Slam try?

[inquiry]

2/1 said "Now, as to my cue bidding.. I admittedly am old school... I cue bid 1st round controls mainly (if I have AK in an unbid suit I will of course cue bid the 2d round control too given the opporunity)..........I am not fond of 2d round cue bids... they are misleading in my opinion.. If partner isn't looking at the ace he will always assume it IS the ace and now you reach 7 off an ace (seen it happen more than once)."

 

Well, if you NEVER cue-bid second round controls, so that bypassing clubs, no matter how many times, is neutral on whether or not you hold a club control, I guess bidding 4S is right. But the problem is your treatment is totally illogical. I find it Illuminating that you never addressed any of the hands were responder NEEDS a club control for slam not a spade control. Why is that? How would you bid those?

 

2/1 said "Having said all this, I will say that NOTHING REPLACES GOOD JUDGMENT. .....the opener had the same argument as the others...Why didn't my partner cue bid his stiff club? .

 

Actually SOMETHING DOES REPLACE good judgement (to use your terms). What replacements judgement is captaincy. Responder became full fludged captain, maybe even admiral or president, after openers 2H and 3NT rebids. When responder bid 4D he, as captain, he isn't asking opener to use judgement, instead he gave a DIRECT command to his partner. This command was simple, it said, I do not have a club control If you don't have one either SIGN OFF in 4Hs. If you do, make some kind of useful noise. Judgement has nothing to do with this other than what useful noise he makes with a club control. The Admiral/Captain/President has spoken, and it is your job to follow their orders.

 

2/1 said "This was the true failure of the sequence to me... unless, of course, he didn't belive his partner had 5 diamonds along with 5 hearts... but he should have. Once that information was conveyed there was nothing more to worry about.. Partner had 1 or 0 clubs... Absolutely. Why? Because he was worried about SPADES. The auction clearly shows that...."

 

To the contrary, the auction showed that responder had a singleton in spade if either black suit. His AUCTION specifically showed concern about CLUBS, not SPADES. That is how cue-bidding works and that is how the opener took it, very correctly in my opinion. I have said this plenty of times, and I will not reply to this thread again, as I think I am repeating myself way too much. But I will end with a repeated plea to STEVE, tell me how you would bid the same hand responder had but with the black suits reversed. Explain that one to me, with a logical reason for opener to stop safely in 4Hs when that hand exist.

[easy]

Good job Steve! When u first suggested to me that this hand should be posted here in forum i thought to myself "is he kidding? This is crystal clear that pard has denied a club control. "

 

I have enjoyed the discussion of this hand immensely but like you my position hasnt changed.For those of you that arn't aware i was the opening bidder on this hand. Now i will give you my perspective on the hand.

 

Holding AKQ  jxx  xx  QTxxx In my opinion raising hearts is a much better alternative than rebidding 1nt. Raising hearts works immediately on all hands where pard has 5 and still allows you to get to nt from the correct side when pard has only 4h and inv or forcing to game values.

 

When pard rebid 3d i took that as either 1) game try with hearts as trump or 2) slam try with a diamond q bid. (could be natural but always slamming)

If pard was making a game try i wasnt interested in playing game with my minimum and 10 of my hcp in my short suits. if pard is making a slam try over 3h he would let me know by making another q bid.(note: based on many of the comments re my bid of 3h over 3d it seems that either most dont make game tries when playing or they would accept the game try with my hand and bid 3n.... I 'd like to here from those that bid 3nt as to what their reasoning was.

 

When pard bid 4d i knew he was slamming and DENIED  a club control. Now although i had great spade control that wasnt going to help if we were about to lose the first 2/3 clubs. I've seen your comments re: the need for a spade q bid and i dont buy your reasoning but that's ok as long as u and your partner agree with your style. My style of q bidding is as follows.

