Slam?

[skjaeran]

The "1st OR 2nd" seems to have its advantages.  I'm cautious about playing it undiscussed, though.

 

How standard is it?  I looked at BWS (for example), but couldn't really tell.

It's not standard. It's part of what's called "Italian style cuebidding" and seems to be gaining increasing acceptance in the expert world though.

Depends one where you play. Adam seems to believe that nothing is standard unless it is in ACBL. However, a large majority of bridge players live outside the ACBL.

 

This IS standard in Europe (I believe, can't be sure about it though). In Norway, where I live, it's been standard for more than 30 years. So much so that I can't say I've ever known anyone to cue aces first.

 

I don't know if there's a world wide standard on this issue. If there is, my guess would be that italian style is prevalent.

[kenberg]

And I guess there are other styles.

 

Example: 1D-1H-3H-4C-4D-4S shows first round control in clubs and second round control in spades (because spades were skipped on the first round of cues).

 

Example: 1D-1H-3H-4C-4D-4S shows either first or second round control in clubs, and first round control of spades. The logic of this approach is that 1D-1H-3H-3S-4D eats up room when responder now wants to show clubs, while starting with the club cue provides more room.

 

I guess it would be useful to have a reference so that players can point to it and decide to do it that way. No doubt one style may well be superior to another, but most pairs would improve their results dramatically simply by getting an agreement on cue bidding style. Almost any agreement.

[kenberg]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=shkjxxdaqjxxckjxx&s=s109xxxhaqxxxxdxca]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♦-1♥

3♥-4♣

4♦-4♥

?[/hv]

 

On both tables South bid 4♥.Now does North hand warrent a further move slamwards?

With or without any discussion of cue bidding style i would think a 4S bid over 4H is a standout. Partner has the ace of clubs since we have the king (a club void is unlikely) we have the ace of diamonds and good hearts. How bad can it be?

 

By the way, the 3H bid seems conservative to me. I realize you can give partner a hand where 4H will fail, but it seems you could also give him a hand that would pass 3H, making 4. The ace of hearts and the Q of clubs seems to be a pretty good holding for example. Not on ice for ten tricks but there should be a play. Is he supposed to raise 3H to 4 with that holding? I look forward to hearing why I am wrong.

[han]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=shkjxxdaqjxxckjxx&s=s109xxxhaqxxxxdxca]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♦-1♥

3♥-4♣

4♦-4♥

?[/hv]

 

On both tables South bid 4♥.Now does North hand warrent a further move slamwards?

I didn't read all responses so I'm not sure if anybody has given a good answer. In the cuebidding style you play, partner has shown slam interest without a spade control. Let me repeat this: partner has slam interest but does not have the ace or king in the suit where you have a void!

 

If you think about this for a bit you will see how good this hand has become. I think it is clear to drive to slam.

 

Note that partner's 4H bid does not say: "I do not have slam interest". It is important to realize this. Partner does have slam interest otherwise partner would not have cuebid 4C.

 

I hope you also appreciate how well your cuebidding agreements could have helped you on this hand.

[kenrexford]

Playing this style, with a hand like x AQxxx xx AJTxx, if the auction starts 1D-1H-3H, one has to cue-bid 3S instead of 4C?

The term "cuebidding" leads to the confusion.

 

If you think along the lines of either "control bidding" or "natural bidding," then it makes more sense. A "natural bidding" line of thinking really suggests bidding 4♣, because you have clubs. A "control bidding" line of thinking suggests bidding 3♠, because it is the cheapest control.

[TimG]

Playing this style, with a hand like x AQxxx xx AJTxx, if the auction starts 1D-1H-3H, one has to cue-bid 3S instead of 4C?

The term "cuebidding" leads to the confusion.

 

If you think along the lines of either "control bidding" or "natural bidding," then it makes more sense. A "natural bidding" line of thinking really suggests bidding 4♣, because you have clubs. A "control bidding" line of thinking suggests bidding 3♠, because it is the cheapest control.

Well, given x AQxxx xx AJTxx, 4♣ seems...for lack of a better word, natural, to me; holding x AQxxx KJx Kxxx, I'd probably gravitate towards 4♦; but, holding A AQxxx Qx JTxxx, I'd probably think 3♠ an obvious first step. So, perhaps this is all a misguided attempt to have cue-bids mean what I want them to mean.

[jdonn]

Playing this style, with a hand like x AQxxx xx AJTxx, if the auction starts 1D-1H-3H, one has to cue-bid 3S instead of 4C?

The term "cuebidding" leads to the confusion.

