slam inviting tools in a natural system

[Flame]

Im looking for general tools for slam invesrigation to use in nat system

In nat systems most use cue bids + serious/non serious NT. The cue bids show a control and usually a slam interest.

I wonder if showing controls are the way to go, I think there might be other things more important for slam decision then controls. Controls are good to check if we have 2 losers at the same suit, this is important but I dont think its the most important factor in the decision whater we belong or not. Now i want a general mechanisim just like cue bids, not something that works only after a specific sequence.

Do you think control showing is the best way, and if not, what is better.

[Finch]

There are two types of slam bidding auctions:

i) When we know we have 12 tricks but don't want to lose two

ii) When we are looking to see if we have 12 tricks

 

For the former, control bidding/blackwood are the simplest and most effective.

For the latter, my default is to use trial bids, just like when bidding game. This is also an extension of the 'what is patterning out' question in another thread.

(In fact, if you think about it, splinters are short suit trial bids for slam - so why not use long suit trial bids for slam as well?)

 

Some of the typical auctions where we have defined bids to be trial bids are:

 

2NT - 3H (xfer)

4C

 

4C ideally shows something like

Ax

AKxx

Axx

KQ10x

 

(not breaking to a control, but to the suit that wants fitting honours)

 

2C - 2D

2H - 3H

 

4C by opener is natural, second suit, looking for suitable cards in the suit maybe

 

AK

AKQxxx

x

AK10x

 

(consequently 3NT is neither serious nor frivolous, but describes a balanced hand i the context of the auction with honours in all the suits)

 

 

1NT - 2H

2S - 3C

3S - 4C

 

4C is patterning out, describing a 5-5 with serious interest in opener's club holding.

 

The real trick is to know when you are in a type (i) auction, and when you are in a type (ii) auction. That's the source of most of our slam bidding screw-ups.

[pclayton]

If you go back to a basic point - all bids either ask or show.

 

Precision club auctions are a great example. After a positive response, Opener can either embark on a series of asking bids OR set trump and elicit responder's help on the hand.

 

Jdeegan's 5-6 hand is a good example of a hand that really wants to take control via an ask. AKQxx, QTxxxx, void, Jx wants to know two things after a 4♣ splinter: 1) do you have a void (or stiff A) in clubs and 2) do you have the ♥AK (or ♥A-6th?). In standard 2/1, the only way a hand can take over is to start key card (or GSF I suppose). There are no high-level asking bids.

 

Perhaps this is a gap in modern bidding.

[mike777]

edit

[kenrexford]

Cuebidding sequences in a good natural system are not designed to ensure that there are not two losers off the bat. That is way too simplistic.

 

Cuebidding sequences can be maximized in potential best if they are used as a means of establishing not just a trump fit, but the fit of the hands generally.

 

A simple example, that I keep repeating, is something like AKxxx-xxx-Ax-Qxx oppiste Qxx-Axx-xx-AKxxx. 26 total HCP's, with the shortness duplicated, and yet slam probably makes. The reason is the location of the quick tricks and the fit of the Queens opposite length.

 

A simple auction would illuminate this. 1♠-2♣-2NT-3♠-4♣-4♥. Opener has told cooperatively that he holds the club Queen. Responder converted the auction to serious interest by cuebidding a heart control and inferring need for a diamond control. Opener can now ask for Aces, as he had 1st round diamond control and good trumps.

 

The idea, here, is not to ensure no double-loser. The critical bid was 4♣, filling in the trick source. Sure, cuebidding also allows us to ensure that no side double-loser problem exists, but it is much more valuable in establishing total fit.

 

This same principle explains my personal preference for telling jumps, picture bids to further inform partner as to the hand type, that he might better determine whether the total fit is working. In my personal approach, asking bids have a place, but they are less favored and accordingly higher bids and much less frequent, reversed for special circumstance problems.

[Flame]

Ken you example is imo not supporting cue bidding just the opposite, you explain that the key was the 4♣ bid which isnt the normal control showing, meaning exctly what im saying, control showing isnt the best way to go.

[kenrexford]

What is "cuebidding?"