1st rd controls, then second rd controls. So when my pard bid 3d initially it was a game try, the second time it was a 2nd round control of d and denied 1st or 2nd round control of clubs. (3d had become a 1st rd control q bid after i had turned down his game try and he q bid again)

 

 

One thing this thread has shown me is that q bidding although done by everyone doesnt mean the same thing for everyone. So if you are planning on developing a regular partnership here on bbo (or anywhere else) you had better have some in depth discussions about style!

[bglover]

This is to Ben's response: If you think that responder's bidding showed CLUB concern and not SPADE concern we live on differtent planets. He would RKC the hand with a singleton spade but not if he has 2 fast losers in the suit. HE KNOWS HE DOESNT HAVE 2 FAST CLUB LOSERS BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING AT THE 2D ROUND CONTROL. Opener has an easy inference of this. Your argument is made of tissue.

 

Sorry.

 

Now, as to Fred's comment... HE SHOWED FIVE DIAMONDS (most likely) and therefoire you could infer he had 1 or 0 clubs.. or at least cater to the possible 2551 hand.... That to me was your failure in judgment.

 

I have said all I can on this hand... Obviously there is room for different interpretations and that's why this board exists.. But I am all talked out on this one...

[Codo]

Hi again,

 

besides repeating that the view of the inquiry is just right, there are still some open questions.

 

Easy wrote:

 

Raising hearts works immediately on all hands where pard has 5 and still allows you to get to nt from the correct side when pard has only 4h and inv or forcing to game values.

.

 

It rightsides the NT? So you had bid 1 NT with AQx,Jxx,xx,KQTxx? Just to rightside your contract?

Wow interessting way. How do you decide when to "rightside" the contract?

 

And there are one or two ways to play the 5-3 fit even after a 1 NT rebid. If you wish, check the next bridge library about  new minor forcing, texas, checkback etc.

With strong hand you really have no problems at all. But with weaker hands, you just play 2 Heart with 3433 opps 3334 instead of 1 NT. What a great idea.

 

There are hands, where a direct raise is just good bridge. But to do so at every hand is nothing what bigger players then we do.

 

But I totally agree with most of your stuff. It is very very important to discuss the Q-bid style and of course your pd denied a club control.

 

2/1 wrote:

[This is to Ben's response: If you think that responder's bidding showed CLUB concern and not SPADE concern we live on differtent planets. He would RKC the hand with a singleton spade but not if he has 2 fast losers in the suit. HE KNOWS HE DOESNT HAVE 2 FAST CLUB LOSERS BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING AT THE 2D ROUND CONTROL. Opener has an easy inference of this. Your argument is made of tissue.

/u]

Luckily for Ben, he is not alone on his planet. His planet is called "Bridge World Standard" :-)

 

I do believe, that it is no good bridge to cuebid shortnesses in pds suit first. Buit even if  I accept your style with cuebiidng first round controls first and second round control later: You denied club control.

Of course you KNOW, that you don´t have club looosers. Great. But you did not show that to your pd. No you just said: NO SIR, I DON`T CONTROL THE CLUBS.

 

But anyway, you won`t accept this. But feal free to ask an expert panel somewhere. But they will live on a different planet too...

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[inquiry]

But feel free to ask an expert panel somewhere. But they will live on a different planet too...

 

ROFL  ;D B) B) B)

[bglover]

Well i said i was done with this.... but I just went thru BWS and looked at every instance where a cue-bid is used and could find nothing to substantiate Roland's statement... Just trying to piss me off or were you making it up to fortify your position (which i tend to believe was the case)? No matter...

 

OK... one last time cuz I am SICK of this now.... I (personally) play that asking bids of the nature here are for UNBID SUITS only. So, that is MY PLANET and if your planet is different, then we are indeed on different ones. Responder is in CONTROL... Opener had UNDISCLOSED CARDS.. 4D says TELL ME MORE! He had a lot more and didnt show them...