 

If you think along the lines of either "control bidding" or "natural bidding," then it makes more sense. A "natural bidding" line of thinking really suggests bidding 4♣, because you have clubs. A "control bidding" line of thinking suggests bidding 3♠, because it is the cheapest control.

Well, given x AQxxx xx AJTxx, 4♣ seems...for lack of a better word, natural, to me; holding x AQxxx KJx Kxxx, I'd probably gravitate towards 4♦; but, holding A AQxxx Qx JTxxx, I'd probably think 3♠ an obvious first step. So, perhaps this is all a misguided attempt to have cue-bids mean what I want them to mean.

You aren't as "out there" as you think, this looks exactly like the style advocated by Marshall Miles. It's more like help-suit slam tries, designed to focus on how well the hands fit rather than specific controls.

[han]

In this auction that is a great idea imo. You can play

 

3S = asks for shortness (then steps: no, lower shortness, higher shortness)

3NT = help suit slam try in spades

4C, 4D = help suit slam try in the bid suit.

 

Over 1x-1S-3S:

 

3NT = asks for shortness (again no, low, high responses)

4C, 4D, 4H = help suit slam try in the bid suit.

 

This is probably not something that beginners want to agree on but I'm posting it anyway :(.

[mike777]

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ [space] ♥ KJxx ♦ AQJxx ♣ KJxx ♠ 109xxx ♥ AQxxxx ♦ x ♣ A

1♦-1♥ 3♥-4♣ 4♦-4♥ ?

 

On both tables South bid 4♥.Now does North hand warrent a further move slamwards?

With such a pure hand opener might rebid 3s over one heart. In any case, no way we should miss slam after 3h.

[benlessard]

1D-----1H

3H-----4C

4D-----4H

4S-----6H

 

 

 

3H is of course correct. 15 pts and a void is nice but its not enough to force to game.

 

4C show a C but denies a S controls so... here we have 2 style.

 

 

Denials

 

With a dead minimum hand or without S control we bid 4H.

With non minimum but lacking a D control we bid 4D

With both D and S control we KC or bid 4S+.

 

2nd style

 

With a minimum but with a D and a S control we would 4D.

With a minimum without a D control or any hand without S control we bid 4H.

With a max but without a D control we bid 4S.

With both control and a max we kc or bid at the 5 level.

 

In both style 4D and pulling over 4H can be used for exclusion.

[kenrexford]

Playing this style, with a hand like x AQxxx xx AJTxx, if the auction starts 1D-1H-3H, one has to cue-bid 3S instead of 4C?

The term "cuebidding" leads to the confusion.

 

If you think along the lines of either "control bidding" or "natural bidding," then it makes more sense. A "natural bidding" line of thinking really suggests bidding 4♣, because you have clubs. A "control bidding" line of thinking suggests bidding 3♠, because it is the cheapest control.

Well, given x AQxxx xx AJTxx, 4♣ seems...for lack of a better word, natural, to me; holding x AQxxx KJx Kxxx, I'd probably gravitate towards 4♦; but, holding A AQxxx Qx JTxxx, I'd probably think 3♠ an obvious first step. So, perhaps this is all a misguided attempt to have cue-bids mean what I want them to mean.

As others have suggested, there is nothing wrong with that line of thinking. However, it is definitely a school of thought, and people have different schools of thought.

 

The one thing to be aware of is that there is a denager in having a lack of consistent schooling, if you will. I see a lot of people who cuebid a value without any particular discipline, cuebidding what "seems right" rather than what meets a set of agreements.

 

The theory to cuebidding 3♠ as a control bid is more than simply to cue a control. The idea is to cue controls up-the-line, where something can be gleaned from the failure to show a control, thereby denying the control. If bypassing a control bid (3♠) denies a control in that suit, then any further cuebid/controlbid by partner must necessarily show a denied control. Hence, the "rules," in a sense, have a power derived from logical inference.

 

If you instead "cue what seems right," thereby sending no message with your bypassed options, you lose that inference (of denied controls for you and inferred possession of that control from partner if he cues). However, you may gain, in a sense, in that partner will know that the cue selected (e.g., 4♣) focuses something "of interest" to you at the time. The problem is in deciphering what precisely that trigger is to have excitement about the option you selected over the option you did not select.

 

I think it is playable to falsely deny a control even though you have one IF you plan on bidding past game anyway. Thus, for example, you could easily have an approach where you might bypass 3♠, falsely implying a lack of a spade control (if control-style is your approach), if you are strong enough to bid 4♠ after 4♥ by partner, confirming that which you should not have. But, that gets really tricky if you do not have really clear partnership agreements about what this sort of tricky maneuver means and when to employ this tactic.