cuebidding shortness/voids

[rbforster]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakxxxxhqjxxdaqxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠-3♠

?[/hv]

Suppose you have an auction where you've agreed trumps and you've got enough space for some cuebidding below game. Maybe you opened a good 1♠ and partner made a standard 4 card limit raise of 3♠.

 

Do you cuebid your club void or your ace of diamonds? Would it matter if it was a singleton club instead of a void?

 

If you bid 4♣, will partner be mislead into cooperating with your slam try by erroneously upgrading his Kxx of clubs? If you bid 4♦ and bypass clubs, will partner be discouraged from slam fearing club weakness when he's got xxxx in clubs?

 

Are there any general principles about this sort of cuebidding situation? If you typically cuebid either A or K on the first round, what does it suggest if you bypass clubs (in this case) but then cuebid 5♣ later?

[kenrexford]

This type of situation is best handled with general operating principles that are rare to have agreed. However, the classic interpretation for this precise sequence is Mathe, where the relay (3M+1, here 3NT) asks for shortness. That does you no good here, as you do not want shortness to be shown.

 

One could expand this to have the relay ask but the non-relays show, but few seem to do this. Most combine Mathe with cues.

 

For me, this specific situation is one that I handle through a 3♣ call, because it allows me more space for different possible plans. But, the same situation crops up periodically in other realms.

 

Basically, though, there are two schools. Some cue shortness; some do not (until later). I think the best course with an established partnership is to agree on a default and then sart to build exceptions.

[Fluffy]

With one partner I play that after a 3 Mayor bid like this we play 3NT as no shortness slam trial and 4X as shortness

[Codo]

I play 3 NT as seirous but if I bid 4 Diamond I surely deny a club control. And this is pretty much mainstream here in Germany. It is just after 1 Club 1 Spade 3 Spade that 4 Club shows the A or K.

[helene_t]

With one partner I play that after a 3 Mayor bid like this we play 3NT as no shortness slam trial and 4X as shortness

This is also what Maarten Schollaard recommended in his article about Serious 3NT in a recent issue of IMP.

 

The general idea is that when we have a 5-4 fit in a major we are not so likely to want to play 3NT, and also when one of the partners has a well-defined strength (here: responder) we don't need serious/nonserious 3NT.

 

If hearts are trump I suppose one can use 3♠ as the balanced slam invite and 3N to show spade shortness.

[han]

With one partner I play that after a 3 Mayor bid like this we play 3NT as no shortness slam trial and 4X as shortness

This is also what Maarten Schollaard recommended in his article about Serious 3NT in a recent issue of IMP.

Last week I was playing against Maarten after just having read his article. I told him I thought it was a nice article, and that I pretty much like to play what he recommended. Maarten replied that that means I play good bridge, after which my partner corrected: "no, that means he plays a good system".

[brianshark]

Cue you're club void. Repeat if necessary.

[y66]

In Modern American Bidding (software) by Eric Kokish, 1M 3M 3M+1 asks for shortness; other bids after 1M 3M are slam tries in suits with length (1H 3H 3N is a slam try with spade length).

 

In his discussion of Italian Cuebids in the November 2007 issue of Bridge Today E-Magazine, Matt Granovetter says:

 

"Cuebids show first or second round control up the line, ace, king, singleton or void (a cuebid in partner’s bid suit shows an ace or king)."

 

In this style, bypassing 4C, in OP's example, denies a first or second round control in clubs.

[MickyB]

Yup, 3M+1 asking for shortage is good - balanced hands want to ask, unbalanced hands want to show and all that.

[kenrexford]

For any interested parties, my methods follow:

 

1. Responder bids 3♣ with any limit raise or with any light-end splinter.

 

2. Opener can ask for more explanation by bidding 3♦ (there are other options).

2A. Responder bids 3♥ with a minimum limit (about 9-10 HCP). Opener might sign off if game-try only, or converts into the standard 1-3 sequence (whith whichever option the partnership likes).

2B. Responder bids 3♠ if he does have shortness. 3NT asks where. If ♠ trumps, 4♥ is minimal shortness in hearts, 4♠ maximal shortness in hearts (replaces lost LTTC).

2C. Responder bids 3NT with maximum limit and high control count.

2D. Responder bids 4M with maximum limit but low control count.

2E. Responder bids a new suit at the 4-level with a COV in trumps and this suit (thus, 3NT implies scattered values)

 

3. Opener can opt, instead, to cue, with 3NT "serious" but usually tactical (get under 4♣).

 

This might be improved by enabling Opener to show all shortnesses and to have a GP cue starter. Thus, for example, after 3♣, maybe 3NT should be a GP cue start and 4-bids shortness. Not sure which is best.

[kenrexford]

As another aside, it might make some sense to show acceptances rather than shortnesses. To explain...

 

One technique, as mentioned, is to have 3M+1 ask for shortness and other bids show shortness. Thus, after 1♠-3♠, Opener's 3NT asks for shortness but Opener's new suits show shortness.

 

This could be inverted, such that 3NT asks Responder to bid suits up the line where he would like shortness to be, with Opener's new suit calls showing holes to fill (empathetic splinters, or "Bluhmers").

 

Each would have its upside and its downside.

[gnasher]

In general I think you should avoid cue-bidding a shortage early in the auction, when you're still trying to establish how well the hands fit. Once the auction has reached the pure control-showing stage, I think it fine to cue-bid a void.

 

With a major agreed opposite a limited hand, I play 3NT as asking partner to cue-bid, and four of a suit as showing length and strength. Thus I could bid either 4♦ or 4♥ without denying a club control, but it seems best to bid 3NT and find out whether there's a wasted club card opposite. I think this treatment far better than distinguishing between serious and non-serious slam tries opposite a hand whose strength is already well-defined.

[mikeh]

There are 3 possible approaches to cuebidding here, leaving aside use of 3N (I am not discounting the use of 3N artificially: it makes great sense).

 

With one recent partner, he insists on cuebidding up the line, such that if I cue'd 4♦ he wouldn't show a heart control without a club control, since I would have denied the latter.

 

I don't like it.

 

The second approach is to bid 1st round controls ahead of 2nd round. On that approach, one could still choose, here, to cue 4♦ because partner will own to a heart control even absent a club control. However, this approach to cue bidding often results in awkward auctions, when one holds controls than cannot be conveniently/safely shown in this order.

 

My preference is that we generally cue 1st and second according to convenience, but, and this is a big but, the partnership's first cue (not counting a cue of an opponent's suit) is ALWAYS the Ace or the King... never shortness.

 

I find this to be extremely helpful, because it allows partner, who is being invited to cooperate with a slam move, to more accurately value his or her holdings. Imagine partner has the club K.. if we cue 4♣, he is going to like that holding (f we promise the Ace) or he is going to have NO idea whether to like it or not (if we cue shortness and strength indiscriminatorily).

 

So I would cue 4♦, which says NOTHING about clubs other than I lack both the Ace and the King. Partner will confess to a heart control without implying anything about clubs.

 

BTW, my preference for 3N here is that it is a slam try without a club control.