 

I don't believe any of us disagree that 4D constituted a slam try... I stand by my earlier comment that opener should be catering to the 2551 hand... NOTHING HAS CONVINCED ME OTHERWISE.

 

NOTHING HAS CONVINCED ME THAT 4D SHOULDN'T BE A BID LOOKING FOR A SPADE STOPPER...I acknowledged that there are differing opinions but do not, repeat, DO NOT throw BWS at me cuz I know BWS.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the crucial problem with this hand is that after the 4D bid, there is NO convincing way to determine whether responder is 1552 or 2551.

 

I've seen arguments from both sides, however, I haven't seen anything especially convincing.  In my own cue bidding style, the 4D bid would be strong, but ambiguous regarding a club control since responder can't cue bid a club shortage.

 

As I mentioned originally, I tink that inviting slam with a 5H bid to ask about trump quality is the right way to go.  Worst that can happen is that partner raises to 6H holding a hand like

 

x

AQJTxx

AKQxx

xx

 

However, even here, we could easily make 6H if the opponents chose a passive trump lead or misguess which black suit to lead.

 

In the absence of an unambiguous way to sort out the black suits I chose to focus on what I think is the key to this hand.  Responder's heart suit.

[the hog]

This talk that responder has to be 5-5 is arrant nonsense. The hand I described earlier - viz

xxxx

AKQx

AKJ

Jx

Perfectly fits the bidding to date. After

1C   1H

2H   3D

3NT  4D    (or 3H 4D as in the actual case. Here opener  guarantees 4H)

 

It is 100% obvious that the 3D bid is an advance cue bid. What is responder looking for here. It seems just as perfectly obvious that this is a C control. Where on earth is this 5-5 rubbish coming from?

[hrothgar]

This talk that responder has to be 5-5 is arrant nonsense. The hand I described earlier - viz

xxxx

AKQx

AKJ

Jx

Perfectly fits the bidding to date. After

1C   1H

2H   3D

3NT  4D    (or 3H 4D as in the actual case)

 

It is 100% obvious that the 3D bid is an advance cue bid. What is responder looking for here. It seems just as perfectly obvious that this is a C control. Where on earth is this 5-5 rubbish coming from?

 

 

I don't think that the hand in question is remotely strong enough for the bidding sequence.

 

The auction started

 

1D - 1H

2H

 

Showing a balanced semi-balanced hand with ~11 - 14 HCP.

 

Responder then made a game/slam try by bidding 3D.

Opener rebid 3H, typically showing a minimum hand that hasn't been improved by partner's Diamonds.

 

Opposite this, responder is now cue bidding 4D as a slam try.  I can't picture many hands consistant with the bidding  that would be able to make slam opposite the 19 count that you posted.

[easy]

hi roland

 

I was somewhat surprised by your sarcasm but I thought u mite be interested in the response.

 

"It rightsides the NT? So you had bid 1 NT with AQx,Jxx,xx,KQTxx? Just to rightside your contract?

Wow interessting way. "

 

I dont raise with 3 for  the purpose of rightsiding the contract i do it because the other alternative (rebidding nt with a worthless doubleton) is less attractive. Right siding the contract is just an added plus. And yes i would raise pard with the above holding.

 

 

"How do you decide when to "rightside" the contract?"  

 

Quite simple, with a minimum and a worhtless doubleton or a singleton i raise my pard. If you are really interested in the reasoning behind it check out a thread i started some time ago re "When to raise with 3 trump.

or check out Mike Lawrence's "2 over 1 Workbook. It has an entire chapter re when to raise with 3.

 

"And there are one or two ways to play the 5-3 fit even after a 1 NT rebid. If you wish, check the next bridge library about  new minor forcing, texas, checkback etc. "

 

Thx but i'm well aware of those conventions. Although im not sure how texas (as I know it) applies to the above auction.

 

"With strong hand you really have no problems at all. But with weaker hands, you just play 2 Heart with 3433 opps 3334 instead of 1 NT. What a great idea. "

 

None of the above  examples would be hands where i would raise pard.