 

If by cuebidding, you mean purely control-showing, and if you define a "control" to exclude critical-suit queens, that technique seems inferior to other plausible techniques.

 

Cuebidding, defined as values identifying, with parameters agreed to include such things as shortness, critical queens, and the like, this approach seems ideal as a natural approach.

 

This is to be contrasted with, for example, asking bid structures or trial bid structures.

 

Whereas control-based cuebidding might not be best, values-based cuebidding is valuable.

[keylime]

Approach forcing concepts on the surface are easy to grasp but difficult to execute, especially in the slam zone.

 

In a natural setup, I am of the view that it more important to be the asker and not the teller, since the ranges of both hands start widely and then narrow in. I have some general concepts that I espouse about this:

 

- Once a hand has limited themselves, they can no longer make a slam try.

- If you use fast arrival, you need additional follow-ons to locate valuable cards in passing to 4M. This is why I prefer slow arrival; the "lack" of complexity with slow arrival in knowing that 1S-2C-2H is a "real" hand is priceless.

- Assume partner doesn't have what you need for slam.

- Often, 3NT should not be conventional. My experiences with Serious 3NT are not good, and non-serious 3NT not that much better.

- The unlimited hand is responsible for setting the tone of the auction immediately.

- Sometimes, bidding scientifically is less successful than bidding it directly.

- RKC accidents are a lot more common than people realize; I prefer cuebidding or Turbo. If I use RKC I have strictly grand slam or 6NT intent. I am a convert to this philosophy --> I used to be the king of all things slam conventions.

- Cuebidding is underappreciated and overvalued, because players often can not differentiate the right time to cuebid in an auction. I loathe "courtesy cuebids". It's not good p'ship bridge.

- Lastly, controls matter. 10 controls for small slam, 11 controls and trump queen for grand. Especially at IMPs at teams, don't bid grand unless you're sure.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure, but I think I just read that "courtesy cuebids" are not good partnership bridge. What?!?!?

 

I would rather suggest that a failure to make courtesy cuebids is poor partnership bridge. I cannot tell you how many times a cuebid, made without any expectation that it will do anything useful, has been rewarded and appreciated by partner, and similarly how often a failure to cuebid a key feature left me in a hopeless decision without simple assistance providing the key.

 

The most common example of this that I see is the wildly distributional, medium HCP strength, one-level major opening raised. E.g., 1♠-P-2♠, and Opener has something like AKQxx-AKxx-K10x-x. Opposite xxxx-xx-AJxxx-xx, a five-count, slam is probably on a finesse. Change diamond to AQxx, or AQxxx, and very few HCP's make slam.

 

Often, the auction is 1♠-P-2♠-P-whatever-P-4♠, and poor opener has no clue. Change the auction with Responder bidding something key on route to 4♠ as a matter of course, and Opener's problems are solved.

 

A similar problem crops up all the time on defense. You open, third seat, 2♥ with xx-Kxxxxx-AJxx-x. The auction is P-P-2♥-X-4♥-4♠-P-P-P. Your lead? It would be real nice to know if partner held (1) the ace of trumps, (2) Kx(x) in diamonds, (3) the Ace of clubs, or (4) a stiff diamond, right? So, what lead? How much nicer if partner, instead of 4♥, bid (1) 3NT (trump Ace), (2) 3♦ (diamond Ace or King), (3) 3♣ (club Ace or King), or (4) 4♣ club shortness). Yet, these "courtesy cues" are rarely made.

 

Not making these cues places partner in constant pickles, leads to great frsutration, often results in partner being blamed, and rarely, if ever, results in the silent partner taking the fall or even recognizing the error.

[Flame]

When you make those courtesy cuebids, you give information to your opponents thats the obvious minus, the question is, is it worth it, and its important to nitice that you dont only need possible hands for partner to make a slam (like in those examples) you also need to be able to get to slam when its right and avoid it when its wrong, which isnt easy.

[keylime]

Yes you read right - I feel "courtesy cuebids" doesn't have a place in a good partnership. The reasoning is due to the fact that if you already know where you're going, why tell the defense what you have (and don't have).

 

It's analogous to help suit game tries - often these bids helps the defense far more than declarer.

 

Sometimes less is more.