What happened to slam asking bids?

[EricK]

A very popular method for investigating slams about 30-50 years ago was using asking bids.

 

eg after 1♠ 3♠ (limit bid) 4♣ would ask repsonder about his ♣ control situation and there would be a set of codified responses (something like return to trump suit would mean no control, new suit shows Ace of that suit and control in ♣ etc). Various structures are detailed in "Slam Bidding" by Hugh Kelsey.

 

Why did they go out of fashion? Were they too hard for the average player? Was there some flaw in them? Are cue-bids just better somehow?

 

My father used to play them and says they worked very well (and, in the 1940s and 50s, he could compete on roughly equal terms with the best players in South Africa so his opinion is worth something), but maybe he is only remembering the successes...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Ron Klinger suggested using Roman Key Card Control Ask

instead of Cue Biddding + RKCB in his book "Power Acol".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

I've played "low level RKC + Control Asking Bids" (asking for tophonours in a specified suit) in both natural systems and relay systems - is this what you mean?

 

The advantage in relay systems is much better since you can stay lower most of the time. The biggest disadvantage is when you need info on several suits, because you get too high very fast (average is 1 level per suit, so start with 4m RKC for example and you can ask about 1 more suit before reaching slam unless you're lucky).

Another fact is that people make many mistakes, and this method is definetly one of most difficult ones imo. I don't have problems with remembering conventions and applying logic, but this method is really difficult! And if you make mistakes in these types of hands, you'll give away 17+ imps while winning just a few if your opponents don't get to the right slam...

 

Cuebids are more flexible and easy, that's why I think they're used a lot more. Imo one method is not superior to the other in this case, so why teach the world a method which is difficult and a source of mistakes? :D

[blackshoe]

When the strength is reasonably evenly divided between hands, cue bids are, IMO, more useful than asking bids. You want a cooperative effort to look for slam.

 

When one hand is considerably stronger than the other (e.g., opener makes a game-forcing, or nearly so, opening bid) asking bids are more useful. But as was said upthread, they're another thing to remember. When do they apply? When not? How do you respond? What happens next? Can you switch between cue-bidding and asking or vice=versa? Lots of questions to answer - and you have to remember the answers at the table. You can construct the system to minimize the potential problems, but you can't eliminate them entirely. What it really boils down to is how much effort your partnership is willing to put into your system.

 

Overheard at a club game: "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" :unsure:

[inquiry]

1M - 3M

new suit

 

Works ok as an asking bid if 3M is "preemptive raise". Opposite a limit raise, cue-bidding seems to work better, at least that is my believe. Not so much because when a hand comes up that needs just a specific control in partners hand an asking bid doesn't work, but because there are a lot more hands where a combination of cue-bids to make sure you are not off two quick tricks and you have the right "covers" works better (and there will be a lot MORE of these hands).

 

Opposite a preemptive raise, partner is likely to have only one control or so outside the trump suit, so a direct asking bid works well (and opener has to be very strong to consider slam, so looking for a specific something makes more sense).

 

Ben

[EricK]

I've played "low level RKC + Control Asking Bids" (asking for tophonours in a specified suit) in both natural systems and relay systems - is this what you mean?

Not quite. In the style of asking bids I am talking about, the answers do not just relate to the suit in which the ask is made.

 

I have dug up a copy of Kelsey's "Slam Bidding". Here is a list of responses:

 

No control in ask suit: sign off in trumps

 

Second round control in ask suit and no outside first round controls: sign off in trumps

 

Second round control in ask suit and outside Ace: Cue bid the Ace (or jump if this is in trumps)

 

First round control in ask suit and no outside Ace: Raise ask suit

 

Ace in ask suit, void in outside suit: Jump in void suit

 

Void in ask suit, Ace outside: Jump in Ace suit

 

Ace in ask suit, outside Ace: Bid NT

 

Second round control in ask suit, 2 outside Aces: Bid NT

 

Ace in ask suit, 2 outside Aces: Jump in NT

 

Second round control in ask suit, 3 outside Aces: Jump in NT

 

So the method combines asking, cuebidding and Blackwood like responses showing total number of Aces in the hand.

 

There are further details about what subsequent asks mean in the same suit or in other suits.

 

A pair of hands he gives are as follows:

 

Dealer:

♠AKQT73

♥5

♦A3

♣AK43

 

♠J962

♥A763

♦K94

♣75

 

With bidding:

2♠(i) 3♠

4♦(ii) 4♥(iii)

5♣(iv) 5♠(v)

6♣(vi) 6NT(vii)

7♠

 

(i) Strong 2 - which shows the age of these methods

(ii) Ask in ♦

(iii) Second round control in ♦ plus ♥A

(iv) Ask in ♣

(v) No second round control in ♣

(vi) Ask in ♣

(vii) Third round control

 

 

Another pair of hands (this, and the bidding are from actual play in the 1970 South African Open Teams):

 

Dealer (Mick Haddad):

♠JT876

♥AK53

♦K4

♣J7

 

Responder (Max Sapire)

♠AKQ9

♥T876

♦A96

♣AK

 

1♠ 4♦(i)

4♥(ii) 5♥(iii)

5NT(iv) 6♥(v)

6♠(vi) P

 

(i) ask in ♦

(ii) Second round control in ♦ plus ♥A

(iii) Ask in ♥

(iv) Second round control in ♥

(v) Ask in ♥

(vi) No third round control in ♥