 

:)

 

Easy

[inquiry]

I just went thru BWS and looked at every instance where a cue-bid is used and could find nothing to substantiate Roland's statement... Just trying to piss me off or were you making it up to fortify your position (which i tend to believe was the case)? No matter....

 

I know I said I was done, but steve suggesting Roland is "making up" (euphemism for lying?) the cue-bidding sequence is part of BWS. This can not go unchallenged.

 

Although I never raised the spector of BWS, because there, 4D might very well be LTTC and didn't want to get into that discussion. But, actually Steve, Roland is right, and I think you owe him an apology or at least you need to look better at the BWS. I quote directly from BRIDGE WORLD STANDARD, version 2001. You can read this yourself starting at "Kaplan Control Principles where there is an agreed trump suit."

 

Approaches to slam decisions:

  Kaplan Control Principles: When there is an agreed suit:

 

(a) After a slam-try by one partner below four of the agreed suit,

 

(1) a non-signoff bid or redouble by the other is slam-positive and indicates a specific control;

 

(2) failure to show a control is slam-negative, but does not deny that control."

 

 Open suit: When one partner has requested that the other ("replier") bid slam with at least second-round control of a particular suit (the "open" suit) regardless of the rest of his hand, this scheme is used for replier’s actions: with no control in the open suit, pass or return to the agreed suit;... [/color][/b]

 

So, since BWS used KCP (kaplan control principle), you do cue-bid controls up the line. Second, in BWS, responder could skip a 4 club control cue-bid only if (see number two above) he has a "slam negative hand". Since your partner is balanced and weak from the bidding, responders slam try simply CAN NOT BE slam negative, so by BWS standards, responder SPECIFICALLY DENIED a club control making clubs currently an open suit (as is Spades). Roland was not "making this up" to back his arguement: It is RIGHT THERE in black and white ini the BWS documents.. (and quoted above in pink).

[the hog]

Richard, you have an 18 count for heaven's sake. I think you have been playing 9-14 openings for too long. rofl

(Picked up a nice 14 count opposite a 9-14 opening last night and we couldn't even make a 2 level part score) ::)

[inquiry]

hrothgar, you wrote (in yellow):

From my perspective, the crucial problem with this hand is that after the 4D bid, there is NO convincing way to determine whether responder is 1552 or 2551. Basically this hand (RESPOND 1)

x

AQJTxx

AKQxx

xx

 

Versus this hand, RESPOND 2

xx

AQJTxx

AKQxx

x

 

I don't know how you are not convinced by the natural cuebidding sequences that have been discussed. Let's give opener two hands....

 

OPEN 1

AKQ

J9x

xx

QTxxx

 

OPEN-2

KJT

J95

xx

AKTxx

 

Both times, responder is 5-5-2-1 only with black suits reversed. Both times opener has 12 points and 3-3-2-5 distribution. Let the auction go to 3NT as proposed by steve, with Responder to bid..... Let's see how the acution would go....

 

RESPOND-1  OPENER-1  4D-4H  (neither partner C control)

 

RESPOND-2 OPENER-1   4C-4S-4N-5D-6H (responder has club control, 5D = 1/4 key cards, or whatever response you use)

 

RESPON-1-OPENER-2      4D-5H - looking for good hearts, secure that both black suits are stopped

 

RESPOND-2 - OPENER-2   4C-   now opener knows that parnter has a singleton or void in clubs, and is worried about spades. With KJT, 6NT shows itself as a possible contract. Maybe you have 10 red tricks plus the CLUB AK. But now, you know that if you bid 6H, it likely be 50-50. your bid over 4C depends upon your cue-bidding style (and if 4D is LTTC). I would bid 4S.

 

So the convincing way to determine if North has a club control (responder hand 2) or two or more clubs (responder hand 1) is to cue-bid your controls. Simple, logical, sane.

