested

1S - 3S

4D (say)

 

Natural long suit trial bid.

Not an Italian cue bid or a British cue bid at all....

 

I'm not going to enter into a long debate about which is better, because I have not played both methods seriously. I will say that I don't feel my slam bidding has been handicapped by playing a 'generally first round controls first' approach to cue bidding when relevant, with flexibility in some obvious positions. You sometimes end up guessing, but then with the Italian style you also sometimes end up guessing.

 

We have toyed with playing various meanings for 4NT in major-suit-agreed cue-bidding auctions, and came to the conclusion that it was theoretically sound but too difficult for us non-full-time-bridge-players.

[mike777]

Putting the Cart before the Horse?

 

This post does not analyze the rather radical proposition by Bob Hamman as quoted by Karen McCallum that he feels he may be ahead in his career if he never bid any slams.

 

Here you are debating first or second round controls without fully discussing the issue of the cost of trying for a slam in the first place.

 

If nothing else going against the commonly accepted wisdom, "of course try for slam" may have some learning value....

[ArcLight]

Are there any books or articles that describe cue bidding aces and kings at the same time, rather than the traditional aces first.

Ron Klinger has a brief section in his book "Cue Bidding to Slam".

 

I'd like to see cases where the players knew to bail out early.

[Guest Jlall]

Ok, I got:

- most cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand (such as 3H 5D p 5H).

... seems to be a valid rule. I will change it to: All cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand.

 

This is not quite right IMO.

 

1S-3S

4D-4S

5C-5D

This is not above 5 of our suit.

[joshs]

There are many styles to cue-bidding.

Style 1: Cue-bidding shows Aces and a good hand for slam

Style 2: Cue-Bidding is 1'st or second round control. Cue bidding an Ace is manditory. But you only Cue-bid Kings/singletons if you like your hand (usually good trumps and / or good secondary cards in a relevent side suit)

Style 3: You Cue-bid everything in site up the line, but have a different mechanism to say good hand or bad hand (e.g. Serious or Non-Serious 3N)

Style 4: Finally there is a non- cuebidding style using natural slam tries:

E.G.:2C-2D (waiting)-2S-3S(some useful values)-4D(showing 3+ diamonds)-now responder can cue bid an ace in the other suits, raise diamonds with a fitting card, bid 5S with very good spades and no side ace (or some play good spades and diamonds or maybe its just 3 working cards such as the SK and the D QJ) or bid keycard with the world's fare. In General, opposite a limited partner when you haven't yet shown your side suit shape I prefer natural slam tries: 1S-1N(Forcing)-2H-3S-4C I prefer this to be a 5413 17-18 count (or maybe 5503 or 5512) then a cue-bid. Let partner evaluate his cards.

 

There are certainly some other styles.

 

In General, if partner tried for slam and you signed off or bypassed a control (if allowed) to cue-bid something else, and partner tried again at the 5 level you are obligated to show the missing control then (you do show 2'nd round controls in this case). (Showing it then after signing off earlier makes it clear that you have a bad hand).

 

 

 

I was personally reared on style 2, but have migrated to style 3 since I think using 3N to distinguish ranges is very powerful. I do think having the first slam try be natural is usually correct when you have not yet shown shape or shortage and the logic of the auction indicates you need a perfect fit for slam.