slam cue bidding at the expert level

[ArcLight]

I was told that experts in the USA now tend to use Italian style cue bidding rather than traditional ace first. Is this true, when did that stat, and how amny (percentage wise) use the older Ace first method.

 

 

Of those who use Italian style cue bidding, how many use Serious 3NT?

 

Of those who use Italian style cue bidding, how many use 2NT to always mean weak trumps ina sgame forcong auction, once trumps are agreed?

[the hog]

I guess this is a follow on from your comments regarding Ken's book.

I can't comment on US practice apart from those US experts I have played against here. Cue bidding 1st and 2nd round controls is pretty much standard these days. By using KC you can pretty much pick up how many aces pd has anyway. This concept has been around for a long time. Using 2NT to show weak trumps is not common. One method used by Ron Klinger and some others is that the first step in reply to KC shows weak trumps.

Serious, or frivolous, is becoming more prevalent but only by stronger players, not the hoi polloi.

[dake50]

I don't care how many.

I want a frequency of 'this beats that other with which hands'.

ie. a logical presentation not an ad populum. If K-cues(single-cues) leave aces, trumps to keycard, why weren't trump tops already known? which cue excluded in key response?

Which auctions won't have A then K shown before commit time (usu 4M)?

Bal, 3-suiter may best en mass; but I must suggest 2-suiter(include my 5; your 5) wants AKQ/AKQ in 2-suits 1st. 1-suiter wants its AKQ 1st.

[kenrexford]

I don't care how many.

I want a frequency of 'this beats that other with which hands'.

ie. a logical presentation not an ad populum. If K-cues(single-cues) leave aces, trumps to keycard, why weren't trump tops already known? which cue excluded in key response?

Which auctions won't have A then K shown before commit time (usu 4M)?

Bal, 3-suiter may best en mass; but I must suggest 2-suiter(include my 5; your 5) wants AKQ/AKQ in 2-suits 1st. 1-suiter wants its AKQ 1st.

As the 2NT cuebid seems to be a source of controversy, and as it addresses your comment, I thought I'd explain the rudimentary theory behind it.

 

Assume a simple auction. The system being 2/1 GF, the auction starts as follows:

 

1♠-P-2♣-P-

2♦-P-2♠-P-?

 

Using traditional shape-oriented bidding as I understand it, Opener usually completes pattern. If Opener has 5314 pattern, he might bid 3♥, bidding around the stiff. Now, we do know pattern, but relatively little space is available for cuebids. The cost often includes a lack of knowledge as to the quality of the combined trump honors. That issue is usually resolved through RKCB, albeit at the additional cost of a level of bidding.

 

I have abandoned this idea of shape-shoiwng, relying upon the use of cuebids for shortness to fill in that gap as well as possible. One gain is in the use of 2NT (a negative cue denying two top trumps) and a bid of three of the agreed major (a positive cue about trumps) to identify trump quality before leaving the game level.

 

In the example, Opener's next available cue is 2NT. (After hearts is agreed at 2♥, the first cue available is 2♠, showing a spade value. If that can be shown, it is, with partner then faced with the 2NT-or-not-2NT decision. If spade control is lacking, then 2NT is considered.)

 

If Opener, in the example, cuebids 2NT, he denies two top trumps. This may itself rule of slam on occasion. If not, his partner might at some point get the chance to cue 3♠ (showing two top trumps) or the equally important ability to not cuebid 3♠ (denying two top trumps). If the person who cuebid 2NT (denying two top trumps) is the one who gets the ability to cuebid 3♠, his cuebid of 3♠ after the denial cuebid of 2NT would show one top trump. His bypass of 3♠, after the denial, would deny any top trump.

 

If Opener bypasses 2NT, he now promises two top trumps. Whichever partner gets the opportunity to cuebid 3♠ will then be able to show the third top trump or deny holding the third top trump.

 

Thus, in many auctions, the partnership knows before even 3NT that the partnership has all three top trumps. In other auctions, one partner or the other may know that the partnership is missing one or more top trumps, sometimes with the trump situation being so dire that an immediate signoff occurs.

 

Combined with cuebidding as to the other suits, it is often the case that RKCB is unnecessary, as the first answer (how many key cards) and the 1(B.) answer (trump queen or not) is known before the partnership passes the game level.

 

That's the theory, anyway.

[the hog]

Ken I understand the rationale of what you are saying, and there may even be a good deal of merit in using 2NT in this way.

For me, however, the 2S bid by resp would not set S; in fact we tend to use it as a waiting bid, showing something like Hx or 3 small together with a problem in the 4th suit eg

1S 2C 2D 2S

2S here shows a problem in the H suit and therefore an inability to bid 2NT. With a good C suit and genuine support for opener we would bid 3S. Trump quality is really only shown via KC.

 

Using your methods, is it possible to play in 3NT after a sequence like

eg is 1S 2C 2D 2S 2NT 3NT serious or to play?

[mike777]

Not sure why 2s cannot be a slam try with 3 card support and more than a dead minimum which would have rebid 4spades. I would just cue now. I assume2clubs was g/f.

[the hog]

Not sure why 2s cannot be a slam try with 3 card support and more than a dead minimum which would have rebid 4spades. I would just cue now. I assume2clubs was g/f.

It can be and some people do play it that way. We don't because we find it far more useful to use the 2 of opener's M bd as a waiting bid as I described.

eg

1S 2C

2D 2S

Are you going to bid the same way with

Kxx

Ax

xx

AKQxxx

 

and

Qx

xxx

Kxx

AKQxx

 

It is too hard to distinguish between these hands later in the auction. Far better in my view is to bid 3S on the first board and 2S on the second. You can't bid 2N on the second board because of the lack of the H stopper.