   

[bglover]

OK I apologize... and fully admit that when I read the pink passage it still did not indicate to me that opener should not bid his spade cards... admittedly it's written in a way that is not entirely clear and I may well have misinterpreted it.

 

My humble apologies... Now, I did actually just do a "find text" search one the phrase "cue bid" and since the pink didn't actually use the term "cue bid" I probably missed it entirely (I wasn't gonna read the entire document but I should have done a more thorough search).

[hrothgar]

 

All very simple, except for the fact that you are now cue bidding a shortage opposite partner's suit.  This is rarely considered to be a good thing.  Many authorities specifically state that this is not done.

[inquiry]

All very simple, except for the fact that you are now cue bidding a shortage opposite partner's suit.  This is rarely considered to be a good thing.  Many authorities specifically state that this is not done.

 

Well, who are you going to listen too? Some multiple-time world champion and professiional bridge author who tells you not cue-bid shortness in your partner's suit? Or me, an overweight, very old, bright beginner who has never won anything or published any bridge text who tells you to show your controls when you got em....  :)

 

Seriously, it is just a game. Don't let others (the grizzled world champion) or the poster here with diarheaa of the fingers (me) tell you how you should bid. Listen to all sides, and see what fits best within your philosphy of the game. For me, when I start cue-bidding, I am generally trying to get to a point where I can use BLACKWOOD. I don't want to use blackwood to find out I am off one key card and bid slam to discover that that one key card is in a suit where we lack both first and second roudn controls and they cash two winners. For me, this means sometimes having to cue-bid shortness in partners suit. If partner beats me to the punch by cue-bidding in his own suit, that is great, I feel no compulsion to show shortness in his suit then.

 

I recommend that you are a serious enough player that you can roll your own solution to this situation. If you never want to cue-bid shortness in your partner's first suit, that is fine. It solves some other problems -- when you cue-bid, your partner can start counting tricks (my patner has the king, in my suit, so I have "x" number of tricks). But in the hand we are discussion, the captain doesn't need opener to count tricks, he needs opener to show him what he needs to know if he has slam opposite RESPONDER 1 or RESPONDER 2.

[hrothgar]

 

 

Seriously, it is just a game. Don't let others (the grizzled world champion) or the poster here with diarheaa of the fingers (me) tell you how you should bid. Listen to all sides, and see what fits best within your philosphy of the game. For me, when I start cue-bidding, I am generally trying to get to a point where I can use BLACKWOOD. I don't want to use blackwood to find out I am off one key card and bid slam to discover that that one key card is in a suit where we lack both first and second roudn controls and they cash two winners.

 

Wow.

 

We're on such different wavelengths.

I normally play that Blackwood is off if we're started a cue bidding sequence.  The meaning of the 4NT bid will vary based on the specifics of the cue bidding sequence, but its never Blackwood (keycard or otherwise)

 

Its kind of amusing to see how far different styles have varied

[bglover]

AH, finally we have reached a reasonable and logical conclusion to this long thread, which is there is no clear answer...

 

As I stated early in this long thread I felt there were missed opportunities by both parties and I think we can only conclude that 2 reasonably good plyers with different styles can both bid (in their own mehodology) correctly and still it comes out wrong absent CLEAR, COGENT AGREEMENTS.

 

When Fred said he thought that this thread wouldn't get any answers because he thought his logic was so clear that kind of said it all right there... His partner bid logically, he bid logically but they still both (due to lack of proper understandings) came to the wrong place.

 

FWIW. on the actual hand, due to a poor heart break, the hand goes down after the lead of a singleton. It was actually an over 60% slam that was missed, and the actual bidders got a great score for missing the slam!

 

Hope we all had fun and hope that all this heated discussion didn't hurt anyone feelings!

 

I really did post this to stir things up!

[inquiry]

We're on such different wavelengths.