[mike777]

1) 2s rebid.

2) 3club rebid. No problem yet. 2H rebid would be second choice.

[the hog]

Well as I said, and I am not going to beat a dead horse so this is my last post -

 

For me rebidding the C suit places emphasis on that suit. The 2nd example I gave is fair enough, but what if C are AQxxx; are you going to bid them again now? If you are advocating 4th suit forcing on this, well for me 4sf shows a hand that does not fit in with anything else eg maybe I bid 2C on a 2434 shape or similar. In fact, playing 2/1 strictly gf you need 4sf far less than you would in say Standard or Acol where a 2/1 response is usually only forcing to 2NT.

 

The other point is that the knowledge that resp has Hx in opener's suit is very useful in deciding whether to bid 5m in a 4-4 fit on a limited hand or 4M in a 5-2 fit if 3NT is found to be a non playable contract.

[cherdano]

It seems to me that the big majority of experts playing 2/1 GF would treat the next round after, say, 1S 2C 2D 2S as bidding out shape.

[Flame]

It seems to me that the big majority of experts playing 2/1 GF would treat the next round after, say, 1S 2C 2D 2S as bidding out shape.

This is the one thing that i cant get eoungh information.

As i understand ppl now going from cuebidding to shape showing and not the other way around. justin once gave an example on which he would cue bid 3D bypassing clubs if he got say KX in club and AXXX in diamond, in my system this is imposible since im ubsolutly denying a club control. He said his first cue bid is always natural.

I wish i knew more about this style.

[david_c]

For me, bids below 3NT are hardly ever cue-bids. The only exception I can think of is that after hearts have been agreed, 3♠ may be a cue-bid. (Possibly the continuations after an artificial major-suit raise are another exception, depending on what your methods are.)

[Chamaco]

Arc,

I am glad you liked the document by Belladonna.

 

However, in my opinion, all these "pearls of wisdom" are closely linked to the system one is playing.

 

Indeed, why is there a reasion to show poor trumps if one could later use, for instance, RKCB and the Grand Slam try ?

 

The reason why the Blue Team used conventions to show early the quality of trumps is that *in most auctions they did not use 4NT as an Ace-Asking method*.

 

Missing the keycard ask, they need to know at an early stage whether or not the trumps were good enough to investigate slam at a higher level.

 

===========

 

Switching from a 2/1 system vs a strong club system introduces some nuances that unusual for the standard 5 card major systems;

the same occurs if you consider a canapè system.

Playing canapè means introducing even more nuances (which I won't start discussing here).

And the Big Club systems played by the Blue Team were mostly canapè systems, so it is logical that you might find in their writings some bidding sequences where the information that needs to be exchanged is different from a "Natural 5cM" system.

 

To get more nuances on the slam investigation approach of the Blue Team, the best book was Chiaradia's "Il Fiori Napoletano" (reedited later as "Il Nuovo Fiori Napoletano"). I don't know if it was translated.

 

Instead, you can find at Dan Neill's site some writeup with commented slam sequences of the Blue Team Club:

 

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2001...2000_gmeier.doc

 

or, better, at Marco Pancotti's Blue Team Home page

 

http://www.mclink.it/personal/MC6246/BlueT...ub/index_en.htm

 

You will find that the logic of slam investigation sequences is different from the usual mechanics most 5cM are playing today.

 

You might even find that you'll rarely apply this, but, in my opinion, it makes you think, and improve the slam judgment.

 

===========

 

Regarding Ken's book, I did not read it but it seems to me that discussing in-depth all these cuebidding methods is impossible in an ordinary book, because it would mean to discuss also the foundation of each and every systems.

 

Indeed, given the limited space available for a book, most texts on cuebidding enter the details for one family of systems (usually "standard" 5cM, or - in some cases, some variants of Precision or the like), and cannot help but just scratching the surface for other methods.

 

I will try to get a copy of Ken's book, especially after reading his reply, from which I suspect he really did a job more comprehensive than the average book on slam investigation :-)

 

Ciao

 

Mauro

[kenrexford]

Using your methods, is it possible to play in 3NT after a sequence like

eg is 1S 2C 2D 2S 2NT 3NT serious or to play?

If I held a hand where I wanted to suggest 3NT as a place to play after a major opening, I would (1) bid 3NT immediately, (2) raise a 2NT rebid by partner to 3NT, or (3) keep the major support under wraps for another round, bidding 2NT instead of supporting spades. So, 1S-P-2X-P-2Y-P-2S sets trumps, and we are playing in spades, at least if we do not move to slam.

 

The specific auction 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-2NT-P-3NT is interesting. 3NT is not to play, and it is not "serious" in the traditional sense. Rather, I use this call as a specialized call.

 

This raise of the 2NT cuebid (not two top trumps) to 3NT is defined as showing two of the top three trumps, two of the top three in Opener's suit (diamonds in the example) and three-card diamond secondary suppprt, no top control (neither Ace nor King) in Responder's suit (clubs in the example), and no Ace or King in the fourth suit (here, hearts). If my 2♣ call promised a five-card suit, then I must per force have a stiff heart also. If 2♣ is flexible, then I will be prepared to cuebid 4♥ to show a stiff when I can.

[mike777]

It seems to me that the big majority of experts playing 2/1 GF would treat the next round after, say, 1S 2C 2D 2S as bidding out shape.

This would surprise me, rather than a cuebid. But you may be very correct, I am just surprised.