I normally play that Blackwood is off if we're started a cue bidding sequence.  The meaning of the 4NT bid will vary based on the specifics of the cue bidding sequence, but its never Blackwood (keycard or otherwise)

 

Its kind of amusing to see how far different styles have varied

 

I understand why you bid this way. You play a relay system where a lot of very specific distributional clues are available. So by specific cue-bidding, you can usually add the controls to the distribution and figure out how high to go. I am more often in the dark, so I just want to make sure no one is cashing out on me. However, a good 30 % or so of my slam auctions that start with cue-bidding never use Blackwood. That is, it is not a requirement that you start cue-bidding and then switch to blackwood. It is just an option. This same theory (find out if all suits are controlled or not, then use blackwood) is the theory behind the fabulous LACKWOOD that is part of the LTTC/Serious 3NT auctions scheme.

[bglover]

I have often found that pick I up a hand with xx in a suit and have relative comfort with all other suits. I don't want to use blackwood until i have specific information regarding that suit.

 

This approach is very safe, particularly for small slams, and imparts a minimum of information to the opponents vs. lots of cue bidding (my main objection to cue bidding in general of course is that it helps paint a road for the defenders).

[hrothgar]

 

I understand why you bid this way. You play a relay system where a lot of very specific distributional clues are available. So by specific cue-bidding, you can usually add the controls to the distribution and figure out how high to go.

 

Actually, this has nothing to do with MOSCITO which is based on codified denial cue bids.  My cue bidding style playing "standard" is essentially that used in Blue Club.  Pretty effective.

[Codo]

Hi hrothgar,

 

if somebody forces me to give up cuebidding or blackwood, I would choose the later. But in a standard system I can have both, especially when I am using my prefered mixed cues.

So, why not use the best of both worlds?

 

Kind Regards

 

ROland

[hrothgar]

Hi hrothgar,

 

if somebody forces me to give up cuebidding or blackwood, I would choose the later. But in a standard system I can have both, especially when I am using my prefered mixed cues.

So, why not use the best of both worlds?

 

Kind Regards

 

ROland

 

Nothing wrong with the theory, however, I doubt that you are achieving this in practice.  

 

From the looks of things, you are using a set of agreements in which 4NT is always treated as Blackwood (or RKCB), regardless of the meaning of the auction so far.  There are certainly advantages to this interpretation.  Most noteably, this is a fairly simplistic (in the good way) agreement that avoids confusion.

 

Following a cue bididng sequence, I prefer to treat 4NT as an invitational bid.  If partner has a minimum hand, he will drop dead in the trump suit.  Alternatively, he has the option to show an extra control at the 5 level or (rarely) to jump directly to slam.  The is a much more flexible style, however, it requires much better partnership understandings regarding precisely what the 4NT bidding was asking about.  

[Codo]

Hi Hrotgar,

 

you are right: In an established partnership it is usefull to use 4 NT in different ways. I f.e have it as RCKB, to play or inviting, depends on the context. But online, with the guy from montana, I better play it straight and easy.

 

Kidn Regards

 

Roland

[inquiry]

I use to play that once cue-bidding started, Notrumps was a cue-bid in trumps... but a specific kind, it either showed two of the top three honors, or zero of the top three... You would bypass cue-bidding in Notrump with exactly one of the top three honors. This work fairly well (I believe I got this from a bridge world article in maybe the late 70's or early 80's, but don't feel like going back to look it up). But I have reverted back to the blackwood/Lackwood style.

 

And hrothgar, it has been decades since I played blue club, and I maynot be well versed in their current (or even past 20 years or so) cue-bidding style. But my recollection from the very first English Blue Team book (the blue one) and T. Reese's book, was that they bid first or second round controls up the line, including distributional controls (at least in late 60's early 70's). You said you bid first round controls first I believe in one post supporting steve (I problably should go back and look to make sure) and don't cue-bid distributional controls in your parnters suit. Is this really the modern Blue Team cue-bidding style?